In my shoes what would you do (specifically addressed to glbt folk and strong allies)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

I have a coworker who i am friendly with. He is for gay marriage, will march for equal rights, for hate crime protection. We often do a back and forth on political ideas etc. He is also a conservative jew w.messianic beliefs. Today in passing he mentioned that "i believe homosexuality is a sin". He also mentioned how he believes lots of people are sinner including himself for premarital fornication.

When i got upset with him and said that i can have a coworker who holds this belief but not a friend he got very upset. He said its the old testament, its gods law and gods truth and he has to believe it.

anyhow this goes back and forth for a while. he says i should judge his actions but his beliefs are rooted in religion and he cant change those.

his actions are pro-gay. his beliefs are not.

now, could you be friends with this person?

[grantcart]

1. politely ask him for the Biblical reference that states that homosexuality is a sin

probably leviticus and then you can go through the whole book and find all of the other formulations and go through them one by one.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. he is jewish so only the OT matters and lev is the one he is talking about

[SoCalNative]

2. You should remind him that

Adhering to a religion is a choice. Being gay is not.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. no he gets that. its a question of whether i can move on and get over this

[Sentath]

3. Yes

I support his right to his beliefs, silly or not. They apparently aren't such that he is hostile.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I married a conservative christian. It is possible to love or care about someone with whom

you disagree.

Ultimately I think it depends on whether one thinks they are worth the inevitable headache of ideological clashes, and whether or not one's own convictions allow for choosing to be around someone like that.

Obviously in my own case, I made the decision to be around people with whom I disagree passionately but I still love them anyway.

[Book Lover]

7. No, because I define friendship differently that he does

In my opinion, he is conflating beind a friend with being cordial and civil. The below is from my profile page; please skip over the criticism of Ghandi by Orwell. The point is that Orwell says this better than I can right now:

"Close friendships, Gandhi says, are dangerous, because "friends react on one another" and through loyalty to a friend one can be led into wrong-doing. This is unquestionably true. Moreover, if one is to love God, or to love humanity as a whole, one cannot give one's preference to any individual person. This again is true, and it marks the point at which the humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable. To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others. The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children, but at any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never actually occurred, and also that Gandhi - with, one gathers, a good deal of moral pressure in the opposite direction - always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the decision had been solely his own, he would have forbidden the animal food, whatever the risks might be. There must, he says, be some limit to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the sense which - I think - most people would give to the word, it is inhuman. The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. no he means friendship. in his words, he like me and lisa.

he wants to fight for our rights. he respects my intellect etc etc

he wants to be my friend not colleague.

he just thinks homosexuals are sinners

[Book Lover]

12. I guess I'm saying that I have a hard time understanding *how* he can be a loyal friend

if he thinks you inherently are sinful. Why would he even want to be your friend (totally rhetorical there)? Then again, there is no cognitive dissonance than the kind caused by religious beliefs.

[DonEBrook]

15. "sin" is an entirely artificial and subjective construct that has no meaning in the real world.

In other words, it's a matter of opinions and as we know those are as ubiquitous as assholes.

[hendo]

28. Well

technically everyone is a sinner. We just all sin for different reasons. If he is a friend of yours and is fine with you being a lesbian I fail to see the issue. He may think you are a sinner, but he is also quick to admit that he is as well.

It is alright to love and care for someone as a person and at the same time believe that they are sinning, in fact that's an integral part of the Judeo-Christian faith, and actually, it is a part of most major world religions. Many of us religious folks are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner.

Every person is entitled to love and respect out of the very fact that they are human. Namaste' is the best example of that.

[kiva]

8. My sympathies on having to make this decision.

I must admit that my first inclination would be to react to his actions, probably because I do believe that actions speak louder than words, and I have a certain respect for someone who obviously believes strongly in civil rights for everyone, even those he believes are morally wrong.

That said, it can't be easy to listen to his condemnation and I wish you luck on you relationship with him.

[eleny]

10. His falling back on the old testament makes this difficult for him

Ask him if he's built a house outside his house to stay in when his wife has her period. The old testament has a lot of requirements that he may not live up to. I think it's Leviticus, so maybe you can do some Googling and see what that book requires. It's pretty strict. So what many people do is to use it like an a la carte menu by picking and choosing. and that inconsistency makes their argument fall apart. Hypocrisy might be an apt word here but I'd refrain from going that far.

:hug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. he thinks all humans are sinner including himself

i just think that in this case other sinners have more choice that we do, so its put an unfair burden

[Zuiderelle]

14. Yes, by saying you are a sinner by virtue of you being gay, he is saying that you sin 100% of the

time, and that you choose to do it... like he chose to have premarital sex. He's saying that you will always sin as long as you are who you are. That's what's different from him believing that all humans are sinners. I'm certain that he doesn't think that all humans are all sinners all the time.

[Zuiderelle]

13. No, I could not be friends with someone who would say that out loud.

I guess I could be friends (though certainly not close friends) with someone who believes what he believes but never says it out loud and never behaves as if he is judging you 100% of the time, which he is, if that's what he actually believes.

From what you describe... no. Absolutely I could not be friends with such a person. Life is too short to waste on idiots.

[mondo joe]

16. Personally, I care more about the actions than the beliefs. I care more about my rights

than about someone thinking I'm sinning.

I would be friendly at work, but I wouldn't be friends beyond that. Your friendship might help him evolve, but if it doesn't then the worst you've done is be nice to someone who cares about your rights.

In fact, I think your coworker is doing something I always wish more people would do - separate religious beliefs from secular law. The "sin" part is still a stinker, but maybe that will change.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. we are already friends outside of work. he comes to lisa's shows, our parties etc

he is a firm believer in secular law being seperate

i think i am mostly sad and disappointed

[mondo joe]

20. I get the sad and disappointed. I would be too.

The most mitigating thing about it is that at least he's applying it to himself.

I think the only thing you can do is what feels okay to you. I would like to think I'd stick with it and see if he changes his mind over time. People really do change. But if you can't stomach it don't torture yourself.

[bowens43]

17. You can not reason with a true believer

nor can you change his beliefs. Accept him as he is or walk away. The choice is yours.

[jonnyblitz]

19. I would be friends with him if his actions were pro- gay but he

would have to endure my very atheistic bad attitude harangue against ALL religions and how the concept of "sin" doesn't even exist for me. He might not want to be friends with ME after that. :P

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. LOL. i already called him a hypocrite and stupid. he still wants to be my friend

:hi:

[Irishonly]

22. That's tough

I get frustrated by the love the sinner, hate the sin also and have never understood it. People don't understand the Bible like they think they do. I can't tell you what to do as these past couple of years I have grown to see the world completely different than many that identify themselves as religious or spiritual and I call myself Christian although I believe there are many paths to faith.

[The Traveler]

23. Easy

I do not ask my friends to share my beliefs. I ask them to treat me well, as I treat them. I ask them for their honesty. I ask for their trust, and also their trustworthiness. But I do not ask them to share my beliefs. Often, in my experience, the strongest friendships and affections are not forged despite these differences, but because of them.

Someone once told me of the entomology of the word "love". It derives from the word "lief", which means roughly to give permission. Thus, to love someone is to give them permission to be who they are, to find the other to be good. Not sure if that is really true (the linguistic derivation) ... but it sure sounds nice, and seems to me to clarify a point often obscure. Friendship and love are not based on people fitting in with what we want them to be, but accepting how they are and finding value in that ... to find the other good.

Trav

[GodlessBiker]

24. If he is pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, pro all the other things that matter, then...

he is not standing in the way of your happiness and I would give him a pass on his beliefs. We all have our faults, but he is not acting out on his beliefs.

Years after she wrote The Second Sex, and the government had institutionalized equality for women and employers and social organizations were treating women with equality, a reporter asked Simone de Beauvoir if she believed she really changed the hearts of many French men (and some women) or whether people were just going through the motions. De Beauvoir said that she really didn't care about their minds, only their actions...because through their actions a new generation of women would learn and *their* minds would be different. Let children see him marching for gay rights and the children will have different beliefs than him. That's all I could ask for.

[Toasterlad]

25. I Could, Because I Don't Care What "Sins" Anyone Thinks I've Committed.

Were he my friend, he would quickly learn to avoid discussing my "sins", as, every time, he'd get an earful of just how completely ridiculous his "talking snake" fantasies truly are. I can be friends with a christian, a jew, a muslim, whatever, as long as it's understood I'm not going to take their crap. And since I don't believe in hell, it doesn't matter to me that they think I'm going there.

I guess it depends on how much weight you're willing to give his religious views, and how sincere you believe him to be about your friendship.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. in general i believe he is one of the most sincere human beings i have met

[Toasterlad]

31. Then, I Guess All That Matters Is, Can You Live With Him Thinking You're a Sinner?

[KitchenWitch]

27. You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends.

I would carry on a civil working relationship with him, but I would not let him into the "inner circle". Too much chance of getting hurt.

:hug:

Sorry you have to make this decision.

[Unvanguard]

29. I could be good friends with someone who has such views. As a matter of fact, I am.

I have no sympathy for the position, but I've never been able to forcibly suppress my feelings of friendship and affection because of that kind of disagreement.

[mondo joe]

30. I'm reminded of my step-grandparents. They disagreed absolutely at least half the time

but never fought about it, each confident that they were right and the other wrong.

[mitchtv]

32. I wouldn't worry too much about his religious views

He has the right atitude towards Gov't. like someone said above just don't get too close.

[NMDemDist2]

33. ask him if you got married to your partner, would that cut out the 'sinful' part of gay?

that should make his rabbinical mind spin eh?

:evilgrin:

[Jamastiene]

35. That is the same question I always tried to ask people.

Of course, I got about 13 different answers out of 12 different people. It's all so confusing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. no it wouldnt. he has said so. he thinks its unfair, but still sinful.

[Jamastiene]

34. Actions speak louder than words.

I would not get into a religious discussion with him any more. I would just be cordial with him based on his actions in support of gay marriage and equal protection, but I wouldn't get TOO close. In other words, there is no reason he can't remain an acquaintance you are cordial with.

I would go with acquaintance, not discuss religion with him, not get too lulled into any false sense of security with him and leave it at that. :shrug:

[Prism]

36. Easily

I have no minor amount of gay friends who say things like they couldn't be friends or date anyone who's a Republican, Christian, etc. etc. etc.

It genuinely puzzles me.

Everyone's beliefs are varied, and that's precisely what makes life interesting. My family is Catholic, they believe homosexuality is a sin, but hey, they still love me, invite my boyfriend to holidays (make sure we're snuggling close in pictures, etc.)

Some people really can compartmentalize their religious beliefs and keep them separate from how they treat people and their ability to give and receive affection.

I think your friend is a remarkably healthy individual. Sure, you or I don't agree with his religious beliefs, but it seems from what you've said that he treats you very well, thinks highly of you, and defends your right to equality. That's a pretty ideal friend, IMO.

I find when we demand the people around in our lives believe precisely what we believe, it is no longer a question of what's wrong with them, it becomes a question of what's wrong with us.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. i dont think there is anything w.wanting friends to not believe you are a sinner. nt

[Prism]

38. I have no control over what my friends believe

Nor would I want to. As long as they treat me just like their other friends, give and receive trust, and are generally good people, what goes on between them and their chosen God isn't really much of my business.

I say this because I have a large social and familial group with so many different kinds of political and religious systems that it would be impossible for anyone to get along if we approved or disapproved of what's going on in everyone's head. Christmas would be a St. Valentine's Day massacre.

I guess I decided long ago that the only person responsible for my self-worth is me. I mean, my mom thinks homosexuality is a sin. Do I think she loves me any less than my brother? Nope. She makes sure my boyfriend feels as welcome and included in the family as anyone else. She hints at grandkids. She plans trips around the fact she expects us to go.

Given that, would I reject my mom because of her Catholic faith? Of course not. The idea is alien to me.

Your friend doesn't seem to reject you for who you are and what you believe. I see no cause to not return the favor. Golden rule and all that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. i dont believe my friend is a sinner. if i did, he would have ample reason to cut me off

maybe you are used to having people around you who think you are a sinner, i am not.

[Prism]

40. No, it's about walking the walk

The thing is, I take accepting people for who they are very seriously. It's something I'd want for myself from my friends and family, so it is something I extend to them in turn.

I find, too often in my gay social circle, many people want total acceptance for themselves, but they're unwilling to extend it to others.

It's a two way street. Your friend has his beliefs. You have yours. He accepts who you are and even agrees with you on a secular level. He seems accepting of you from what you've said in this thread. But you very clearly do not accept him because of his religion.

That strikes me as a little hypocritical, to be honest.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. my beliefs dont condemn him on a deeply personal level. i am surprised you dont see that

[Prism]

42. No, I do understand that. Let me put it another way.

After Prop 8, I kind of wanted to have a discussion on this forum on this topic, but here seems as good an opportunity as any other.

When Prop 8 was passed, a lot of the self-criticism in our community was based around outreach. Remember how we picked apart various organizations for not reaching out to Latino or African-American communities, for not consulting with our GLBT brothers and sisters who are also ethnic minorities. Which was a valid criticism, and one very worthy of addressing.

What I didn't see was discussion of religious outreach. Which is a little odd, because it is precisely religion that plays such a universal role in many of the communities we need to reach out to. Homophobia is a big problem in socially conservative black churches, and the cultural heritage of Catholic Latinos certainly plays a role in homophobia within that community. But the racial categories are shallow and unhelpful. It's all religion underneath.

Yet for some reason, we seem to have no ability nor desire to engage religion. When it comes to religious outreach, there's a black hole and an epidemic of crickets. This, I think, is one of our biggest logistical errors. And I say this as someone who is pretty nonreligious himself.

Engagement, discussion, living side by side, showing religious people that we are good citizens, friends, and family, no different from anyone else and deserving of everything they are entitled to.

It seems to me that you and your friend have an opportunity between you to bridge the gay/religious divide. To be an example for others that religion, equality, and acceptance cannot and should not be opposing forces. While you may not like where his beliefs are now, there's no telling the kind of effect a deep and lasting friendship with you might stir within him.

Progress doesn't come only from talking and debating. Sometimes the most powerful forms of progress come from example and existence.

[bluedawg12]

43. I don't see this type of scenario as an opportunity to bridge a divide

I have heard far too many "religious" people claim, "They love their gay friends but..." it's just wrong, immoral, and any other religious argument they chose to hide behind.

In this particular case the individual understands the legal reasons to support gay rights, but still, makes a moral judgment based on faith.

People have a right to their faith and beliefs, and it's an uneven playing field, they revert to the "higher authority" tells me so argument.

My idea of out reach is legal out reach to the Courts and legislatures. I prefer to debate gay rights on a legal basis and not a theological basis simply because the former is rational the latter is not rational.

[Prism]

44. Unfortunately, that's not enough

Legal and judicial outreach has its place, but we're probably decades away from seeing full equality in the form of a Supreme Court ruling and in many red states. We should pursue those avenues, of course, but we also need to bring whatever force we have to bear on the social/cultural equation as well. That necessarily includes religion. I'm about full equality for every GLBTer in this country in the quickest way we can get it. That requires both legal routes and changing minds. GLBT activism has a long history of recognizing the cultural component, which is why we do so much outreach to so many communities, why organizations like PFLAG were formed, why the GSA was formed, etc.

And the moral imposition you describe isn't limited strictly to religion. This discussion has put me in mind a bit of a friend who's very active in animal rights circles. She hates that I eat meat. Hates hates hates. And hey, I've tried going vegetarian. Read some books, sought advice, gave it a whirl. It wasn't for me. Didn't like it, didn't like how I felt. Just all around not for me, and I'm not going to be changed on it. She knows this. But she's a bit like the religious examples you cite. "She loves me, but . . ." And, naturally, she believes she's coming from a very solid moral grounding. It's part of her moral belief system.

I would no more reject her for her beliefs and feelings than I would a religious person. It doesn't make sense. If I preach acceptance, at the very least I should practice it. And that includes loving people even if I feel they're flawed in some way. Just as I hope they do me.

[bluedawg12]

45. What argument should religious out reach be based on?

That the Bible is historic, allegorical and not literal?

Or, should we have dueling scripture quotations?

What would you recommend as the rational basis of debate with people who cite religion, the Bible and/or the teachings of their religious leaders?

I am asking because I truly don't know how you see outreach to even moderate religious people as being viable and expediant.

[Prism]

46. That would require a very, very long response

But to put it as briefly as I can, I've found that discussing the context of religion has helped me in persuading people to be more accepting. Duelling scripture is rarely helpful, in my experience. I have tried the academic tack, discussing the Greek and Hebrew translations, how the words and sentiments have been greatly altered over time, how many of the admonitions of Paul were based on Roman religious practice rather than human orientation. For me, those kinds of discussions never really seemed to bring it home to people.

Going back to my mom as an example, I had many discussions with her about the life of Jesus, who he was, what he did, and not only the words he spoke, but the attitude he took. Over many long talks, the conversations distilled down to the idea of what makes someone a good person. They centered on the message of love, friendship, family, treating each other well, and not getting down into the legalistic parsing of the Bible when it was at odds with the overarching message that Jesus taught. Over time I got her to realize how ridiculous it is for love to result in hell. It's an abusurd proposition even by Christian standards, but it takes a bit of doing and articulation to get people to really see how modern religious leaders have twisted things to mean almost the precise opposite of what Jesus intended in the Bible.

It isn't easy. It requires time, effort, and patience. And some people won't be receptive no matter how hard you try. But for those religious people who I have gotten to come around, it's worth it.

[bluedawg12]

48. I think people use religion as a justification for their own deep phobias about gays

It's a form of rationalization for their bias and gives it the appearance of legitimacy.

I think that chipping away at junk science and blatant lies that are constantly reinforced by the haters and by showing that gays are happy, healthy, capable of strong long lasting relationships, are great at parenting, that some of the underlying misinformation about us may lead some people to drop their defense mechanisms, inlcuding religious based bigotry.

[Prism]

49. I agree with that entirely, n/t

[Amimnoch]

47. I would have no problem at all embracing him as a friend.

Isn't this the very epitome of freedom of religion is SUPPOSED to be about. Personally, as a friend, I'd appreciate having a person like that in my life.

He can embrace his faith, yet still not allow his faith to dominate the rest of his life, or be the core of his political influence.

Any right wing christian fundamentalist can embrace their faith, and use it as a weapon to pass judgment on others and try to control others lives.

Any left wing progressive or liberal can embrace their political beliefs to such an extreme that it's his/her way or the highway.

To me, both of those listed above are a yin/yang of the same pie.

It takes an uncommonly developed person of reason to be able to still embrace christian faith, yet be able to separate his/her spiritual ideal from their political, and social ideals and rise above it.

Likewise it takes a person of exceptional character to be a gay liberal or progressive, and be able to accept a person who is a good person, a good friend, and a staunch political ally as you've stated, and still be able to rise above their friends spiritual handicaps.

Just an IMO. Either way it's a personal decision that we can only reflect our own personal experiences and beliefs off of, ultimately Lioness, you will have to decide for yourself if his spiritual beliefs are something you can reconcile in yourself.

[Marrah_G]

50. Yes- I could

Actions speak louder then words. Besides, it sounds like he is already someone who's actions are those of a person who believes in equality for all. I may think of him as a little nutty in his beliefs, but it honestly doesn't sound like he is all that impressed by what are considered sins. His opinion on sin may change in time.

I say this as someone who is a big time "sinner" according to 99.99% of people who believe in a higher power. As long as those people do not attempt to push their religion on me or to harm myself or my children in any way because of it, then I just see it as people who have some pretty odd beliefs.

Maybe it is because I am not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that the word Sin is not a big deal to me.

Just my two cents for what they are worth.

[donco6]

51. It would definitely change the relationship for me.

It would be hard to be more than arms-length close to someone who felt that I'm immoral.

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. I would say that his actions are much more important than his beliefs in this matter

We see a lot of politicians who say they affirm equality and claim they believe in equality but who, somehow, manage never to act upon their words and alleged beliefs; when they are Democrats, we are told by our own community to shut up, swallow our doubts and embrace them as long-lost siblings.

Here you have someone who claims to believe that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, but who seems to have consistently acted otherwise, in favor of equality. If actions speak louder than words.... :shrug:

Lioness, I don't really see a moral dilemma here. Since you are asking for advice, here is mine: Go back to your friend and admit to having a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe you can chat about the occasional disjoin between religious beliefs and moral beliefs. In any case, actions speak louder than words. Don't let his words drown out his actions.

[freestyle]

53. Not friends, but associates. Also, religion is a choice.

He has managed to separate his religious conception of sin from civil lawmaking, and we would be a better country if more people could do that. However, I don't think it is friendly at all to express "in passing" that his religious view sees who you are as sinful. I couldn't be friends with this person, because true friendship is rare indeed and friends are sensitive enough to not intentionally throw verbal darts. Unless you are a co-religionist of his, why would he expect you to care? I could accept him as a political supporter and make it a point to not discuss religion. He would not be coming to dinner.

[HamdenRice]

54. You're waaaaay over-reacting. Do you like clams, oysters, lobster, pork?

The guy is a conservative Jew. He follows very strict rules that make lots of things that most of us do, a sin. Eating clams, oysters, mussels, lobster and pork is a grievous sin to Orthodox Jews. Driving a car on Friday night, or catching up on laundry or work on Saturday is a grievous sin. It doesn't mean that they hate Gentiles or Reformed Jews who eat those things or do those things, or that they would campaign to prevent those of us who enjoy those things from eating or doing them.

He includes himself in the category of sinners for his premarital sex.

Try to substitute all the other things that the rest of the NY community does that in his religion are sinful -- all the Gentiles and Reform Jews who eat lobster, who have premarital hetero sex, who have hetero sex during the wife's period, have oral sex or sex outside of marriage and so on. Orthodox and Conservative Judaism involve an incredibly difficult, strict set of rules, but as my friends have explained it, following them is kind of like a form of meditation on the omnipresence god. It is not really a judgment on non-Orthodox.

His behavior is that he wants to protect your rights, but that for him gay and lesbian relationships are a sin. So are pork chops.

No big deal. My god, you have bigger fights to fight that something like this!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. maybe you need to learn how to read cos frankly did i mention i am fighting him?

i asked gay people if they felt they would be ok being friends with someone and having this person in their inner circle knowing the person thought homosexuality was a sin.

i didnt say i was going to cut of relations and report him to the authorities.

i think maybe its you who is overreacting.

[HamdenRice]

57. So be friends with him

What's the big deal?

He would say the same thing about people who eat lobster.

As for the word "fight" the post did not imply you were fighting him but that you might have some other things to actually struggle over.

Jeez!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. i dont expect you to understand it. lobster eating is a choice as is premarital sex.

it is also relatively not central to ones identity. my sinning is alsp constant as opposed to lobster eating.

[HamdenRice]

60. You're still waaaay over-reacting

He would have the same reaction to anyone's behavior and central identity as a secular individual. Or for that matter to one's behavior and central identity as a Catholic or Muslim.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. as per usual your being WAAAAAY insensitive. nt

[sui generis]

55. he has a right to his beliefs

period. As long as he isn't acting against you based on those beliefs, you are the one who is out of line, and especially since he marches FOR you (and us).

welcome him. accept him. treat him as you want him to treat you.

[Ioo]

62. Is he Jewish? Only Jews follow the old Test. Jesus said it was not longer the rule of law

I hate when people want to tell you what they think the bible says, vs reading it and knowing what it says.

- Does he eat shrimp? GOING TO HELL Lev 11:10

- Has he sold his daughter into slavery? He can! It is okay according to the Old Test? Exodus 21:7

- He married? Where does his wife live when she is having her period, TOTAL SIN to know her at that time Lev 15:19-24

- Does he shave? SIN Lev 19:27

- Does he eat PORK? Yep SIN Lev 11:6-8

- Work on the sabbath? Death! Exodus 35:2

I mean it man, this guy is a moron.