They explicitly state that "man lying with man as with a woman is an abomination".

The original language is more ambiguous; furthermore, the sentence has a context that you're ignoring.

You are doing verbal backflips, particularly given the clear plan of "man and woman cleaving together to form one flesh" in Genesis.

Well, perhaps I'm doing "verbal backflips" because it actually matters, given that your interpretation has been used to justify everything from discrimination to mass murder.

I always find it astonishing that anyone defending christianity is expected to have a scholarly attention to detail and sourcing, but anyone attacking it is allowed to simply make unsourced statements, and assume them to be true (what is known as begging the question).

I didn't think it necessary to provide a source for something that centuries of scholarship have established. You can find some of the discussion here. There is still disagreement about how exactly the document came to be, but that large parts of it cannot be of Mosaic origin and that it is composed of different source documents is beyond question.

To sum it up, because of His character as demonstrated in the Bible (as opposed to the popular strawmen that are constructed).

The Old Testament describes a paranoid, mass murdering, irrational tribal God. If you choose to worship such an entity, that's your business and says a lot about your character. Of course, the Old Testament is such a corrupted document that even if monotheism were true, it would have little to say about his character or intentions anyway.

What faith is that?

If you can't figure that out for yourself, there is no point in telling you, because you won't know what I'm talking about anyway. Go learn something about other religions and then you will probably recognize it.

Saying that your basis to call something morally wrong is your "moral reasoning" is circular logic.

Moral reasoning is part of moral philosophy and moral psychology; they have standard college courses on it. If you want to discuss questions of morality and ethics, at least learn a little bit about them!

These verses are anything but clear. They certainly do not forbid all homosexuality. They may forbid anal sex between men, ritualistic sex in non-Jewish temples, or simply tell guys not to have sex with another guy in their wife's bed (which is something probably even Oscar Wilde would agree with).

Furthermore, while Judaism claims that these verses are Mosaic, they clearly are a later invention. So, you have some vaguely specified act that is declared immoral by a piece of text that was fabricated by priests long after the divine revelation from which it originally was supposed to come. What kind of authority do you think such a passage has?

And then, of course, there's the even more basic question why you think that humans even have any moral obligation to submit to God's authority, if a God as described in the Bible actually existed.

Upon what do you base your claim that anything is morally wrong?

On two sources. One is my faith. The other is moral reasoning.

You are aware that improved public health, hygiene, quarantine, isolation, city planning, etc. are direct consecuence of suggestions supported by medical research, aren't you?

You're playing word games. The scientific results that successful public health policies have been based on have very little to do with, and cost almost nothing compared to, what is funded today as "medical research" today.

The "cuba libre" drink is said to be the result of US intervention in Cuban independence from Spain.

So? Cuba is communist today, no? I said "associated", not "historically linked to", didn't I?

It also makes you think of Coca Cola, that's a capitalist icon if there is one.

Yes, and probably also not a good association for an office suite.

Yes, Americans should think of something else. How do we fix that?

Easy: just fix the political systems in the Spanish speaking world. Some progress has been made, but there's a lot further to go.

There wouldn't be any "conflict of interest" if Oracle just gave up their own effort and joined LibreOffice on LibreOffice's terms. So, indeed, there is a "conflict of interest"--between Oracle's unstated proprietary interests and plans for an ostensibly open source office suite and the interests of the open source community. And the fact that they don't want the FOSS developers on their board anymore tells you that in no uncertain terms.

When Americans hear "Libre", they probably think of Cuba, rum, and communist revolutionaries. For some software, that may be good, but for a business office suite, I don't think those are good associations. They should think of something else.

It doesn't matter who did most of the work on OpenOffice--Sun employees or outside developers--without the open source, open format tie-in, the software would have been just another proprietary, slightly incompatible Microsoft Office clone, and it would have died long ago.

Because he's not really adding value, only a markup for selling in a different place.

That is adding value.

The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.

If the reason you don't sin is because you avoid all temptation, and/or because you desire reward or fear punishment in the afterlife, you have accomplished nothing. Christianity fails to be a moral religion because it preaches that kind of pseudo-morality.

While it is true that homosexuality is wrong, so also is lusting after a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married.

Homosexuality isn't morally wrong; Christianity is morally wrong.

It "works" in the sense of complying with specs. It doesn't "work" in the sense that it doesn't do something people want done.

Same place as the last half dozen times 3D was the next big thing in movies and entertainment: you can pick up a whole bunch of semi-worthless 3D gear for next to nothing.