No, it is completely legal. That law was found unconstitutional:
EDIT: I realized I forgot a new law, but my guess is that's just as illegal, unless maybe it gets in under banning fraud.
United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal From Florist Who Refused Service Over Same-Sex Wedding
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
EDIT: I realized I forgot a new law, but my guess is that's just as illegal, unless maybe it gets in under banning fraud.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Lol, I know I already made this point, but I think it's funny that I can literally say I'm done with the very thread where you said this, as it's gotten too difficult to respond to the 4 people who are already arguing with me, and 3 more will still jump in after that! (Though at least one sort of apologised.)
I'm sure there's no conspiracy or even ill intent behind it, but at the very least there's not a whole lot of consideration to it.
It counts as banning fraud.
You also failed to notice the Surpreme court did nothing but consider it unconstitutional.
You can not fake having a purple heart to gain monetary compensation for example.
There is a difference between being brigaded and having a group of people disagreeing and arguing your points due to their values/views being shared against your own. While I admit the former can and has happened, the latter is more common as the standard in contrary to sites like SB and SV.
We try to be civil and to show respect people whose views differ from the average member here (Centre, Centre-Right, Right). You wouldn't get that on SB or SV, as they've shown repeatedly they'll throw such values to the wind because of "Evil Righty".
That's different. A ban on lying in order to fraudulently obtaining benefits or money is not the same thing as banning the act of lying in and of itself.
Some may argue that is against free speech
I doubt anyone wotld make such a claim, there's a long, long history of legal and moral theory backing up the central claim that fraudulent behavior is not acceptable.
Yea... Those aren't the official church accepted translations...
In fact, that's not a translation anybody should be using given it tries to add modern contextual words like "homosexuality" to things that didn't actually have that context.
LindyAF
Well-known member
They don't use the word "homosexuality" but almost every bible translates it similarly, as they have for all of Christian history. I'm pretty sure any other translations (if they even exist, I haven't seen them) were arrived at in the last decade. What the fuck are you on about?
The very concept of "homosexuality" is a new development in Western Society. The passages you cite don't use a term that would translate to the idea of "homosexuality" (which is, functionally: "the condition of being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex"). The Levitical Law didn't generally care about the underlying condition, but rather the acts themselves, more accurate translations usually translate those commands with language such as "lay with a man as one does with a woman" or, in modern vernacular "A man shalt not fuck another dude."
Note, this means it does not care about your attraction, those verses (and most sections of the Bible concerned with Sexual Morality) care about and criminalize the action. This makes sense, of course, legal systems almost never punish the desire to commit crime or the temptation to commit crime, they criminalize the ACT of committing the crime.
This also meshes into a proper understanding of Sin: Temptation vs Action. "Being homosexual", in a proper theological understanding is a state of Temptation similar to, say, "Having a short temper" or "really appreciating good food". Having temptation towards homosexual behavior is no worse or special a condition than any other form of temptation, it is acting upon it that is the sinful behavior, not the mere condition of being tempted... which is in some ways what the NLT is implying there...
There is no such thing as a singular, church accepted translation.
That's a debatable point, the core goal of the NLT was to translate the Bible into a format that is easily understood by common people, to convey the contemporary meaning of a passage and not the literal text. It's not saying anything that is substantively different than other translations.
I'd argue that "practice homosexuality" is a bit more than implication, it's pretty clearly addressing the action and not the temptation.
LindyAF
Well-known member
Both passages cited in the NLT say "practice homosexuality" they specify practice. This is an absurd and bullshit nitpick about an issue with the translation based on your specific interpretation of one term, that isn't supported and is in fact actually contradicted by every other word of the translation.
Additionally, the dispute is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and argument being made, as well as every involved court case.
Wrong...
The singular church accepted translation is the translation created and published by the church itself.
Actually it is...
In fact, the whole passage's true meaning is highly contested among biblical scholars. Though the current leading theory is that it was a condemnation on male on male incest.
LindyAF
Well-known member
Since we're discussing court cases relevant to free exercise of religion, actually, all translations are relevant.
But, New Jerusalem Version: "You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing."
lol, wonder what you'll start "believing" it means if that moral becomes unpopular with the media as well.
Last edited:
No, it would be the New American Bible, Revised Edition.
Which translates it as "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
Yea... Just gonna say this now... You don't wanna go down this street...
That is factually wrong, per the USCCB there's a number of approved translations available, none of which appear to be published by the church itself.
Approved Translations of the Bible | USCCB
That sounds implausible, given incest is prohibited elsewhere in leviticus and on a brief Google, I can find no reference to thst theory existing,etting along being so prominent and accepted it could be described as a leading theory amoung theologians.
Nova Vulgata, I believe.
That said, the precise translation is not really relevant. Even if someone's beliefs stem from a flawed understanding of thier faith, the state has no power to enforce religious orthodoxy. The issue is if people can be compelled to act contrary to thier beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are and why they hold them.
Did you even read the link? The one that explained that authority to select and approve translations for use within a diocese was vested in lower parts of the Church hierarchy by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a code that was composed by and published by the vactican?
That doesn't match your claim, and claims the prohibition is related to homosexual adultery, a reading that's patently nonsensical give the full context of the passage and the preexisting general prohibition on adultery.
King Arts
Well-known member
Yeah no we won't even entertain that concept of homosexuality. The way you describe it was the start of the slippery slope all the way back before the stonewall riots that led to where we are now. Defining homosexuality as "attraction" to same gender. No we refer to acts, those who engage in homosexual acts are those who are homosexual. Just like those who kill others unjustly are murderers. Your desires or intentions are not relevant. Those are only between you and God, and those were never punished or legislated against because you can't read mind. No it was only deeds, and words that are punished.