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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 36 by RightReason]

first, man is not the same as animals so the same “rules� don’t apply. Some animals eat their young – clearly, it is wrong my for man to eat his young.

Man is the same as animals we are animals. Secondly as I said earlier there are no "rules". There are various reasons animals exhibit cannabilism. Lions for example might eat the young of competing males. This doesn't make it "right" for lions. I am sure the lions that had their young eaten would not be happy.

The bible does exhibit similar morality though, for example God ordered the murder of pregnant women and the death of children for tribes that occupied lands he wanted the Jews to occupy. So was God clearly wrong?

What about the Donner party that ate the dead to survive were they wrong?

[RightReason]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

What science is this based on?

What observations?

What reason?

And what course of logic?

Really? Science, observation, reason and logic show sodomy to be wrong/harmful. Two men do not have compatible genitalia. They are forced to put something where it doesn’t belong. How do we know it doesn’t belong there? Science shows the rectum was not designed to receive a foreign object. The membranes of the rectum are thin and prone to tearing/ripping. It doesn’t stretch say like the vagina. It also produces no natural lubrication like the vagina. Science also shows it is more likely to harbor disease and bacteria and spread infection. Biology shows us the sexual act between two men is always sterile.

The only objectors to the LGBT community are specifically religious.

False. As I just stated I do not object to homosexual acts for “religious� reasons. Also, no culture until very recently has recognized same sex unions. These were decisions made by the state – not religions.

If I am unaware of some scientific consensus or logical grounds to condemn the LGBT community please list them.

No one is condemning anyone. Science/nature simply points to what behaviors make sense for man. Science/nature isn’t making a judgment. It just is.

Man is the same as animals we are animals.

<sigh> Man has reason that animals don’t so animals aren’t really subject to morality unless one argues that an animal is going what is good and right by being an animal and doing whatever that animal is intended to do (if that is to eat his competition then in fact eating his competition for a lion would be right/good).

Secondly as I said earlier there are no "rules". There are various reasons animals exhibit cannabilism. Lions for example might eat the young of competing males. This doesn't make it "right" for lions.

Of course it does. He isn’t expected to use reason. He’s a lion, therefore that behavior is then in a sense what a lion should do.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 41 by RightReason]

Actually science shows that the anus and prostate are sensitive for sexual stimulation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_massage

Hence why there is a sexual preoccupation with that region. Anytime there is sexual contact whether anally vaginally or orally Creates a risk of disease. Risk for disease does not mean it isn't natural.

Also science has shown sexual intercourse is not just for procreation. It is also a form of emotional bonding and stress relief. Additionally homosexual sex is not limited to two men having anal sex.




Seeing as how you don't object to homosexual intercourse for "religious" reasons, why don't you enlighten us as to why specifically you object to it? Label it as wrong/violation of natural "law".

The Greeks and Romans both recognized homosexual unions, Ito era Japan as well. Before making bold statements like no culture until very recently try actually understanding the history of homosexuality in human culture.

[RightReason]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Actually science shows that the anus and prostate are sensitive for sexual stimulation.

A man could receive sexual pleasure from sticking his penis in a bee hive – doesn’t mean it would be good or wise to do so.

I’ve heard heroin can give the body a great amount of pleasure – an ecstasy unlike any other, does that mean shooting heroin is right and good and that which will bring man long term human fulfillment? Man with his reason and what we can observe from the world we live in can determine it is not good/wrong to indulge in such drugs. Even though the body can get pleasure from such things, it is wrong to use/treat the body in this way.

Anytime there is sexual contact whether anally vaginally or orally Creates a risk of disease.

Actually, the vagina was designed to receive the penis – that’s biology 101. You would be a science denier to suggest the anal sex is not riskier than vaginal sex – even the CDC acknowledges this.

Also science has shown sexual intercourse is not just for procreation. It is also a form of emotional bonding and stress relief.

Who argued otherwise?

The Greeks and Romans both recognized homosexual unions, Ito era Japan as well.

Not true. It was always part of a subculture and never recognized or sanctioned by the state.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 41 by RightReason]

<sigh> Man has reason that animals don’t so animals aren’t really subject to morality unless one argues that an animal is going what is good and right by being an animal and doing whatever that animal is intended to do (if that is to eat his competition then in fact eating his competition for a lion would be right/good).

So now your arguing subjective morality and disagreeing with "natural law"? If eating the children of your species is against natural law then it would still be "wrong" for lions to do this. Now the argument is invoking special pleading to separate man from nature whilst still being subject to "natural law". We need to separate several things first though

1. Animals are not intended to do anything.
2. Man are animals, phrases like man has reason that animals don't is plainly wrong because we are an animal hence the phrase is contradictory.


Back to your argument that other animals don't have reason or moralistic behaviors would be plainly wrong. Yes I would argue our ability to reason and apply logic is leaps and bounds ahead of other animals but we are hardly alone in moralistic behaviors and social interactions. Dolphins, Whales, other great apes, and select social mammals exhibit moralistic reasoning and behaviors. I would suggest watching this TED talk for a cursory introduction.


[yt][/yt]

[RightReason]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

So now your arguing subjective morality and disagreeing with "natural law"?

Are you at all familiar with Natural Law?

A definition of Natural Law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

Natural Law is the objectively derived moral standards that govern human beings. They are derived from the nature of human beings. The world works/operates in certain ways. Via observation one can come to acknowledge natural law.

All human beings have certain rights by their very nature of being human. These rights are written in nature and can be understood through human reason. A society or government does not decide something is right/good. The rightness/goodness of something can only be acknowledged – not created. We all are all subject to the natural laws of this world we live. It is not something one can escape.

[Bust Nak]

First, I think you are misunderstanding Natural Law argument. Natural Law argument is not simply based on that which is natural as in that which occurs in nature or natural as in not artificial or manmade.

Some things can occur in nature, for example someone could be born without arms and legs...

All men can know bulimia is not properly ordered.

Except the "wrong" with missing arms or bulimia means atypical, not immoral. It's an equivocation fallacy.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by RightReason]

man could receive sexual pleasure from sticking his penis in a bee hive – doesn’t mean it would be good or wise to do so.

I’ve heard heroin can give the body a great amount of pleasure – an ecstasy unlike any other, does that mean shooting heroin is right and good and that which will bring man long term human fulfillment? Man with his reason and what we can observe from the world we live in can determine it is not good/wrong to indulge in such drugs. Even though the body can get pleasure from such things, it is wrong to use/treat the body in this way.

Comparing anal sex to intercourse with a beehive or heroin does not do you service. The prostate is specifically connected to sexual stimulation biologically. This is not just some fetish that get people off from the taboo nature of it.

It is not wrong to have anal sex because, it can lead to stronger emotional bonds between two partners or more, it relieves stress for said partners, and sex in general leads to better physical health.

The risk of disease is minimal compared to the positives. You claim the anus was not designed to receive penetration. The body isn't designed at all, hence your argument is moot. It might not be the perfect receiver, but neither is the vagina. The tongue and fingers are more adept at stimulating female genetalia than a penis.

Finally the morality of it is simply your opinion. Anal sex can be very beneficial to some sexual partners. It might not be for everyone but then again we are not all the same.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Except the "wrong" with missing arms or bulimia means atypical, not immoral. It's an equivocation fallacy.

Riiiiight . . . and rape is just atypical but not necessarily wrong.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 45 by RightReason]

Yes I am aware of natural law, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of it. It is an outdated philosophical mulling of the derivation of human morality. It is clealry wrong though since no one seemingly can agree on what the natural laws actually are.

You are sitting here trying to convince us that anal intercourse is naturally wrong. I am sitting here telling you it is not naturally wrong. Why the impasse? If something is objectively wrong this insinuates a universal acceptance of the moral principle. In this instance it is clearly not the case.

Take killing another person for example. This is not necessarily wrong in a moral sense. The circumstance influences our perception of the action being right or wrong. Our opinions of the circumstance influences this as well. Was George Zimmerman right to kill Trayvon Martin? A jury thought so, but that conclusion has been widely critized as well. There is no universal aggreement on the death of Trayvon Martin.

If we can't even agree on something that simple how can we possibly agree that anal intercourse both hetero and homo is wrong?