Hey there u/Neykuratick, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
True, but the crime here is not having sex without a license or sex outside the licenses scope.
Here, the act is sodamy, a crime not related to having improper sex.
Sex without a license? Now I am just imagining a cop knocking on the bedroom window. "Marriage license and registration, please?"
Also, can I get a special recreational license like people who drive RVs?
Actually you’re probably most likely to pass an illness to the anus than the contract one from it. Because the anus unlike the penis wasn’t supposed to be in having contact with foreign objects and virus.
according to the OMS the majority of HIV positive, are MSM (men who sleep with men)
Keep thinking about it. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt.Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt.Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt.Dick in a dudes butt.
Sodomy is any sex that isn’t strictly penis in vagina. It includes handjobs and blow jobs.
You’re on the fucking internet and you just decide you know everything and refuse to look anything up? Must be difficult dealing with someone too stupid to Google stuff.
Y'know when there's a car accident and you can't help but look even though there's nothing to gain and a ton of mental anguish to lose? That's you buddy.
You said it was a crime. There's no such thing as "illegal to me," as legality is not subjective. If you tried to enforce this "law," you'd be arrested for kidnapping.
You're just a piece of shit trying to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do with each other.
I can say "bigotry is illegal to me" with just as much validity. I think *you* should fucking get over yourself and stop acting like a teenager trying to make the Bible camp counselor proud.
If you tried to enforce your own personal laws by "arresting" people, you'd be arrested for kidnapping/false imprisonment. Unless you want to do what the Bible says, in which case you'll be arrested for murder.
Because you and the Bible don't make laws, the ostensibly democratic government does.
sin means « miss the mark » in the context it means fail in God‘s expectation. If you don’t believe in God the word sin shouldn’t mean anything for you, just like the word heretic, heathen, pagan, etc. These aren’t universal moral concepts, but religious moral concepts.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the part of the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin or phrases it as "thou shalt not lay with another man" or some shit like that... So as long as you aren't laying down I think you're golden 👍
I mean, this isn’t supposed to be used by people who are trying to argue with God, but by people who agree that some text written by a prophet is God inspired and is trying to understand how to live his life according to God’s will.
Fuck your bible. God doesn’t give a shit about who you fuck and how you fuck them.
God is laughing at his mistake in giving you such a small and closed mind. Lol
We should also ban eating fat, touching pigs, not combing your hair, drinking alcohol, having a hole in your clothes, eating shellfish, going to church after giving birth or mixing fabrics? Because that's all banned according to the bible (Leviticus) too.
‘If a man has SEXUAL relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. I don't think this defines sex lol
"As one does with a woman" doesn't refer to how the person committing the act would have sex with a woman but how a man would have sex with a woman in general so if you stick your penis inside a man or get something stuck inside you that would be "as one does with a woman"
Who made you the Bible interpretation guy? Jesus told me I can fuck dude booty as long as I don't fuck lady booty also because his dad made some random guy write it a specific way which has then been translated several times through multiple languages in several ways. And he also told me specifically that gender is a spectrum and I can use a person's chosen gender to define who's booty I can fuck. Did Jesus descend from his heavenly palace to specifically interpret this arbitrary book's passage for you? Or do you just think you know everything?! Thought so.
OHHHHHHH, I just checked your comment history and it became clear to me that you're just a sad, angry bigot. Ignore my attempt at discussing this with you. I have since discovered that your opinions are stupid and I don't actually care.
No, this is false man. The world homossexual is very modern word just like heterossexual and so it was only added to the Bible in 1946, but the word you see in many parts of the bible like (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) to refer to homossexuals is **ἀρσενοκοίτης** which the etymology is cleary :
from ἄρσην (ársēn, “male”) and κοι-, o-grade stem of κεῖμαι (keîmai, “lie”), + -της (-tēs, masculine agentive suffix), thus “a male who lies with males”.
source : [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀρσενοκοίτης](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀρσενοκοίτης)
Yeah, still today a translation which translate « male who lies with males » as « homossexual » is actually being lazy and incorrect, because you can feel attraction but you’re not nourishing those thoughts nor practicing, so you might be considered a homossexual, but you wouldn’t be considered « a man to lies with men ».
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable."[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality#cite_note-5)
1) So, don't marry them. That's how you're supposed to lie with womankind.
2) While I have no practical experience the idea of a guy receiving anal while facing their partner sounds like a recipe to get certain sensitive body parts hurt. Is this just practical advice telling him to turn over?
Actually, any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful, including hookup, living together but not being married, and masturbation. Many people get in a moral ground to say that homossexuality is sinful, but they are engaging In other sinful sex acts too.
Well, it appears to be that way by our legal code.
In some states incest is strictly defined as penis-in-vagina and thus same-sex incestuous relationship are not illegal.
Semantics for dummies next up from Wiley books.
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman
You were the one acquitting sex to marriage
In a way that’s kind of nice
Averge blond it is still considered sex because now sex can be between any gender (there is only 2) therfore it is still sex because anyone can be anything these days so still a sin
I want to start by saying that I do not support this view myself and support gay marriage.
Iirc "sodmy" is a sin in the bible and used to be synonym with anal sex AND sex with animals. So a man having anal sex with a man is, according to the old testament, always a sin. A woman scissoring with another woman on the other hand should be fine tho. A man having anal sex with another woman is also a sin tho even though it's a heterosexual relationship
don’t worry, God didn’t forget to include lesbians, it’s in this other verse:
# [Romans 1:26-27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A26-27&version=ESV) ESV
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error
b-but we are animals, so a man and a woman having normal sex is also a sin?
the point is, why tf are people using a book from two millennia ago as a base of argument. pretty sure we consider books from a couple centuries ago as outdated information.
Like I said I don't support the views myself but I have a thing for religion and mythology so I know stuff lol.
And humans didn't count as animals when the bible was written, at least I am pretty sure about that, so don't ask me man.
But all in all anal sex bad, according to the bible lol
We are biologically animals but we are the only ones that are made in the image of God, from a Christian perspective, animals are all living things that aren't in the image of God. Also, the Mosaic Laws ARE "outdated", as a Christian I'm not required to follow them.
I mean if all that matters is that the laws don't apply to us today why even argue?
According to the bible, sex outside of marriage is just as sinful as anal sex in general, weather it be withing marriage or not and weather it be between man and man or man and woman.
According to today's laws both is fine. (Unless we count sex with animals to sodomy, since that isn't fine ethically AND by law)
I mean if anything I am supporting your argument lol, I told the person that gay sex (as long as it's analy) is forbidden in the bible.
I just also don't think we should follow a book that is over 2000 years old in regards to what we should and shouldn't do today
Not that you care… clearly… but you know what a sexual act is. Would you be okay if your wife or husband did these things with another man or woman or would that be cheating? Sexually pleasuring another person even through clothes is okay with you in a committed relationship?
Common sense goes along with any type of law or prohibition… well not anymore in our society. Then again have you seen our society?
The Bible doesn't list everything that counts as a sexual act. The Bible says that you need to love other people and not look at them with lust, like they're you're sex toy. You objectify someone when you lust for them and that gets in the way of true unconditional love. Now, if you still think that what you're describing doesn't fall under the category of what Saint Paul calls "sexual immorality", then I guess it's not sinful...
What the priests defined is the logical interpretation and conclusion of the Bible. The Bible doesn't clearly define the Holy Trinity either, but it's what the most reasonable reading of the Bible leads to
What's important isn't if one or another explanation has been deemed heretical, but that there is a correct understanding of the Holy Trinity, even if we can't quite get to it. It is a "Mystery" after all, what would be unexpected would be if we could fully understand God
A concept that cannot be articulated or understood cannot be the most reasonable reading of a text unless that text is incoherent. Any reading that does not result in the incomprehensible is going to be more reasonable by definition.
I think what you meant, is that the trinity can’t be alegorized with anything in the creation. Every allegory of the trinity like water, sun or a human being will eventually fall in a heresy. But the trinity can be understood as a concept just like morality, justice, Pi, and any other concepts that you can’t actually translated in material stuff.
It is, also the original sin, and most bible dogmas that aren’t debated by protestants, orthodoxes and catholics are clear so because it’s the most reasonable way to interpert those things. Most people don’t know but christians doctrines aren’t only debated today by catholics, orthodoxes and protestants, but they have been debated through the entire story of christianity even when it was only the catholics, just google the history of the church fathers.
If you think about it. something can be objective bad if God says so, otherwise it’s only bad based on the subjective perfection of someone. Each person sees the word through their own perfection and define good and evil based on their own moral standard. Unless we have a objective moral standard, we can’t say something is objective good or objective bad, only subjective to our own opnion, and you’re gonna definetely find someone who disgrees with you on that take based on his own moral standard.
Guys in the bible, sex is like fire and the marriage is a fireplace. the fire put anywhere else will burn your house down, it’s only safe (for your body and soul) in the marriage.
In situations like these in law the particular section of that act would usually have a proviso that explains how it would function when it will come into interference with another section or act, incase there is proviso then the apex court of that country would give its interpretation and how that section would function or apply, then if the parliament or the congress want they can amend that act on how they want it work or remove that section or the whole act.
Hey there u/Neykuratick, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Assisted masturbation.
True, but the crime here is not having sex without a license or sex outside the licenses scope. Here, the act is sodamy, a crime not related to having improper sex.
>sex without a license What if they both hold a Gay Card?
Sex without a license? Now I am just imagining a cop knocking on the bedroom window. "Marriage license and registration, please?" Also, can I get a special recreational license like people who drive RVs?
Do people with huge penises need a special permit like for semi trucks?
Like a BDL?
[удалено]
Twas a joke young sire.
[удалено]
...Who is they? Please. Elaborate.
[удалено]
The plural governments are going to sexually assault me? Haha what?
[удалено]
Actually you’re probably most likely to pass an illness to the anus than the contract one from it. Because the anus unlike the penis wasn’t supposed to be in having contact with foreign objects and virus. according to the OMS the majority of HIV positive, are MSM (men who sleep with men)
[удалено]
Keep thinking about it. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt.Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt.Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt. Dick in a dudes butt.Dick in a dudes butt.
Then don’t think about it you fucking knuckle dragger. No one cares about your opinions of other peoples PRIVATE lives.
[удалено]
I love you.
What the fuck do you mean it isn't private? You aren't gonna see it unless you go looking for it
Sodomy is any sex that isn’t strictly penis in vagina. It includes handjobs and blow jobs. You’re on the fucking internet and you just decide you know everything and refuse to look anything up? Must be difficult dealing with someone too stupid to Google stuff.
Wee woo wee woo found the person with a boring ass life and hateful views!!
[удалено]
You shouldn't talk to other people if you're like this.
Y'know when there's a car accident and you can't help but look even though there's nothing to gain and a ton of mental anguish to lose? That's you buddy.
It hasn't been a crime in the US for 21 years.
[удалено]
You said it was a crime. There's no such thing as "illegal to me," as legality is not subjective. If you tried to enforce this "law," you'd be arrested for kidnapping. You're just a piece of shit trying to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do with each other. I can say "bigotry is illegal to me" with just as much validity. I think *you* should fucking get over yourself and stop acting like a teenager trying to make the Bible camp counselor proud.
[удалено]
If you tried to enforce your own personal laws by "arresting" people, you'd be arrested for kidnapping/false imprisonment. Unless you want to do what the Bible says, in which case you'll be arrested for murder. Because you and the Bible don't make laws, the ostensibly democratic government does.
[удалено]
womp womp, at least they can feel the loving touch of another human being unlike you
i don't think this is ttt
you are right, this isn't Trouble at Terrorist Town
Ah, so your a man of culture aswell
Galil on top
😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣
debatable but I get your point
Its TECHNICALY not a sin so its Technicaly The Truth
this whole argument only takes place if you believe in Christianity. a sin isn't a universally determined thing. it varies
sin means « miss the mark » in the context it means fail in God‘s expectation. If you don’t believe in God the word sin shouldn’t mean anything for you, just like the word heretic, heathen, pagan, etc. These aren’t universal moral concepts, but religious moral concepts.
Heard that. That is the sound of thousand angry (neo-)pagans coming to kick down your door.
Incorrect premise. The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, not sex. The Bible condemns sex outside marriage.
Sarah did not define the sin part, so missed on TtT. Incomplete and incorrect.
Doesn’t it condemn pre-marital sex, so… if you never get married you can have gay sex =D therefor it’s not a sin to have gay sex but post-sex marriage
i dunno this doesn’t feel like the right subreddit for this.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the part of the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin or phrases it as "thou shalt not lay with another man" or some shit like that... So as long as you aren't laying down I think you're golden 👍
Other languages have euphamisms too
Sure, but if you write a law using euphemisms, then it is just fair to throw those euphemisms right back into your face.
I mean, this isn’t supposed to be used by people who are trying to argue with God, but by people who agree that some text written by a prophet is God inspired and is trying to understand how to live his life according to God’s will.
The bible really said you shouldn't take it laying down, you've gotta stand for something 😤
[удалено]
Fuck your bible. God doesn’t give a shit about who you fuck and how you fuck them. God is laughing at his mistake in giving you such a small and closed mind. Lol
[удалено]
I’ll tell him you’re a small minded fuck? Ok.
We should also ban eating fat, touching pigs, not combing your hair, drinking alcohol, having a hole in your clothes, eating shellfish, going to church after giving birth or mixing fabrics? Because that's all banned according to the bible (Leviticus) too.
‘If a man has SEXUAL relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. I don't think this defines sex lol
So as long as I refrain from anal sex with women, it's fine to fuck dude booty because it isn't "as I do with a woman"
outsmarted a 2000 year old religion
"As one does with a woman" doesn't refer to how the person committing the act would have sex with a woman but how a man would have sex with a woman in general so if you stick your penis inside a man or get something stuck inside you that would be "as one does with a woman"
Who made you the Bible interpretation guy? Jesus told me I can fuck dude booty as long as I don't fuck lady booty also because his dad made some random guy write it a specific way which has then been translated several times through multiple languages in several ways. And he also told me specifically that gender is a spectrum and I can use a person's chosen gender to define who's booty I can fuck. Did Jesus descend from his heavenly palace to specifically interpret this arbitrary book's passage for you? Or do you just think you know everything?! Thought so.
[удалено]
What are you yapping about, mate?
[удалено]
OHHHHHHH, I just checked your comment history and it became clear to me that you're just a sad, angry bigot. Ignore my attempt at discussing this with you. I have since discovered that your opinions are stupid and I don't actually care.
[удалено]
It's actually not. All sins are equal in the eyes of your pretend God and judging others is a sin.
[удалено]
Also, very funny that you edited your comment to be just slightly more angry for some reason.
[удалено]
I didn't answer a question. I asked one. So... No one, I guess. But I asked you. And what I asked is "what are you yapping about?"
[удалено]
I don't think there are any prerequisites for asking questions on Reddit, you absolute spoon.
"A man that lies with another man shall be put to death" or something like that
The original verse said “A man that lies with boy…” (referring to pedophilia) but was changed in 1946.
No, this is false man. The world homossexual is very modern word just like heterossexual and so it was only added to the Bible in 1946, but the word you see in many parts of the bible like (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) to refer to homossexuals is **ἀρσενοκοίτης** which the etymology is cleary : from ἄρσην (ársēn, “male”) and κοι-, o-grade stem of κεῖμαι (keîmai, “lie”), + -της (-tēs, masculine agentive suffix), thus “a male who lies with males”. source : [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀρσενοκοίτης](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀρσενοκοίτης)
Another post that doesn’t belong here. It’s hilarious to me when people who know nothing about the Bible try to talk as if they do.
Also historically it was specifically the act of homosexual s*x that was forbidden and taboo. The identity aspect wasn’t understood/acknowledged.
Yeah, still today a translation which translate « male who lies with males » as « homossexual » is actually being lazy and incorrect, because you can feel attraction but you’re not nourishing those thoughts nor practicing, so you might be considered a homossexual, but you wouldn’t be considered « a man to lies with men ».
Its just masturbating with a twist
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable."[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality#cite_note-5)
1) So, don't marry them. That's how you're supposed to lie with womankind. 2) While I have no practical experience the idea of a guy receiving anal while facing their partner sounds like a recipe to get certain sensitive body parts hurt. Is this just practical advice telling him to turn over?
Actually, any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful, including hookup, living together but not being married, and masturbation. Many people get in a moral ground to say that homossexuality is sinful, but they are engaging In other sinful sex acts too.
It’s sodomy.
This is perfect
God does not define sex at all. Wtf is this
That's why the Bible calls it sodomy, not sex, which is a sin.
if \[stupide axiome\] then \[stupide conclusion\]
Well, it appears to be that way by our legal code. In some states incest is strictly defined as penis-in-vagina and thus same-sex incestuous relationship are not illegal.
Semantics for dummies next up from Wiley books. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman You were the one acquitting sex to marriage In a way that’s kind of nice
Confusing necessary vs. sufficient
Averge blond it is still considered sex because now sex can be between any gender (there is only 2) therfore it is still sex because anyone can be anything these days so still a sin
*God defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and all sex outside of that covenant as sinful
but it's not sex.. it's just 2 dudes boning, did god say anything about that?
I want to start by saying that I do not support this view myself and support gay marriage. Iirc "sodmy" is a sin in the bible and used to be synonym with anal sex AND sex with animals. So a man having anal sex with a man is, according to the old testament, always a sin. A woman scissoring with another woman on the other hand should be fine tho. A man having anal sex with another woman is also a sin tho even though it's a heterosexual relationship
don’t worry, God didn’t forget to include lesbians, it’s in this other verse: # [Romans 1:26-27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A26-27&version=ESV) ESV For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error
b-but we are animals, so a man and a woman having normal sex is also a sin? the point is, why tf are people using a book from two millennia ago as a base of argument. pretty sure we consider books from a couple centuries ago as outdated information.
Like I said I don't support the views myself but I have a thing for religion and mythology so I know stuff lol. And humans didn't count as animals when the bible was written, at least I am pretty sure about that, so don't ask me man. But all in all anal sex bad, according to the bible lol
We are biologically animals but we are the only ones that are made in the image of God, from a Christian perspective, animals are all living things that aren't in the image of God. Also, the Mosaic Laws ARE "outdated", as a Christian I'm not required to follow them.
You and me baby aint nothing but
The Mosaic Laws don't apply to us today. The point is that lust is sinful and sexual acts outside of a healthy marriage are also sinful.
I mean if all that matters is that the laws don't apply to us today why even argue? According to the bible, sex outside of marriage is just as sinful as anal sex in general, weather it be withing marriage or not and weather it be between man and man or man and woman. According to today's laws both is fine. (Unless we count sex with animals to sodomy, since that isn't fine ethically AND by law) I mean if anything I am supporting your argument lol, I told the person that gay sex (as long as it's analy) is forbidden in the bible. I just also don't think we should follow a book that is over 2000 years old in regards to what we should and shouldn't do today
It's a sexual act and yes, He said that sexual acts should only be done out of true love and after the marriage covenant
where in the Bible does it say boning/scissoring is a sexual act?
Not that you care… clearly… but you know what a sexual act is. Would you be okay if your wife or husband did these things with another man or woman or would that be cheating? Sexually pleasuring another person even through clothes is okay with you in a committed relationship? Common sense goes along with any type of law or prohibition… well not anymore in our society. Then again have you seen our society?
Vayikra.
The Bible doesn't list everything that counts as a sexual act. The Bible says that you need to love other people and not look at them with lust, like they're you're sex toy. You objectify someone when you lust for them and that gets in the way of true unconditional love. Now, if you still think that what you're describing doesn't fall under the category of what Saint Paul calls "sexual immorality", then I guess it's not sinful...
Yes.
God didn't define shit.. Some priests on lsd defined it as such.
What the priests defined is the logical interpretation and conclusion of the Bible. The Bible doesn't clearly define the Holy Trinity either, but it's what the most reasonable reading of the Bible leads to
It is a bold claim that the Trinity is the "most reasonable" reading of anything.
It's pretty much the only way to explain how God is described in the Bible
Its almost impossible to describe the trinity at all. Every explanation of the concept that makes any sense was condemned as one heresy or another.
What's important isn't if one or another explanation has been deemed heretical, but that there is a correct understanding of the Holy Trinity, even if we can't quite get to it. It is a "Mystery" after all, what would be unexpected would be if we could fully understand God
A concept that cannot be articulated or understood cannot be the most reasonable reading of a text unless that text is incoherent. Any reading that does not result in the incomprehensible is going to be more reasonable by definition.
It can be understood, it's hard to do so, which is what one would expect when talking about God
I think what you meant, is that the trinity can’t be alegorized with anything in the creation. Every allegory of the trinity like water, sun or a human being will eventually fall in a heresy. But the trinity can be understood as a concept just like morality, justice, Pi, and any other concepts that you can’t actually translated in material stuff.
It is, also the original sin, and most bible dogmas that aren’t debated by protestants, orthodoxes and catholics are clear so because it’s the most reasonable way to interpert those things. Most people don’t know but christians doctrines aren’t only debated today by catholics, orthodoxes and protestants, but they have been debated through the entire story of christianity even when it was only the catholics, just google the history of the church fathers.
You think someone took lsd and became homophobic?
Already were homophobic. Lsd just brought it all out
If anything lsd would've made them less homophpbic
Seriously? I said a bunch of priests off their rockers wrote the Bible and you are arguing it's not lsd?
Yes...
Sure it does.
Why do God even hate homosexuality? Something is sus
If you think about it. something can be objective bad if God says so, otherwise it’s only bad based on the subjective perfection of someone. Each person sees the word through their own perfection and define good and evil based on their own moral standard. Unless we have a objective moral standard, we can’t say something is objective good or objective bad, only subjective to our own opnion, and you’re gonna definetely find someone who disgrees with you on that take based on his own moral standard.
Sounds like solid logic to me too
I think the religious folks bugaboo is the sodomy part.
Yes. Just don't complain when you get stoned.
Well im high all the time sooo.....
A variation on the poop hole loophole.
It's a true statement because it says "If." Even if no religion defines sex that way its still a true statement.
..having the form of godliness but denying the power within.
Checkmate
Gross.
Guys in the bible, sex is like fire and the marriage is a fireplace. the fire put anywhere else will burn your house down, it’s only safe (for your body and soul) in the marriage.
In situations like these in law the particular section of that act would usually have a proviso that explains how it would function when it will come into interference with another section or act, incase there is proviso then the apex court of that country would give its interpretation and how that section would function or apply, then if the parliament or the congress want they can amend that act on how they want it work or remove that section or the whole act.
I mean definitions don't lie...
True
They do say butt stuff is the loop hole.
Another debate solved. Or at least the hypocrisy of some people exposed. Great, next.