Martin wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:36 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:28:00 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 21:46:31 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You might have to spend a week doing this, but it will
decimate
the population to such an extent that a weekly patrol will
probably be adequate.

There is only one extent to which a population can be
decimated,
namely to kill off one in every ten.
That leaves 90% fighting fit.
{:-((

There's always one...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/decimate.html

Interesting.
I suppose it is futile to think that words may retain their
definitions when there are so many ignorant wordsmiths bandying
them
about.


And that points up your misconception that language is static in
nature.

I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill
Bryson.
Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that
you're just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it
comes to twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many
of your linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as
the venerable OED ).

Bill Bryson is a more reliable authority, than the compilers of the
OED? Not in my opinion.

Bill Bryson isn't _any_ kind of authority: what he is is a
enthusiastic word-lover, offering the kind of insights a professional
writer has. That's invaluable, in my opinion; but his work is not to
be mistaken for reference material.

I don't get the bit about the OED having extremely suspect origins:
as far as I know its scholarly origins are a matter of record; if
"suspect" is being used here as a political judgement, well, it's
hardly relevant.

Mike.

The message
from Martin contains these words:

Bill Bryson is a more reliable authority, than the compilers of the
OED? Not in my opinion.

Much more, IMO. But then I rate the OED as a trendy comoc.

--
Oscar Rudyard Samuel Makepeace Babington Alexander Argot-Smith

"Christopher Green" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-xGzwb8So2ZUw@poblano...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:17:41 UTC,

(paghat)
opined:

In article uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-udOV900dMXzb@poblano, "Stan
Goodman"
wrote:

A slug is a naked snail.

Ha-cha-cha-cha.

That's exactly what a slug is. The only difference between
the
two
is
the
shell. Whether that qualifies slugs to appear in
rec.gardens.EDIBLE is
a
question I can't answer.

Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

Not kosher. Treyf. An abomination. Not acceptable as food to
observant
Jews. (Lev. 11:42, "You shall not eat... anything that crawls on its
belly...")

But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws.

Franz

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:28:00 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 21:46:31 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

[snip]

You might have to spend a week doing this, but it will
decimate
the
population to such an extent that a weekly patrol will
probably
be
adequate.

There is only one extent to which a population can be decimated,
namely to kill off one in every ten.
That leaves 90% fighting fit.
{:-((

There's always one...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/decimate.html

Interesting.
I suppose it is futile to think that words may retain their
definitions when there are so many ignorant wordsmiths bandying
them
about.


And that points up your misconception that language is static in
nature.

I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson.

I have. Although Bryson is not in the same category of authority as
the folk who are responsible for the OED, his book is to be
recommended most thoroughly, as is everything else he has written..

Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that
you're
just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it comes to
twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many of your
linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as the
venerable OED ).

....and somewhere back in the 16th century there's an URGler who's
completely bemused at both your use and spelling of the word
'futile'...and yet another who's wondering what on earth tennis has
to
do with the topic in question.

I fully realise that languages evolve.
I also reslise that the evolution is steered by those least equipped
to sensibly further the language.
I also realise that one should restrain the process from proceeding
too fast, otherwise confusion
results from the reader misunderstanding what the writer meant.
Have you noticed what a merry mix up the Dutch language has become
through embracing the worst elements of many other languages?
Have you noticed how much English is suffering from accepting so much
of the worst elements of American slang?

Franz

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from Martin contains these words:

Bill Bryson is a more reliable authority, than the compilers of
the
OED? Not in my opinion.

Much more, IMO. But then I rate the OED as a trendy comoc.

And your evidence for this notable declaration..? I use it almost
every day (and submit material at intervals), so I should be able to
follow up any references.

MIke.

The message
from Stephen Howard contains these words:

And you really couldn't have picked a worse word to back up your
position....'nice' has evolved in meaning a great many times, and
still has many regional variations. Were you to adhere to the
principle you seem to keen to uphold then you just said 'his reply was
foolish'.

Nice going. How's your arse?

That's a comparatively modern usage - in fact, 'nice' in its firs
recorded form is far closer to the context in which it's used these
days.

How's yours?

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article , "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

"Unclean" is a religious reference, describing somethjing banned from
diet. Slugs & snails & indeed all shellfesh can never be kosher. Any Jew
who would eat a shrimp, lobster, crabs, oysters, or clams should be
equally willing to eat slugs & snails, but none of it would be kosher.

Levitical dietary laws are not health laws but are laid down to draw
cultic distinctions. You could even take kosher cheese & kosher hamburger
but if you made a cheeseburger out of it it would not be kosher, as it has
nothing to do with health & everything to do with cultic restrictioins
that define a community.

Shellfish were associated with the cult of Asherah Who Walks the Sea,
whose son, Baal, was led by a homosexual priesthood. Midrash says
worshippers of Baal-Peor had anal sex in the high place groves of Asherah.
Eating shellfish seems to have been identified with cultically impure sex
acts such as homosexuality; & I've wondered whether the belief that eating
oysters causes men to have better erections is derived from some ancient
religious belief among worshippers of Atargatis/Asherah or Baal/Dagon.

Scripture notes that Naamah the Amonitess supported just such a homosexual
Baal cult in Jerusalem, & Leviticus calls homosexuality (within the
priesthood) an "abomination" (the Hebrew word would be more correctly
translated "cultic impurity"), just as it calls eating shellfish an
"abomination" (but that's a different word better translated "detestible,"
a detestible thing being an idol or a bivalve; the chaos goddess Tiamat
was a bivalve). "Anything that crawls on its belly" cannot be kosher, &
Baal priests laid on their bellies to receive anal offerings to Baal-Peor.
Thus an amusing stretch of parallel meaning, Queers & Molluscs & Shrimps
can all be regarded as appalling before God -- see the amusing God Hates
Shrimp webpage --
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Bigotted homophobes like to point out that the "abomination" of
homosexuality is punishable by death but Levitical law only makes it
punishable by death if it is conducted in the context of worship of rival
divinities, or if such acts are committed by the priestly caste. "Touch
not my anointed" [1 Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15] is a prohibition against
Yahweh's priesthood being involved in all manner of sacred rites of a
sexual nature that were otherwise acceptable practices outside the
priesthood. A woman of the Levites who committed harlotries would likewise
be killed, but a woman like Tamar could commit harlotries & afterward be
purified. So too, regarding homosexuality, it was impure, but could
afterward be cleansed, so long as it does not involve the annointed
priesthood or idolatrous worship.

"He that toucheth the flesh of him that ejaculates" must afterward purify
himself, & will remain unclean until evening [Lv 15:7]; that is the
PRIMARY levitical law regarding homosexuality, it causes a rather brief
period of cultic impurity requiring a cleansing ritual; which is why the
love affair between Jonathan & David can be presented as neato rather than
dooming David to execution, as David was not a Levite but was part Moabite
(a famously queer nation), & Jonathan was a Benjaminite such as caused
such a terrible stir when they wanted to butt**** a Levite priest who
being a Levite was unable to submit, so gave his concubine to the
Benjaminites who were so insulted by the replacement that they ****ed her
to death. Had it only been David instead of a Levite, he could've
presented his bum without it insulting God, & indeed he was Saul's
catamite before he was Jonathan's lover.

There is also a Law that prohibits the "earnings" of a zonah of kelebite
(secular whore or trick-turning faggot) from being made as offerings to
God [Dt 23:18]. Harlots & Kelebites (sodomists) were not otherwise
prohibited from worshipping Adonai or from making offerings other than
those gained from a practice associated with other divinities or with
secular prostitution.

Bigots selectively enjoy the illusory commandment to kill fags, while
overlooking the commandment to kill sassing children. The Mishnaic sages,
knowing such an evil as capitol punishment could not possibly be inherent
to Torah or part of God's will, came up with interpretations of scripture
that banned capitol punishment altogether, though 2,000 years later
Christians still haven't figured out that God does not applaud capitol
punishment even for more convincing reasons than homophobes killing
queers.

But even preserving the idea that God likes us to kill each other & wants
us to keep slaves & execute sassing children & faggots, Mosaic law does
not punish or prohibit homosexual acts except for the priesthood & except
when committed to honor a rival god. As a secular act between men,
homosexuality causes bodily impurity that lasts until sundown, & is an
impurity roughly equivalent to eating unkosher food.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Christopher Green" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-xGzwb8So2ZUw@poblano...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:17:41 UTC,

(paghat)
opined:

In article uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-udOV900dMXzb@poblano, "Stan
Goodman"
wrote:

A slug is a naked snail.

Ha-cha-cha-cha.

That's exactly what a slug is. The only difference between
the
two
is
the
shell. Whether that qualifies slugs to appear in
rec.gardens.EDIBLE is
a
question I can't answer.

Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

Not kosher. Treyf. An abomination. Not acceptable as food to
observant
Jews. (Lev. 11:42, "You shall not eat... anything that crawls on its
belly...")

But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws.

Franz


They are not outdated to the Jews..


Ray Drouillard

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Christopher Green" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


"Stan Goodman" wrote in
message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-xGzwb8So2ZUw@poblano...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:17:41 UTC,

(paghat)
opined:

In article uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-udOV900dMXzb@poblano,
"Stan
Goodman"
wrote:

A slug is a naked snail.

Ha-cha-cha-cha.

That's exactly what a slug is. The only difference
between
the
two
is
the
shell. Whether that qualifies slugs to appear in
rec.gardens.EDIBLE is
a
question I can't answer.

Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your
garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

Not kosher. Treyf. An abomination. Not acceptable as food to
observant
Jews. (Lev. 11:42, "You shall not eat... anything that crawls on
its
belly...")

But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws.

Franz


They are not outdated to the Jews..

I did not say they were.
The poster did not mention that they were unclean *as far as Jews were
concerned*. He made it sound much more general.

Franz

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

"Unclean" is a religious reference, describing somethjing banned
from
diet. Slugs & snails & indeed all shellfesh can never be kosher. Any
Jew
who would eat a shrimp, lobster, crabs, oysters, or clams should be
equally willing to eat slugs & snails, but none of it would be
kosher.

Levitical dietary laws are not health laws but are laid down to draw
cultic distinctions. You could even take kosher cheese & kosher
hamburger
but if you made a cheeseburger out of it it would not be kosher, as
it has
nothing to do with health & everything to do with cultic
restrictioins
that define a community.

Shellfish were associated with the cult of Asherah Who Walks the
Sea,
whose son, Baal, was led by a homosexual priesthood. Midrash says
worshippers of Baal-Peor had anal sex in the high place groves of
Asherah.
Eating shellfish seems to have been identified with cultically
impure sex
acts such as homosexuality; & I've wondered whether the belief that
eating
oysters causes men to have better erections is derived from some
ancient
religious belief among worshippers of Atargatis/Asherah or
Baal/Dagon.

Scripture notes that Naamah the Amonitess supported just such a
homosexual
Baal cult in Jerusalem, & Leviticus calls homosexuality (within the
priesthood) an "abomination" (the Hebrew word would be more
correctly
translated "cultic impurity"), just as it calls eating shellfish an
"abomination" (but that's a different word better translated
"detestible,"
a detestible thing being an idol or a bivalve; the chaos goddess
Tiamat
was a bivalve). "Anything that crawls on its belly" cannot be
kosher, &
Baal priests laid on their bellies to receive anal offerings to
Baal-Peor.
Thus an amusing stretch of parallel meaning, Queers & Molluscs &
Shrimps
can all be regarded as appalling before God -- see the amusing God
Hates
Shrimp webpage --
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Bigotted homophobes like to point out that the "abomination" of
homosexuality is punishable by death but Levitical law only makes it
punishable by death if it is conducted in the context of worship of
rival
divinities, or if such acts are committed by the priestly caste.
"Touch
not my anointed" [1 Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15] is a prohibition against
Yahweh's priesthood being involved in all manner of sacred rites of
a
sexual nature that were otherwise acceptable practices outside the
priesthood. A woman of the Levites who committed harlotries would
likewise
be killed, but a woman like Tamar could commit harlotries &
afterward be
purified. So too, regarding homosexuality, it was impure, but could
afterward be cleansed, so long as it does not involve the annointed
priesthood or idolatrous worship.

"He that toucheth the flesh of him that ejaculates" must afterward
purify
himself, & will remain unclean until evening [Lv 15:7]; that is the
PRIMARY levitical law regarding homosexuality, it causes a rather
brief
period of cultic impurity requiring a cleansing ritual; which is why
the
love affair between Jonathan & David can be presented as neato
rather than
dooming David to execution, as David was not a Levite but was part
Moabite
(a famously queer nation), & Jonathan was a Benjaminite such as
caused
such a terrible stir when they wanted to butt**** a Levite priest
who
being a Levite was unable to submit, so gave his concubine to the
Benjaminites who were so insulted by the replacement that they
****ed her
to death. Had it only been David instead of a Levite, he could've
presented his bum without it insulting God, & indeed he was Saul's
catamite before he was Jonathan's lover.

There is also a Law that prohibits the "earnings" of a zonah of
kelebite
(secular whore or trick-turning faggot) from being made as offerings
to
God [Dt 23:18]. Harlots & Kelebites (sodomists) were not otherwise
prohibited from worshipping Adonai or from making offerings other
than
those gained from a practice associated with other divinities or
with
secular prostitution.

Bigots selectively enjoy the illusory commandment to kill fags,
while
overlooking the commandment to kill sassing children. The Mishnaic
sages,
knowing such an evil as capitol punishment could not possibly be
inherent
to Torah or part of God's will, came up with interpretations of
scripture
that banned capitol punishment altogether, though 2,000 years later
Christians still haven't figured out that God does not applaud
capitol
punishment even for more convincing reasons than homophobes killing
queers.

But even preserving the idea that God likes us to kill each other &
wants
us to keep slaves & execute sassing children & faggots, Mosaic law
does
not punish or prohibit homosexual acts except for the priesthood &
except
when committed to honor a rival god. As a secular act between men,
homosexuality causes bodily impurity that lasts until sundown, & is
an
impurity roughly equivalent to eating unkosher food.

-paghat the ratgirl

I found that so very interesting that I decided to leave it uncut in
my reply. Coals of fire will no doubt be heaped on mr for committing
this sin.

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
[...]
But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws.

Franz


They are not outdated to the Jews..

I did not say they were.
The poster did not mention that they were unclean *as far as Jews
were
concerned*. He made it sound much more general.

I remember a boss saying of a (highly-esteemed, I should say)
colleague "For somebody who can't work on Friday evenings, he eats an
awful lot of sausages." A Jewish girlfriend whose sister suddenly
started keeping Kosher and everything referred to the unexpected
transformation as "going Catholic".

Mike.

paghat wrote:
[...]
"Unclean" [...etc...]

We did actually know that: I think you've mistaken us for one of
those dimwit crossposting newsgroups. Be discerning, and don't be
misled by some of the headers the freaks add this group to.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:42:48 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Christopher Green" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-xGzwb8So2ZUw@poblano...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:17:41 UTC,

(paghat)
opined:

In article uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-udOV900dMXzb@poblano, "Stan
Goodman"
wrote:

A slug is a naked snail.

Ha-cha-cha-cha.

That's exactly what a slug is. The only difference between
the
two
is
the
shell. Whether that qualifies slugs to appear in
rec.gardens.EDIBLE is
a
question I can't answer.

Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

Not kosher. Treyf. An abomination. Not acceptable as food to
observant
Jews. (Lev. 11:42, "You shall not eat... anything that crawls on its
belly...")

But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws.

Franz

That is why I wrote "to observant Jews".

--
Chris Green

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
paghat wrote:
[...]
"Unclean" [...etc...]

We did actually know that: I think you've mistaken us for one of
those dimwit crossposting newsgroups. Be discerning, and don't be
misled by some of the headers the freaks add this group to.



[rolls eyes]

I make a flippant remark about slugs being unclean, and end up reading
part of a long diatribe that seems to have little point.


Ray Drouillard

Hey Guys,

This started out as for advice on the plus or minus of slugs and snails
!!!!!!


Happppppy Everythings,

LenBo, the originator of this string


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Stan Goodman" wrote in message
news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard"

opined:


Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden.

Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself.

Sorry. Snails are unclean.

What does "unclean" mean?
If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or
suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal.

Franz

"Unclean" is a religious reference, describing somethjing banned from
diet. Slugs & snails & indeed all shellfesh can never be kosher. Any Jew
who would eat a shrimp, lobster, crabs, oysters, or clams should be
equally willing to eat slugs & snails, but none of it would be kosher.

Levitical dietary laws are not health laws but are laid down to draw
cultic distinctions. You could even take kosher cheese & kosher hamburger
but if you made a cheeseburger out of it it would not be kosher, as it has
nothing to do with health & everything to do with cultic restrictioins
that define a community.

Shellfish were associated with the cult of Asherah Who Walks the Sea,
whose son, Baal, was led by a homosexual priesthood. Midrash says
worshippers of Baal-Peor had anal sex in the high place groves of Asherah.
Eating shellfish seems to have been identified with cultically impure sex
acts such as homosexuality; & I've wondered whether the belief that eating
oysters causes men to have better erections is derived from some ancient
religious belief among worshippers of Atargatis/Asherah or Baal/Dagon.

Scripture notes that Naamah the Amonitess supported just such a homosexual
Baal cult in Jerusalem, & Leviticus calls homosexuality (within the
priesthood) an "abomination" (the Hebrew word would be more correctly
translated "cultic impurity"), just as it calls eating shellfish an
"abomination" (but that's a different word better translated "detestible,"
a detestible thing being an idol or a bivalve; the chaos goddess Tiamat
was a bivalve). "Anything that crawls on its belly" cannot be kosher, &
Baal priests laid on their bellies to receive anal offerings to Baal-Peor.
Thus an amusing stretch of parallel meaning, Queers & Molluscs & Shrimps
can all be regarded as appalling before God -- see the amusing God Hates
Shrimp webpage --
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Bigotted homophobes like to point out that the "abomination" of
homosexuality is punishable by death but Levitical law only makes it
punishable by death if it is conducted in the context of worship of rival
divinities, or if such acts are committed by the priestly caste. "Touch
not my anointed" [1 Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15] is a prohibition against
Yahweh's priesthood being involved in all manner of sacred rites of a
sexual nature that were otherwise acceptable practices outside the
priesthood. A woman of the Levites who committed harlotries would likewise
be killed, but a woman like Tamar could commit harlotries & afterward be
purified. So too, regarding homosexuality, it was impure, but could
afterward be cleansed, so long as it does not involve the annointed
priesthood or idolatrous worship.

"He that toucheth the flesh of him that ejaculates" must afterward purify
himself, & will remain unclean until evening [Lv 15:7]; that is the
PRIMARY levitical law regarding homosexuality, it causes a rather brief
period of cultic impurity requiring a cleansing ritual; which is why the
love affair between Jonathan & David can be presented as neato rather than
dooming David to execution, as David was not a Levite but was part Moabite
(a famously queer nation), & Jonathan was a Benjaminite such as caused
such a terrible stir when they wanted to butt**** a Levite priest who
being a Levite was unable to submit, so gave his concubine to the
Benjaminites who were so insulted by the replacement that they ****ed her
to death. Had it only been David instead of a Levite, he could've
presented his bum without it insulting God, & indeed he was Saul's
catamite before he was Jonathan's lover.

There is also a Law that prohibits the "earnings" of a zonah of kelebite
(secular whore or trick-turning faggot) from being made as offerings to
God [Dt 23:18]. Harlots & Kelebites (sodomists) were not otherwise
prohibited from worshipping Adonai or from making offerings other than
those gained from a practice associated with other divinities or with
secular prostitution.

Bigots selectively enjoy the illusory commandment to kill fags, while
overlooking the commandment to kill sassing children. The Mishnaic sages,
knowing such an evil as capitol punishment could not possibly be inherent
to Torah or part of God's will, came up with interpretations of scripture
that banned capitol punishment altogether, though 2,000 years later
Christians still haven't figured out that God does not applaud capitol
punishment even for more convincing reasons than homophobes killing
queers.

But even preserving the idea that God likes us to kill each other & wants
us to keep slaves & execute sassing children & faggots, Mosaic law does
not punish or prohibit homosexual acts except for the priesthood & except
when committed to honor a rival god. As a secular act between men,
homosexuality causes bodily impurity that lasts until sundown, & is an
impurity roughly equivalent to eating unkosher food.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com