Well, if you don't consider the Old Testament, or parts of it, to be God-inspired, I guess that's your problem. But you clearly have a misunderstanding of the reasons for the harsh judicial system given under the old covenant.
Little left-wing fag-lover Chuckie Todd weights in...
Most Christians today who glibly cite Leviticus and stoning miss a few other factors.
(1) It applied to Sabbath breakers, too
(2) Two witnesses were required. Only one witness and the accused would skate
(3) Statute of limitations was to the next annual Atonement Day.
There was both a plan and grace, and without that we have a badly distorted picture.
Most Christians today who glibly cite Leviticus and stoning miss a few other factors.
(1) It applied to Sabbath breakers, too
(2) Two witnesses were required. Only one witness and the accused would skate
(3) Statute of limitations was to the next annual Atonement Day.
There was both a plan and grace, and without that we have a badly distorted picture.
It looks a lot to me like the need for multiple witnesses wasn’t just for certitude’s sake. Private sins were dealt with more leniently than notorious ones. They knew people would commit sins, but they did not want to allow it to become notorious.
Of course the faux-marriage rage is very notorious.
Ironically, if the multiple-witness rule had applied in modern sodomy prohibitions, the case by which the USSC had struck down these prohibitions would not have happened. A policeman happened into a bedroom for some other reason. One witness... suspect skates. No case, nothing for the USSC to make precedent from. The biblical grace had as much reason as the biblical harshness.