Does the bible outlaw gay marriage for non-believers?

[DanieltheDragon]

I have read the bible up and down left and right. There are lots of things about abominations etc etc. What it doesn't say though is whether or not non-believers can have gay marriage. In fact the laws and commandments in the bible are specifically for the Jews. Jesus opened that up and through Paul's doctrine that became inclusive of the gentiles(those who were believers).


So question for debate does the bible outlaw gay marriage for non-believers?


Can anyone find a verse saying that non-believers cannot have gay marriage?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Let’s try this again . . .

Your original comment was,

True, rape is not necessarily wrong, but that's moot since rape is incidentally wrong.

What is the difference between necessarily and incidentally?

When is it not necessarily wrong?

Rape is always wrong.

Agree AND my point. You know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. Any reasonable human being knows it’s wrong. Therefore, we can say rape is always morally wrong. This is a moral truth that all men can recognize.

My question remains, do you have a better rebuttal against my accusation of an equivocation fallacy, re: "the "wrong" with missing arms or bulimia means atypical, as opposed to immoral.

Semantics. Is bulimia wrong? Or not good/right? I would argue it is and I would argue you agree that it is as well. And I would argue that knowing bulimia is wrong/not good is something all men via logic/reason can know. How do we know it is wrong/not good/disordered? Because we all acknowledge there is an order and violation of that order is not in man’s best interest.

The definition of mo•ral•i•ty is:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Human beings make the distinction that bulimia is disordered/wrong behavior.

[Bust Nak]

What is the difference between necessarily and incidentally?

Necessary truth cannot logically be false, negating it would generate a self-contradiction. Incidental truth could logically be false, but happens to be true.

When is [rape] not necessarily wrong?

Same answer as before: Always. Rape is never necessarily wrong.

Agree AND my point. You know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. Any reasonable human being knows it’s wrong. Therefore, we can say rape is always morally wrong. This is a moral truth that all men can recognize.

Right. Now contrast that with homosexuality, you think it is wrong, I think it's not wrong. No reasonable human being knows it’s wrong. It is not a moral truth that all men recognize.

Next contrast that with bulimia. You know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. Any reasonable human being knows it’s wrong. Yet, we cannot say bulimia is morally wrong at all, because the word "wrong" here does not mean morally wrong, but atypical.

Semantics.

Exactly. You want to ignore the semantic difference and hence guilty of a fallacy.

Is bulimia wrong? Or not good/right? I would argue it is and I would argue you agree that it is as well. And I would argue that knowing bulimia is wrong/not good is something all men via logic/reason can know.

Sure, but I will not agree that it is immoral.

How do we know it is wrong/not good/disordered? Because we all acknowledge there is an order and violation of that order is not in man’s best interest.

The definition of mo•ral•i•ty is:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Human beings make the distinction that bulimia is disordered/wrong behavior.

There is that same fallacy again. The word "wrong" in bulimia does not have the same meaning as the word "wrong" in the definition of morality.

You do know what an equivocation fallacy is, right? Doubling down on it doesn't make it any more logical the second time round.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Necessary truth cannot logically be false, negating it would generate a self-contradiction. Incidental truth could logically be false, but happens to be true.


Quote:
When is [rape] not necessarily wrong?

Same answer as before: Always. Rape is never necessarily wrong.

If necessary truth cannot logically be false, the wrongness of rape is a necessary truth. In fact, one could say rape is always necessarily wrong, because it cannot logically ever be good.

Quote:
Agree AND my point. You know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. Any reasonable human being knows it’s wrong. Therefore, we can say rape is always morally wrong. This is a moral truth that all men can recognize.

Right.

I’m glad you agree. Why do all men agree rape is wrong? Why can't rape be right? Why are any of us subject to anything?

Now contrast that with homosexuality, you think it is wrong, I think it's not wrong.

Unreasonable people argue rape is not always wrong. Unreasonable people can argue that homosexual acts are not wrong. This does not mean the wrongness of these behaviors is not truth. People deny truth all the time. Typically, however one has to play semantics, or change what is actually being said in order to accept that which all men know to be wrong. Abortion is a great example. All men can know it is wrong to kill an innocent baby. The only way those who are pro abortion can justify abortion is to say the human being growing inside the mother is not a baby, just a clump of cells. In this way, abortion can be justified. Slavery was similarly justified. People had to convince themselves or rationalize that some human beings are inferior to others – even sub human if you will. If they aren’t fully human, then we are justified in treating them as less.

Again, as G. k. Chesterton said, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.�
The fact that you want to rationalize immorality does not negate moral truth.

Next contrast that with bulimia. You know it’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. Any reasonable human being knows it’s wrong. Yet, we cannot say bulimia is morally wrong at all, because the word "wrong" here does not mean morally wrong, but atypical.

Again, semantics. If something goes against the natural order, then it is a violation of that natural order and wrong. This is how we derive what is right/good/bad/wrong – IOW, morality.

Quote:
Is bulimia wrong? Or not good/right? I would argue it is and I would argue you agree that it is as well. And I would argue that knowing bulimia is wrong/not good is something all men via logic/reason can know.

Sure, but I will not agree that it is immoral.

Of course you won't -- Word games. I don’t care what you call it, but via logic and reason we can know it is not right/good – a violation of natural law.

[Bust Nak]

If necessary truth cannot logically be false, the wrongness of rape is a necessary truth.

Incorrect, the wrongness of rape is can logically be false. It just happens to be true.

In fact, one could say rape is always necessarily wrong, because it cannot logically ever be good.

No, you cannot say that since the negation isn't a logical contradiction.

I’m glad you agree. Why do all men agree rape is wrong? Why can't rape be right? Why are any of us subject to anything?

Because despite our difference, we still have a lot in common in our way of thinking.

Unreasonable people argue rape is not always wrong. Unreasonable people can argue that homosexual acts are not wrong. This does not mean the wrongness of these behaviors is not truth. People deny truth all the time.

Right, but unreasonable people are arguing that homosexual acts are wrong. That does not mean the wrongness of these behaviors is truth. People affirm falsehood all the time.

Typically, however one has to play semantics, or change what is actually being said in order to accept that which all men know to be wrong. Abortion is a great example. All men can know it is wrong to kill an innocent baby.

We do? That's a rather unreasonable assumption.

The only way those who are pro abortion can justify abortion is to say the human being growing inside the mother is not a baby, just a clump of cells. In this way, abortion can be justified. Slavery was similarly justified. People had to convince themselves or rationalize that some human beings are inferior to others – even sub human if you will. If they aren’t fully human, then we are justified in treating them as less.

And now we have an example of people playing semantics or or change what is actually being said in order to argue that homosexuality is wrong.

Again, as G. k. Chesterton said, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.�
The fact that you want to rationalize immorality does not negate moral truth.

So says the guy who is trying to rationalize immorality and negate moral truth.

Again, semantics.

Yes it is. Anything less would be a fallacy.

If something goes against the natural order, then it is a violation of that natural order and wrong. This is how we derive what is right/good/bad/wrong – IOW, morality.

Incorrect. Right have different meaning in different context, a failure to distinguish the different meaning is a equivocation fallacy. Telling me it is semantics doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

Of course you won't -- Word games. I don’t care what you call it, but via logic and reason we can know it is not right/good – a violation of natural law.

Ironic that they guy trying to play word game is accusing people pointing it out for playing word games. Again, look up what the equivocation fallacy is.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I’m not going to respond line by line to your comments, as your entire argument is self-contradicting. It is illogical to deny absolute moral truth. And almost comical to make a statement like this, “the wrongness of rape is can logically be false. It just happens to be true.� Does it happen to be true? Says who?

This sums up the problem with your rambling attempt to declare moral relativism . . .

*************************

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…


"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.


"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.


"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.


"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true. . . .



Morality is a facet of absolute truth. Thus, relativists often declare, "It's wrong for you to impose your morals on me." By declaring something is wrong, the relativist is contradicting himself by imposing his morals upon you.


You might hear, "There is no right, there is no wrong!" You must ask, is that statement right or wrong? . . . .


If you attempt to tell a relativist the difference between right and wrong, you will no doubt hear, "None of that is true! We make our own reality!" If that's true, and we all create our own reality, then our statement of moral accountability is merely a figment of the relativist's imagination. If a relativist has a problem with a statement of absolute morality, the relativist should take the issue up with himself.


We all know there is absolute truth. It seems the more we argue against it, the more we prove its existence. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. Philosophically, relativism is contradictory. Practically, relativism is anarchy. The world is filled with absolute truth.


https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/absolute-truth.htm

[Bust Nak]

Does it happen to be true?

Yes.

Says who?

Says I. But that's irrelevant. It happens to be true whether I say it or not.

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth...

I know, that's why I would never argue against the existence of absolute truth, which makes much of your post irrelevant. I don't even know why you'd think I am somehow challenging the existence of absolute truth, given I was banging on about logical necessities. What do you think logical necessities are, if not absolute truths? Respond to what I am saying, not the strawman in your head.

What I did arguing against, are your claims - (some of) what you claimed to be true, isn't the absolute truth, but falsehood.

Morality is a facet of absolute truth. Thus, relativists often declare, "It's wrong for you to impose your morals on me." By declaring something is wrong, the relativist is contradicting himself by imposing his morals upon you.

There is no contradiction there. "It's wrong for you to impose your morals on me" does not imply "it's wrong for me to impose my morals on you."

You might hear, "There is no right, there is no wrong!" You must ask, is that statement right or wrong? . . . .

And I would answer, it is wrong.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/absolute-truth.htm

Have you considered that you are the one arguing against absolute truth by insisting homosexuality is wrong? More to the point, have you consider getting your philosophy info from philosophy sites and not Christian site dressed up as philosophy? That article, while is makes some good point for absolute truth, fails to represent relativism accurately, the statement "there are "some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism" should have rung all the alarm bells in your head.

In the beginning of you post you mentioned my entire argument is self-contradicting, it seems you have no idea what my argument is and instead went on a rant on absolute truth. I didn't even say anything to do with relativism.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 58 by RightReason]

Sure they do. All men can recognize right/wrong/good/bad. And we do and operate accordingly on a daily basis, whether you can admit it now or not. Again, someone violating this universal code of morality does not mean the code doesn’t exist.

This is patently false not lol humans recognize right/wrong/good/bad. Certain forms of autism and sociopathy prevent individuals from forming empathy which is the basis for morality.

Whether someone follows or violates a presupposed universal law neither confirms or denies a moral code. What would belay the idea of a moral code is a lack of agreement on moral principles across cultures and time. Observing shifts in moral behavior within large groups should be a dead give away to the lack of universal morality.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

[quote] you are the one arguing against absolute truth by insisting homosexuality is wrong?

Uuum . . . sorry that makes no sense. I have argued homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered – a direct appeal to absolute truth.

Nice try – but not buy’n. You are suggesting homosexual acts are moral (uummm I guess for no other reason than because you want them to be since you have provided no other reason) to which I provided many facts demonstrating they are immoral. It isn’t random or arbitrary that all cultures in all periods of history until very recently declared homosexual acts immoral. I showed how we can determine they are wrong in the same way we determine anything is wrong – via observation of the world and man’s relationship with this world. By acknowledging shape/form/order/science/biology we can determine purpose/function and know what is right/good.

You seem to think because you don’t think homosexual acts are immoral, they must not be. LOL! That’s not the way it works. It isn’t my opinion that homosexual acts are immoral. It is something that can be determined via reason logic and observation of the world.

[Bust Nak]

Uuum . . . sorry that makes no sense. I have argued homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered – a direct appeal to absolute truth.

I know, but what if what you think is the absolute truth, isn't the absolute truth? Have you considered that?

Nice try – but not buy’n. You are suggesting homosexual acts are moral (uummm I guess for no other reason than because you want them to be since you have provided no other reason) to which I provided many facts demonstrating they are immoral.

Well, tried and failed to provide any facts demonstrating they are immoral. All you have demonstrated is that they are atypical.

It isn’t random or arbitrary that all cultures in all periods of history until very recently declared homosexual acts immoral.

I think you'll find that homosexual acts are declared immoral after the rise of Abrahamic religions. It's not all period until very recently at all. The exploits of the Greeks pre-Christianity should have made that very clear.

I showed how we can determine they are wrong in the same way we determine anything is wrong – via observation of the world and man’s relationship with this world. By acknowledging shape/form/order/science/biology we can determine purpose/function and know what is right/good.

But that is not the same thing as what is moral. You are running foul of equivocation fallacy again.

You seem to think because you don’t think homosexual acts are immoral, they must not be.

Yes, I do think that but that is irrelevant here. I am not arguing for moral relativism here. Instead I am arguing against your case re: equivocation fallacy.

It isn’t my opinion that homosexual acts are immoral. It is something that can be determined via reason logic and observation of the world.

LOL! That’s not the way it works.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 58 by RightReason]

asked and answered. All men can know right/wrong/good/bad via observation of man and man’s relationship with the world we live in via reason and logic. We can observe how the world works, accept and acknowledge the science/biology/order/design and recognize what makes sense.

Flaws:
A.) All humans can know right&wrong
1. Not all humans have the same cognitive ability
2. Not all humans have empathy(some forms of autism and anti-social disorders)

B.) we can observe how the world works
1. People share different perspectives and will observe and reach different conclusions
2. People have different environmental life experiences
3. Sociological behaviors vary from region to region what one might observe in one area could be totally different in another.

C.) order/design

1. Nature is not ordered or designed therefore there is no design or order to observe. Any claims in this regard are mere projection.


My question to you is what happens when two people of equal intelligence observe how the world works and reach different conclusions on morality?

Is this indicative of natural law?