The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Christian Opposition of Gay Marriage is Silly

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 55510
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Resolution: Christian Opposition of Gay Marriage is Silly. I will attempt to prove this resolution through the use of logic and Bible passages. My opponent should attempt to prove that Christians are reasonable and Biblically sound in their opposition of gay marriage.

Burden of Proof is mine (Pro).

Round 1: Rules (Pro)/Acceptance (Con)
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements

A violation of this structure will be considered a forfeiture.

Christian: Follower of the teachings of the Christian Bible

Opposition: A resistance above and beyond a simple dislike for something. Entails activism, rallies, votes, speeches, blog posts, sermons, fund raisers, donations, etc.

Gay Marriage: The granting of marriage licenses to homosexuals by the government, and the following legal union.

Silly: Unfounded, Illogical, Unreasonable

Don't be silly.


I have accepted your challenge, personally I have nothing wrong with gays. But I feel like it still isn't all stupid. So I have accepted your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, nleachman, for accepting my challenge.

I will now present my arguments:

1. The federal and state governments are secular:
The USA is not a theocracy, and neither are any of the states contained therein. Our governments are composed of humans. Many of these humans practice a variety of religions, while many are atheists or agnostics. These governments allow and/or license many things that Christians believe are "sinful" or wrong, including abortion, pornography, gambling, strip clubs, immodest dress, alcoholism, "pagan" religious gatherings, etc. Obviously, the government is not an agent of Biblical righteousness, nor does it claim to be. In fact, Constitutionally, our governments are not allowed to support any particular religion. I think we all can agree that the federal and state governments are secular organizations, and are not "Godly" in the Biblical sense.

2. Christians are not to seek support from the unbelieving world.

Notes in brackets [] are mine

John 15:18-20 - “If the world hates you [Christians], you know that it hated Me [Jesus] before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you."

John 17:14 - "I [Jesus] have given them [Christians] Your [God's] word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

1 John 3:13 - "Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you."

1 John 5:19 - "We [Christians] know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one."

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 - "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you..."

Galatians 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ."

Colossians 3:1-2 - "If then you were araised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth."

James 4:4 - "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."

Matthew 5:11-12 - "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Need I go on? It seems obvious to me from the Bible passages I've listed that Christians are meant to be independent from the world as much as possible.

3. Legal marriage is a secular institution:
I have already established that the federal and state governments are secular and "of the world". Marriage licenses are granted and sold by this secular government, and the application process does not require a declaration of religion. Marriage licenses are granted based on nonreligious qualifications, with absolutely no regard for the applicant's religion or spiritual status. Non-Christians and nonreligious people are granted marriage licenses all the time. Having a marriage license does not magically make a person more religious or more Christian. All measurable benefits of having a marriage license are secular, including tax breaks, custody rights, insurance, and visitation rights. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for believing that a marriage license has anything to do with Christianity, nor for believing that only a certain group of people should be granted certain rights by the government on a religious basis.

4. Religious marriage can not be granted by the government:

In the traditional Christian view of marriage, marriage is a sacred covenant in which God joins together a man and a woman for life. They believe that the bond transcends a physical union and takes place on a spiritual level. Is it possible for the government to step in, take God's place, and spiritually bond a couple together? Not according to the Bible. So then, where does the idea originate that the secular government's approval is needed for religious people to have a religious marriage in which God has bound them? Obviously, a religious marriage takes place outside of the sphere of human government and law.

5. Religious marriage is not threatened by secular marriage:

Something I hear often from anti-gay-marriage Christians is, "It will destroy the sanctity of marriage." They never can explain how, though. There is nothing "sanctified" about non-Christian, nonreligious, secular marriage. Do Christians believe that a Satanist, Nazi, alcoholic, coke-addicted married couple have a "sanctified" marriage? How about your non-Christian next-door neighbors who think Christianity is a weird cult? Is their marriage sanctified? If not, what does it take to have a sanctified marriage? Apparently, it takes believing in God, at the least, and being a Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christian at the most. How does anyone, be they gay, straight, Mormon, Satanist, black, white, or whatever, getting a marriage license and having a secular marriage threaten the sanctity of a Christian, God-created and God-sustained marriage? It doesn't. In fact, nothing but death can threaten such a union, since it supposedly takes place on a spiritual level, and perhaps not even death.

Thank you again, nleachman, for joining me in this debate, and I eagerly await your arguments. Please remember that round 2 is for your arguments only, and save rebuttals for the following rounds.



1. What if they have kids?
I am not saying that they can't have kids, but I am saying that it will be a lot harder to have kids and it's a lot more likely a possibility if they get married. Who will breast feed the child.
Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy(For lesbian households). Guys will be feminine, while not all bad, it could lead to a decrease in population.

2. The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened
Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships. The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize if I was not clear, but I am arguing against Christian opposition that is specifically Christian because it is on religious grounds or out of religious conviction. I was not referring to opposition a Christian may offer that is nonreligious and the type that any person of any religious persuasion may offer.

However, since I may not have been clear enough, I will continue normally and answer the arguments of my opponent.

Rebuttals of Arguments

Rebuttal 1

" will be a lot harder to have kids...": While this may be debatable, it is irrelevant. The difficulty of having children is not a good reason to oppose a marriage, or else Christians should also push for fertility testing of heterosexual couples prior to marriage, as well as evaluations of mental, physical, and financial health, which are all factors that may affect the difficulty level of having children.

"Who will breast feed the child.": I don't believe breastfeeding is a tenant of Christianity. Unless it is, and Christians who formula feed are treated as sinners in need of repentance, then Christianity as a religion can't use this reasoning to oppose gay marriage. If we reduce it to a personal level, and say a particular Christian opposes gay marriage because they want to rescue innocent babies from their formula feeding parents, this is still inconsistent reasoning. To be consistent, that Christian would have to also oppose marriages between heterosexuals who intended to formula feed, and support gay marriages that intended to use a wet-nurse, obtain breast milk from a friend, or buy breast milk using a service such as this:

"Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy...": First, if you are going to use statistics or research, please cite your source. Second, even if this is true, it is not something that should concern a Christian. If the girl in question is not a Christian, then, according to the Bible she is blind and dead, and can't help but sin:

2 Corinthians 4: 3-4 - "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not..."

John 8:44a - "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..."

John 3:19 - "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

Psalm 58:3 - "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Ephesians 2:1-3 - "And you He made alive who once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others."

If the girl in question is a Christian, then, according to the Bible, God will help her avoid sexual pitfalls:

2 Corinthians 5:17 - "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

Ephesians 2:1-3 - (Quoted Above)

Proverbs 3:5-6 - "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."

Psalm 23:3 - "He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

John 8:36 - "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

So, as you can see, Christians have no reason to worry about the lesbians' daughter's sex life.

Rebuttal 2

Do any Christians oppose gay marriage for this reason? I would be surprised. Obviously, if one did, it would not be a reason founded in his or her religion. However, for the sake of debate, let's say that Christian individuals do use this as a secular excuse for opposing legal gay marriage. They are still being unreasonable. If a gay couple wants to be married, how can you deny them marriage simply because a certain group or a certain gay leader thinks marriage is not in their best interest? Isn't that for the couple to decide? The marriage is not harming them in some physical way that the government needs to protect them from. Even if the 1969 Gay Liberation Front's concerns were valid, the harm being done is to a cause and a subjective value system. Therefore, a Christian supporter of the Gay Liberation Front may believe it is advisable or beneficial that a gay couple not marry, but he or she may not reasonably claim that such a marriage should be illegal. The American government is supposed to protect the liberties of the individual, not the causes of special interest groups.

I look forward to reading my opponent's rebuttals of my opening arguments.


nleachman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


As my opponent has given me no rebuttals to rebut, I will close by saying that I believe that I have philosophically and Biblically upheld my resolution. Christian opposition of gay marriage can not logically be defended. Whatever your personal feelings on the matter, please vote according to the content of the debate. Thank you.


nleachman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by nleachman 2 years ago
Yeah okay geogeer, I will let you know...
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Dang, talking on the phone and typing at the same time...

Let me know when you are done debating and I'll vote on your debate.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Hey guys drop me a line when you're done debating and I'll give you a call.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro overpowered Con here not to mention the FF.