“And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.” – Exodus 21:15
From his wikipedia page:
Electoral Record
Election Division Party Votes % Place Winner
1998 municipal by-election Sudbury regional chair n/a 83 Frank Mazzuca
1999 provincial Sudbury Independent 103 0.28 6/6 Rick Bartolucci, Liberal
2000 municipal Mayor of Greater Sudbury n/a not listed <1 6/6 James K. Gordon
2003 municipal Mayor of Greater Sudbury n/a 42 0.08 14/14 David Courtemanche
2006 federal Sudbury Independent 54 0.11 8/8 Diane Marleau, Liberal
2006 municipal Mayor of Greater Sudbury n/a 76 0.14 7/7 John Rodriguez
2007 provincial Sudbury Independent 124 0.38 6/6 Rick Bartolucci, Liberal
I feel fully confident that I could run for any level of government and I’d receive more than 124 votes.
Lev 20:
20:9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother 18 he must be put to death. He has cursed his father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 20:10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 20:11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 20:15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 20:16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
20:17 “‘If a man has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has exposed his sister’s nakedness; he will bear his punishment for iniquity. 20:18 If a man has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her fountain of blood and she has exposed the fountain of her blood, so both of them must be cut off from the midst of their people
Yes, by this Gay sex is a sin. So is incest, adultery, and having sex with your own wife during her period. We rarely see idiots suggesting these be made capital crimes.
You’re really running for the Marijuana party, aren’t you?
Is this guy actually part of the Canadian wing of the Westboro Baptisit Church?
On an anthropological note - the “abominations” defined in Leviticus are quite often related to notions of ritual purity, based (ultimately) on Iron Age ritual practice and social standards. The mistake modern people make in comming to this text is to assume that they reflect some sort of underlying morality. This is obviously not the case in some instances - the obsession found in Leviticus for “purity” or “ritual cleanliness” is really its own purpose and is only understandable within the context of the Temple cult of the time (the very title “Leviticus” reveals this - it is based on “Levite”, meaning very roughly ‘the Tribe where Priests come from’).
Essentially, no-one follows the code established by Leviticus today - it is impossible, given the absence of a centralized Temple cult. Those who follow the “word of God” as established by Leviticus are forced to cherry-pick those aspects of the Code which they find applicable.
OH Canada!
Well, that would certainly spice up your average school-hall all-candidates debate, no question.
Heck, carve up the right person and it would probably get you a few votes. 
It could be like one of those fund-raisers where you get to shave the Vice-principal’s head, or hit the Principal with a pie in the face!
First, Darth Nader, you are confusing your feelings about persecution of gays with what the Bible states.
It really does not matter how you feel about persecution of gays, or how you or other religionists such as Billy Graham or David Popescu might chose to differ in interpretations of Leviticus 20:13, for the simple and unassailable fact remains that regardless of how one might chose to interpret Leviticus 20:13, **Northern Piper **accurately set out what the Bible states.
I challenge you, Darth Nader, to provide a reference to a commonly accepted edition of the Bible that does not set out the penalty of death in Leviticus 20:13. You will, of course, admit that the King James Version, English Standard Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Living Translation, and New International Version all use the phrase: ". . . put to death . . . .”
Second, you falsely assume that **Northern Piper **agrees with what is stated in Leviticus 20:13. Perhaps you missed reading his opening postin this thread “ There are no words 
.” You jumped to an erroneous conclusion and denigrated Northern Piper without cause.
You owe Northern Piper a retraction and an apology.
I’ll be interested to see if he is charged with promoting genocide or hatred, and if the latter, if he can fall on the Bible as his statutory defence, or make a Hail Mary assertion that Parliamentary privilege should extend to statements made by a candidate in a formal political debate who otherwise is neither a Parlimentarian nor speaking in Parliament. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 318 and 319 (and yes, gays are condsidered to be an identifiable group in Canada):
I don’t know whether to be pleased that he finished dead last in every election in which he ran, or to be concerned that people actually voted for him.
I’m sorry, I’ll be right back, my eye has suddenly developed this uncontrollable twitch…
:mad:
You are 100% correct. One of these days, I’ll learn to not post when I’m full of vodka. Really.
Northern Piper, I’m sorry, and I want everyone here to note that I was wrong.
That was good of you, Darth Nader.
Maybe they thought they were voting for a different David Popescu?
Hey, what about not guilty by reason of insanity? 
But seriously - I’m guessing that the statutory defence in 319(3)(b) covers off an “incitement to hatred” charge. Doesn’t seem to be any statutory defence to “advocating genocide”, so it is the charge with a chance of success.
I’m not in favour of this sort of legislation though.
I feel slightly cheered to note he’s spending his own money each time he runs for election…
And I really, really hope the votes he gets are those who don’t follow anything and just pick a name at random.
Seeing as he has always lived with his mother (except for a brief period of time in the Sally Anne after he assaulted her), and that he has not had a job for well over thirty years, I expect that it is his mother’s money that he is spending each time he runs in an election.