Where does the bible say you gays can't marry

[DanieltheDragon]

The title says it all folks. Where does the bible say 1.) gays can't marry 2.)you can't particpate in gay weddings 3.) you can't preside over a gay marriage(as a magistrate of the court) 4.) you can't support gay marriage.


Instead I find the bible specifically states none of the above. Instead it simplifies things.

"'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. Leviticus 20:13

If one is not arguing that LGBT individuals should be put to death they cannot complain about any of the above. After all Romans 13 states the following

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

The bible specifically states to subject yourselves to governing authorities. If the law of the land is that if you offer sales to the public and are not to discriminate then you cannot discriminate. If the law of the land is that as a public magistrate you are to preside over LGBT weddings then you must preside over LGBT weddings.

The only argument based off of the biblical literature in regards to LGBT individuals is whether or not to kill them. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

[Danmark]

What you describe as unfair is rubbish as far as I’m concerned. I reject your definition of “unfair.� That the dictionary describes discrimination as unfair or prejudiced treatment is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that it’s still a human construct and while you may think it’s unfair, I’m under no moral obligation to accept that your idea of unfair must also be my idea of unfair....

When one has to reject the meaning of words in the dictionary, meanings which the rest of the world agrees upon, in order to squeeze out a counter argument, then the argument is lost. Of COURSE 'unfairness' is a 'human construct.' We are talking about human conduct, using human definitions. Even 'god' is a 'human construct.'

JBL wrote:

– especially since your world-view (that only the visible universe exists) doesn’t recognize fairness or partiality. It only recognizes the laws of physics – none of which address what’s fair.

By its nature morality and 'fairness' are human constructs about the social compact.
Physics has zero direct role in establishing what is 'fair' in human relations. What you're saying is that because you believe in something that that cannot be proved, or examined or studied, you get to decide something that is obviously unfair is somehow 'fair.' You could just as easily use this 'logic' to claim black is white, up is down, and ignorance is power.

What I believe your argument devolves to is "Whatever God says or does is right, regardless of how cruel, unfair, demeaning, and evil it is, because God says it is so."

This is one of the reasons this vision of God is rejected as absurd.

[JLB32168]

No, it is not. I would like to once again demonstrate this by your lack of ability to respond.

Yeah – it’s rubbish. We think it’s fair to restrict polygamists from getting married. We think it’s fair to restrict seventeen year olds – telling them that they can’t marry anyone until their eighteen. We think it’s fair to force men to pay child support even if they offer to pay for abortions to avoid children. I’m under no obligation to accept your definition of fair since the meaning of “unfair� is clearly variable from human to human.

These things would be unfair and a dictionary definition would have nothing to do with it being fair or not.

Why are they unfair?

STOP EQUATING 'DISCRIMINATION' TO 'TREATING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY'. YOU ARE MAKING BUST NAK THINK THAT I ACTUALLY THINK SUCH A THING.

You are the one conflating the two, Dude. By denying SSM to SScouples, I am treating them differently. That you think it’s unfair, which means you think it’s discrimination, is your affair. I’m not obliged to accept your opinion of fairness as absolute; therefore, I’m not obliged to accept it is discrimination. It’s just “treating people differently.�

Why have you failed to acknowledge the claimed harm that polygamy would cause?

It denies rights to multiple wives – reserving them for only one woman. A man may not cover his multiple wives with insurance for example. Most people support this differential treatment as acceptable and not discriminatory.

JLB, I submit that there is a glaring reason as to why you are not able to answer these questions, and that reason is not because you don't know what a question mark is.

I don’t answer your questions because they presuppose that your definition of fair is the only one that is valid and we both know that the universe doesn’t acknowledge any concept of fairness or its opposite.

Yah, and prisoners too. Get real man.

People impose their views of polygamy upon would be polygamists. Your refusal to acknowledge this and decide to mock it instead shows you know it’s correct.

I have a hard and fast rule on the wrongness. I allude to it often here. My rules of course do not apply to you, so I would like to stop that straw man before you can make it.

Your rules don’t apply to me, but I’m being unfair according to you. Do you not see the irony of that statement?

[JLB32168]

When one has to reject the meaning of words in the dictionary, meanings which the rest of the world agrees upon, in order to squeeze out a counter argument, then the argument is lost.

I take no issue with the definition of fair and unfair. I merely disagree that it’s unfair to limit marriage to its traditional form. As everyone has admitted, treating groups differently doesn’t necessarily mean the groups are being treated unfairly. I think that limiting marriage to its traditional form is perfectly fair. Most people think it’s fair to deny polygamists the rights and privileges that all other married couples enjoy – because it’s a nontraditional form of marriage. Suddenly a special pleading is constructed to exempt SSM by those who support it but don’t support polygamy.

What you're saying is that because you believe in something that that cannot be proved, or examined or studied, you get to decide something that is obviously unfair is somehow 'fair.'

No – I can claim what is fair and what is unfair because I want to and it’s Sunday and I like ice cream – vanilla to be specific. The universe doesn’t acknowledge fairness; therefore, we are the final arbiters of what is fair. All I have to do is persuade enough people to accept my opinion and BAM! We have “Fairness.�

regardless of how cruel, unfair, demeaning, and evil it is, because God says it is so."

Why do you presume to tell anyone what’s cruel, unfair, demeaning, or evil? You’re an animal as am I. Who died and made you the plumb line whereby the morality of actions is defined?

[Danmark]

When one has to reject the meaning of words in the dictionary, meanings which the rest of the world agrees upon, in order to squeeze out a counter argument, then the argument is lost.

I take no issue with the definition of fair and unfair. I merely disagree that it’s unfair to limit marriage to its traditional form. As everyone has admitted, treating groups differently doesn’t necessarily mean the groups are being treated unfairly. I think that limiting marriage to its traditional form is perfectly fair. Most people think it’s fair to deny polygamists the rights and privileges that all other married couples enjoy – because it’s a nontraditional form of marriage. Suddenly a special pleading is constructed to exempt SSM by those who support it but don’t support polygamy.

I personally agree there is a very limited rational basis to deny polygamous marriages to those who believe in them. I don't see why government should intervene in this private sphere. Many people, perhaps most people are privately polygamous. But this is different from the narrow Christian view which says some people should forever be denied the intimacy and joy of a committed one to one relationship sanctioned by the State. This denial is a perfect example of sanctimonious unfairness. When you have to justify something because it is 'traditional,' without more, you have conceded the argument.

[Clownboat]

No, it is not. I would like to once again demonstrate this by your lack of ability to respond.

Yeah – it’s rubbish. We think it’s fair to restrict polygamists from getting married. We think it’s fair to restrict seventeen year olds – telling them that they can’t marry anyone until their eighteen. We think it’s fair to force men to pay child support even if they offer to pay for abortions to avoid children. I’m under no obligation to accept your definition of fair since the meaning of “unfair� is clearly variable from human to human.

These things would be unfair and a dictionary definition would have nothing to do with it being fair or not.

Why are they unfair?

STOP EQUATING 'DISCRIMINATION' TO 'TREATING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY'. YOU ARE MAKING BUST NAK THINK THAT I ACTUALLY THINK SUCH A THING.

You are the one conflating the two, Dude. By denying SSM to SScouples, I am treating them differently. That you think it’s unfair, which means you think it’s discrimination, is your affair. I’m not obliged to accept your opinion of fairness as absolute; therefore, I’m not obliged to accept it is discrimination. It’s just “treating people differently.�

Why have you failed to acknowledge the claimed harm that polygamy would cause?

It denies rights to multiple wives – reserving them for only one woman. A man may not cover his multiple wives with insurance for example. Most people support this differential treatment as acceptable and not discriminatory.

JLB, I submit that there is a glaring reason as to why you are not able to answer these questions, and that reason is not because you don't know what a question mark is.

I don’t answer your questions because they presuppose that your definition of fair is the only one that is valid and we both know that the universe doesn’t acknowledge any concept of fairness or its opposite.

Yah, and prisoners too. Get real man.

People impose their views of polygamy upon would be polygamists. Your refusal to acknowledge this and decide to mock it instead shows you know it’s correct.

I have a hard and fast rule on the wrongness. I allude to it often here. My rules of course do not apply to you, so I would like to stop that straw man before you can make it.

Your rules don’t apply to me, but I’m being unfair according to you. Do you not see the irony of that statement?

Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

Would any of us here find this scenario fair?
Of course not.
Now if we correlate this to SSM, we also understand that to not allow people with green eyes, or blonde hair, or those with a homosexual preference to be married to the person that they love, such a thing would also not be fair and also qualifies as discrimination.

Jesus commands his followers to treat their neighbors as they would like to be treated. JLB CANNOT answer my question because it would show that he is doing something we all find to be unfair and would show the hypocrisy to hold such a thing dear for himself, but to then seek to restrict others (our neighbors) from having the very thing he/we enjoy for himself/ourselves.

So, not only is the Bible not clear about SSM, it is also unfair and prejudice to restrict it from others and something that could be argued to go against Jesus's command about treating others like we want to be treated.

But for some reason, there are many that still want to discriminate in this area and as you can see, they are willing to try to justify this discriminatory behavior by comparing it to things that do or would cause harm to others while admitting that SSM does not harm them.

What I don't understand and have failed to gather info on here is... What drive this desire to discriminate?

Jesus provides examples of where we are to be kind and loving and also instructs his followers to treat people how they want to be treated.
What do we witness? We witness people acting like they don't know who Jesus is when this topic comes up. Why? Because if a Christian wants to discriminate against homosexuals, they must assume they know what Paul meant and ignore what Jesus clearly did say.

[Danmark]

p=771672#771672]Danmark[/url]"]What you're saying is that because you believe in something that that cannot be proved, or examined or studied, you get to decide something that is obviously unfair is somehow 'fair.'

No – I can claim what is fair and what is unfair because I want to and it’s Sunday and I like ice cream – vanilla to be specific. The universe doesn’t acknowledge fairness; therefore, we are the final arbiters of what is fair. All I have to do is persuade enough people to accept my opinion and BAM! We have “Fairness.�

It is stating the obvious to say the universe has nothing to say on what is fair.
We collectively as people agree that it is fair to treat others the way we want to be treated. But your position goes farther. Your claim is that because of some 'god' what you say is fair regardless of what everyone else agrees. Your position puts the whim of a 'god' ahead of what people agree is fair. Your comparison of choosing a favorite ice cream flavor to this whim of your 'god' is apt.

The vast majority of people agree that we should treat others as ourselves, but the religionist makes a greater claim. He says it matters not what logic says; it matters not what the majority says; what matters is what this imaginary 'god' decides is the 'correct' flavor. This is absurd. It is equally absurd to compare moral questions to choosing one's favorite ice cream flavors.

[Danmark]

regardless of how cruel, unfair, demeaning, and evil it is, because God says it is so."

Why do you presume to tell anyone what’s cruel, unfair, demeaning, or evil? You’re an animal as am I. Who died and made you the plumb line whereby the morality of actions is defined?

Your error is in your claim that I have declared I am what you call the 'plumb line' of morality. Everyone who has not been infected with some 'god' virus, or who is not a raving sociopath agrees it is wrong to kill babies; it is wrong to torture innocents; it is wrong to steal and maim and kill; that it is right to treat people the way we would like to be treated. It takes belief in religion to justify genocide, torture, the killing of innocents, and denying basic happiness and fulfillment to others because of the accident of their sex.

[JLB32168]

But this is different from the narrow Christian view which says some people should forever be denied the intimacy and joy of a committed one to one relationship sanctioned by the State.

Okay – so you think that there’s no rational basis for denying polygamists the right to have all their marriages recognized, which makes it unfair, but you’re not bothered enough by this irrational unfairness to really do anything about it. You arbitrarily choose which groups’ right to marriage you’re going to fight to ensure. Consequently, you arbitrarily choose which people you’re going to impugn as being sanctimoniously unfair, most likely because that would mean the majority of people would be condemned as sanctimoniously unfair if we used your logic.

I understand.

Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

I answered your question on why something is or isn’t fair and you didn’t like the answer. The most logical reason is that you fancy yourself the ultimate judge of what is un/fair, but realize that it’s mere human opinion (since the visible universe couldn’t care less about fairness) and human opinions are like heads – everyone has one and none is better than the other, only different.

Jesus commands his followers to treat their neighbors as they would like to be treated.

Polygamists want to get married. They can’t. Would Jesus teach people that they should work to abolish bigamy laws since the people aren’t treating people the way they would like to be treated, that is, they’re denying some people – polygamists – a right that almost everyone else enjoys – the right to have their marriages sanctioned by the state and entitled to 14 Amendment equal protection under law? I’ve asked this question several times and every time you’ve failed to answer it.

Jesus provides examples of where we are to be kind and loving and also instructs his followers to treat people how they want to be treated.

Some sixteen year olds want to marry their 25 year old fiancé/es. We’re not treating them the way we, as adults, want to be treated in that we wouldn’t want our marriages to be delayed by the state for two years. Would Jesus want us to practice the Golden Rule by abolishing this differential treatment that is very frustrating for these would-be husbands/wives, wives/wives, husbands/husbands?

No, I don’t think you’ll actually answer the question. I think you’ll dodge it. I think that most people of like opinion as you will also dodge it since it exposes their illogical double standard.

[JLB32168]

We collectively as people agree that it is fair to treat others the way we want to be treated. But your position goes farther. Your claim is that because of some 'god' what you say is fair regardless of what everyone else agrees. Your position puts the whim of a 'god' ahead of what people agree is fair. Your comparison of choosing a favorite ice cream flavor to this whim of your 'god' is apt.

But not all people agree that it’s unfair. Certainly three justices of SCOTUS thought it was fair. The residents of not a few states passed amendments that demonstrated their belief that my position was fair. You have set yourself and those of like opinion as you as the final arbiters of un/fairness. It isn’t an issue of fairness. It’s an issue of negotiation of power for you.

Your error is in your claim that I have declared I am what you call the 'plumb line' of morality.

You have presumed to tell people that they’re sanctimoniously unfair; therefore, you feel you hold the ultimate standard – the plumb line – of morality and now you’re showing everyone just how self-deceived you really are since you don’t know the consequences of your own words.

[Clownboat]

But this is different from the narrow Christian view which says some people should forever be denied the intimacy and joy of a committed one to one relationship sanctioned by the State.

Okay – so you think that there’s no rational basis for denying polygamists the right to have all their marriages recognized, which makes it unfair, but you’re not bothered enough by this irrational unfairness to really do anything about it. You arbitrarily choose which groups’ right to marriage you’re going to fight to ensure. Consequently, you arbitrarily choose which people you’re going to impugn as being sanctimoniously unfair, most likely because that would mean the majority of people would be condemned as sanctimoniously unfair if we used your logic.

I understand.

Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

I answered your question on why something is or isn’t fair and you didn’t like the answer. The most logical reason is that you fancy yourself the ultimate judge of what is un/fair, but realize that it’s mere human opinion (since the visible universe couldn’t care less about fairness) and human opinions are like heads – everyone has one and none is better than the other, only different.

Jesus commands his followers to treat their neighbors as they would like to be treated.

Polygamists want to get married. They can’t. Would Jesus teach people that they should work to abolish bigamy laws since the people aren’t treating people the way they would like to be treated, that is, they’re denying some people – polygamists – a right that almost everyone else enjoys – the right to have their marriages sanctioned by the state and entitled to 14 Amendment equal protection under law? I’ve asked this question several times and every time you’ve failed to answer it.

Jesus provides examples of where we are to be kind and loving and also instructs his followers to treat people how they want to be treated.

Some sixteen year olds want to marry their 25 year old fiancé/es. We’re not treating them the way we, as adults, want to be treated in that we wouldn’t want our marriages to be delayed by the state for two years. Would Jesus want us to practice the Golden Rule by abolishing this differential treatment that is very frustrating for these would-be husbands/wives, wives/wives, husbands/husbands?

No, I don’t think you’ll actually answer the question. I think you’ll dodge it. I think that most people of like opinion as you will also dodge it since it exposes their illogical double standard.

Readers, from post 245:
Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

Would any of us here find this scenario fair?
Of course not.
Now if we correlate this to SSM, we also understand that to not allow people with green eyes, or blonde hair, or those with a homosexual preference to be married to the person that they love, such a thing would also not be fair and also qualifies as discrimination.

JLB, it seems like you actually do understand that your stance on SSM is discriminatory. Rather than acknowledging this fact, you would prefer to deflect this discriminatory behavior that you are observed having by pointing to imaginary people that are not here debating some other topic that may or may not be discriminatory.

I trust the readers notice this as well.

Some sixteen year olds want to marry their 25 year old fiancé/es. We’re not treating them the way we, as adults, want to be treated in that we wouldn’t want our marriages to be delayed by the state for two years.

Please point to what you find unfair or prejudice, and then explain which group out of the 16 yr olds or 25 yr olds is being singled out by said behavior.

You need to remember though, it is not discriminatory to treat different age groups differently. This is what you don't seem to understand, while actually understanding it.
JLB, you do understand why we don't allow 4 yr olds to drive don't you? I don't believe you if you claim that you think this is discrimination in practice. I personally think you are just playing dumb so you don't have to acknowledge that your argument fails.
Treating, especially different age groups the same, while different compared to other age groups is not in itself discrimination. Why, because it IS sensical to not let 4 yr olds drive.

What you are doing is discrimination.
What society has done by not allowing all 4 yr olds to all equally not drive is not discrimination.
I wish I could get you to understand, but I'm starting to think you are purposely being obtuse here.

If you truly feel that I am personally being discriminatory against polygamist or 16 yr olds or what have you. Please, I beg you, point out how my stance on either of those scenarios is unfair or prejudice. Then, let me know how you knew my stance since I have not formed one yet.

What truly boggles my mind though, is why you think your discriminatory behavior magically disappears if you can show that another human also discriminates. Whether you can or not does not make your behavior go away, nor justifies you having it. Yet you hang on to this defense because you cant form a rational rebuttal.