It was an interesting discussion. They were arguing over gay marriage and gay rights in general. It started off with Bible verses. The cons side went with some Old Testament stuff and how some of the New Testament re-emphasized it. The idea was that if God wanted homosexuals killed before and called it an abomination, why would he approve it now?
I pointed out that the Old Testament commandment was to kill homosexuals. So the sinner was technicallly the person who refused to do so, not necessarily the homosexual.
The other Christian pointed out more New Testament stuff like the emphasis on love and not being judgemental. He mentioned that thew New Testament stuff against homosexuality was not convincing since it was Paul's views; it could have referred to pedophilia; could have referred to pagan worship; and/or could have referred to a heterosexual engaging in homosexuality.
The first Christian said that it was not ambigious because it referred to the Old Testament which was very clear. Also, the story about the adulterous woman was not part of the original New Testament and was added later (another Christian mentioned this one). They said it was a moral imperative to outlaw homosexuality just as we outlaw other abominations like murder.
The otehr Christian said it was not like murder since no one was hurt. But the first countered by saying that they were spiritually harmed. They accused the first of cherry picking Bible verses to support and ignore.
I pointed out that the anti-homosexual Christians were doing the same thing by ignoring the other Old Testament laws like killing non-virgin brides or treating lobsert like an abomination. They kind of both agreed that since I was not Christian, that I could not interpret the Bible without the Holy Spirit. However, they both said they were acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit.
In the end, no one was convinced by the other's argument.