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]

I'm not asking you to accept my anything JLB.

Okay – so one can reject your moral standard; however, they remain immoral according to your standard.

How is treating people unfairly more moral than not?"

We have denied marriage to certain groups of people; therefore, your argument that it’s unfair treatment is your subjective value judgment. You don’t get to cast your standard of “unfair� as superior standard to everyone else’s.

Yes, discrimination (treating a group unfairly and with prejudice) is morally inferior IMO.

I don’t see it as automatically unfair to treat different groups differently, nor am I morally compelled to accept your view since it’s your opinion as nothing more.

. . . because you are comparing how a glutton can still eat a little bit, to a homosexual that is not allowed to participate in the thing that they desire in any way shape or form.

Why are you discussing this as if it’s relevant to anything I’ve said. Gluttony is sinful. Homosexual acts are sinful. That one may eat a little of what they desire has nothing to do with sinfulness of committing gluttony.

Please provide your evidence that any of these things are sin.

First of all, who is the authority when defining sin? Do you regard the Christian Church as the authority of what Christians regard as sinful? If so, then the RCC and EOC regard those things as sinful. Do you agree that the RCC and the EOC teach that getting wrathful, greedy, entertaining lust, eating more food than one needs are sinful?

It sounds like you are claiming that these things are sins for you.

Seven Deadly Sins – look ‘em up. If you don’t regard then as sinful then why did you ask the question? If someone isn’t interested in practicing Christianity then s/he shouldn’t care what sin is.

Would you not feel harmed, or abused, or treated unfairly or with prejudice if all of a sudden you were not allowed to spend the rest of your life with your wife?

I wouldn’t like it but I don’t see why that has any bearing on this discussion. Lots of seventeen year olds want to get married but can’t and I’m sure they don’t like the laws that keep them from getting married.

I claim that you are putting forth an asinine scenario.

What is asinine about telling someone who is tempted to act on homosexual feelings, but who also wants to be a pious Christian, to turn to monasticism?

The irony is not lost on me where you accuse me of making up definitions of unfair and such even though I provided the definition I was using and it source.

WHAT IS ILLOGICAL ABOUT TELLING SOMEONE TO DENY THEIR DESIRES?? WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

You called homosexuality unnatural.

Yup, it’s theologically unnatural – just as a whole lot of other vices are genetically linked. We still tell people to reject them.

Being monastic does not stop priest from molesting children.

Priests that have molested children aren’t monastics, which are men who live in a monastery sequestered away from the public. The priests that have molested children were all secular priests, meaning, they were in public parishes attended by regular folks and not in monasteries.

Your dealing with a false statement. I don't claim that I am some final arbiter.

When you say that your view is morally superior then you are proclaiming your view as the best of all, which makes you the final arbiter of morality – at least in your mind.

You have continued to fail to show how treating people unfairly or with prejudice is better morally . . .

Who decided it was unfair? How did s/he determine it was? Is there some absolute that says treating people differently is inherently unfair?

Whatever group of primates you think I belong to, you necessarily belong to it as well.

Your group determined for everyone that not recognizing SSM was unfair. Why does everyone have to accept your opinion as fact?? Why do you presume to tell me what is objectively fair/unfair since you’re an animal just like me?

[Clownboat]

I'm not asking you to accept my anything JLB.

Okay – so one can reject your moral standard; however, they remain immoral according to your standard.

Please follow along. You claimed that "no one is required to accept my definition of unfair". I clarified in post 230 that I'm not asking you to accept my definition of unfair and listed the reason why. The reason why is because I have, from the start been honest about the definition of discrimination that I have been using and I have shown that it includes 'unfair' in it. Therefore, no one is required to accept the definition that I'm using, but you are required to understand the definition that I am using. If not, then you cannot debate against it due to not understanding.

How is treating people unfairly more moral than not?"

We have denied marriage to certain groups of people; therefore, your argument that it’s unfair treatment is your subjective value judgment. You don’t get to cast your standard of “unfair� as superior standard to everyone else’s.

Perhaps we have a reading comprehension issue?
Discrimination includes unfair treatment. If you would like to argue that my morality on this one issue is not superior to yours, then you need to explain how treating people unfairly is superior to treating people fairly. You do this it seems and instead you fail to answer the question and continue to offer dodge after dodge. Explain what is superior morally about treating people unfairly or admit that treating people fairly is more moral.
From your holy book: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do. to you, do ye even so to them.
JLB, do you want others to treat you unfairly or not?
If you want to be treated fairly, then your holy book orders you to treat others fairly. We (generic) are not being fair when we discriminate.
Myself and your holy book both claim that we should treat people fairly it seems.
Yup, even homosexuals.

Yes, discrimination (treating a group unfairly and with prejudice) is morally inferior IMO.

I don’t see it as automatically unfair to treat different groups differently, nor am I morally compelled to accept your view since it’s your opinion as nothing more.

Is English not your native language?
I ask because I just made a statement about 'discrimination' and treating people 'unfairly', and you respond by having some other discussion about treating people differently.
It is not necessarily 'unfair' to treat people differently. It is necessary to be treating people 'unfairly' or with 'prejudice' when we are discriminating against them. Both my definition of discrimination and yours agree with this.
I'm NOT asking about what is unfair to treat people differently (I treat my 7 yr old differently from my 4 yr old, and I do so fairly).
I want to know what you find morally superior about treating people 'unfairly' and with 'prejudice'.
You're not even debating me anymore at this point. Now you are just struggling with the definition of English terms being used.

. . . because you are comparing how a glutton can still eat a little bit, to a homosexual that is not allowed to participate in the thing that they desire in any way shape or form.

Why are you discussing this as if it’s relevant to anything I’ve said. Gluttony is sinful. Homosexual acts are sinful. That one may eat a little of what they desire has nothing to do with sinfulness of committing gluttony.

I reject your un-evidenced claim that gluttony is sinful. Perhaps this is your opinion and you forgot to be honest about that?
Either way, I trust the readers understand how your analogy that you claimed you never made, was actually made and that it is nonsensical to compare eating a little bit to something that you cannot do even a little bit.
We can discuss this further if you desire, but I think the readers probably understand this by now.

Please provide your evidence that any of these things are sin.

First of all, who is the authority when defining sin? Do you regard the Christian Church as the authority of what Christians regard as sinful? If so, then the RCC and EOC regard those things as sinful. Do you agree that the RCC and the EOC teach that getting wrathful, greedy, entertaining lust, eating more food than one needs are sinful?

Who has the authority to define sin?
Answer this to help you understand where I'm coming from: "Who has the authority to define make believe terms"? In reality, my opinion has 'sin' being as relevant as discussing the virgins that Muslims will get when they enter heaven. Do you give any credibility to the Muslim virgin claim, or do you acknowledge that such a concept is theirs, and theirs alone?
You can believe what you want about sin, I care not. Unless of course you can show that sin is a real thing, then I would have a reason to consider the topic.
If Muslims have the authority to define the virgins in heaven claim, then they can define it. However, what they cannot do is force such a notion onto either of us. Why, because the virgin claim is their burden, just like how this sin idea is your burden. The rest of us are not bound to your make believe. (If I'm mistaken about sin being make believe, please provide the evidence that you have examined that caused you to believe that sin is real).

It sounds like you are claiming that these things are sins for you.

Seven Deadly Sins – look ‘em up. If you don’t regard then as sinful then why did you ask the question? If someone isn’t interested in practicing Christianity then s/he shouldn’t care what sin is.

Ding ding ding. I don't care what you think sin is. I also don't care what Muslims believe about the virgins they may get upon entering heaven.
The point you are missing is that even if I did believe in sin, a glutton is still allowed to do the thing they struggle with. Unlike a homosexual, therefore your analogy failed, and not because of 'sin', but due to the poor comparison being made.

Would you not feel harmed, or abused, or treated unfairly or with prejudice if all of a sudden you were not allowed to spend the rest of your life with your wife?

I wouldn’t like it but I don’t see why that has any bearing on this discussion.

Perhaps if you would stop quote mining me. The parts you left out (in italic below) explain the bearing. You harp on about 17yr olds, but fail to show that any discrimination is happening by failing to show harm being done. This is you once again confusing treating people differently with discrimination.
(Would you seriously be OK with any of this?
See how I provided examples of the harm. Please provide your own examples for the harm you think we are causing 17 yr olds by not allowing them to marry.)

I claim that you are putting forth an asinine scenario.

What is asinine about telling someone who is tempted to act on homosexual feelings, but who also wants to be a pious Christian, to turn to monasticism?

Wait a minute, please be clear. Have you changed your stance to not allow SSM for Christians, but non Christians can still participate in SSM?
You see, you now all of a sudden magically added "who also wants to be a pious Christian". Again, if these are claims you seek to impose only on Christians, then I do not take issue, but if you seek to impose Christian ideas on non Christians, then we would have an issue.

The irony is not lost on me where you accuse me of making up definitions of unfair and such even though I provided the definition I was using and it source.

WHAT IS ILLOGICAL ABOUT TELLING SOMEONE TO DENY THEIR DESIRES?? WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Why are you shouting, you have not asked this question before?
I find it illogical JLB, because you have no business telling others to deny things that they desire (unless these things are harming others of course). What is logical about you telling me to stop playing chess? Where is the harming of others if I play chess?
Where is the harming of others if gays can marry?
Contrast that with texting while driving. We have business telling others that they cannot text while driving because of the harm texting while driving causes.
You continually fail to show the harm SSM, polygamy and not allowing 17 yr olds to marry causes. I assume you fail because SSM does not cause harm, and polygamy and allowing 17 yr olds to marry could be argued to cause harm.
This is all similar to me arguing about how we should not beat/harm our children.
You might as well be arguing that people should not be allowed to where black shoes.
I have a reason to argue against SSM or beating our children.
You cannot supply a reason for people that don't already share your preconceived religious notions to not allow SSM, so you might as well be trying to convince people to not wear black shoes. Well, we can all wear black shoes, except for blondes, they cannot wear black shoes.
So you not see how the black shoe argument is asinine? Do you not see how it compares to not allowing SSM?

You called homosexuality unnatural.

Yup, it’s theologically unnatural – just as a whole lot of other vices are genetically linked. We still tell people to reject them.

This analogy fails because wanting to be with the one you love is not unnatural IMO. It was natural for me (I did not need to be shown that I wanted such a thing, I just naturally did). More importantly, we are addressing your claim that it is unnatural. I'm just not sure how injecting theological desires has anything to do with understanding the naturalness or lack there of for a 'natural' premise.

Being monastic does not stop priest from molesting children.

Priests that have molested children aren’t monastics, which are men who live in a monastery sequestered away from the public. The priests that have molested children were all secular priests, meaning, they were in public parishes attended by regular folks and not in monasteries.

Why do you war with language? Why is this so common with theists? <-- Rhetorical.
mo·nas·tic
məˈnastik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to monks, nuns, or others living under religious vows, or the buildings in which they live.

JLB, do priests live under religious vows?
Either way, was your argument really that homosexuals should live in monasteries? I think not.

Your dealing with a false statement. I don't claim that I am some final arbiter.

When you say that your view is morally superior then you are proclaiming your view as the best of all, which makes you the final arbiter of morality – at least in your mind.

Again, in this scenario we are dealing with here in this thread, IMO, my position is morally superior to yours. Show me wrong by evidencing for us all that treating people unfairly and with prejudice is morally superior. You can't, therefore I am justified to continue believing that my morality in this case is superior. I can also believe my morality is superior in this instance we are discussing without being some final arbiter of morality.

You have continued to fail to show how treating people unfairly or with prejudice is better morally . . .

Who decided it was unfair?

The definitions we both supplied for discrimination. That thing we are doing to not allow one group of humans to marry whom they love, due to their sexual orientation.

How did s/he determine it was?

Societies determine the meaning of words. Dictionaries do their best to then define what society means.

Is there some absolute that says treating people differently is inherently unfair?

No. Do you think it is unfair to allow 18 yr olds to drive, but not 4 yr olds?
The fact that we are on page 24 and you are still asking this leaves me shaking my head.

Whatever group of primates you think I belong to, you necessarily belong to it as well.

Your group determined for everyone that not recognizing SSM was unfair.

You are mostly right. In actuality, to not allow SSM is to discriminate. To discriminate is to be treating a group of people unfairly or with prejudice.

Why does everyone have to accept your opinion as fact??

You are free to disagree with dictionaries. Now show where I have inserted my opinion.

Why do you presume to tell me what is objectively fair/unfair since you’re an animal just like me?

Again, more reading comprehension issues?
Us being animals has no bearing on the conversation we are having. If it does, please explain it because it escapes me at the moment.

[Bust Nak]

Did I claim that failure to comply to that request demonstrates that unfairness and/or prejudice is happening?

Yes, and I quote "So if discrimination is happening like you keep insisting, I will insist to know which group of 15 year olds is being discriminated against. Your argument fails because for some reason, you see discrimination when we are in actuality treating all 15 yr olds the same. There is not one group of 15 yr olds that is being treated any differently then the rest of the 15 yr olds. You will forever continue to not be able to provide an answer because your claim is nonsensical.."

What is your point? Is there something I can concede on so we can stay on topic?

My point is as stated: failure to show which group of 15 yr olds were treated differently to other groups of 15 yrs old, is not a failure to demonstrate prejudice. I want you to concede that you asked JLB32168 to show you which group of 15 yr olds are being treated differently from other 15 yr old, when you should have asked him which group was being treated unfairly.

I think I have spent enough time explaining my personal feelings on how I find it fair to treat groups of 15 yr olds the same. I'm sorry Bust Nak, but I find it fair to treat people the same. When someone compares 15 yr olds to 7 yr olds, I feel that we need to treat the 15 yr olds equally and the 7 yr olds equally. I see this as fair. You are free to view it as you choose. You can point to how we might treat a handicapped 15 yr old differently to a non handicapped 15 yr old. From my point of view, it just doesn't make a difference. We would need to treat 15 yr olds as equals and handicapped 15 yr olds as equals. We can't treat homosexuals in either group differently because that would be unfair. My perspective has me view the 15 yr olds as two separate groups that need to be treated equally within their groups. I'm not seeing one group of 15 yr olds where we are therefore treating 15 yr olds differently.

So you accept what is one group and what is two groups, is a matter of perspective?

Acknowledged. Of course, just because slavery was once allowed in the US, does not mean it is reasonable to assume it will happen again. I view mixed race marriages in the same light.

Granted.

I wish I knew what post out of the 23 pages you were talking about.

Post #185

Either way, JLB did not take issue with it.

I think he did, he protest that it wasn't remotely important that he couldn't identify a group of 15 yr olds who were treated differently to other 15 yrs old, when he could identify a group of teenagers (15 yr olds) who were treated differently to another group of teenagers (18 yr olds.)

[JLB32168]

The reason why is because I have, from the start been honest about the definition of discrimination that I have been using and I have shown that it includes 'unfair' in it.

This is really simple, CB.
The Law of Gravity is verifiable scientific fact. One cannot argue with the statement “Gravity is a Force that pulls all things at 9.8 meters a second squared on Earth.� In your worldview, gods don’t exist – only the visible universe does; therefore, what’s Fair or Unfair are purely human constructs. The universe is ignorant to the existence of fairness; what is fair or unfair is human opinion and nothing more, and what’s fair today might not be fair tomorrow. It’s all relative and that is why I can say, “I reject your opinion of what ‘fair’ is since mine is superior.� I can’t prove it’s superior. You can’t prove yours is superior. They’re both opinions and that is all they will ever be and someone’s opinion is only “better� than another person’s opinion in that the first thinks his opinion is some transcendent, factually verifiable law to which all things in the universe must submit.

I reject your un-evidenced claim that gluttony is sinful.

Okay – the people who invented the concept of sin don’t get to say what it is. Instead you, who reject the entire concept, gets to define it. The ancient Indo-Europeans who invented the word from which we would derive “boy� decided what it would mean. I suppose you could reject their definition as well.

You can believe what you want about sin, I care not.

Except that you do care because you presumed to tell the people who invented the word that you define the term and they don’t.

I don't care what you think sin is.

Okay – so why are we discussing it?

The point you are missing is that even if I did believe in sin, a glutton is still allowed to do the thing they struggle with. Unlike a homosexual, therefore your analogy failed, and not because of 'sin', but due to the poor comparison being made.

Okay – so you’re still concerned with the whole analogy discussion in spite of it being quite irrelevant to the question before us of whether or not the Bible and SSM are compatible.

Perhaps if you would stop quote mining me. The parts you left out (in italic below) explain the bearing. You harp on about 17yr olds, but fail to show that any discrimination is happening by failing to show harm being done.

If they wish to marry each other then they feel discrimination is occurring. What “proof� do you have that they’re wrong – that your opinion of fairness is superior to theirs?

Have you changed your stance to not allow SSM for Christians, but non Christians can still participate in SSM?

I’ve always maintained the two were incompatible. I’m only saying that I reject your definition of “discrimination� in that we exclude other forms of traditional marriage from state recognition but few people think this is discrimination. The only reason SSM is “discrimination� in your opinion is because you presume to say that X is unfair – as if it is some universal law.

I find it illogical JLB, because you have no business telling others to deny things that they desire (unless these things are harming others of course).

Okay – so you’re using “logical� in a non-standard sense based upon your subjective human based feelings – ones to which I’m not morally compelled to accept as universal.

This analogy fails because wanting to be with the one you love is not unnatural IMO.

And I’ve already explained that there’s no moral directive for me to even dignify your opinion. You can do the same with mine.

JLB, do priests live under religious vows?

Okay – so the fact that some priests have abused children is proof that monasticism doesn’t work for anyone. Gotcha.

Either way, was your argument really that homosexuals should live in monasteries?

Yup – if they wish to live lives compatible with Christian teaching, it’s an option. If they choose not to live in a monastery then they should live celibate lives in the world. I know that’s a bitter pill for our sex-obsessed society, but it is what it is.

The definitions we both supplied for discrimination.

Okay – so a human made dictionary is the absolute standard to which all the universe defers.

[Clownboat]

Did I claim that failure to comply to that request demonstrates that unfairness and/or prejudice is happening?

Yes, and I quote "So if discrimination is happening like you keep insisting, I will insist to know which group of 15 year olds is being discriminated against. Your argument fails because for some reason, you see discrimination when we are in actuality treating all 15 yr olds the same. There is not one group of 15 yr olds that is being treated any differently then the rest of the 15 yr olds. You will forever continue to not be able to provide an answer because your claim is nonsensical.."

See the part I put in bold?
As you can see, he is insisting that discrimination is happening. Whether he failed to comply to that request or not, unfairness and/or prejudice is happening all the same.
Therefore, fairness and/or prejudice is happening because discrimination is happening.

What is your point? Is there something I can concede on so we can stay on topic?

My point is as stated: failure to show which group of 15 yr olds were treated differently to other groups of 15 yrs old, is not a failure to demonstrate prejudice. I want you to concede that you asked JLB32168 to show you which group of 15 yr olds are being treated differently from other 15 yr old, when you should have asked him which group was being treated unfairly.

Copied and pasted from 185: Please read the part above that I underlined before continuing.
"Which race, age, or sex of 15 year olds is being treated unfairly if we equally don't allow all 15 year olds to marry?"

Color me confused. You seem to be complaining that I didn't ask him something that I did in fact ask him. I think your complaint is unjustified.

Either way, he insisted that discrimination was taking place, therefore unfairness is happening and doesn't need to be shown.

So you accept what is one group and what is two groups, is a matter of perspective?

Yes. I just request that we don't create groups for the sole purpose to discriminate against them.
We should create them to avoid harm IMO. See 18 yr olds driving but not 4 yr olds. Within these two created groups, I would argue that we need to treat them equally otherwise we run the risk of discriminating against them.
It's your perspective if you want to view 18 yr olds and 4 yr olds as one group when discussing driving privileges. I personally wouldn't.

Either way, JLB did not take issue with it.

I think he did, he protest that it wasn't remotely important that he couldn't identify a group of 15 yr olds who were treated differently to other 15 yrs old, when he could identify a group of teenagers (15 yr olds) who were treated differently to another group of teenagers (18 yr olds.)

So why do you think that he refused to answer this:
(Copy/paste) Which race, age, or sex of 15 year olds is being treated unfairly if we equally don't allow all 15 year olds to marry?

I believe your confusion may stem from how JLB changed 'discrimination' to mean 'treating people differently'.
(Copy/Paste) Boat said: Yes, discrimination (treating a group unfairly and with prejudice) is morally inferior IMO.
As you can see, JLB tried to rebut this by changing the scenario to treating people 'differently'.
(Copy/Paste) JLB replied: I don’t see it as automatically unfair to treat different groups differently, nor am I morally compelled to accept your view since it’s your opinion as nothing more.

As we can see, I was not talking about treating people differently (18 yr old vs 4 yr old), I was talking specifically about discriminating (one group of 18 yr olds or one group of 4 yr olds that are being treated unfairly and/or with prejudice).

[Clownboat]

The reason why is because I have, from the start been honest about the definition of discrimination that I have been using and I have shown that it includes 'unfair' in it.

This is really simple, CB.
The Law of Gravity is verifiable scientific fact. One cannot argue with the statement “Gravity is a Force that pulls all things at 9.8 meters a second squared on Earth.� In your worldview, gods don’t exist – only the visible universe does; therefore, what’s Fair or Unfair are purely human constructs. The universe is ignorant to the existence of fairness; what is fair or unfair is human opinion and nothing more, and what’s fair today might not be fair tomorrow. It’s all relative and that is why I can say, “I reject your opinion of what ‘fair’ is since mine is superior.� I can’t prove it’s superior. You can’t prove yours is superior. They’re both opinions and that is all they will ever be and someone’s opinion is only “better� than another person’s opinion in that the first thinks his opinion is some transcendent, factually verifiable law to which all things in the universe must submit.

You accused me of changing definitions. My response above was a response to that accusation.
Here is what you quote mined out:
Please follow along. You claimed that "no one is required to accept my definition of unfair". I clarified in post 230 that I'm not asking you to accept my definition of unfair and listed the reason why. (Stuff you didn't mine out)... then this: Therefore, no one is required to accept the definition that I'm using, but you are required to understand the definition that I am using.

My point was to show that this definition that you are complaining about was not mine, but supplied from Merriam Webster.
What gravity or opinions have to do with that I have no clue.
Perhaps if you would respond line by line and not quote mine out my actual points, it will help you to avoid these kind of straw man fallacies?

I reject your un-evidenced claim that gluttony is sinful.

Okay – the people who invented the concept of sin don’t get to say what it is. Instead you, who reject the entire concept, gets to define it. The ancient Indo-Europeans who invented the word from which we would derive “boy� decided what it would mean. I suppose you could reject their definition as well.

On this forum, I have every right to ignore un-evidenced claims. Why discuss 'sin' when we can discuss Russell's teapot? Or more accurately, why should we discuss either?
Here is the part that was quote mined out:
Either way, I trust the readers understand how your analogy that you claimed you never made, was actually made and that it is nonsensical to compare eating a little bit to something that you cannot do even a little bit.
We can discuss this further if you desire, but I think the readers probably understand this by now.
With this now having been said twice, that I am dealing with your claim that you didn't make an analogy, we can avoid a discussion about sin. Again, this all started because you claimed you didn't make an analogy. Rather than admit it, you now decide to discuss 'sin'. I would prefer not.

You can believe what you want about sin, I care not.

Except that you do care because you presumed to tell the people who invented the word that you define the term and they don’t.

What are you on about? Do you still claim that you were not making an analogy when you compared a glutton not overeating to a homosexual not having sex at all? Again, I only responded to your claim that you didn't make an analogy, I don't care what you personally consider to be sinful or not. I'm sorry.

I don't care what you think sin is.

Okay – so why are we discussing it?

Because, when I proved your claim wrong about not making an analogy, you went off on a 'sin' tangent.

The point you are missing is that even if I did believe in sin, a glutton is still allowed to do the thing they struggle with. Unlike a homosexual, therefore your analogy failed, and not because of 'sin', but due to the poor comparison being made.

Okay – so you’re still concerned with the whole analogy discussion in spite of it being quite irrelevant to the question before us of whether or not the Bible and SSM are compatible.

I'm sorry, but I find it relevant when someone makes an analogy, and then claims they didn't. Especially when it is your debate opponent. But as the readers can see, that is not all I'm concerned with. I'm also concerned with the fact that a glutton is still allowed to do the thing they struggle with. In your analogy, the homosexual cannot do the thing they struggle with even a little bit. It concerns me that you would make such an analogy.

Perhaps if you would stop quote mining me. The parts you left out (in italic below) explain the bearing. You harp on about 17yr olds, but fail to show that any discrimination is happening by failing to show harm being done.

If they wish to marry each other then they feel discrimination is occurring.

Ok, so we have 17 yr olds not allowed to marry. Please identify the group of 17 yr olds that is being treated unfairly when compared to the rest of 17 yr olds.
Discrimination includes unfairness. If there is not unfairness, how could they argue that they are being discriminated against?

What “proof� do you have that they’re wrong

None. Feel free to argue that 17 yr olds should be allowed to marry. I may join your side of you can present a convincing argument.
Here is the thing though. If we allow 17 yr olds to marry, you cannot invent a group of 17 yr olds, like homosexuals to then discriminate against.
So JLB, should we allow 17 yr olds to marry, or not? No picking and choosing which 17 yr olds.

– that your opinion of fairness is superior to theirs?

I have never claimed this. I have claimed that in this one instance, my morality is superior to yours because I am not treating my neighbor unfairly or with prejudice. I'm open to you showing me wrong.

Have you changed your stance to not allow SSM for Christians, but non Christians can still participate in SSM?

I’ve always maintained the two were incompatible. I’m only saying that I reject your definition of “discrimination� in that we exclude other forms of traditional marriage from state recognition but few people think this is discrimination. The only reason SSM is “discrimination� in your opinion is because you presume to say that X is unfair – as if it is some universal law.

Would you find it unfair if I was allowed to visit my wife on her death bed, but you, let's say because you have blue eyes, you cannot visit your wife on her death bed.
I challenge you to show how such a thing is fair.

I find it illogical JLB, because you have no business telling others to deny things that they desire (unless these things are harming others of course).

Okay – so you’re using “logical� in a non-standard sense based upon your subjective human based feelings – ones to which I’m not morally compelled to accept as universal.

I tire of supplying the meaning of words for you. Really, I do.
Deal with what I said please. Do you think it is your business to deny things that you yourself desire from your neighbors? Again, assuming no harm is being done.

This analogy fails because wanting to be with the one you love is not unnatural IMO.

And I’ve already explained that there’s no moral directive for me to even dignify your opinion. You can do the same with mine.

You don't have to dignify my opinion. You just need to understand why your analogy fails so you avoid making the same mistake again.

JLB, do priests live under religious vows?

Okay – so the fact that some priests have abused children is proof that monasticism doesn’t work for anyone. Gotcha.

Actually JLB, this would be where you acknowledge your mistake, not jump to crazy black and white conclusions.

Either way, was your argument really that homosexuals should live in monasteries?

Yup – if they wish to live lives compatible with Christian teaching, it’s an option. If they choose not to live in a monastery then they should live celibate lives in the world. I know that’s a bitter pill for our sex-obsessed society, but it is what it is.

You have every right to think this, but as soon as anyone would seek to impose this opinion on to someone else, they have over extended themselves and are now beyond their neighbors noses. Punch, punch, punch.
Do you want to be punched in the nose? Do you want your neighbor telling you to not have sex and to go live in a monastery?
Do you think we should seek to treat others how we would like to be treated?
Yes JLB, even if they are gay.

The definitions we both supplied for discrimination.

Okay – so a human made dictionary is the absolute standard to which all the universe defers.

Stop making ridiculous statements.
If you didn't know what dictionaries were for:
A modern Dictionary may be used to:
check spelling
diction - pronounciation of the word
Definition & usage such as noun, verb or adjective

Some dictionaries provide origins of root word and synonyms.

Where did you get the idea that dictionaries set up some standard that the universe must defer to?

[Bust Nak]

Yes, and I quote "So if discrimination is happening like you keep insisting, I will insist to know which group of 15 year olds is being discriminated against. Your argument fails because for some reason, you see discrimination when we are in actuality treating all 15 yr olds the same. There is not one group of 15 yr olds that is being treated any differently then the rest of the 15 yr olds. You will forever continue to not be able to provide an answer because your claim is nonsensical.."

See the part I put in bold?
As you can see, he is insisting that discrimination is happening. Whether he failed to comply to that request or not, unfairness and/or prejudice is happening all the same.
Therefore, fairness and/or prejudice is happening because discrimination is happening.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean that no discrimination is happening because not one group of 15 yr olds are treated differently then the rest of the 15 yr olds.

Copied and pasted from 185: Please read the part above that I underlined before continuing.
"Which race, age, or sex of 15 year olds is being treated unfairly if we equally don't allow all 15 year olds to marry?"
Color me confused. You seem to be complaining that I didn't ask him something that I did in fact ask him. I think your complaint is unjustified.

But even in that question you are highlighting the fact that no one group of 15 yr olds is treated differently to other group of 15 yr olds. It's a rhetorical question that tries imply there is no discrimination because not one group of 15 yr olds are differently to other 15 yr olds, based on race, age or gender.

Either way, he insisted that discrimination was taking place, therefore unfairness is happening and doesn't need to be shown.

Granted.

Yes. I just request that we don't create groups for the sole purpose to discriminate against them.

Whether that is happening is debatable too. What if someone accuse you of creating the handicapped 15 yr old group for the sole purpose to discriminate against them...?

We should create them to avoid harm IMO. See 18 yr olds driving but not 4 yr olds. Within these two created groups, I would argue that we need to treat them equally otherwise we run the risk of discriminating against them.
It's your perspective if you want to view 18 yr olds and 4 yr olds as one group when discussing driving privileges. I personally wouldn't.

... Or that you are creating the 4 yr old group for the sole purpose to discriminate against them? Why not just focus on fairness when how to classify people into group is essentially arbitrary.

(Copy/paste) Which race, age, or sex of 15 year olds is being treated unfairly if we equally don't allow all 15 year olds to marry?

I believe your confusion may stem from how JLB changed 'discrimination' to mean 'treating people differently'.
(Copy/Paste) Boat said: Yes, discrimination (treating a group unfairly and with prejudice) is morally inferior IMO.
As you can see, JLB tried to rebut this by changing the scenario to treating people 'differently'.
(Copy/Paste) JLB replied: I don’t see it as automatically unfair to treat different groups differently, nor am I morally compelled to accept your view since it’s your opinion as nothing more.

As we can see, I was not talking about treating people differently (18 yr old vs 4 yr old), I was talking specifically about discriminating (one group of 18 yr olds or one group of 4 yr olds that are being treated unfairly and/or with prejudice).

Right, but that doesn't explain why you asked him to show you different treatment within 15 yr olds. What was that supposed to prove?

[JLB32168]

Perhaps if you would respond line by line and not quote mine out my actual points, it will help you to avoid these kind of straw man fallacies?

Or I can simply cut to the chase. 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 – 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.

On this forum, I have every right to ignore un-evidenced claims.

Okay, what evidence do you have that what I wish to do is unfair – because the dictionary says so? I’m not obliged to accept the dictionary as final arbiter of what’s fair or unfair.

With this now having been said twice, that I am dealing with your claim that you didn't make an analogy, we can avoid a discussion about sin.

Whether or not I made an analogy is an red herring discussion on literary devices more appropriate to an English/Language Arts class. That you feel the need to harp on that string only suggests you’ve nothing else to bring to the table.

In your analogy, the homosexual cannot do the thing they struggle with even a little bit. It concerns me that you would make such an analogy.

Why is this so important that you keep mentioning it?

Ok, so we have 17 yr olds not allowed to marry. Please identify the group of 17 yr olds that is being treated unfairly when compared to the rest of 17 yr olds.

Why do I have to compare one group of seventeen year olds to another group of seventeen year olds when I can compare them to twenty-one year olds? Twenty-one year olds can’t marry seventeen year olds because of a difference of one year. Do you think this is okay? If you do, then you’re treating twenty-one year olds who want to marry seventeen year olds differently than twenty-one year olds who want to marry eighteen year olds. Your logic says that this unequal treatment is unfair.
Let’s apply your logic to the case of the 1950s when one group of black men – residents of Georgia were treated in the same manner as black men who are residents of Alabama. Neither groups were permitted to marry white women; therefore, both groups were being treated the same and your logic would say that this isn’t discrimination. Now, I predict that you’re going to suddenly compare these two groups to white men but you’ll tell me in not so many words that I can’t compare the seventeen year olds, who can’t marry anyone, to twenty-one year olds, who can marry anyone who has reached their majority.

Feel free to argue that 17 yr olds should be allowed to marry.

I’m highlighting the variableness of the word “unfair.� The reason I kept bringing up polygamy was that I found it quite interesting that the majority of people who support SSM – because it’s discrimination to deny it according to them – have no problem denying would-be polygamists the same rights they argue for SSM. That they fault me with engaging in unfairness only highlights their application of a double standard special pleading that excuses their own arguments from the same scrutiny they apply to others.

I challenge you to show how such a thing is fair.

If I declare it “fair� then it is fair and that’s because there is no objective standard for fairness since the universe doesn’t care or even know about fairness. Humans have arbitrary decided this and this human rejects what you, another mere human, regards as un/fair.

Deal with what I said please.

I dealt with it already. I reject your human opinion of un/fair.

You have every right to think this, but as soon as anyone would seek to impose this opinion on to someone else, they have over extended themselves and are now beyond their neighbors noses.

Right – just like they say to polygamists, “The state doesn’t recognize your desire to be married to many people at the same time.� There’s no hard fast rule on the wrongness of imposing one’s opinion upon others – your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

A modern Dictionary may be used to:

What does this have to do with the price of tea in Beijing contrasted against the price in Shanghai??

[Clownboat]

Sure, but that still doesn't mean that no discrimination is happening because not one group of 15 yr olds are treated differently then the rest of the 15 yr olds.

What does that have to do with what transpired?
I asked you: "Did I claim that failure to comply to that request demonstrates that unfairness and/or prejudice is happening?"

You accused me of doing just that and even copied and pasted my words. However, my words clearly showed that unfairness and/or prejudice is happening because he was insisting that discrimination was happening.

Do you retract your accusation? I can hardly be accused of claiming that failure to comply demonstrates the unfairness and/or discrimination is happening when unfairness and/or discrimination is already being claimed to be happening.

But even in that question you are highlighting the fact that no one group of 15 yr olds is treated differently to other group of 15 yr olds. It's a rhetorical question that tries imply there is no discrimination because not one group of 15 yr olds are differently to other 15 yr olds, based on race, age or gender.

I highlighted nothing in that quote.
I asked him a question and I don't know how you can now accuse me of implying anything.
im·ply
imˈplī/Submit
verb
strongly suggest the truth or existence

How was I suggesting the truth of something by asking a question? Seems like a very odd way to 'imply' IMO.

I would like to address something that was not in your reply here.
You said: "I want you to concede that you asked JLB32168 to show you which group of 15 yr olds are being treated differently from other 15 yr old, when you should have asked him which group was being treated unfairly."

What did I find in that very post # you referenced?
Boat said: "Which race, age, or sex of 15 year olds is being treated unfairly if we equally don't allow all 15 year olds to marry?'

Do you still want me to concede that I did not in fact ask him which group was being treated unfairly, when I clearly did? Can I assume that, that accusation is retracted?

Yes. I just request that we don't create groups for the sole purpose to discriminate against them.

Whether that is happening is debatable too.

I'm not asking to debate it. It's just a personal request that anyone has the right to reject. I personally think it's a good idea though and struggle to understand why anyone would resist. But it is a side issue.

What if someone accuse you of creating the handicapped 15 yr old group for the sole purpose to discriminate against them...?

I would ask that they then show that they speak the truth. There are enough false accusations going around already.

We should create them to avoid harm IMO. See 18 yr olds driving but not 4 yr olds. Within these two created groups, I would argue that we need to treat them equally otherwise we run the risk of discriminating against them.
It's your perspective if you want to view 18 yr olds and 4 yr olds as one group when discussing driving privileges. I personally wouldn't.

... Or that you are creating the 4 yr old group for the sole purpose to discriminate against them?

Can you show how not allowing 4 yr olds to drive, which would cause increased deaths on our roads is unfair and/or prejudice? If you can, please put forth your best argument because if you really think this is unfair or prejudice, I would love to understand your thought process.

Why not just focus on fairness when how to classify people into group is essentially arbitrary.

Because, if we only focus (you did say 'just') on fairness, we may not notice any possible harm being caused.
For example, if we let 4 yr olds drive, that would be treating 4 yr olds fairly, but we cannot ignore 'harm' that it would cause others.

Right, but that doesn't explain why you asked him to show you different treatment within 15 yr olds. What was that supposed to prove?

I would like to see the context that this was said in so I can see if it was suppose to prove anything.
What I have now copied and pasted numerous times:
Which race, age, or sex of 15 year olds is being treated unfairly if we equally don't allow all 15 year olds to marry?

As we can all see, I used unfairly. Perhaps I used differently at some point, but like I explained and you left out of your reply here:

Post 235
I believe your confusion may stem from how JLB changed 'discrimination' to mean 'treating people differently'.
(Copy/Paste) Boat said: Yes, discrimination (treating a group unfairly and with prejudice) is morally inferior IMO.
As you can see, JLB tried to rebut this by changing the scenario to treating people 'differently'.
(Copy/Paste) JLB replied: I don’t see it as automatically unfair to treat different groups differently, nor am I morally compelled to accept your view since it’s your opinion as nothing more.

As we can see, I was not talking about treating people differently (18 yr old vs 4 yr old), I was talking specifically about discriminating (one group of 18 yr olds or one group of 4 yr olds that are being treated unfairly and/or with prejudice).

[Clownboat]

Perhaps if you would respond line by line and not quote mine out my actual points, it will help you to avoid these kind of straw man fallacies?

Or I can simply cut to the chase.

You can still cut to the chase while replying to my entire argument instead of just the parts you are able to address.

What you describe as unfair is rubbish as far as I’m concerned.

No, it is not. I would like to once again demonstrate this by your lack of ability to respond.
Would you JLB, find it unfair if we passed a law that restricted you from being married to your wife?
What if a law was passed that didn't allow people with blue eyes to visit their loved ones on their death bed (assuming you have blue eyes for argument sake).
What if we allowed all adults to drive, but not if they identify as 'Christians'.
I find this unfair, and I don't believe you that you don't and I find your claim that it is rubbish to be nothing more than a nonsensical dodge.
Readers, notice if you will if he once again avoids answering if these things truly are rubbish or not.

I reject your definition of “unfair.�

I have not supplied a definition of 'unfair' for you to reject. I am discussing discrimination, and supplied the definition of it that I'm using from Merriam Websters which happens to include 'unfair' in it. You can't reject a definition that I have not supplied.

That the dictionary describes discrimination as unfair or prejudiced treatment is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that it’s still a human construct

Straw man. Readers, please notice that no one here is claiming that human definitions are not human constructs. To make such a claim seems ridiculous IMO.

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

Really? How did you fair on answering my questions to you above about some examples of unfairness?

– 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.

Not even worth a response.

Okay, what evidence do you have that what I wish to do is unfair – because the dictionary says so? I’m not obliged to accept the dictionary as final arbiter of what’s fair or unfair.

I have presented it many times now. It's in this post as well just above where I ask you:
Would you JLB, find it unfair if we passed a law that restricted you from being married to your wife?
What if a law was passed that didn't allow people with blue eyes to visit their loved ones on their death bed (assuming you have blue eyes for argument sake).
What if we allowed all adults to drive, but not if they identify as 'Christians'.

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

Whether or not I made an analogy is an red herring discussion on literary devices more appropriate to an English/Language Arts class. That you feel the need to harp on that string only suggests you’ve nothing else to bring to the table.

You made a bad analogy, what more do you expect me to harp on. I'm not going to acknowledge your poor analogy and I'm certainly not going to give it credit by attempting to respond to it. Pointing out that your analogy failed is all that needed to be done. Truly, I have nothing more to bring to the table on this matter, nor do I feel a need to bring more. You did make an analogy when you claimed you didn't, and your analogy fails on top of it all, so there is literally nothing for me to address.

Why is this so important that you keep mentioning it?

Your failed analogy is not important to me. At this point, I trust the readers understand as to why.

Ok, so we have 17 yr olds not allowed to marry. Please identify the group of 17 yr olds that is being treated unfairly when compared to the rest of 17 yr olds.

Why do I have to compare one group of seventeen year olds to another group of seventeen year olds when I can compare them to twenty-one year olds? Twenty-one year olds can’t marry seventeen year olds because of a difference of one year. Do you think this is okay? If you do, then you’re treating twenty-one year olds who want to marry seventeen year olds differently than twenty-one year olds who want to marry eighteen year olds. Your logic says that this unequal treatment is unfair.

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

Treating people differently does not mean discrimination is happening.

Let’s apply your logic to the case of the 1950s when one group of black men – residents of Georgia were treated in the same manner as black men who are residents of Alabama. Neither groups were permitted to marry white women; therefore, both groups were being treated the same and your logic would say that this isn’t discrimination.

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

This notion that boys having boys restrooms while girls have their own restroom (treated differently) is discrimination is nonsensical.

Now, I predict that you’re going to suddenly compare these two groups to white men but you’ll tell me in not so many words that I can’t compare the seventeen year olds, who can’t marry anyone, to twenty-one year olds, who can marry anyone who has reached their majority.

Nope, instead I just pointed out once again that to 'treat differently' does not necessarily mean that discrimination is happening.

Feel free to argue that 17 yr olds should be allowed to marry.

I’m highlighting the variableness of the word “unfair.� The reason I kept bringing up polygamy was that I found it quite interesting that the majority of people who support SSM – because it’s discrimination to deny it according to them – have no problem denying would-be polygamists the same rights they argue for SSM. That they fault me with engaging in unfairness only highlights their application of a double standard special pleading that excuses their own arguments from the same scrutiny they apply to others.

Why have you failed to acknowledge the claimed harm that polygamy would cause? Woman feel that it affect their dignity, not to mention you refuse to start a topic on this and I would assume that is due to the fact that more harm will be identified.

You have been honest that SSM does not harm you.
Now compare that to polygamy, which does get argued to cause harm.
Your analogies are just terrible. I trust the readers see this.

What's next, are you going to argue that it is discrimination to let prison guards have guns, but not the prisoners?

I challenge you to show how such a thing is fair.

If I declare it “fair� then it is fair and that’s because there is no objective standard for fairness since the universe doesn’t care or even know about fairness. Humans have arbitrary decided this and this human rejects what you, another mere human, regards as un/fair.

Readers, please notice how he was force to once again dodge the question. The part he quote mined out was: "Would you find it unfair if I was allowed to visit my wife on her death bed, but you, let's say because you have blue eyes, you cannot visit your wife on her death bed."
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.

Deal with what I said please.

I dealt with it already. I reject your human opinion of un/fair.

Your lack of ability to respond to my questions on fairness shows me that you do not reject what would be unfair or not. You just can't answer them because then you would be exposed.

Readers, this is the part he quote mind out so he could falsely claim that he dealt with it: "Do you think it is your business to deny things that you yourself desire from your neighbors? Again, assuming no harm is being done. "

Notice, I didn't even use the word 'fair' here and that is all he attempted to rebut.

You have every right to think this, but as soon as anyone would seek to impose this opinion on to someone else, they have over extended themselves and are now beyond their neighbors noses.

Right – just like they say to polygamists,

Yah, and prisoners too. Get real man.

“The state doesn’t recognize your desire to be married to many people at the same time.� There’s no hard fast rule on the wrongness of imposing one’s opinion upon others – your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

This may change in the future, you know, like how at one time women couldn't vote and people could own slaves.

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.
My hard and fast rule has to do with avoiding harm.
This applies to your 4 yr olds driving, to polygamy and to SSM.
I personally thing that we should avoid harming others and that we should treat others how we would like to be treated.
Do you agree that we should treat our neighbors like we would like to be treated? Would you like to not be able to be married to the person that you love? Should your neighbor be able to marry the person that they love? What if they are gay?

A modern Dictionary may be used to:

What does this have to do with the price of tea in Beijing contrasted against the price in Shanghai??

Nothing to do with tea.
You claimed: "Okay – so a human made dictionary is the absolute standard to which all the universe defers."
I was just correcting your false claim once again by supplying the actual usage of dictionaries because for some reason, you seemed to think that they are absolute and that the universe defers to them.
Again, since I am responding to your posts line by line, when you say something asinine like you did about dictionaries, I am simply addressed what you said. That is hardly my fault.