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.

[OpenYourEyes]

I quoted from the works of Philo and Josephus and eventhough they were not alive to experience the OT time period but both were alive to experience the NT time period or 1st century CE.

What these two historical figures wrote is not much different than what the apostle Paul expressed in Romans 1 about nature and unnatural desires, etc.

Whatever we take from Paul's referring to nature and unnatural desires we really do need to read Romans 1 in context which, unfortunately, most Christians don't seem to do. They all too often begin Romans 1 at verses 26-27 with nary an explanation of the verses that precede them. One might be forgiven for thinking that this is intentional since verses 26-27 are all that are required to slam gay people which is, after all, their intent for bringing up Romans 1 in the first place!

Romans 1:21 and on describes "those who once knew God but turned away and rather worshiped images made in the likeness of mortal men, birds, animals and reptiles." I believe from reading the chapter in context that Paul is talking about Gentile idolatry which, it would appear, had begun to encroach on the early Christian Church, both in Corinth from where he's writing and also within the Roman Church. WHILE STILL in this 'idolatry mindset' Paul goes on to describe (albeit vaguely) WHAT some of those idolatry practices entailed. They included sexual fertility rites that involved dalliances between male/male;female/female participants (and may also have included bestiality) that were seen by Paul to be 'unnatural' exhibitions of one's 'normal' HETEROSEXUAL sexuality.

That's the very brief explanation.

Does anyone have a different take than the one I describe above regarding Romans 1:21-27? How can Paul NOT have been referring to pagan idolatry and the sexual practices that were affiliated with idolatry?

You've offered an explanation that takes into account a cultural understanding, but in my view the cultural factors comes from the Jewish culture. In other words, Paul's view and the influence on them was based on Jewish cultural influence, like marriage being between a man and a woman, nature being based on God's purpose, etc, etc. I find this point more likely, given other contemporary Jewish authors condemned same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, and the other areas of the Bible where there is condemnation of same-sex behavior.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by OpenYourEyes]

That is failing to account for the fact that they did not live in a Jewish culture vacuum. Paul wrote with a heavy Roman influence as well as Josephus and others. Heck Hebrew ceased to be an every day language for Jews as far back as 500 BCE and were hellenized by the Greeks in the 300s BCE. So we still have to account for these cultural contexts. Jewish culture as described in the bible had not been around for hundreds of years.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 21 by OpenYourEyes]

That is failing to account for the fact that they did not live in a Jewish culture vacuum. Paul wrote with a heavy Roman influence as well as Josephus and others. Heck Hebrew ceased to be an every day language for Jews as far back as 500 BCE and were hellenized by the Greeks in the 300s BCE. So we still have to account for these cultural contexts. Jewish culture as described in the bible had not been around for hundreds of years.

It is true that Jewish culture did not exist in a vacuum but that does not mean that Jewish Law and morals did not remain the same for all or most Jews.

Secondly, Paul was a Pharisee schooled in the Law so that wouldve inevitably been part of his thinking, where same-sex behavior and gay marriage were banned. Jesus' dialogue with the Pharisees showed thst there were strict observance to the Torah in terms if morality. Remember, theres a thelogical framework at play here as well so culture is only one factor.

Third, and most importantly, KCKIDs point presumes that Pauls allusions to same-sex behaviors and feelings was only in the context of idolaltrous practices, as if it isnt wrong in all other circumstances. I believe thats unreasonable. First Paul brought up his point to highlight the common or highly immoral activity in a certain region. So while the frequency or severity of a particular act mayve been region-specific but that does not mean that the moral status of it (prohibition or calling it wrong) was region-specific. This can be seen where Paul brings up a case in Corinth where a man is sleeping with his dad's wife. Does thst therefore mean thst adultery is only wrong in Corinth? Of course not! KcKids point is inconsistent if his conclusiin is that prohibition on same-sex behavior was culture relative.

[Davidjayjordan]

My good BOOK says, that we should marry the Bridegroom of LOVE, named Jesus....as we can be His Bride whether male or female. Thats the main marriage that the Lord has always talked about marriages of the heart and soul for unselfish reasons and for the service of others.

Worldly and church marriages are basically for tax purposes, and to help further nationalistic causes that harm other countries and other people. in my opinion.

Consider http://www.davidjayjordan.com/BrideofChristinOT.html

Or

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/WearetheB ... hrist.html

[Man_With_A_Plan]

Homosexuality frustrates the purpose of sex, which, according to Christianity, is recreation, not procreation. Therefore, any sexual activity other than a man ejaculating inside a woman is considered wrong.

The full answer is: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c3a7.htm

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Marriage has nothing to do with it from my experience. It's simply a means that people use to discriminate against others (in this case gays). It's something to hide behind while spouting hate that's protected in the USA at least, but the government.
In other words, 'gay marriage' is a catalyst to stir hate and distaste among other groups.

I won't argue that some Christians are hateful toward homosexuals. That is not okay.

Don't people stop to wonder why God would denounce such behavior? Because he hates certain people? No, that certainly isn't biblical. He wants what is best for us, and being the creator of us, he knows best. It's just like a parent wanting what is best for a child, even when the child feels like doing something the parent doesn't approve of. Even if the parent says "because I said so," we know there is a real reason behind the prohibition that the child may not understand completely.

I cherish being able to spend my life with the one I love (my wife).
Why do you think a god would also not want a women to be with the person she loves if said person is also a women for example?

Personally, I find it wrong to restrict something you hold dear for yourself (like marriage) from others. Even if the person justifies their actions with Bible verses. Wrong is wrong.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 3 by sfisher]

Considering that the law quoted above forbids homosexual behavior with punishment by death, why would additional rules be necessary?

That is my point precisely. The only argument that is viable from a biblical standard is advocation of the death penalty for homosexual behavior. Anything less is not biblical. There is no basis for any other regulation of same sex behavior other than the death penalty from a biblical standpoint.

To do so would still be a violation of your biblical laws. By not executing gays any advocation against gay rights is falling short of what the bible demands. There is no point to say gays can't marry or gays can't adopt. The only point available is that LGBT individuals be put to death. If you are not arguing for a death penalty for LGBT people than any other argument is besides the point and irrelevant.

I am not equating homosexuality to anything else here. However, this argument can be used to justify marriage between any two human beings and even a human and a nonhuman. Therefore, unless one is arguing for that, the argument is not consistent.

How would a non human give consent to be married? What you suggest seems ridiculous to me.

Would you really seek to restrict some humans from being with the ones they love because next thing you know goats will want to be in on the action too? You must mean something else! Right?

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 26 by Clownboat]

I cherish being able to spend my life with the one I love (my wife).
Why do you think a god would also not want a women to be with the person she loves if said person is also a women for example?

There is nothing wrong with being with someone you love, but you don't need to marry to do that. You can't understand what is right or wrong about marriage until you understand what marriage really it.

https://joshuaagan.com/2015/07/09/marri ... may-think/

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 26 by Clownboat]

I cherish being able to spend my life with the one I love (my wife).
Why do you think a god would also not want a women to be with the person she loves if said person is also a women for example?

There is nothing wrong with being with someone you love, but you don't need to marry to do that.

That is why I included 'my wife' in my statement so you could know I was referring to being married to the one I love. I'm surprised this escaped you.

(Examine this scenario)
I married the person I love. Oh, but Susan over there, she should not be allowed to be married to the person she loves.

You don't agree, well then, let me justify my words by referring to some desert nomad goat herders from thousands of years ago.

You can't understand what is right or wrong about marriage until you understand what marriage really it.

I will not allow you to define what marriage is for me and my wife, however, this should prove to be entertaining. So please explain to all of us what it is that I think marriage really is and then explain how that stops me from understanding what is right or wrong about marriage.

[Haven]

Hi MWAP! Thanks for sharing your thoughts .

Homosexuality frustrates the purpose of sex, which, according to Christianity, is recreation, not procreation. Therefore, any sexual activity other than a man ejaculating inside a woman is considered wrong.

The full answer is: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c3a7.htm

I'd just like to point out a few things here:

1. Conservative Catholicism is not "Christianity," but only one small branch of it. It's kind of unfair to say that "according to Christianity" homosexuality "frustrates the purpose of sex." There are many Christians, and many Catholics, who disagree.

2. Why would an all-powerful God capable of creating universes and setting the preconditions for life be so concerned with what a bunch of evolved apes do in the bedroom with other consenting adults? This seems like such a small, petty, trivial thing for a God to concern her/him/theirself with. It seems far more likely to me that these sexual taboos were created by power-hungry men looking to control people's (especially women's) sexuality and thereby give themselves more power.