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.

[JLB32168]

Your position (where you select one specific group of adults to then treat unfairly different, and it is unfair because we have already established that SSM does not cause you harm, therefore you are without justification unlike those that would seek to not allow 4 yr olds to drive) is one of discrimination towards homosexuals.

There are several problems with what you’ve said. First of all, I don’t think that it is inherently unfair to treat people differently. We treat people differently all of the time; sixteen year olds can’t marry. We don’t think that this difference in treatment is unfair. Secondly, that X doesn’t cause me harm is completely irrelevant to the question of fairness. Someone else smoking cigarettes in their home or allowing their sixteen year old sons and daughters to smoke in their home doesn’t harm me, especially since I don’t smoke. I have no problem criminalizing the sale of tobacco products to minors.

I’m not at war with the English language. I’m at war with your arbitrary decision to say that treating people differently in this case is fair, but treating them differently in this case is unfair – even when the subject is the same – who can get married.

[Strider324]

Your position (where you select one specific group of adults to then treat unfairly different, and it is unfair because we have already established that SSM does not cause you harm, therefore you are without justification unlike those that would seek to not allow 4 yr olds to drive) is one of discrimination towards homosexuals.

There are several problems with what you’ve said. First of all, I don’t think that it is inherently unfair to treat people differently. We treat people differently all of the time; sixteen year olds can’t marry. We don’t think that this difference in treatment is unfair. Secondly, that X doesn’t cause me harm is completely irrelevant to the question of fairness. Someone else smoking cigarettes in their home or allowing their sixteen year old sons and daughters to smoke in their home doesn’t harm me, especially since I don’t smoke. I have no problem criminalizing the sale of tobacco products to minors.

I’m not at war with the English language. I’m at war with your arbitrary decision to say that treating people differently in this case is fair, but treating them differently in this case is unfair – even when the subject is the same – who can get married.

So, it being fair to prohibit children from getting married, but unfair to prohibit interracial couples from getting married - causes you a problem, why? Because the subject is the same? Who can get married? Because prohibiting children from getting married is arbitrary?

OK....

[JLB32168]

So, it being fair to prohibit children from getting married, but unfair to prohibit interracial couples from getting married - causes you a problem, why? Because the subject is the same? Who can get married? Because prohibiting children from getting married is arbitrary? OK....

Yup, for the atheist, it is arbitrary and the atheist is forced to admit that all moral questions are arbitrary because the universe couldn’t care less what is moral or isn’t. As I said previously, it is brutally indifferent to right and wrong or fair and unfair.

Having said that, the only justification I’ve gotten for why it’s wrong to limit marriage to its traditional Western form is that it’s allegedly unfair – and the people who usually offer this opinion have no problem with laws against bigamy, which are apparently fair (read “for which they create a special pleading to comport with their personal views.�)

[Strider324]

So, it being fair to prohibit children from getting married, but unfair to prohibit interracial couples from getting married - causes you a problem, why? Because the subject is the same? Who can get married? Because prohibiting children from getting married is arbitrary? OK....

Yup, for the atheist, it is arbitrary and the atheist is forced to admit that all moral questions are arbitrary because the universe couldn’t care less what is moral or isn’t. As I said previously, it is brutally indifferent to right and wrong or fair and unfair.

Having said that, the only justification I’ve gotten for why it’s wrong to limit marriage to its traditional Western form is that it’s allegedly unfair – and the people who usually offer this opinion have no problem with laws against bigamy, which are apparently fair (read “for which they create a special pleading to comport with their personal views.�)

The fact that you believe that the cultural decisions involving the age of consent for children to marry are arbitrary simply points to your ignorance of how those decisions were made. They were anything but arbitrary. The social sciences were consulted. It was decided that an appropriate age whereby young people develop the ability to make mature decisions about marriage, as well as drinking, smoking, and other life decisions - was around 17 to 18. Nothing arbitrary about it. So you've simply created this Strawman to beat up, and your argument from 'arbitrary' thus fails.

Further, as neither I nor most other atheists I know are against bigamy, your next premise is poorly supported. Are you unaware that the laws against bigamy were promulgated by Christians (using the same tortured biblical bigotry employed to prohibit inter racial marriage)?? As were all the completely arbitrary sodomy laws that have no scriptural basis?

The only group I see here creating special pleadings are the Christians. And their claim to an objective morality is exploded by their reliance on the hypocritical and bigoted 'morality' of a book written by ignorant goat herders that pretend that their admonition against homosexuality should be shouted to the heavens - and in the courts - while the equal damnation of people having sex during a womans period should never be discussed. Sounds a bit arbitrary, don't it?

[JLB32168]

The social sciences were consulted. It was decided that an appropriate age whereby young people develop the ability to make mature decisions about marriage, as well as drinking, smoking, and other life decisions - was around 17 to 18.

Sam Wang, Ph.D., associate professor of neuroscience at Princeton University, and Dr. Sandra Aamodt former editor-in-chief of the journal Nature Neuroscience, both experts in the field of neuroscience, authored the book Welcome to Your Child's Brain: How the Mind Grows from Conception to College. It argued (most say proves – a concept first taken up by car rental companies who won’t rent to eighteen year olds) that the mind isn’t mature until twenty-five. Allowing these decisions at seven-, eighteen is not just arbitrary, it’s also non-scientific. Your information is wrong.

That must really suck.

Are you unaware that the laws against bigamy were promulgated by Christians (using the same tortured biblical bigotry employed to prohibit inter racial marriage)?? As were all the completely arbitrary sodomy laws that have no scriptural basis?

I can see why an atheist would say that since the idea that a deity would inform people to have laws reflect moral teachings of said deity, is an absurd idea. Taking that point-of-view, I never presumed to say that the laws weren’t arbitrary. Why is that a wrong thing – especially since there is no objective reason for why we should or shouldn’t enact a law that, for example, criminalizes the owning of a pizza oven?

The only group I see here creating special pleadings are the Christians.

Assuming that's true for the sake of argument, that’s wrong because . . . . why exactly?

And their claim to an objective morality is exploded by their reliance . . .

All moral claims are equally valid in a universe that simply doesn’t care how we behave - atheist protests to the contrary.

[Strider324]

JLB32168 scribed:

It argued (most say proves – a concept first taken up by car rental companies who won’t rent to eighteen year olds) that the mind isn’t mature until twenty-five. Allowing these decisions at seven-, eighteen is not just arbitrary, it’s also non-scientific. Your information is wrong.

That must really suck.

I guess it would, if you had not so completely misrepresented my argument, as well as the facts. Civility dictates that I should not assume you have done so deliberately, but rather that you simply couldn't follow the ball. I shall try to help you.

You are citing a book written a whole 5 years ago. I know Sandra Aamodt. She's brilliant. But neither she nor Sam were involved in the determinations of the proper age for rights and responsibilities to be granted to young people 40 to over 100 years ago. So yet again, you rely on a bogus Straw man to flail at. Fallacies are not really a valid debate tactic. The fact that I have to point out the obvious error in your response....that must really suck. (Yep, sounds just as smarmy when I write it).

That most of our long established laws were not decided arbitrarily is an established fact, which explodes your premise. Doesn't even matter whether the decisions were based on accurate science or not. Your claim that all laws are arbitrary has been refuted. If you can show that the decision to prohibit those under 16 from driving was decided by a coin toss - which could just as easily meant that we decided 8 year old should drive - you might have a point. As it stands, you don't.

I can see why an atheist would say that since the idea that a deity would inform people to have laws reflect moral teachings of said deity, is an absurd idea.

Again, you have a habit of pretending to know what atheists think, and you're often quite wrong. Neither I nor any atheist I know thinks that a deity promoting moral teachings is absurd (since we understand that it's not really the morals of the invented deity, but simply the morals of the self-appointed priesthood). How many Straw men fallacies must you rely on? What we find absurd is the irrational, hypocritical and inconsistent nature of the 'moral' teachings ascribe to your particular deity.

Your deity - in the same single chapter of Lev 20 - promulgates the following 'moral' laws:

Adultery? Death.

But have sex with your own sister? Eh, that's just a disgrace. Don't do it again, you little rascals. Heh heh....

Adultery = death.

Incest = You can't party with us any more.

Tell me where you locate the moral consistency of demonizing sex between unrelated adult parties, while giving a pass to familial incest.

Let me guess - you're totally OK with your deity being 'arbitrary'. In fact, that is the purpose of your position - to justify that your god can be arbitrary if every other moral decision is arbitrary. It lets you ignore the problem illustrated above. Unfortunately for you, secular moral decisions are not arbitrary.

All moral claims are equally valid in a universe that simply doesn’t care how we behave - atheist protests to the contrary.

Um, yeah. Except moral claims do not exist in such a self-serving universe, they exist in the collective minds of intelligent and decent people who apply rigorous moral ethics to difficult decisions, rather than being intellectually lazy and settling for the obviously ethics challenged 'morals' of a deity that says its OK to slaughter the children of your enemy by smashing their brains against a wall, and to kill all their non-virgin women - while his holy soldiers are encouraged to keep just the virgin women as their sexual slaves, to be raped with impunity.
Arbitrary, indeed.

[JLB32168]

I guess it would, if you had not so completely misrepresented my argument, as well as the facts. Civility dictates that I should not assume you have done so deliberately, but rather that you simply couldn't follow the ball. I shall try to help you.

You said that science was considered when making rules regarding the rights to marry – that seventeen and eighteen were chosen as ages of maturity because science dictated that. Clearly science wasn’t used to make the determination because science doesn’t support the assertion that people are mature at seven/eighteen.

Your claim that all laws are arbitrary has been refuted.

Except that it hasn’t. We can disregard science and pass laws that run counter to it. We arbitrarily choose to do so. We can write laws that conform w/science – again we arbitrarily do so.

If you can show that the decision to prohibit those under 16 from driving was decided by a coin toss - which could just as easily meant that we decided 8 year old should drive - you might have a point.

There are plenty sixteen year olds who are quite responsible when it comes to driving. There are plenty twenty-five year olds who are immature, irresponsible emotional teens. We arbitrarily chose sixteen as the cutoff for driving. In some states, we moved it up to eighteen. That still doesn’t erase the fact that rental car companies don’t allow all people who have reached their majority to rent cars.

Again, you have a habit of pretending to know what atheists think, and you're often quite wrong.

I’m quite comfortable letting people decide for themselves if the statement “Atheists think it’s absurd to have laws that reflect moral teachings of a deity� is wrong, which is different from what you said my argument was.

Adultery? Death.

You think the moral teaching of the deity is absurd in this case and yet you said that saying “The atheist would think this is absurd� was wrong.

Tell me where you locate the moral consistency of demonizing sex between unrelated adult parties, while giving a pass to familial incest.

“Moral consistency� is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, it is morally consistent in that all sexual impropriety is punishable by death.

Let me guess - you're totally OK with your deity being 'arbitrary'.

It’s actually a moot point since the deity no longer calls for death as a punishment for sexual impropriety.

Except moral claims do not exist in such a self-serving universe, they exist in the collective minds of intelligent and decent people who apply rigorous moral ethics to difficult decisions . . .

What makes a person decent and another indecent?

[Strider324]

JLB32168 scribed:

You said that science was considered when making rules regarding the rights to marry – that seventeen and eighteen were chosen as ages of maturity because science dictated that. Clearly science wasn’t used to make the determination because science doesn’t support the assertion that people are mature at seven/eighteen.

And yet again, you are unable to follow the argument. The science applied to these decisions 100 years ago was completely valid - and more importantly, not arbitrary - for its time. The fact that new data is available is completely irrelevant, which I believe you already know. So it begs the question as to why you continue to pretend you have made some point that validates your empty assertion that these decisions were arbitrary. They were not. If you'd like to make the argument that the decisions should be revised pursuant to the new data, that would be valid. But your pedantic end around here seems adequate proof that you know your argument for arbitrariness fails.

Except that it hasn’t. We can disregard science and pass laws that run counter to it. We arbitrarily choose to do so. We can write laws that conform w/science – again we arbitrarily do so.

Your claim that ALL laws are arbitrary is not even remotely supported by the fact that some laws (especially religious ones) are in fact arbitrary. You can either revise your claim or admit your logical fallacy here.

There are plenty sixteen year olds who are quite responsible when it comes to driving.

Quite true, which is why we allow them to drive.

There are plenty twenty-five year olds who are immature, irresponsible emotional teens.

Irrelevant. We don't make laws by the exception. We look at the preponderance of the available data and determine a reasonable and valid cut off point. Most 16 year olds and 25 year olds are mature enough to drive responsibly.

We arbitrarily chose sixteen as the cutoff for driving.

No, we don't. The decision was made by the preponderance of the available data. Again, arbitrary would be looking at data that said a valid age might be 14 to 18 and then flipping a coin. You already know that's not how the decision was made.

In some states, we moved it up to eighteen.

Yeah. Based on the available data acquired by that state. Again, not arbitrary. More states can be assumed to follow suit based on more data. Again, their decisions are not arbitrary. lol.

That still doesn’t erase the fact that rental car companies don’t allow all people who have reached their majority to rent cars.

So what? Rental car agencies have more valid and relevant data about driving reality than any other entity on the planet. There are a business that has an interest in limiting their loses and liability. Your damn right they don't rent cars to those that statistically (there's that dang reliance on science and objectivity again) are involved in more accidents. They also don't rent to 90 year olds. I'm glad they don't. And yet again.....absolutely not arbitrary. Bringing up car agencies hurt your argument more than anything else. That must suck....

I’m quite comfortable letting people decide for themselves if the statement “Atheists think it’s absurd to have laws that reflect moral teachings of a deity� is wrong, which is different from what you said my argument was.

Yeah, I am too.

You think the moral teaching of the deity is absurd in this case and yet you said that saying “The atheist would think this is absurd� was wrong.

Incorrect. You are again misstating the argument. The fact that any deity might call for the death penalty for adultery is not absurd. It becomes absurd when a moral crime that by most would be considered either worse than adultery (incest) or at least equivalent, does not receive the same punishment.

Moral consistency� is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, it is morally consistent in that all sexual impropriety is punishable by death.

Now it appears you cannot even follow your own bible. It's already been shown that while Adultery is punished by death, Incest is not. Please retract this claim.

It’s actually a moot point since the deity no longer calls for death as a punishment for sexual impropriety.

Isn't that convenient. It would be nice if Christians recognized this infallible deity had to admit he was wrong about something. Perhaps they wouldn't be so hateful and eager to pass laws that would pay college students for spying in bathrooms in the fervent hopes of catching a transgender individual using the 'wrong' restroom....but I digress.

What makes a person decent and another indecent?

The subjective moral standards of the party making the determination. Subjective....not arbitrary.

Your claim that all laws are arbitrary is not valid. Do you have a better argument for justifying the bible bigotry that condemns same sex marriage with the same arguments used against mixed race marriage?

[JLB32168]

And yet again, you are unable to follow the argument. The science applied to these decisions 100 years ago was completely valid - and more importantly, not arbitrary - for its time.

Children were employed in factories doing dangerous work 100 years ago. Marriageable age was twelve in England until the sixteenth century. Certainly there’s no reason to believe that a seventeen year old is suddenly more mature one month after his eighteenth birthday than he was three months prior.
Were we that concerned with the import of science on maturity we would change the laws; however, we don’t let science dictate policy as far as the age of majority is. That means we’re being arbitrary.

Your claim that ALL laws are arbitrary is not even remotely supported by the fact that some laws (especially religious ones) are in fact arbitrary.

A law is arbitrary because we decide to let that law be informed by science or we don’t. We cobble together a bunch of data or opinion and write a law. Ultimately, it’s all arbitrary.

No, we don't. The decision was made by the preponderance of the available data. Again, arbitrary would be looking at data that said a valid age might be 14 to 18 and then flipping a coin.

We decided to let data dictate policy. We often don’t. That makes the decision arbitrary.

Now it appears you cannot even follow your own bible. It's already been shown that while Adultery is punished by death, Incest is not. Please retract this claim.

After the litany of sexual improprieties, the text ends with, “For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be destroyed from among their people.� It would seem that incest is quite serious a crime.

It would be nice if Christians recognized this infallible deity had to admit he was wrong about something.

What absolute standard exists that one can say the deity was wrong?

Perhaps they wouldn't be so hateful and eager to pass laws that would pay college students for spying in bathrooms in the fervent hopes of catching a transgender individual using the 'wrong' restroom....but I digress.

Can you be specific?

The subjective moral standards of the party making the determination. Subjective....not arbitrary.

I suppose one could assert that there was an appreciable difference between the two but they are synonyms.

Do you have a better argument for justifying the bible bigotry that condemns same sex marriage with the same arguments used against mixed race marriage?

Yes – humans are the final arbitrator of “right� and “wrong� and not a few people agree that it isn’t bigoted to exclude certain forms of marriage from equal protection under law. It’s as valid a standard as your subjective opinion (supported by only five justices on SCOTUS.)

[Strider324]

JLB32168 scribed:

Children were employed in factories doing dangerous work 100 years ago.

So what?

Marriageable age was twelve in England until the sixteenth century.

Irrelevant to the 20th century discussion we are having.

Certainly there’s no reason to believe that a seventeen year old is suddenly more mature one month after his eighteenth birthday than he was three months prior.

And I don't know anyone that believes that either. Again, irrelevant to the discussion. A decision had to be made. 8 years old to drive? 12? 15? 18? 30? The decision again was not arbitrary.

Were we that concerned with the import of science on maturity we would change the laws;

You yourself have already given evidence that we DO change laws based on new evidence. Thanx.

however, we don’t let science dictate policy as far as the age of majority is. That means we’re being arbitrary.

But that's exactly what we did. Data from science was consulted. Politicians got involved. Debate occurred. A decision was made. How long will you continue to simply deny this reality?

A law is arbitrary because we decide to let that law be informed by science or we don’t.

Please cite 5 examples of laws that were decided wholly uninformed by science. Um, be careful to avoid the most obvious laws that would apply here - those informed by religious bigotry, ignorance, and an inconsistent and arbitrary deity.

We cobble together a bunch of data or opinion and write a law.

Well, which is it? Do we inform these decisions with data, or not?

Ultimately, it’s all arbitrary.

And yet all you have provided is your unsupported opinion - which ignores the facts.

After the litany of sexual improprieties, the text ends with, “For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be destroyed from among their people.�

Leviticus 20 covers these sexual sins. It ends at verse 27, which does not say what you have claimed. Regardless.....

It would seem that incest is quite serious a crime.

This is yet again irrelevant and evasive. Incest being a serious crime is not the same as incest being punishable by Death. It is not. Adultery is. Why would this deity hold adultery as being a more horrific crime than incest? Do you agree that incest is not as bad as adultery? And if so, why? Your deity never explains it.

What absolute standard exists that one can say the deity was wrong?

There is no need to appeal to any absolute standard here. Your deity starts out calling for the death penalty for a number of sexual acts, and then changes his mind. And conveniently does so just as Paul is trying to sell his invented theology to the Roman pagans who he could have never 'won' if the Law applied to gentiles. lol.

STRIDER - Perhaps they wouldn't be so hateful and eager to pass laws that would pay college students for spying in bathrooms in the fervent hopes of catching a transgender individual using the 'wrong' restroom....but I digress.

Can you be specific?

Of course.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/01/1 ... hroom-ban/

This State Senator from Kentucky wants his bill passed. It would pay students $2500 for spying on and reporting any transgender using the 'wrong' restroom.

I suppose one could assert that there was an appreciable difference between the two but they are synonyms.

No sir. Subjective and Arbitrary are not synonyms. The best you could say is that they are considered somewhat related, just as 'optional', 'approximate', and 'discretionary' are seen as related to both.

Yes – humans are the final arbitrator of “right� and “wrong� and not a few people agree that it isn’t bigoted to exclude certain forms of marriage from equal protection under law.

And the only decisions you continue to point to for your claim to being arbitrary are those promulgated by religion. Thanx again.

It’s as valid a standard as your subjective opinion (supported by only five justices on SCOTUS.)

Which is both all that is needed under the Constitution - and fully and finally - not arbitrary. When you can point to a decision by SCOTUS whereby a decision was made by randomly pulling a single justices opinion out of a hat, then your argument will begin to have some actual merit. But of course, you cannot.