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.

[Clownboat]

Are you saying that the Bible doesn't order the death of a man being with a man? I ask you because it does, but you act like you are unaware.

I'm well aware that the OT says that. Now answer my question, which I'll ask the 2nd time. Are you asserting that Christianity teaches that Christians are required to follow all of the proscriptions down to the smallest minutia in the OT?

I am not saying such a thing.
You know as well as the rest of us that Christians are all over the board with their beliefs.
You should know this already, but some take it very literal. To them, "god is the same yesterday, today and forever" is literally true.
(Some believe in a literal 6 day creation while others have accepted evolution).
You and many others have no issue ignoring this verse in the Bible, therefore, Christianity becomes a bit more a la carte.

Knowing that this is true prevents anyone, me included from making claims like "Christians are required to follow all of the proscriptions down to the smallest minutia".

To bring all of this back to marriage, if one isn't a Christian then he shouldn't care a hill of beans about what I think regarding same-sex marriage. Of course, if one asks me my opinion then same sex marriage and Christianity are only compatible through the greatest feat of semantic, biblical semantics that one can muster.

You obviously haven't thought this though it would seem.
See the bold. Now imagine a women that wanted to marry the female love of her life. But she cannot because religious people have voted against such a thing because of their religious beliefs.

Should such a women really not care a "hill of beans" about such a thing? I think not and I assume you understand why too. Your personal beliefs do matter if they start affecting public policy.

A better question would be, if said women did marry the female love of her life, how would it affect you? Contrast that with how your beliefs can affect others (not being able to marry the one they love) when voting on laws are being discussed.

From the outside it comes across as whining.
"Boo hoo, I'm not being allowed to discriminate due to my religious beliefs".
Why should you is what I want to know.

[JLB32168]

Even your argument about vandalism you tie into a promise god made. Hence you tie in biblical support.(even if I don't buy your reasoning on the matter).

Biblical support for marriage between one man and one woman is evidenced by Christ’ repeated mention of conventional marriage of his day – that of monogamous, heterosexual marriage (polygamy had long passed out of acceptance by Christ’s time.)
The bible also explicitly points out that all governing authority is appointed by God and to reject that authority is to rebel against God. Rendering any argument against the established authority of God moot.

The only objective arguments are the bible recommends the death penalty and governing authorities have final say.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Clown, who seems to have disappeared. Do you have evidence that proves that Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT – especially since the NT says of the OT, “Wherefore the law [the OT] was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster?�

The attendance participation or allowance of a gay marriage are entirely subjective opinions of individuals with zero biblical support.

It is Biblical that Christ is the Head of the Church. It is biblical that the Holy Spirit also remains to guide the Church. Only in the last few years have some w/in the Church embraced the idea that SSM and Christianity are compatible and those who have embraced that idea also slice, dice, and julienne most foundational doctrines of Christianity – those enshrined in the ancient creeds.

[Clownboat]

Even your argument about vandalism you tie into a promise god made. Hence you tie in biblical support.(even if I don't buy your reasoning on the matter).

Biblical support for marriage between one man and one woman is evidenced by Christ’ repeated mention of conventional marriage of his day – that of monogamous, heterosexual marriage (polygamy had long passed out of acceptance by Christ’s time.)
The bible also explicitly points out that all governing authority is appointed by God and to reject that authority is to rebel against God. Rendering any argument against the established authority of God moot.

The only objective arguments are the bible recommends the death penalty and governing authorities have final say.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Clown, who seems to have disappeared. Do you have evidence that proves that Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT – especially since the NT says of the OT, “Wherefore the law [the OT] was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster?�

The attendance participation or allowance of a gay marriage are entirely subjective opinions of individuals with zero biblical support.

It is Biblical that Christ is the Head of the Church. It is biblical that the Holy Spirit also remains to guide the Church. Only in the last few years have some w/in the Church embraced the idea that SSM and Christianity are compatible and those who have embraced that idea also slice, dice, and julienne most foundational doctrines of Christianity – those enshrined in the ancient creeds.

I disappeared!?!
Is the post above this one from November 23rd not there?
It's not all that uncommon to not respond to a post, especially if no good response can be mustered, but to just flatly ignore a post and then claim the person has disappeared is a bit odd IMO.

I'm at a loss....

[JLB32168]

I disappeared!?!
Is the post above this one from November 23rd not there?
It's not all that uncommon to not respond to a post, especially if no good response can be mustered, but to just flatly ignore a post and then claim the person has disappeared is a bit odd IMO.

I'm at a loss....

Fair enough. You didn't answer the question. Do you have evidence that proves that Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT – especially since the NT says of the OT, “Wherefore the law [the OT] was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster?�

[Clownboat]

I disappeared!?!
Is the post above this one from November 23rd not there?
It's not all that uncommon to not respond to a post, especially if no good response can be mustered, but to just flatly ignore a post and then claim the person has disappeared is a bit odd IMO.

I'm at a loss....

Fair enough. You didn't answer the question. Do you have evidence that proves that Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT – especially since the NT says of the OT, “Wherefore the law [the OT] was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster?�

I don't claim that all Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT, therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide evidence for such a claim.

I will point out that there are all types of Christians. Some take the book very literal while others pick and choose what they find important enough to believe.

Again, I am not making this claim you espouse to me, but if I were, I would probably reference how the god of the Bible claims to be the same yesterday, today and forever. IF this is true, the god of the OT feels the same about gays then as he would now. Then he ordered death, so why would that change?
For Christians on the other end of the spectrum, they must ignore that god never changes and once they do that, they can justify new meaning to the New Testament.

Bottom line, I feel that neither you nor I are bound to the Old Testament, but do you realize that there are Christians out there that would disagree with us? If so, the claim I am NOT making above that you claim I am making is true for some Christians after all. This would then be factually true and would have nothing to do with me nor any claim you think I have made.

I will not defend a position I have not made.

[Clownboat]

I disappeared!?!
Is the post above this one from November 23rd not there?
It's not all that uncommon to not respond to a post, especially if no good response can be mustered, but to just flatly ignore a post and then claim the person has disappeared is a bit odd IMO.

I'm at a loss....

Fair enough. You didn't answer the question. Do you have evidence that proves that Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT – especially since the NT says of the OT, “Wherefore the law [the OT] was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster?�

Now that this has been cleared up...

Post 41:
"Imagine a women that wanted to marry the female love of her life. But she cannot because religious people have voted against such a thing because of their religious beliefs.

Should such a women really not care a "hill of beans" (these are the words you used) about such a thing? I think not and I assume you understand why too. Your personal beliefs do matter if they start affecting public policy.

A better question would be, if said women did marry the female love of her life, how would it affect you? Contrast that with how your beliefs can affect others (not being able to marry the one they love) when voting on laws are being discussed.

From the outside it comes across as whining.
"Boo hoo, I'm not being allowed to discriminate due to my religious beliefs".
Why should you is what I want to know."

Care to address any of my questions? You didn't respond the first time (disappeared?), how about this time around?

[JLB32168]

I don't claim that all Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT, therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide evidence for such a claim.

You did say, “others pick and choose� what they wish to believe. The only other time that has been brought up on this thread is w/reference to stoning – a clobber verse. In fact, that’s the context of the picking and choosing accusation over and over on this board.

Then he ordered death, so why would that change?

I explained that in the previous post. The OT was the tutor until faith arrived. Faith arrived; therefore, the tutor is no longer needed. God said it would rain for 40 days and nights. Your logic would say that God changed since it stopped raining.

I will not defend a position I have not made.

You’ve essentially just made the same argument – God ordered capital punishment for this; therefore, Christians cannot deviate from this since God says He doesn’t change.

[JLB32168]

A better question would be, if said women did marry the female love of her life, how would it affect you?

It doesn’t. What’s the import of that point? Is the fact that it won’t affect me suppose to move me to change my mind? Slavery is practiced in Sudan. It doesn’t affect me; therefore, I shouldn’t do anything to stop slavery in Sudan. That’s what your logic says.

[Clownboat]

I don't claim that all Christians are bound by all the proscriptions in the OT, therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide evidence for such a claim.

You did say, “others pick and choose� what they wish to believe. The only other time that has been brought up on this thread is w/reference to stoning – a clobber verse. In fact, that’s the context of the picking and choosing accusation over and over on this board.

That is an odd way to issue a retraction, but.... thanks I guess.

Then he ordered death, so why would that change?

I explained that in the previous post. The OT was the tutor until faith arrived. Faith arrived; therefore, the tutor is no longer needed. God said it would rain for 40 days and nights. Your logic would say that God changed since it stopped raining.

Slow down a little bit. If you are not a Christian that takes the Bible literally (some do and some don't), then a god being the same yesterday, today and forever does not apply to you now does it? You can ignore that verse and go on with your life believing that god does change. I have no issue with this.
As far as your claim that the OT was tutor until faith arrived, do you have any evidence for that? To think that I thought the OT was stories from ancient Israelite history. I await your convincing argument that it is some tutor.

I will not defend a position I have not made.

You’ve essentially just made the same argument – God ordered capital punishment for this; therefore, Christians cannot deviate from this since God says He doesn’t change.

Please correct your wording and your thinking.
A person that believes that the god concepts of the Bible are the same yesterday, today and forever, would necessarily struggle with the times said god has changed its mind. A person that does not take the Bible literally (JLB?) can pick and choose with verses are literal and which ones are not. This person is in no way bound to anything in the Old Testament. For that matter, they can slip down the slope a litter further and perhaps even reject some things from the New Testament as well.

Any chance you will comment on my post 41 and post 46? They are the same questions in both, but you keep wanting to deflect and debate me on things I am not saying while ignoring the questions I have now asked you twice.
I doubt this is lost on the readers.

If it helps you to debate, I'll state right now that I don't believe you are bound to the Old Testament. This is an odd proclamation for me to make since to me the Bible and the Quran are both old religious texts and I don't believe there is a single person on this planet that is actually bound by either (any holy book for that matter). Here's to hoping this statement will help keep you on track.

[Clownboat]

A better question would be, if said women did marry the female love of her life, how would it affect you?

It doesn’t. What’s the import of that point?

To the bold. Ready?...... Some self revelation.
I have NOT heard JBL make this point to my knowledge, but I know and we all likely know some Christians that go on an on about marriage being between one man and one woman and such, all the while ignoring all the wives and concubines that King Solomon had.
I like to ask them how it affects them in hopes that they will realize that it doesn't. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and when Christians are voting their religious beliefs into law, now there becomes a REAL victim. I hope that some people might find this just a little revealing.

Is the fact that it won’t affect me suppose to move me to change my mind?

I don't have any expectation about changing your mind. I post here to sharpen my own thinking and to perhaps affect the thinking of our readers.

There is not argument that I can make nor one that I know of that will free you from your beliefs. Therefore to do so is not my goal.

Slavery is practiced in Sudan. It doesn’t affect me; therefore, I shouldn’t do anything to stop slavery in Sudan. That’s what your logic says.

Again, you incorrectly insert words that I have not said.
It seems that my real point has escaped you. Fear not though! Since I post for the readers!

I hope that some readers may notice the Christians that harp on gays. Perhaps they will think of this post the next time they are railing about gay marriage or whatever. Maybe, just maybe they will remember your admission that gay marriage doesn't affect you. Perhaps they will then examine the merit of the arguments being made against being able to marry the people that we (everyone) love.

All this ranting and raving by some over something they should admit doesn't affect them in the first place. Why should they even bother with ranting and raving or voting their beliefs into law if they are not affected?

JLB admits that gay marriage does not affect him. I agree.
Now contrast that with, you know, actual gay people. Are they affected if they are not allowed to marry the person that they love? I see that they are.

Ask yourselves, should we protect those that are not being affected in a negative way, or should we protect those that are being discriminated against?

Why would I put food on a wealthy mans table when I see people that are actually being affected by hunger?
Or in other words, why protect those who do not need it when doing so negatively affects those that do?