The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Catholic Church should Marry Homosexuals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 378 times Debate No: 88395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




This is my first debate, so I am doing this rather blindly.

I am proposing that the Catholic Church should start marrying same-sex couples. It is against the core Catholic teachings of love and acceptance that Catholics are supposed to practice to not marry gays. The Catholic Church is in rapid decline and many Catholics are no longer practicing. The Church's stance on issues such as gay marriage are scaring away younger generations. The Catechism calls out against homosexual lifestyles and calls it unnatural, and claims homosexuality is a choice, both ideas are considered by many, including me, to be quite ignorant, and very incorrect. If the Catholic Church wants to exist specifically in western civilization in the coming generations, they need to release their ban on same-sex marriage, not only in the name of morals, but for the sake of the livelihood of the Church.


Konbanwa. It seems that my opponent is uneducated about the Catholic faith. I would like to educate him. I hope this enlightens him.

Case 1: The Religion is Against Homosexuality

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Leviticus 20:13

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 18:22

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Romans 1:26-27

You can clearly see how marrying homosexuals would go against Catholic's basic principals. It would be illogical for them not to follow the laws of their own religion.

Case 2: People Choose To Be Gay

People do choose to be gay. Evidence points to people choosing to be gay. Before I get into my sources, I would like to lay something out. Our traits (which, in this case, refers to sexuality) is determined by three factors. Physical factors would be your natural hair color. Environmental factors would be you growing up i a bad neighborhood; causing you to be on guard constantly. Spiritual factors may cause certain people to not have sex until marriage. Regardless, these factors account for our physical and emotional traits. Given the right circumstances, some traits, such as sexuality, may be changed with proper stimuli.

"Dr. Ben Carson said Wednesday that he believes homosexuality is a choice because some people who go to prison identifying as straight come out of prison identifying as gay.

During a discussion of same-sex marriage, CNN's Chris Cuomo asked the potential 2016 Republican presidential contender whether he thought being gay was a choice. When Carson replied "absolutely," Cuomo asked him to explain.

"Because a lot of people who go into prison, go into prison straight -- and when they come out they're gay," Carson said on "New Day." "So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."

Carson went on to argue that changing the definition of marriage isn't necessary to give gay couples equal rights.

The conservative darling has a history of making disputed remarks about homosexuality,earning him a brief spot on the Southern Poverty Law Center's anti-LBGT "extremist" list" (1)


Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the US and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

‘At best genetics is a minor factor,’ says Dr Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

‘Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,’ Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. ‘If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.’

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. ‘No-one is born gay,’ he notes. ‘The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.’" (2)

I think this should be enough proof.

In Conclusion:
The Catholic church marrying homosexuals goes against their religious convictions.
People choose to be homosexual.
It would be illogical for the Catholic church not to follow the rules of their own religion.

Arigatou! Sayonara!

Anime OP:

What a shame. There's not much to write about in this debate. I couldn't even hit the character limit. Well, at least this doesn't conflict with the busy week I'm gonna be facing.


Debate Round No. 1


Regardless of religious convictions, or what say you, many Christian churches that read the same bible, marry homosexuals, such as the Methodist Church. It is necessary to realize that there are many bible verses that state rather absurd rules:

"All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." -Leviticus 9:10

"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand." -Deuteronomy 25:11-12

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." -Ephesians 6:5

Bible verses do not justify the means of slavery, or mutilating women. These passages from the bible describe lifestyles and laws that were part of the culture of the region and time the passage was written. You will hear Jesus demanding you to love thy neighbor and to not judge others much more than you will hear him claiming homosexuality is a sin, which he never did. Not once did Jesus say anything about homosexuality in the bible. The idea of homosexual relationships being bad were not formed by the Catholic Church, rather they were adopted from society's less evolved, more simplistic views of social issues.

As we as a human race evolve and gain intellect, we are able to realize that being gay is not something that is controllable in one's life. I ask you this; Why would anyone choose to face a lifetime of stigma, judgement, ridicule, and harassment? The answer escapes me. Maybe being gay is not genetic, but to say that it is a choice, consciously made by a person, is completely, utterly untrue. Let us remember the correct terminology of homosexuality- it is just an action. Homosexuality is intercourse. And by that standard, I suppose that gays do choose to have same-sex sex. But from a heterosexual standpoint, I realize that being straight is so much more than just having sex with someone. It is loving and connecting on a spiritual and personal level, developing a relationship. This connection towards someone cannot be controlled. I couldn't control my obsession over that one girl back in 8th grade, as much as I knew she was out of my league! And I can imagine that for a gay person, they cannot control their romantic feelings towards their special person either. And for the church to force that person to bottle up their romantic interests for their entire life, just because of an obsolete, unjust tradition, is quite frankly discriminatory. These are realizations that I have come to, as a Catholic, and I am aware that this issue may be the tipping point for many Catholics specifically in western, advanced civilizations.

To conclude, the Catholic Church did not create the traditions formed by society thousands of years ago, they merely adopted them. People choose to perform homosexual acts, but relationships are so much more than intercourse. It would be extremely rational for the Catholic Church to demolish obsolete traditions so as to keep up with modern times, so as to progress.


All right. I'm lazy right now; so don't expect much.

`68; Leviticus 9:10 `58;
But the fat, and the kidneys, and the lobe above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt on the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses.

The ‘an eye for an eye’ principle is commonly known as the ‘lex talionis,’ which is Latin for the ‘law of retaliation.’ It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27; Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Rather than requiring the literal maiming of a guilty person, this law has been correctly understood as requiring equivalent monetary compensation. The law made it also clear that victims were to be compensated fairly, as determined by judges and magistrates. Victims were not to resort to ‘self-help.’

“… the Church of God has taught consistently that the ‘an eye for an eye principle’ was not meant to be applied literally in the sense of maiming a person…”

In that Q&A, we cited numerous commentaries and Scriptural evidence for this conclusion. In addition, Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, explains on pages 400-401 (in discussing Leviticus 24:20): “… the earliest postbiblical Jewish sources already understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean monetary, and not literal, compensation.”

To include another statement, which we did not quote in the above-mentioned Q&A, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains, in discussing Leviticus 24:19:

“‘And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour’…. Does him any hurt or mischief, causes any mutilation or deformity in him by striking him: ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him’: not that a like damage or hurt should be done to him, but that he should make satisfaction for it in a pecuniary way; pay for the cure of him, and for loss of time, and in consideration of the pain he has endured, and the shame or disgrace brought on him by the deformity or mutilation, or for whatever loss he may sustain thereby…”

With this background, let us review the passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Was this command of cutting off the woman’s hand to be carried out literally?

Some commentaries think so.

For instance, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:

“This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries (Leviticus 24:19-20). The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible also allows for the literal application of this command, stating:

“‘Then thou shall cut off her hand’… Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action… though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it… and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, ‘eye for eye’, Exodus 21:24… and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:

“‘thine eye shall not pity her’; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”

"5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.…" (2)

Let me ask you something. Why do you unquestionably follow the Bible's basic morals; like not to steal and to love anyone? Yet, whenever something the Bible says contradicts the social norms or what you want to believe, you toss it aside. Just as you quoted that you find it "hard to believe" that sexuality was a choice even though evidence was right in front of you. If you believe that the Bible represented the social views of the time, then you are not Catholic. Catholics believe the Bible was written by men "inspired" by God.

They choose to become homosexual because of many reasons. Maybe they weren't raised right. Maybe they were burned by the opposite sex. There are a number of enviornmental factors that could come into play. Regardless, with the right steps, it can be changed.

Haha! That's cute. 8th grade. I remember when I was in 8th grade. Girl was good then turned bad quickly. It's called being immature and a lack of experience in dating. I look back on that part of my life and facepalm about how much I wanted to be wth her just to have events fold out to put me in a bad situation.

Due to a recent experience I had, I'm kinda not well spoken for the subject.

You can't deny evidence just because you don't want to believe it.

In conclusion, this is just your own personal opinion. Not wide-spread Catholic belief.

Something to make you laugh:


Debate Round No. 2


b16jack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
"Heiro's vote totally ignores when I addressed the Bible verses."

At least I didn't ignore an opponent's point.
Quite the mistake, to do something like that.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
The Adam and Eve process also requires incest to take place.
Which is weird, considering how it's a sin later on in the Bible.
Posted by Sir_Kurtock 7 months ago
The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines the basis of God's created order where God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman--not two men, not two women--to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It also undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife, the God-ordained means of procreation. It is also dangerous to society. (See, Is homosexuality dangerous?)

Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it--and support it. This judgment is simple in that those who practice it are given over to their passions--which means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, Pro forfeited a round, therefore conduct goes to Con. Secondly, the arguments and sources of the two. Con uses Biblical verses to state why the Catholic church shouldn't marry gays. However, Pro points out how the Catholic church already cherry picks certain verses from the Bible, so the argument via the Biblical verses is rendered rather null and void. Moreover, Catholics are Christians, who follow what Jesus (who is at times synonymous with God) says above all. Jesus was well known for advocating equality and love to all - including homosexuals. Pro pointed this out very well but for some reason, Con completely ignores that point. Argument goes to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains both point allocations, examining specific arguments made by both sides.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
>Reported vote: XVIII18// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con used many examples that really are actually scientifically incorrect. Gays do not choose to be gay period. Had he not brought this up his argument would have been more convincing. Just because some religious crack pot doctor believes it does not mean it has any scientific standing behind it as I am sure Con knows.

[*Reason for removal*] For both sources and arguments, the voter solely examines Con's arguments and fails to analyze Pro's points. As the voter has chosen to vote for Pro, this lack of analysis makes this RFD insufficient. These points can certainly influence the decision, but they can't be the sole reasons for voting.
Posted by Cooldudebro 7 months ago
These votes are not well done.

Heiro's vote totally ignores when I addressed the Bible verses.

The other guy's vote doesn't even say anything and claim my studies are invalid with no good reasoning.

Overall, these votes have bias.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
b16jack, based on your statement, you are clearly NOT a Believer .... and by that I mean a Believer of ANY KIND. Based on your own statements you don't seem to READ much less UNDERSTAND the Holy Scriptures, or you would not make such a preposterous statement.

What in the world are you thinking? No person is imbued with authority to change the Church Standards!

actually man is not given the authority to INTERPRET SCRIPTURE which is PRECISELY WHY so many denominations exist! Those who have violated this first command, I mean how correct can they be ... Right!

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

We are to be TAUGHT by God ALONE!

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Isaiah 54:13 All your children will be taught by the LORD, and great will be their peace.

Philippians 3:15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

who will make clear to you? right ..... God!
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
Ask yourself if the old testament teachings listed got carried over into the new testament. One did... The others didn't. Also, ask yourself if your opponent's arguments are relevant to the debate resolution you're supposed to be debating.. Ask yourself if the Catholic Church claims infallibility, and what it would mean if it reversed it's position. Ask yourself if one can find an actual doctrine, not practice, that the Church has ever reversed.
Posted by Cooldudebro 7 months ago
To be honest, I thought you'd drop the debate. This sucks XD
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Heirio 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, Pro forfeited a round, therefore conduct goes to Con. Secondly, the arguments and sources of the two. Con uses Biblical verses to state why the Catholic church shouldn't marry gays. However, Pro points out how the Catholic church already cherry picks certain verses from the Bible, so the argument via the Biblical verses is rendered rather null and void. Moreover, Catholics are Christians, who follow what Jesus (who is at times synonymous with God) says above all. Jesus was well known for advocating equality and love to all - including homosexuals. Pro pointed this out very well but for some reason, Con completely ignores that point. Argument goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.