• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

Then we can look to Corinthians and Galatians, and Romans, all condemn homosexuality
That you are changing the subject to different passages must mean you agree with his correct interpretation of that Leviticus passage. Quote what you want from Corinthians, Galatians, and the Romans. They will just as easily be torn apart.

A question for you: You seem so bent on defending any passage that might suggest homosexuality is sinful. What about all the other passages saying things like slavery are sinful?

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT said:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Do you agree with the Bible that slavery is morally acceptable? If not, then how dare you call yourself a Christian (your own argument, essentially).
 
I said the word homosexuality, and that is because the word did not exist.
Right, and again that passage doesn't reference the concept of homosexuality that the word describes. Again, care to elaborate on why you wrongly think it does?
 
Homosexuality:
That is not the definition of homosexuality being talked about here. Homosexuality also means an attraction towards the same sex, regardless of behavior. Just as the word "mouse" can refer to an animal, a device used in conjunction with a computer, or a timid person, "homosexuality" can mean more than one thing. And generally when people refer to homosexuality without referencing sexual acts, they are referring to the attraction. In other words, you are equivocating.

Furthermore, do you agree with Leviticus 25:44-46 that slavery is acceptable? (That wasn't a rhetorical question)

What about Leviticus 20: 9, which states that disobedience to parents should be punished by death?
 
Last edited:
Which words in Romans chapter one are you talking about?

KJV Romans 1 "26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
"

In these two passages, Paul (or whoever wrote this epistle) used the word arsenokoites. A word that hasn't been found in any earlier Greek texts, it appears to have been formed by merging two words, arsen - male and koites - bed. There were other Greek words used at the time with meanings closer to what we call homosexual or gay. The question asked by scholars: Why did the writer make up a new word when others existed?

In context, from what is known about cultic practices in the Greco-Roman culture of the 1st century, it is likely that Paul was condemning either temple prostitution or the forced sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners or pederasty.

The other word found in Romans and in Corinthians is malakos which has a basic meaning of "soft" or "dainty" but was also used in other Greek texts to mean effeminate or weak men, not necessarily gay.
 
That is not the definition of homosexuality being talked about here. Homosexuality also means an attraction towards the same sex, regardless of behavior. Just as the word "mouse" can refer to an animal, a device used in conjunction with a computer, or a timid person, "homosexuality" can mean more than one thing. And generally when people refer to homosexuality without referencing sexual acts, they are referring to the attraction. In other words, you are equivocating.

Furthermore, do you agree with Leviticus 25:44-46 that slavery is acceptable? (That wasn't a rhetorical question)

Did Leviticus say that slavery is acceptable? Or did it say it was acceptable in that instance for a purpose? The Bible is clear in old and new testaments that homosexuality is always wrong, and in fact, homosexuals who do not repent of their sin will not enter into Heaven.
 
"The Bible" comes in many flavors. I have read with my own two beady little eyes that "a man shall not lie with another man".

So what? Who cares what the bible says? We do all sorts of stuff that is forbidden in one bible or another. Look at all those "graven images" we have all over the place. Not to mention adulteres.

These bibles were written by humans. An amazing amount of the biblical strictures are astonishingly brilliant considering their era. Those who choose their particular bible should honor it as much as they are comfortable with.

Legislating this is kind of silly for many reasons. So, I'll guess it's just attention-whoring and not religious belief that motivates it. The State instructing the Clergyman is just illogical.

Things change. It's called evolution. You can't legislate who loves who and you can't make them be of lower status because of it. Just as civil rights had their long hard struggle, so have gay rights. W've been very slow in embracing this and you'll still see these types of desperate measures for a while longer. 50 years from now, "civil union" will be a term as arcane as white and colored restrooms.

The world won't end.
 
All who posted comments regarding the source found in the OP and then denigrated said source as not being trustworthy because John Aravosis, the blog proprietor, is gay and favours gay marriage - you really should take the time to click on the link he provided. Here it is Indiana Code 31-11-11

See that - it is the Indiana state government official website providing the public with the text of the state legal code

IC 31-11-11-7
Solemnization of marriage between persons prohibited from marrying
Sec. 7. A person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage of individuals who are prohibited from marrying by IC 31-11-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.
Solemnize
1. to go through or observe with ceremony or formality.
2. to perform the ceremony of (marriage).
3. to render solemn; dignify.

IC 35-50-3-3
Class B misdemeanor
Sec. 3. A person who commits a Class B misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one hundred eighty (180) days; in addition, he may be fined not more than one thousand
 
Did Leviticus say that slavery is acceptable? Or did it say it was acceptable in that instance for a purpose? The Bible is clear in old and new testaments that homosexuality is always wrong, and in fact, homosexuals who do not repent of their sin will not enter into Heaven.

Certainly seems to say "slavery is acceptable"

KJV Leviticus 25
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Apparently the god of the Jews was telling them that they SHALL HAVE slaves (bondsmen) and they SHALL be bondmen for ever.
 
Of course, there's no consensual homosexuality in prison as all straight people automatically become celibate pseudo warrior monks under those circumstances. And I own a tree that every fall drops dollars and euros and only in the higher denominations.........................
 
Did Leviticus say that slavery is acceptable? Or did it say it was acceptable in that instance for a purpose? The Bible is clear in old and new testaments that homosexuality is always wrong, and in fact, homosexuals who do not repent of their sin will not enter into Heaven.
The passage seemed pretty clear to me. I even quoted it for you. In what instance is slavery morally acceptable? The Bible seems clear that slavery is ok, and that disobeying one's parents is punishable by death. Do you agree with that?

In fact, if you want to argue that homosexuality is so sinful, you must do so with the furvor of everything else in the bible that nobody follows. Here is a nice list for you.

1. The bible condemns men with long hair
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

2. The bible says those who disobey their parents should be punished by death
(quote already given)

3. The bible condemns divorce.

4. The bible condemns the disabled.
Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. Leviticus 21:16-23

5. The bible says women are worth more than men.
"The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]" Leviticus 27:1-4

6. Those who commit adultery are to be put to death.
“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”


Should we issue the death penalty for those who cheat? Should be outlaw divorce? Should be kill children who disobey their parents? Should we condemn men with long hair? Should we treat women as second-class citizens to men? Should we prohibit the disabled from participating in Christianity? If you take the few verses on homosexuality to mean it is so sinful and wrong, how can you answer no to any of these questions?

Picking and choosing bible verses to harm others in God's name is the true sin being committed here. The ultimate commandment is love.
 
The passage seemed pretty clear to me. I even quoted it for you. In what instance is slavery morally acceptable? The Bible seems clear that slavery is ok, and that disobeying one's parents is punishable by death. Do you agree with that?

In fact, if you want to argue that homosexuality is so sinful, you must do so with the furvor of everything else in the bible that nobody follows. Here is a nice list for you.

1. The bible condemns men with long hair
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

2. The bible says those who disobey their parents should be punished by death
(quote already given)

3. The bible condemns divorce.

4. The bible condemns the disabled.
Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. Leviticus 21:16-23

5. The bible says women are worth more than men.
"The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]" Leviticus 27:1-4

6. Those who commit adultery are to be put to death.
“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”


Should we issue the death penalty for those who cheat? Should be outlaw divorce? Should be kill children who disobey their parents? Should we condemn men with long hair? Should we treat women as second-class citizens to men? Should we prohibit the disabled from participating in Christianity? If you take the few verses on homosexuality to mean it is so sinful and wrong, how can you answer no to any of these questions?

Picking and choosing bible verses to harm others in God's name is the true sin being committed here. The ultimate commandment is love.


Actually the only one picking Bible verses is you. Read the New Testament.
 
All who posted comments regarding the source found in the OP and then denigrated said source as not being trustworthy because John Aravosis, the blog proprietor, is gay and favours gay marriage - you really should take the time to click on the link he provided. Here it is Indiana Code 31-11-11

See that - it is the Indiana state government official website providing the public with the text of the state legal code

The proper word for administering marriage vows to homosexual would be frivolize, not solemnize.

Actually, they can't marry first cousins or bigamist wannabes either. Seriously, though, if there's no marriage license, it's not a marriage that gets "solemnized" even if there is a ceremony that is a mock wedding.
 
KJV Romans 1 "26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
"

In these two passages, Paul (or whoever wrote this epistle) used the word arsenokoites. A word that hasn't been found in any earlier Greek texts, it appears to have been formed by merging two words, arsen - male and koites - bed. There were other Greek words used at the time with meanings closer to what we call homosexual or gay. The question asked by scholars: Why did the writer make up a new word when others existed?

In context, from what is known about cultic practices in the Greco-Roman culture of the 1st century, it is likely that Paul was condemning either temple prostitution or the forced sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners or pederasty.

The other word found in Romans and in Corinthians is malakos which has a basic meaning of "soft" or "dainty" but was also used in other Greek texts to mean effeminate or weak men, not necessarily gay.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:2,28

I don't see any mention of temple prostitutes here, but of men leaving the woman to have sex with other men. You, I and everyone else with a brain know what this is talking about.

If you, or anyone else, is determined to engage in this type of behavior, don't try to justify it with the Word of God. Just reject what God says and have your fun. God with recompense you, or them for their deviant behavior when the time is right.
 
The proper word for administering marriage vows to homosexual would be frivolize, not solemnize.

Actually, they can't marry first cousins or bigamist wannabes either. Seriously, though, if there's no marriage license, it's not a marriage that gets "solemnized" even if there is a ceremony that is a mock wedding.

Wrong on many levels here.

First, first cousins in Indiana can actually legally marry as long as they are both at least 65 years of age.

State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

Second, as long as there is no marriage license being signed, the church/any clergyman can perform any ceremony they so choose as long as they are not harming anyone/violating some sort of rights in so doing. This includes performing ceremonies for first cousins, siblings, bigamists, and many others. Laws are supposed to kick in with regards to marriage only when there is a legal marriage license involved, not for the ceremony itself. If any clergy were ever in trouble for performing a ceremony (not including signing any license) for any couple/group that cannot legally marry, they should sue on a violation of religious freedom because that ceremony by itself has nothing to do with legal marriage. (The only exceptions could be forced marriage where the clergy knows that one of the people is not there of their own free will and marriage of an adult to a child.)
 
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:2,28

I don't see any mention of temple prostitutes here, but of men leaving the woman to have sex with other men. You, I and everyone else with a brain know what this is talking about.

If you, or anyone else, is determined to engage in this type of behavior, don't try to justify it with the Word of God. Just reject what God says and have your fun. God with recompense you, or them for their deviant behavior when the time is right.

It doesn't matter what you believe the Bible says nor even what the Bible may actually say. It is freedom of religion, including dismissing any part of any religious practice/belief a person/group does not want to follow or doesn't believe in.

Let me repeat: FREEDOM OF RELIGION!! It means the government doesn't get to dictate to any religion or denomination of any religion what their beliefs should be, and neither do you.
 
Actually the only one picking Bible verses is you. Read the New Testament.
Arguing homosexuality is a sin based on a passage in Leviticus and then ignore all the other passages in the Leviticus by saying "read the New Testament" is an example of the exact kind of hypocrisy I am talking about. You just proved me right.
 
Last edited:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:2,28

I don't see any mention of temple prostitutes here, but of men leaving the woman to have sex with other men. You, I and everyone else with a brain know what this is talking about.

If you, or anyone else, is determined to engage in this type of behavior, don't try to justify it with the Word of God. Just reject what God says and have your fun. God with recompense you, or them for their deviant behavior when the time is right.
You have to know the Greek (the original writing) to know the actual meaning of the words. Which is why Somerville explained to you the Greek...quoting the English is basically ignoring his entire post. Ignoring his post is not an argument.
 
It doesn't matter what you believe the Bible says nor even what the Bible may actually say. It is freedom of religion, including dismissing any part of any religious practice/belief a person/group does not want to follow or doesn't believe in.

Let me repeat: FREEDOM OF RELIGION!! It means the government doesn't get to dictate to any religion or denomination of any religion what their beliefs should be, and neither do you.

Murdering babies goes beyond freedom of religion.
 
You have to know the Greek (the original writing) to know the actual meaning of the words. Which is why Somerville explained to you the Greek...quoting the English is basically ignoring his entire post. Ignoring his post is not an argument.

Only a reprobate would agree with Somerville's posting.
 
Only a reprobate would think ad hominem is an argument :)

You can back the pro-murder crowd if you want, I will fight against them at every turn and in every way possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom