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]

Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

Oh but I did answer it. I don’t think it would be fair. I just don’t see how my definition of what’s un/fair is relevant to this discussion since “fair� is a relative term and you’ve already conceded that treating people differently need not entail treating them unfairly.

I think it’s perfectly fair to legally limit marriage to its traditional form. You agree since you’re cool with denying sixteen year olds the right to marry whom they wish (at least for two years when they reach their majority.)

Please point to what you find unfair or prejudice, and then explain which group out of the 16 yr olds or 25 yr olds is being singled out by said behavior.

You’re doing pretty good at changing the argument, but I catch it every time. Sixteen year olds who want to marry are a group. Eighteen year olds who want to marry are a group. The group of eighteen year olds who want to marry have the right to do so. The group of sixteen year olds don’t have that right. They must wait two years to do so.

Secondly, you threw Jesus’ “it is unloving to treat others differently from how you would want to be treated.� We’re not treating the group of sixteen year olds the way we, as adults, want to be treated. We wouldn’t want our marriages to be delayed by the state for two years. Would Jesus want us to practice the Golden Rule by abolishing this differential treatment that is very frustrating for these sixteen year old would-be husbands/wives, wives/wives, husbands/husbands? Is there some problem with answering that question???????

Treating, especially different age groups the same, while different compared to other age groups is not in itself discrimination. Why, because it IS sensical to not let 4 yr olds drive.

Returning to another assertion you made, Polygamists want to get married. They can’t. Would Jesus teach people that they should work to abolish bigamy laws since the people aren’t treating people the way they would like to be treated, that is, they’re denying some people – polygamists – a right that almost everyone else enjoys – the right to have their marriages sanctioned by the state and entitled to 14 Amendment equal protection under law? I’ve asked this question several times and every time you’ve failed to answer it. I even predicted that you'd avoid answering it.

What truly boggles my mind though . . .

What boggles my mind is how you think that people are constantly missing your deflections of questions germane to your point.

[Danmark]

Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

Oh but I did answer it. I don’t think it would be fair. I just don’t see how my definition of what’s un/fair is relevant to this discussion since “fair� is a relative term and you’ve already conceded that treating people differently need not entail treating them unfairly.

I think it’s perfectly fair to legally limit marriage to its traditional form.

You mean the polygamy of Old Testament days?
Perhaps polyandry which is 'its traditional form' in some cultures?

"Traditional" offers no moral guide whatsoever. Men 'traditionally enslaved each other. Men 'traditionally' offered human sacrifice.

[Bust Nak]

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.

No I do not retract, exactly because "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."

I highlighted nothing in that quote.

THEN WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP!? AGGGGH.

I asked him a question and I don't know how you can now accuse me of implying anything.

Because you said his failure to do so means no discrimination is happening.

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

It does when it was issued as a challenge: If you (JLB32168) say it is discrimination? Then prove it by showing me a group of 15 yr olds that is treated differently to other 15 yr olds.

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?

No, the point was, you asked him to show you unequal treatment, as if that somehow would demonstrate unfair treatment.

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...

Fine, lets drop that part about groups.

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).

You might have meant treating people unfairly, that's fine. That does not mean it made sense to ask him to show you how a group of treated differently, as if it would demonstrate unfairness.

[JLB32168]

You mean the polygamy of Old Testament days? Perhaps polyandry which is 'its traditional form' in some cultures?

I think that it was quite obvious to infer that by “Traditional� I meant “the norm in the West and most of the East for the past two millennia� and it’s just silly to pretend there was ambiguity.

[Clownboat]

Readers, please notice how JLB once again was not willing to answer my question about if it would be fair if we passed a law that said he could no longer be married to his wife because he has blue eyes (in this scenario).

Oh but I did answer it. I don’t think it would be fair.

Thank you for the answer!
This means that you can drop your straw man argument about what is fair or not in this posts and how you think I'm some arbitrator on fairness since we both agree that this kind of discrimination that we are discussing here is unfair (by definition, all discrimination is unfair, which is why your analogies fail when you are comparing two different age groups).

I can assume that you wouldn't want your neighbor to try to impose such a law on you.
Therefore, you are unjustified to try to impose such a law on to your neighbor according to your Christian beliefs.

I just don’t see how my definition of what’s un/fair is relevant to this discussion since “fair� is a relative term and you’ve already conceded that treating people differently need not entail treating them unfairly.

Moot point and irrelevant. We agree that what we are talking about here in regards to inhibiting who can marry whom, is unfair.

Feel free to ponder if polygamy is unfair or if not allowing 4 yr olds to drive is unfair, but don't pretend that those issues have anything to do with the unfair one we HAVE identified here.

I think it’s perfectly fair to legally limit marriage to its traditional form.

You have failed to address why your argument fails.
As Danmark so accurately pointed out: ""Traditional" offers no moral guide whatsoever. Men 'traditionally enslaved each other. Men 'traditionally' offered human sacrifice."

Therefore, your argument from tradition is meaningless.

You agree since you’re cool with denying sixteen year olds the right to marry whom they wish (at least for two years when they reach their majority.)

You're still missing my point. I don't care if 16 yr olds are allowed to marry or not. What I care about is if we are going to allow it or not going to allow it, such a thing needs to encompass all 16 yr olds equally. It would be unfair as you and I agreed to above to not allow blue eyed 16 yr olds, or homosexual 16 yr olds, or Christian 16 yr olds to marry whom they love. You're getting hung up on how we treat ages differently and missing the forest for the trees.

Please point to what you find unfair or prejudice, and then explain which group out of the 16 yr olds or 25 yr olds is being singled out by said behavior.

You’re doing pretty good at changing the argument, but I catch it every time. Sixteen year olds who want to marry are a group. Eighteen year olds who want to marry are a group. The group of eighteen year olds who want to marry have the right to do so. The group of sixteen year olds don’t have that right. They must wait two years to do so.

I'm following you, now please point out what you find unfair or prejudice about how all 16 yr olds are not allowed to marry. When you realize that there is not a group (like people with blue eyes or homosexuals) being treated unfairly, please realize that no discrimination is taking place unlike the scenario we are talking about here in this thread.
Let's examine what would be discrimination: We allow 16 yr olds to marry, except for homosexual 16 yr olds, or we only allow homosexual 16 yr olds to marry. Not allowing 16 yr olds to equally not marry while we equally allow all 18 yr olds to marry just isn't discrimination. You see, society could change the marriage age to 15, and that is fine as long as we don't create a group within 15 yr olds to then discriminate.

JLB, are you OK with allowing 16 yr olds to marry?
What if they are gay 16 yr olds? Would you also allow that group, or would that be the one group you would seek to restrict rights from in this scenario?

When you admit that this is the case, please see how you would also find it unfair to not be allowed to marry the person that you love.

Secondly, you threw Jesus’ “it is unloving to treat others differently from how you would want to be treated.�

You really need to stop.
It is not unloving to treat people differently as has been pointed out numerous times about the 18 yr olds compared to 4 yr olds driving. There is nothing unloving, prejudice or discriminatory about us as a society doing this. However, if we only didn't allow homosexual 4 yr olds to drive, then we would have unfairness and discrimination.

It may do you well here if you avoid using the word 'differently' since it seems to confuse you so. Stick to discrimination, unfairness or prejudice so you don't come across as talking about bowling shoes while the rest of us are talking about discrimination.

We’re not treating the group of sixteen year olds the way we, as adults, want to be treated.

Correct, they are being treated 'differently', which is not discrimination, which is why you should stop bringing such things up.

We wouldn’t want our marriages to be delayed by the state for two years.

And here is the problem. When you say 'we' here, you are excluding homosexuals since you don't want 'them' to be able to be married like you and I. So if 16 yr olds must wait 2 yrs to get married, this applies to all of them. You can't say all but homosexuals or none but white Christians. When you do, you are discriminating.

Would Jesus want us to practice the Golden Rule by abolishing this differential treatment that is very frustrating for these sixteen year old would-be husbands/wives, wives/wives, husbands/husbands? Is there some problem with answering that question???????

This question IS easy to answer JLB.
No. Jesus would understand that it is not unfair to any group of 16 yr old when no 16 yr old is allowed to marry. Would Jesus approve of allowing all but one group of 16 yr old to marry? No IMO, because such an action would be treating our neighbor unlike how we want to be treated. He would recognize the unfair and prejudicial treatment that would be taking place.

Treating, especially different age groups the same, while different compared to other age groups is not in itself discrimination. Why, because it IS sensical to not let 4 yr olds drive.

Returning to another assertion you made, Polygamists want to get married. They can’t. Would Jesus teach people that they should work to abolish bigamy laws since the people aren’t treating people the way they would like to be treated, that is, they’re denying some people – polygamists – a right that almost everyone else enjoys – the right to have their marriages sanctioned by the state and entitled to 14 Amendment equal protection under law? I’ve asked this question several times and every time you’ve failed to answer it. I even predicted that you'd avoid answering it.

No, assuming Jesus was real (which I happen to believe) I don't think he would want us to abolish bigamy. Perhaps he would though? What do you think you have accomplished by me answering this?

What truly boggles my mind though . . .

What boggles my mind is how you think that people are constantly missing your deflections of questions germane to your point.

You struggle with understanding the difference between discrimination and differently though. So for your mind to be boggled, I'm not surprised.

[Clownboat]

You might have meant treating people unfairly, that's fine.

You think I 'might' have meant 'unfairly'? Seriously?
Was your clue the fact that I did use 'unfairly'?

Boat's evidence: (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?

It should be clear that not only did I mean 'unfairly', but I actually used 'unfairly'.

Differently comes up because JLB changes discrimination and unfairly to mean differently. Unfortunately for him, differently is not part of the definition for discrimination.

That does not mean it made sense to ask him to show you how a group of treated differently, as if it would demonstrate unfairness.

Someone will need to point out where this word was used.
(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'm just not seeing it.

Either way, I submit that if in these pages somewhere I did use 'differently' it would have been a mistake, but just a mistake brought on by his conflating of terms.
Clownboat acknowledges that when people are treated differently, that doesn't mean discrimination IS taking place.
This should be obvious though, due to the amount of times I have had to address how we fairly allow 18 yr olds to drive, but not 4 yr olds. Such a thing is fair and not discriminatory. It is logical and not harmful to treat these age groups differently when it comes to driving.

[Clownboat]

You mean the polygamy of Old Testament days? Perhaps polyandry which is 'its traditional form' in some cultures?

I think that it was quite obvious to infer that by “Traditional� I meant “the norm in the West and most of the East for the past two millennia� and it’s just silly to pretend there was ambiguity.

Same problem.
Traditionally, in the West and East, some humans could own slaves and women were not allowed to vote.
Next, a person could argue from 1930's and 40's German tradition that Jews should be exterminated.

Arguments from tradition fail. Have you never heard this phrase?
Learn from your history, or you are doomed to repeat it.

[Bust Nak]

Either way, I submit that if in these pages somewhere I did use 'differently' it would have been a mistake, but just a mistake brought on by his conflating of terms.
Clownboat acknowledges that when people are treated differently, that doesn't mean discrimination IS taking place.
This should be obvious though, due to the amount of times I have had to address how we fairly allow 18 yr olds to drive, but not 4 yr olds. Such a thing is fair and not discriminatory. It is logical and not harmful to treat these age groups differently when it comes to driving.

That's good enough for me. Consider the matter settled.

[JLB32168]

You mean the polygamy of Old Testament days? Perhaps polyandry which is 'its traditional form' in some cultures?

Nope – the traditional model which has been the norm in the West and much of the East for the past two millennia.

"Traditional" offers no moral guide whatsoever. Men 'traditionally enslaved each other. Men 'traditionally' offered human sacrifice.

It’s as valid a moral guide as the one you advocate. The universe doesn’t care what im/moral. It is savagely indifferent.

This means that you can drop your straw man argument about what is fair or not in this posts and how you think I'm some arbitrator on fairness since we both agree that this kind of discrimination that we are discussing here is unfair . . .

Except that I don’t think it’s unfair. I think it’s a double standard, but double standards aren’t inherently unfair – your impression notwithstanding. I’m sure that the seventeen year old who wishes to marry his/her fiancé/e also thinks it’s unfair that s/he must wait a year before s/he can do it. I’m sure you have no problem telling that seventeen year old that s/he must wait until s/he’s eighteen. I’m sure you think it’s perfectly fair as well.

We agree that what we are talking about here in regards to inhibiting who can marry whom, is unfair.

Except that I don’t think it’s categorically unfair to inhibit who can marry whom and most of society doesn’t think it’s unfair as evidenced by the fact that there’s no great movement to abolish laws that criminalize bigamy.

You have failed to address why your argument fails.

My argument only “fails� in that I don’t agree that it always unfair to treat groups of people differently.

I don't care if 16 yr olds are allowed to marry or not.

And you see, that’s where you’re wrong. You do care because you’re cool with telling a sixteen year old that s/he has to wait two years before s/he can marry his/her twenty-five year old fiancé/e.

I'm following you, now please point out what you find unfair or prejudice about how all 16 yr olds are not allowed to marry.

All sixteen year olds are not allowed to marry twenty-five year olds unlike all eighteen year olds who can marry eighty-year olds. You’re treating all sixteen year olds differently than all eighteen year olds based upon an arbitrtary number – two. But you suddenly change and say that it’s fair to do so – treat an entire group of people (16-year olds) differently.

No, assuming Jesus was real (which I happen to believe) I don't think he would want us to abolish bigamy.

Okay so when you said it was unloving (and hence anti-Jesus) to deny people the right to marry you created a special pleading to excuse SSM from the same scrutiny applied to Polygamists, who want to get married, but who can’t.

You struggle with understanding the difference between discrimination and differently though.

No, I struggle with your implied assertion that you are arbitrator of what is un/fair, based upon no logical set of criteria, and your second implied assertion that all who don’t abide by your definitions are discriminatory.

[Clownboat]

discriminationplay
noun dis·crim·i·na·tion \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈn�-shən\
: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... rimination

Except that I don’t think it’s unfair.

Which is why I have asked you if your native language is English.
Your position (where you select one specific group of adults to then treat unfairly different, and it is unfair because we have already established that SSM does not cause you harm, therefore you are without justification unlike those that would seek to not allow 4 yr olds to drive) is one of discrimination towards homosexuals. Therefore by definition, the treatment is unfair.
You are at war with the English language I'm afraid.

You might as well be arguing that murder doesn't involve killing.
murderplay
noun mur·der \ˈmər-dər\
: the crime of deliberately killing a person