"This is another example of what I said earlier -- that "attempts to discourage something can nonetheless glamorize it just as much attempts to encourage it.""

That is absolutely true.

I must say that, while I oppose what he advocates, Marcavage has style. I really, really, really, really wish he was on our side on homosexuality, and that Gavin Nuisance was on the other side. I hate having such worthy opponents and such unworthy allies.

Leviticus, eh? Isn't that the book of the Bible which says that eating shellfish is an abomination? Let him read the part he wants, then ask him to recite the rest and call on him to start picketing Red Lobster.

"attempts to discourage something can nonetheless glamorize it just as much attempts to encourage it.""

This means that holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma will have to be arrested and sent to prison by their Communist enemies soon. This is short of the martyrdom of the electric chair, but it will be a type of martyrdom even so. The Blood of the martyrs will be the seed of the Cathedral and will destroy the Communist Conspiracy.

"Our Holy War: The Goddess Against the Godless"

Holy Music vs. Drug Music and The Conspiracy Behind the Conspiracy

"This is another example of what I said earlier -- that "attempts to discourage something can nonetheless glamorize it just as much attempts to encourage it."

True but the opposite effect often works and works better in the long run. Parents who discourage their children from emulating the promiscous sex, language, clothing and violent behavior advocated in "gangsta" rap or "suicide" rock, no doubt create a "forbidden fruit" effect, but nontheless, such discouragment is quite effective in general (there is no 100% perfection anywhere) in protecting their children from such negatives. In fact, the parent who fails to actively discourage these negatives will soon be a very sad and cash poor parent.

The major buyers of "gangsta" for example are white youth, but at the end of the day, after the irritating music is turned down, most white parents will have effectively applied the brakes to those youths who unwisely and naively "go native". Fears of "glamorization" should not prevent strong action being taken to discourage negative behavior. In fact that is one of the problems of American culture today- a cowardice that too often wants the easy way out, fears being accused of being "judgemental," and fails to stand up and speak up, unfashionable as it may be.

As for homosexuality, its proponents and apologists conveniently duck the clear word and moral principle of the scriptures to justify themselves. The comment about Leviticus and shellfish by Triticale, is typical evasion. The Mosaic laws primarily have a moral bearing, although there is a practical public health aspect as well. The prohibition against shellfish, as against other things, illustrates the moral principle of confining things to their proper sphere- the principle of separation. The same moral principle applies in a deeper way to homosexuality. Marriage for example, is to be confined to man and woman, for that is its proper sphere. There is no "free for all" approved between those of the same sex or between adults and children, craved as these may be by certain people.

The ban on shellfish, as with pork and other foods once deemed unclean was lifted by Christianity (see Acts 10 and 11). Food as such, provided by God was no longer to be despised. However the MORAL PRINCIPLE of separation- the clean from the unclean still remains, convenient as it is to forget it. And in the case of homosexuality, that ban was never lifted by Christianity. In fact homosexuality is again condemned in the New Testament. That condemnation was never lifted. See the verses below showing how again it is condemned. No matter what dodge or "spin" homosexuals or their apologists try, they cannot get around this.

Both as a specific prohibition, or a moral principle, homosexual behavior is condemned as unclean and inappropriate in both the Old and New Testaments. Naturally this is not the message many want to hear, but it is the correct one in the Judeo-Christian tradition, unpalatable as this may be to those bent on what that tradition calls "strange flesh".

Applicable NT verses- too often conveniently forgotten:

see Romans 1: 26: "..gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature; and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.."

or see

1 Timothy 10: "to the impious and sinful, to the unholy and profane, to smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers; to murderers.. sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,"

As the same NT says: "By their fruits, ye shall know them."