• 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

This is just wrong but i'm going to put this so both sides cant refute why is the state government putting restrictions on a religion a separation of church and state. Its in the bill of rights freedom of religion why does a state get to have any say what goes on in a church if it does not infringe on other rights .
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Actually it is called an abomination.
Click to expand...

You don't know what that word means then.

According to the Bible, eagles are an abomination:

13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Click to expand...
Leviticus 11:13-11:13 KJV - And these are they which ye shall have - Bible Gateway

According to Deuteronomy, remarriage after a divorce is an abomination Deuteronomy 24:2-24:4 NASB - and she leaves his house and goes and - Bible Gateway, yet the law permits that.

"Abomination" is a translation of a few different Hebrew words that have slightly different meanings, and none of them carry exactly the same meaning as the English word "abomination."
 
rocket88 said:
You don't know what that word means then.

According to the Bible, eagles are an abomination:

Leviticus 11:13-11:13 KJV - And these are they which ye shall have - Bible Gateway

According to Deuteronomy, remarriage after a divorce is an abomination Deuteronomy 24:2-24:4 NASB - and she leaves his house and goes and - Bible Gateway, yet the law permits that.

"Abomination" is a translation of a few different Hebrew words that have slightly different meanings, and none of them carry exactly the same meaning as the English word "abomination."
Click to expand...

Making up unique definitions of a word and expecting everyone else to just accept it as an abomination.
Telling people that the Bible can only be defined as you see fit, then taking out parts of it to prove an unprovable point is an abomination.

at least, according to my definition of abomination.
 
Leviticus 11:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Shellfish, many other amphibians aside from frogs, and aquatic reptiles are also abominations, don't forget.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Making up unique definitions of a word and expecting everyone else to just accept it as an abomination.
Telling people that the Bible can only be defined as you see fit, then taking out parts of it to prove an unprovable point is an abomination.

at least, according to my definition of abomination.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody's making up a definition. It's just one of those nuances that gets lost in translation and then misunderstood. By the definition of the English word "abomination" he's got a point. But the Bible wasn't written in English. Most of the English translations of the Bible are translated from Greek or Latin, which are themselves translations. When you've got a translation of a translation, things are going to get lost.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Actually it is called an abomination.
Click to expand...

Are you counting Old Testament now?

I mean far be it from me to tell people how to interpret their own holy books, but I was under the impression that some of the fundamental tenets of Christianity were that you should love everyone, and that judging other people isn't your place.
 
Last edited:
I think that is between them and God, so if they want to marry and a clergyperson will perform the ceremony, man's law should not be the stumbling block. God can handle it, He dont need the conservobots to here on earth. Why are atheist Republicans against gay marriage?
Dittohead not! said:
....so all Christians should support gay marriage in order to save the gays from sin.
Click to expand...
 
It does rain frogs.
blaxshep said:
It does say that there are unicorns, it rains frogs and some dead guy nailed to a stick 2000 years ago will come back to life and rule the world.
Click to expand...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No, but the clergy that this law prevents from performing gay weddings are members of a religion.
Click to expand...

Except that the legitimacy of the notion that it "prevents [them] from performing gay weddings" is in question. It's an assumption and a guess by a blog whose entire purpose is to promote gay rights and attack those that don't, so hardly a credible legal source. Considering the law's been on the books since the 90's and there hasn't been some kind of wide spread report of religious figures being rounded up and charged for conducting private ceremonies for gay people in that state, I'm going to guess that the interpritation that suggests it makes performing a private ceremony illegal is in error...

...but please, don't let any kind of reasoned thoguht get in the way of your fervor to bash Conservatives. Don't want to ruin your and Rocket's good time.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And if that same religion also allows for murder, should we turn a blind eye to that as well?
Click to expand...

Idiotic.

Murder is one individual infringing upon the rights of another. Your right to religious freedom doesn't trump my right to life.

Having a private homosexual marriage ceremony infrnges on no ones right. They have a right to religious freedom, you don't have a right not being offended
 
Zyphlin said:
Idiotic.

Murder is one individual infringing upon the rights of another. Your right to religious freedom doesn't trump my right to life.

Having a private homosexual marriage ceremony infrnges on no ones right. They have a right to religious freedom, you don't have a right not being offended
Click to expand...

He thinks homosexual marriage infringes on his rights. Don't ask me how it does that, I'm not clear on that part.
 
Lakryte said:
Nope. The bible never says homosexuality is an abomination.
Click to expand...

You do realize the word homosexuality didn't exist then right? However, it does say that the acts of homosexuals are an abomination.
 
rocket88 said:
You don't know what that word means then.

According to the Bible, eagles are an abomination:

Leviticus 11:13-11:13 KJV - And these are they which ye shall have - Bible Gateway

According to Deuteronomy, remarriage after a divorce is an abomination Deuteronomy 24:2-24:4 NASB - and she leaves his house and goes and - Bible Gateway, yet the law permits that.

"Abomination" is a translation of a few different Hebrew words that have slightly different meanings, and none of them carry exactly the same meaning as the English word "abomination."
Click to expand...

You do realize you are using different contexts of the word to mean the same thing right?
 
Deuce said:
Are you counting Old Testament now?

I mean far be it from me to tell people how to interpret their own holy books, but I was under the impression that some of the fundamental tenets of Christianity were that you should love everyone, and that judging other people isn't your place.
Click to expand...

That view is by people who generally either don't believe or follow the Bible, or, take that line out of context to ignore the rest and live lives the way they want to.
 
Zyphlin said:
Idiotic.

Murder is one individual infringing upon the rights of another. Your right to religious freedom doesn't trump my right to life.

Having a private homosexual marriage ceremony infrnges on no ones right. They have a right to religious freedom, you don't have a right not being offended
Click to expand...

Plug that same argument into Abortion, or free speech and you will see that it doesn't fly.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Plug that same argument into Abortion, or free speech and you will see that it doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

Abortion becomes a grey area, as there is no universally true method of which to determine when a fetus should be considered a child worthy of having it's rights protected and the fact that it becomes an issue of two potential instances of someone infringing upon the rights of another.

Free speech...again, the government can limit you in free speech at such point that your speech inpugnes the rights of others. IE, your right to speech doesn't preclude the state from allowing you to speak in such a way as to directly put other people into significant danger such as with the notion of "yelling fire in a crowded theater".
 
Zyphlin said:
Abortion becomes a grey area, as there is no universally true method of which to determine when a fetus should be considered a child worthy of having it's rights protected and the fact that it becomes an issue of two potential instances of someone infringing upon the rights of another.

Free speech...again, the government can limit you in free speech at such point that your speech inpugnes the rights of others. IE, your right to speech doesn't preclude the state from allowing you to speak in such a way as to directly put other people into significant danger such as with the notion of "yelling fire in a crowded theater".
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but the arguments of captive audience though. That is saying people have the right to not be offended.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Wow, that sounds almost too crazy to believe. Absolutely terrible if story is as described.
Click to expand...

We are talking about Indiana here. The bastion of right wing extremism. The land of the "Potatoe".
 
They have a long way to go to reach the lunacy level of either Florida or 'let's confiscate the tampons' Texas, however.
 
Sometimes I think I might be the most liberal guy in the state, and I am pretty conservative.
Top Cat said:
We are talking about Indiana here. The bastion of right wing extremism. The land of the "Potatoe".
Click to expand...
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Ah yes, but the arguments of captive audience though. That is saying people have the right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

No, the issue with regards to "captive audiences" is just that...the captive part. If an audience is forced in some fashion to listen to the speaker it then creates a situation where rights come into conflict. Without you giving some kind fo specific, it's hard to really see what you're getting at with that regard.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, the issue with regards to "captive audiences" is just that...the captive part. If an audience is forced in some fashion to listen to the speaker it then creates a situation where rights come into conflict. Without you giving some kind fo specific, it's hard to really see what you're getting at with that regard.
Click to expand...

For instance, uprisings over valedictorians speaking about their religion.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
For instance, uprisings over valedictorians speaking about their religion.
Click to expand...

First, you'll note I didn't have a huge issue with the Valedictorian initial desires to speak about his religion, so throwing that out there as some kind of counter to my point is kind of useless. Are you suggestion YOU had an issue with it?

Second, again...there is a difference in terms of the actual issue in such a case, which would be with actually reading scripture. This is a government funded event, and one where the audience (students) are captive in the sense that if they want to be handed their duly earned diploma they must attend, and actively preaching through the reading of scripture one religion is problematic both in the notion of a government ran event seemingly endorsing a particular religion AND infringing upon their religious freedoms by having to actively participate in the preaching of a religion individuals within the audience does not follow.

So still miserably failing in trying to justify the idiocy of comparing disallowing private churches to undergo voluntary private services and disallowing people from committing homicide.
 
Zyphlin said:
First, you'll note I didn't have a huge issue with the Valedictorian initial desires to speak about his religion, so throwing that out there as some kind of counter to my point is kind of useless. Are you suggestion YOU had an issue with it?

Second, again...there is a difference in terms of the actual issue in such a case, which would be with actually reading scripture. This is a government funded event, and one where the audience (students) are captive in the sense that if they want to be handed their duly earned diploma they must attend, and actively preaching through the reading of scripture one religion is problematic both in the notion of a government ran event seemingly endorsing a particular religion AND infringing upon their religious freedoms by having to actively participate in the preaching of a religion individuals within the audience does not follow.

So still miserably failing in trying to justify the idiocy of comparing disallowing private churches to undergo voluntary private services and disallowing people from committing homicide.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you had an issue with it, what I am saying is the arguments are very much the same.
 
Zyphlin said:
.. your right to speech doesn't preclude the state from allowing you to speak in such a way as to directly put other people into significant danger such as with the notion of "yelling fire in a crowded theater".
Click to expand...

Really? I was not aware that the 1st read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, unless it directly puts other people into significant danger such as with the notion of "yelling fire in a crowded theater", and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom