# The Ethics of Homosexuality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 29, 2000, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877 "2000-02-29T00:23:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/81 "2000-03-01T16:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by cmkeller: > > {Jonathan and David} were very close friends. Period. “Mom? Dad? Meet my very close friend… er, roommate… um, travelling companion! Yeah, that’s it!” Did it ever occur to you that Samuel, or whoever wrote/transcribed that chapter, might have been sympathetic to their love and therefore played down the fact that it was same-sex love so it would actually be palatable? As an historian friend of mine often says, unless you don’t go back and read the _original texts_ (i.e., the Greek), then you’re not working from a first-hand source; all you’re working from is interpretations, which is all fine and dandy as long as you don’t call them anything else but. And, let’s face it, the Bible has certainly been interpreted thousands of different ways through the ages… Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/82 "2000-03-01T16:53:00Z")
> [@](#): > > As an historian friend of mine often says, unless you don’t go back and read the original texts (i.e., the Greek)… Run for your lives! A mighty slam’s a comin’! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/83 "2000-03-01T16:55:00Z")
Lib, you’re suffering from pilpul-tations? 🙂 You’re right, we may see some Tall-mudslinging here! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/84 "2000-03-01T16:58:00Z")
Libertarian: > [@](#): > > Does the Torah present David as sinless? If not, does it have harsh words for sins that David did commit? As someone else had posted, David is reamed out for the affair with Batsheva and for the census. Regarding the census, about which Polycarp said: > [@](#): > > (that one always puzzled me) The reason (if I recall correctly) is that the Torah commands that when a census is taken for whatever reason (and David’s reason was considered frivolous), it is to be taken by using objects as proxies, not by a direct head-count. The reason for that has to do with the mystical “evil eye.” Polycarp: > [@](#): > > And they loved each other in a way that the average contemporary American would see as gay if practiced today. The Torah’s definition of sin is purely the physical act of penetration (sorry to be so vulgar), and is a far cry from an average American High-Schooler’s definition of “gay,” (especially considering that the average American High-Schooler’s definition of “Kansas City” is “the capital city of Kansas”). Also, the kind of friendship described could also relate to the kind of camaraderie amongst soldiers in a battalion, which, with the exception of the ancient Spartans, seldom involves homosexuality. David’s and Jonathan’s love for one another was such that they’d be willing to risk or sacrifice their lives for one another’s sake, something neither expressed a willingness to do about any woman. > [@](#): > > Since, whatever they did or refrained from doing, they were not engaging in either practice, He did not condemn them for it. So in other words, you’re agreeing with my statement about David and Jonathan…just questioning whether or not the passage in Leviticus refers to all (male) homosexual sex or only to homosexual sex as related to idolatry. Two points to make on that score (ignoring the Talmud for now, and concentrating only on the actual text of Leviticus): 1. The context, from which you pull the Baal (actually Molech) stuff, is completely about the sex act and not idolatrous intentions. Or are you suggesting that the Torah forbids having sex with one’s mother, father’s wife, sister, aunt, mother & daughter, two sisters (while both are alive), a woman married to another man, a menstruating woman, an animal, etc., only while doing it as part of Molechite idolatry? 2. The verse itself says a man should not lie with another man “the layings of a woman.” This would seem to imply that the verse prohibits homosexual sense in any way analagous to heterosexual sex…not only in idolatrous situations. > [@](#): > > It’s awful easy to read too much into a short Bible passage. Ever learned Talmud, buddy? There’s **no way** to read “too much” into a Biblical passage. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Minor nit #23: I thought there was something in the Holiness Code in Leviticus about handling the hide of a pig making one unclean/being an abomination. No, you’re confusing it with one of three things: a) There’s an uncleanliness (not a prohibition…just don’t handle holy stuff) invloved with carrying the flesh of an improperly-killed kosher animal. b) There’s an uncleanliness involved in touching the flesh of eight creeping creatures. Don’t recall the full list offhand (the Hebrew names include “Chomet” and “Tinshamet”; I think the usual translations of some of them are mice, chameleons, moles and some others), but pig (“Chazeer” in Hebrew) is definitely not one of them. c) There’s a verse in Deuteronomy that says “Do not eat any abominable creature (presumably including abominable smowman),” and then the succeeding verses proceed to recount the laws of kosher again. But that’s eat, not touch. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/85 "2000-03-01T17:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > > Run for your lives! A mighty slam’s a comin’! Er, um, what’d I say? I was just quoting someone else. He has a point - we’re all just dealing with interps, and everybody interps a different way. I don’t have a problem with that… But I’ll run. Just in case. 😃 Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/86 "2000-03-01T17:05:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by cmkeller: > > Also, the kind of friendship described could also relate to the kind of camaraderie amongst soldiers in a battalion, which, with the exception of the ancient Spartans, seldom involves homosexuality. Um, I wouldn’t say seldom, but it’s certainly not the norm, either. Just ask dem Navy boys (like the ones I’ve dated 🙂 )! > [@](#): > > David’s and Jonathan’s love for one another was such that they’d be willing to risk or sacrifice their lives for one another’s sake, something neither expressed a willingness to do about any woman. Considering the times, don’t you find that a mite unusual? Once again, I think it’s open to interpretation. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/87 "2000-03-01T17:06:00Z")
Esprix! Wait! Here, take your Greek Torah with you! ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/88 "2000-03-01T17:07:00Z")
Poly, thank you. I am aware of the other translation, and point it out to people who quote Exodus at me. However, Adam does seem to be of the bend to insist that the particular translation of the Bible he reads is the only correct version, and therefore, the word “witch” stands as written. Under those circumstances, I’m trying to pin him down and either: A) Admit that the KJ version of the Bible is not the end all and be all of the holy scriptures, and he’s not bound to kill me because I’m not a poisoner (inveterate baker of chocolate chip cookies and fudge, yes; poisoner, no.) OR B) Come to terms with the fact that he is picking and choosing which decrees of the Bible he wants to follow, and in doing so, admit that maybe his argument against homosexuality isn’t as strong as he likes to think it is. Just between you, me, and the rest of the board, I expect he’ll keep dodging the question. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/89 "2000-03-01T17:07:00Z")
Polycarp, Lib: Please. Even I wouldn’t deliver a cheap (you know us Jews :)) shot like that… Esprix: > [@](#): > > “Mom? Dad? Meet my very close friend… er, roommate… um, travelling companion! Yeah, that’s it!” “Mom? Dad? I’m back from Vietnam…Meet my best buddy in the whole wide world…he risked his life to warn me of Charlie approaching from the side and saved my life…I’d do anything for him.” > [@](#): > > Did it ever occur to you that Samuel, or whoever wrote/transcribed that chapter, might have been sympathetic to their love and therefore played down the fact that it was same-sex love so it would actually be palatable? Sorry, but no. Samuel demonstrated throughout the book of Samuel that his allegiance was to enforcement of G-d’s laws, not to saving the behind of any human individual. As pointed out earlier, David gets hit with a number of exhortations later on (although those chapters were, I’ll admit, not written by Samuel). But it’s all part of the same book. If the compiler was motivated by an affection for some human being, either David, Jonathan, or Samuel (i.e., a student seeking to hide the fact that his teacher was not perfect in enforcing G-d’s word), you’d expect consistency in that regard. And that consistency exists if you don’t insert your 20th-century American ideas into text that says nothing about sex. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/90 "2000-03-01T17:13:00Z")
Wow, Chaim, you can _reductio ad absurdam_ with the best of them! Thanks for the response. My impression was that large portions of Leviticus, including the sexual passages in question and an assortment of “sinfuls,” “uncleannesses,” and “abominations,” (thanks for the distinction) were directly related to things the Canaanites (and other resident -ites) were practicing that Israel, to remain holy, was to refrain from. I was understanding it in that context. Would you be willing to discourse on what prohibitions are included on those grounds and what are otherwise? Needless to say, I have nothing like your grounding in Torah. Yeah, I completely understand the Army-buddy interpretation, but c’mon…“And they kissed and embraced each other, until David exceeded.” Sounds pretty soft-core porn to me! 🙂 Phouka…You’re saying there’s a connection between chocolate chip cookies and homosexuality? Well, that explains a **lot** about my old college roommate! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/91 "2000-03-01T17:15:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > > Esprix! Wait! Here, take your Greek Torah with you! D’oh! My bad. But you know what I mean… Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/92 "2000-03-01T17:22:00Z")
cmkeller, your points about Samuel are well-taken, but my point is, and I still maintain that we are talking about interpretations over hundreds of years. If we can accept that slavery is wrong and women are not property, then we can accept the Bible might be wrong about other things. > [@](#): > > “Mom? Dad? I’m back from Vietnam… Meet my best buddy in the whole wide world… he risked his life to warn me of Charlie approaching from the side and saved my life… I’d do anything for him.” I think the story of Jonathan & David goes beyond that, and for as many historians and biblical experts you can come up with that say it doesn’t, I can come up with just as many that say it does. Stalemate. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2000, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/93 "2000-03-02T06:06:00Z")
Polycarp: > [@](#): > > Wow, Chaim, you can _reductio ad absurdam_ with the best of them! Rats! And OpalCat didn’t include a "Best _reductio ad absurdam_ category in her awards! Cheated out of another one… 🙂 > [@](#): > > My impression was that large portions of Leviticus, including the sexual passages in question and an assortment of “sinfuls,” “uncleannesses,” and “abominations,” (thanks for the distinction) were directly related to things the Canaanites (and other resident -ites) were practicing that Israel, to remain holy, was to refrain from. I was understanding it in that context. Would you be willing to discourse on what prohibitions are included on those grounds and what are otherwise? Needless to say, I have nothing like your grounding in Torah. Well, the verses you’re thinking of, from the end of Leviticus 18 (amongst others), say that those acts are acts the holy land can’t abide…not _because_ of their association with the Canaanites, but that the Canaanites are being expelled _as a result_ of these practices, which are abominable (according to the Torah) of their own right. There is a prohibition which says “Do not follow in the ways of those nations.” There are a number of practices that the Rabbis include under this umbrella. I’ll try to find the exact verse, and what prohibitions are included. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I completely understand the Army-buddy interpretation, but c’mon…“And they kissed and embraced each other, until David exceeded.” Sounds pretty soft-core porn to me! Did you feel the same way when watching Mafiosos kiss one another in the Godfather? Granted, this is a bit more emotional than that. Esprix: > [@](#): > > If we can accept that slavery is wrong and women are not property, then we can accept the Bible might be wrong about other things. Regarding slavery, the Torah does not at any point consider slavery to be a desired situation. It considers it a necessary evil, for war captives (in which the alternative, of course, would be slaughter), or for thieves unable to repay their debts. Regarding women as property: the Torah does not accept that view. It is a misrepresentation of the Jewish view of marriage, perpetrated by the acts (or possibly the scriptures…I’ll leave it to our resident Christian scolars to answer that) of Christians who have incorporated the Jewish Bible with their own. > [@](#): > > and for as many historians and biblical experts you can come up with that say it doesn’t, I can come up with just as many that say it does. Really? Thirty years of gay-rights advocacy, which is hardly rampant in seminaries, has produced an equal number of Biblical experts and historians for this interpretation as thousands of years of religious scholarship? My, the Internet’s an amazing thing. You may be able to interpret the text that way, but when it comes down to it, the text says nothing about sexual relations. Considering that the experts who insist on using this interpretation are usually amongst those who are extremely willing to throw out the rest of the Bible as old-fashioned and irrelevant to modern times (something you implied in the first statement of yours I’ve quoted in this message), I think I’ll stick with the experts who are concerned with interpreting the entire Bible, and not just the verses that could questionably be used support their political agendas and/or personal preferences. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2000, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/94 "2000-03-02T06:18:00Z")
Poly, Thanks for noticing that! I don’t have lots of time in the library when I post, and that got through without my thinking about it. What I Really meant was, any Godly writings since the Bible was written won’t have God changing His mind all of a sudden about sins. I have a BoM, thank you. But, here, I’m not being political about this. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I’m not out voting against it. In fact, the Domestic Partners thing was defeated here in my suburb, and only the officials voted on it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2000, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/95 "2000-03-02T06:22:00Z")
> [@](#): > > You may be able to interpret the text that way, but when it comes down to it, the text says nothing about sexual relations. Hmmm. A bit Clintonesque there, Chaim. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/96 "2000-03-01T20:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by cmkeller: > > “And they kissed and embraced each other, until David exceeded.” > > Did you feel the same way when watching Mafiosos kiss one another in the Godfather? Granted, this is a bit more emotional than that. I’d say - I didn’t see anyone “exceeding” with Marlon Brando. > [@](#): > > Regarding slavery, the Torah does not at any point consider slavery to be a desired situation. It considers it a necessary evil, for war captives (in which the alternative, of course, would be slaughter), or for thieves unable to repay their debts. From Walter Wink, a New Testament scholar at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City: > [@](#): > > The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemn it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys or breeding machines by their male owners, which Lev. 19:20f., 2 Sam. 5:13 and Num. 31:18 permitted–and as many American slave owners did some 130 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification. > [@](#): > > Regarding women as property: the Torah does not accept that view. It is a misrepresentation of the Jewish view of marriage, perpetrated by the acts (or possibly the scriptures…I’ll leave it to our resident Christian scolars to answer that) of Christians who have incorporated the Jewish Bible with their own. Also from Walter Wink: > [@](#): > > Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males’ property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9)… > [@](#): > > Thirty years of gay-rights advocacy, which is hardly rampant in seminaries, has produced an equal number of Biblical experts and historians for this interpretation as thousands of years of religious scholarship? My, the Internet’s an amazing thing. Biblical scholars can’t be gay or gay-positive? {sniff sniff} Anybody else here smell Rousseau? > [@](#): > > Considering that the experts who insist on using this interpretation are usually amongst those who are extremely willing to throw out the rest of the Bible as old-fashioned and irrelevant to modern times (something you implied in the first statement of yours I’ve quoted in this message), I think I’ll stick with the experts who are concerned with interpreting the entire Bible, and not just the verses that could questionably be used support their political agendas and/or personal preferences. How sad that your faith is so fearful of interpretations that differ from your own. For the record, I do not consider the Bible irrelevant to modern times; in fact, I find it to be quite useful, more to some than others. And, also for the record, I do not dispute that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin; my problem is with the harsh and often extreme reaction to those statements, particulary when it comes to civil rights. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Tinker\_Grey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tinker_grey/32/8136_2.png) [@Tinker\_Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tinker_Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/97 "2000-03-01T20:24:00Z")
WRT “David Exceede”. FTR: > [@](#): > > I Sam. 20:41 \*\*(NIV)\*\*After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side [of the stone] and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together–but David wept the most > [@](#): > > I Sam. 20:41 \*\*(NASB)\*\*When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and \*bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but \*David wept the more. > [@](#): > > I Sam. 20:41 \*\*(RSV)\*\*And as soon as the lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David recovered himself. > [@](#): > > I Sam. 20:41 \*\*(YLT)\*\*The youth hath gone, and David hath risen from Ezel, at the south, and falleth on his face to the earth, and boweth himself three times, and they kiss one another, and they weep one with another, till David exerted himself; The only versions that use “exceeded” are KJV and something called Darby. Tinker ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/98 "2000-03-01T20:49:00Z")
Dagnabbit, Tinker! You did some great research there, but totally ruined my point. I could just visualize Jonathan saying, “Darn it, David. You’ve gone and exceeded all over my best loincloth, and the stains will never come out!” 😃 More seriously, there are several points that need to be brought back up: [list][_]Sexual activity is a very small part of what makes a love relationship work. Same-sex couples are doing a lot of things together besides having sex. And I could easily conceive of two people who were total Kinsey-6 gays but had Flinx’s standard of morality establishing a chaste household.[_]We’ve several times touched on the question of laws regulating sexual behavior. Two questions ensue: What secular public ethic are we founding our laws on? Is it proper for some members of that society with a cognate religious ethic to influence the secular held-in-common ethic with their religiously-based ethic?[\*]There is, despite the ridicule I received last time I asserted this, a clear and present danger to American freedom in the religious right. The book I cited above by Mel White gives some strong arguments for this assertion. The group to which he refers, which influences several of the religious right people with whom he worked, has a website [here](http://www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html). I encourage you to look that over and comment on it here, Lib. and Adam in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/99 "2000-03-01T21:21:00Z")
My favorite part of the website is on the homepage. One of the article headers is “New! Chalcedon Opposes Racism”. ROFL! Bunch of scary bastards; if they can do half of what they claim they will, I’ll be forced to carry a cross and listen to Bible readings every day. How much political power do they really have, Poly? I haven’t heard of them before. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877/100 "2000-03-01T21:30:00Z")
I dunno for sure, Gaudere, but according to White they are strong influences on Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the Family Research Council (Gary Bauer). And hence, to the extent that they influence them, and they in turn influence Dubya… You draw the picture. ☹ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-homosexuality/17877.md?page=6)