• 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

davidtaylorjr said:
You do realize you are using different contexts of the word to mean the same thing right?
Click to expand...

That was actually my point. English doesn't have different words, so we're stuck trying to infer from English. It would mean something different in Hebrew.

You can infer what you like from the appearance of the word "abomination," but that's your inference.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Didn't say you had an issue with it, what I am saying is the arguments are very much the same.
Click to expand...

Well, for the majority of them they're not...and I'd be curious to know if you agree with those arguments in the few times they would be equivilent
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You do realize the word homosexuality didn't exist then right? However, it does say that the acts of homosexuals are an abomination.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed, people don't have sex at weddings. We're not talking about legalizing gay sex here. Why do you keep focusing on the sex? For someone so morally repulsed by gay sex, you sure talk about it a lot.

Ask any married man: marriage and sex aren't the same thing.
 
Deuce said:
In case you haven't noticed, people don't have sex at weddings. We're not talking about legalizing gay sex here. Why do you keep focusing on the sex? For someone so morally repulsed by gay sex, you sure talk about it a lot.

Ask any married man: marriage and sex aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

Never claimed they were.
 
This law sounds good to me!
 
mak2 said:
Do you not think gay people can be Christian?
Click to expand...

No, they cannot. That is unless they repent of their perverted lifestyle.
 
Lakryte said:
Homosexuality is not listed as a sin in the bible. Jesus did love the downcast and persecuted. He'd more likely march in a Pride parade than protest gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Talk about garbage in, garbage out! Homosexuality is definitely listed as a sin, just read Romans chapter one.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is it OK to be gay so long as you remain closeted and celibate?
or are gays condemned regardless of what they do with their sexual orientation?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are condemned by God, and they should be condemned by man.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Good luck for the outrage that is coming after you shortly. But I agree with you!
Click to expand...

I don't worry about what a bunch of fools and perverts say at some website.

Maybe the state of Texas should put a bounty on them, but that raises the question of what the bag limit would be. :lamo
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You do realize the word homosexuality didn't exist then right? However, it does say that the acts of homosexuals are an abomination.
Click to expand...
Then I'm right. Like I said, the bible never says homosexuality is an abomination.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Care to enlighten us?
Click to expand...

Two words are used in the passage that you refer to as Leviticus 20:13 "ish" and "zachar". "If an ish (adult man) also lie with zachar (young male), as he lieth with an isha (adult woman). . . they shall surely be put to death"

The best interpretation seems to indicate a condemnation of an adult male having sex with a male too young to be considered an adult. If the two males were both adults the word "ish" would have been a more appropriate choice than "zachar"
 
Somerville said:
Two words are used in the passage that you refer to as Leviticus 20:13 "ish" and "zachar". "If an ish (adult man) also lie with zachar (young male), as he lieth with an isha (adult woman). . . they shall surely be put to death"

The best interpretation seems to indicate a condemnation of an adult male having sex with a male too young to be considered an adult. If the two males were both adults the word "ish" would have been a more appropriate choice than "zachar"
Click to expand...

Then we can look to Corinthians and Galatians, and Romans, all condemn homosexuality
 
Texmex said:
Talk about garbage in, garbage out! Homosexuality is definitely listed as a sin, just read Romans chapter one.
Click to expand...
I did. It does not list homosexuality as a sin. Care to elaborate on why you wrongly think it does?
 
Lakryte said:
I did. It does not list homosexuality as a sin. Care to elaborate on why you wrongly think it does?
Click to expand...

Being heterosexual is a sin too. If you spin and twist scripture enough...you can make it work. Well, not your personally...other folks who like to do that.
 
Any façade that Christians don't want Big Brother to take a hand in enforcing their "religious" proclivities just flew out the window with this law. Where are the socalled moderate Christians ? Holed up with the socalled moderate Muslims ?.........................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom