Markup /q/1245

Comment
>>1244
It's not a weak argument, it's providing context to your ignorance. Words mean things and rarely in language is the meaning of something completely dubious. It's a reasonable assumption that this verse, inspired by God, interpreted the way it has been, has a discernible meaning and wasn't just a divine "...or something like that, yeah".
>We don't know that that's how it worked in ancient greek
Someone probably does. Someone who speaks greek probably does, I doubt this is some lost knowledge, it's just that ignorant people like you will parrot these linguistic arguments without actually knowing anything about the language OR linguistics in general and proceed to use your idiocy as some trump card. If you're going to hinge so much of your argument on this one linguistic peculiarity, that still gives you a "it's dubious" at best, you should extensively research it, not take it for granted.
>people debate about the meaning of the verse
The only thing that the existence of this "debate" proves, is the existence of a willfully ignorant contingent of porn consumers. You yourself are this "debate" and yet you know nothing of ancient greek aside from what some, likely equally ignorant and lustful, idiot told you. Would the existence of a debate on linguistics in Leviticus "suggest" that sodomy may not be sinful after all? I suggest you stop debating, it's clearly not your strong point, I'd rather take the word of saints than whatever modern debatebro garbage you're regurgitating.
Also, languages tend to mix with proximity, just as an example, Italian language sounds more like Serbian than Russian does. It shares more sounds with Serbian than Serbian does with Russian, even though Russian and Serbian are from the same linguistic family. So it's not too far fetched to say there are similarities between Greek and Serbian even doe they are totally different languages. And just for the hell of it, here's some results from 2 minutes of googling that seemingly fully supports my hypothesis
>but one could reasonably conclude that a normal straight male sexuality is not a sin
Talk about shifting the goal posts! Just went from "indulging in porn is OK" to "being straight is OK". Should I take that as a concession?
>making much more bank than me. if they're exploited what am i?
Your words betray your materialistic character. Your entire worldview is built on sand. If adultery is wrong how is production of pornography not? What about porn "stars" that cheat on their husband? Does all of this not exploit a persons soul? To profit off of the erosion of their soul? Is it not a faustian bargain for these so called actresses? And if you were really in the loop about the whole porn debate you'd know just how much abuse and coercion is going on in the industry of sin, plenty of regret on the record. And of course you didn't address the fact that it's literal prostitution, which I don't know, are you going to try defending that next?
Not to mention this whole debate is pointless, look at Christianity from the top down. A religion about suffering and self denial, about fasting and preparing oneself for departure. How do you square the very root and foundation of Christianity with this indulgence in lust, one of the 7 deadly sins, condemned by almost every Christian authority? It's cope.