Jindal- If SCOTUS strikes down Gay Marriage bans, amend the Constitution-

And that madame is your opinion. How about that, we have differing opinions.

I simply know where the Bible discusses a man laying with another man like he would a woman. That is clear as day.

So, one can either choose gay sex or one can choose Christianity but, you can't have both.

Once you stop engaging in gay sex, ask for forgiveness, then all is good.

 

He converted after high school from Hinduism....."coincidentally" about the time he decided to get into Louisiana Republican politics.

- - - Updated - - -

But you believe lesbians don't have "gay sex", right? So they don't have to ask for forgiveness, huh?

 

what in the world are you talking about? Have you changed the definition that same sex/sex is not called gay sex?

 

Seems you did, sec....remember?


Originally Posted by sec
lesbians do engage in gay sex

 

thank you for posting what i wrote

no try and read it

you were trying to ask if i thought gay sex was just males

what was my reply? No need, you posted it

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

No, that's not what I asked...I didn't ask anything. You volunteered that you don't believe that lesbians engage in "gay sex".....or was that just being sarcastic?

To the point.....is what two lesbians engage in, "gay sex", in your opinion? Yes or No?

 

Except your opinion is based on shallow blinkered thinking based on a faulty interpretation.

Which bible would that be. I suspect that even if the one you use didn't say what you want you would just keep switching until you found one that did, and no it is not "clear as day", but there again I don't expect someone with the obvious shallow knowledge of the subject to be any different.

Obviously not as there a numerous Christians that accept homosexuality. BTW it is noticed that you are yet again erroneously equating the sexual act with what homosexuality is, but again no surprised given your limited knowledge.

Yeah right as if a homosexuals stops being a homosexual just because they may not engage in anal sex

 

Fugazi, I'm sending you a PM on that.

 

Got it and replied, nothing I hadn't figured out for myself .. but thank you.

 

I hate to defend him on this, but it is the act of homosexuality that is the sin. Being homosexual is not a sin.

so, should someone engage in a homosexual act and then later repent and ask for forgiveness they would be ok in his denomination of Christianity.

 

I don't think that's the point......if you are sexually attracted to the same gender, but are celibate...are you "not homosexual"?

By that theory, a woman who is attracted sexually to men and has had sex with men in the past...but is not currently having sex with a man....is "not heterosexual"....right?

 

Ah ok, I was looking a different point. Yes, being homosexual is based upon attraction, not act. I thought he was talking about being homosexual being a sin.

 

He conflates them....but obviously it's a ridiculous argument.

If you are sexually attracted to the opposite gender....but are celibate....or just "on a dry spell".....it doesn't mean that you are "not heterosexual".....THAT is sec's contentionl.

 

And that would definitely be an incorrect conclusion on his part.

 

and yet there are numerous bibles that do not state homosexuality is a sin, his position to me is one of convenience, it is convenient that the particular bible he uses wrongly depicts ALL homosexual acts as a sin, where as in reality when one actually researches the scripture that is supposed to say this it can be found that the translation says nothing of a sort, in fact some of those who did the translation had to add in words in order to make it say what they wanted it to say ie assumption bias.

To categorically state that any Christian who does not stand against homosexuality is not a Christian, is again assumption bias and assuming the premise, both of which are fallacies.

 

Oh I'm not saying his denomination is correct per se, only that his sect of Christianity believes that a homosexual act is a sin.

 

Is religion "natural" ? Should we be making a distinction between those who are born into a religion and embrace it their whole lives Vs. people who adopt a religion-an obvious choice? Should those who chose a religion have less rights than those who were born that way?

The fact is that the courts are not even entertaining the question of whether of not homosexuality is natural and those fighting equality know better than to even go there. They are who and what they are, and it is very much a federal issue.

 

not knowing what his particular sect is I could not say whether it believes homosexuality is a sin or not, for all I know he may have just cherry picked a particular interpretation that adheres to his assumption.

but fair comment overall.

 

It's a fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

 

That is a new one to me, will have to keep that one on hand for future use.

 

Beyond that, being a sin is not grounds for making a law.

Notice that only half10C is law. And, the ones that are (such as murder) are backed for obvious reasons that certainly don't require any religion.

Notice that zero of the Biblical "seven deadly sins" are law, and these are the sins we are directed to care about the most.

Also, if one looks through Leviticus one can find numerous laws for which the death penalty is prescribed - yet we don't even see them as sins. Our most thoughtful reaction is to wonder what could possibly have been their motivation.

 

Back in Leviticus days?

Tribal tradition, procreation, and so forth. It was written by extremely primitive people and it was probably necessary to them.

 

No, its not strange at all, really.

 

Indeed.

 

Can a legislatively passed constitutional amendment be deemed unconstitutional if challenged in court?