The Instigator
Godstruth
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does the Bible condone Gay marriage?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Godstruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 958 times Debate No: 103436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Godstruth

Con

Hello opponent,
In this debate we will be arguing as to whether or not the Bible is in support of same sex marriage. I hold the con position; I believe that the Bible is against same gender "marriage". First round is acceptance only, round two is arguments only, and the following two rounds are for arguments and rebuttals. Good Luck!
Purushadasa

Pro

Hello, Godstruth: I like your screen name very much! (Without God, there could be no truth).

I accept your challenge.

Main issue, as per your stated challenge:

The Holy Bible condones marriage between human beings in general (I think that everyone can agree on at least this part of my position), but it does not explicitly forbid same-sex marriage -- not in any book, not in any chapter, not in any verse. In fact, the Holy Bible does not even mention same-sex marriage at all, neither in a positive light nor in a negative light -- not in any book, not in any chapter, not in any verse.

My position is that, given the above-stated facts, the Holy Bible does indeed condone same-sex marriage among human beings.

In order to prove that the Holy Bible forbids same-sex marriage, you would have to cite the specific verse or verses that supposedly mention the phrase "same-sex marriage," but you can't do that because the Holy Bible does not mention that phrase anywhere. (I have been a Priest for almost 20 years, although not a Christian Priest, and I have read the entire Holy Bible).

More about my background, and some brief side-issues:

I am not a believer in atheist Dogma, so regarding God, you and I are on the same side.

I just don't like bigotry, so I decided to engage you on this issue, which in my estimation is all about objective, God-revealed scriptural truth Vs ignorant and non-scriptural bigotry. Actually, bigotry is the purview of believers in atheist Dogma, not the purview of real Theists. I also think that bigotry is bad preaching and is also specifically un-Christian and an insult to Lord Jesus Christ: Any bigot who claims to be a Christian is not really a Christian at all, but rather, is a liar and a hypocrite.

I am actually quite surprised that individuals who claim to be Christian are against same-sex marriage, not only for the reasons I stated above, but also because marriage in general is good for society because promiscuity is bad for society in general, and marriage in society tends to reduce promiscuity. I feel that so-called Christians who adopt the bigoted position on this issue are not thinking it through to its logical conclusion.

I look forward to reading your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Godstruth

Con

Hello Purushadasa,
Thank you for accepting this debate invitation. I look forward to an educational discussion for both of us.

However, I would like to point out that the rules say, ""First round is acceptance only"" You weren"t supposed to post your argument in that round. For that reason, we will just go back and forth together with our discussion and scrap the rule that says no rebuttals in round two. I just wanted to point out this infraction.

I obviously agree with you that the Bible condones marriage. In fact, the Bible encourages it [1]. While you are technically right that the Bible does not mention the words, "same sex marriage", realistically you are wrong. The Bible says, "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.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a *debased* mind to do what *ought not to be done*." (Emphases mine, all references in sources) [2]. The words "Ought not to be done" leave no room for alternative interpretation. How else could the scriptures be clearer?
While this scripture is the most obvious, there are many other scriptures that support my view. I plan to list some of these in future arguments.
While I agree that marriage in general reduces promiscuity, I do not believe this applies to gay "marriage". It has been shown that not having two parents of opposite genders is harmful to children, and what is harmful to children is harmful to society [3].

Sources:
[1] Genesis 1:28, ESV
[2] Romans 1:26-28, ESV
[3] http://thefederalist.com...
Purushadasa

Pro

Opponent wrote:

"I obviously agree with you that the Bible condones marriage. In fact, the Bible encourages it."

I figured that much. =)

"The Bible says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions."

However, you obviously do not know what God means when he says "for this reason," but I do know: The reason is not that they were gay (actually, they were straight), nor is the reason being that gay could somehow be a sin (it is not a sin):

Would you like to know what the real "reason" (i.e., the sin) is? I can tell you if you want to know: All you need do is ask.

"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."

The above is a description of God's response to their sins, not a description of their sins.

"...since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,"

That is a description of the sins in question, but the paragraph above that, the one that that ends in "...due penalty for their error" is not a description of their sins: The paragraph ending in "...due penalty for their error" is a description of God's response to their sins (i.e., God's chosen penalty).

"God gave them up to a *debased* mind to do what *ought not to be done*."

That is a description of God's response to their sins, not a description of their sins: The subject of the sentence is God, and the action performed by God (the subject) is "gave them up."

These verses do not support your view, because they do not state that homosexuality could somehow be a sin. At best, it describes God's response of initiating a penalty for the sins of straight men and straight women.

Also, there are no verses anywhere in the Holy Bible that offer any support whatsoever for your position in this debate: Not in the above verses, and not anywhere else. If that was really the "most obvious" one that you could come up with, then you really should concede defeat right now, because your bigoted position is clearly incorrect and non-scriptural.

Interestingly, the actual sin referred to in the above verses is called "idolatry," not "homosexuality," and by placing your own personal bigotry above God's conclusions in his revealed scriptures, you are actually practicing that very same sin -- idolatry: ("... since [YOU] did not see fit to acknowledge God,")

If you don't stop your idolatry very soon, then God may very well give you up "to to a *debased* mind to do what *ought not to be done*" in response to your sinful idolatry, just as he did to the straight men and straight women from the above verses.

This exchange is sufficient to prove my side and disprove your side, so you already lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Debate Round No. 2
Godstruth

Con

While I appreciate your concern for my spiritual health, your worries are in vain.

No, you have not already won this debate, you don"t win based on the number of witty remarks you can make (though I"ll admit, that was a good one :).

First of all, being gay was not the punishment as you seem to think. These were the kinds of things they were doing before. Notice how the text says, "gave them up". God didn"t sentence them to being gay, he LET them become gay. Because of this we can see that they were already predisposed to these behaviors of their own freewill.

Thinking that it was the punishment violates what we can clearly see about God from the scriptures. God never forces people to do evil, and he never causes evil (Not evil as in unfortunate circumstances, but evil as in wickedness). To think that God would force people to sin is an unthinkable nugget of blasphemy.

That point aside, the text tells us that God disapproves of it regardless.

Below, you will see a few more verses that clearly disapprove of homosexual behavior (emphases mine):

""The sexually immoral, men who practice *homosexuality*, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is *contrary to sound doctrine*"" [1]

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice *homosexuality*, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers *will inherit the kingdom of God*." [2]

"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." [3]

Sources:

[1] 1 Timothy 1:10, ESV

[2] 1 Corinthians 6:9, ESV

[3] Leviticus 20:13, ESV
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"No, you have not already won this debate"

Yes, I really did.

"First of all, being gay was not the punishment as you seem to think."

I never made that claim, so that is just a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" These were the kinds of things they were doing before."

No, they were straight, both before and after the penalty. Their sin was idolatry -- and that is also your sin, BTW.

"Notice how the text says, "gave them up". God didn"t sentence them to being gay, he LET them become gay."

Actually, he pro-actively made them burn in lust for members of the same sex -- if they had been gay already (which they were not), then that would not have been a penalty because it wouldn't have bothered them.

" Because of this we can see that they were already predisposed to these behaviors of their own freewill."

No they weren't.

"God never forces people to do evil,"

Being gay is not evil. By claiming that it is, YOU are committing idolatry.

"To think that God would force people to sin is an unthinkable nugget of blasphemy."

He didn't, and I never claimed he did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"That point aside, the text tells us that God disapproves of it regardless."

No it doesn't, and by dishonestly claiming that, YOU are committing the sin of idolatry.

""The sexually immoral, men who practice *homosexuality*, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is *contrary to sound doctrine*"" [1]"

That is an incorrect translation of that verse: The original Hebrew does not mention homosexuality at all. The word in question refers to the practice of prostitution in Jewish temples, not homosexuality.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice *homosexuality*, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers *will inherit the kingdom of God*." [2]"

Again, that is an incorrect translation: The original Hebrew does not mention homosexuality at all. The word in question refers to the practice of prostitution in Jewish temples, not 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." [3]"

That is also an incorrect translation: The original Hebrew does not include the word 'as." Actually, this verse is about gang-rape, not about homosexuality, and should have been translated as follows: "If a man lies with a man and with a woman," which is a description of gang-rape, not homosexuality. Also, a man CANNOT lie with a man "as" with a woman anyway, because men do not have vaginas.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Debate Round No. 3
Godstruth

Con

Actually, the voters decide who wins. But with infractions of the rules and your fallacies of begging the question in your last argument, your winning is unlikely.

You say: "No, they were straight, both before and after the penalty."

Clearly this is not the case. If it was, then why does the text say, " men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another"? In fact, you contradict your statement by later saying, "Actually, he pro-actively made them burn in lust for members of the same sex..."

Most of your other responses are either begging the question or are simple contradictions of what I said without any basis on argument ( the "no they weren't" kind of answers). In fact, 8 of your 11 replies just beg the question or flatly deny facts without a given logical reason. The only replies that bring up a valid point are the last three regarding alleged bad translation.

However, this also is bogus.

1 Timothy 1:10:
"That is an incorrect translation of that verse: The original Hebrew does not mention homosexuality at all. The word in question refers to the practice of prostitution in Jewish temples, not homosexuality."

First of all, what "Original Hebrew" are you talking about? The new testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

1 Corinthians 6:9:
"Again, that is an incorrect translation: The original Hebrew does not mention homosexuality at all. The word in question refers to the practice of prostitution in Jewish temples, not homosexuality."

There was no "original Hebrew" as I explained above. Looking at a *Greek* dictionary found in "Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible" (Strong's, I believe), I see no evidence to support your claim. The sense is to "defile" as a "sodomite", with no mention of there being opposite genders involved.

Leviticus 20:13:
"That is also an incorrect translation: The original Hebrew does not include the word 'as." Actually, this verse is about gang-rape, not about homosexuality, and should have been translated as follows: "If a man lies with a man and with a woman," which is a description of gang-rape, not homosexuality. Also, a man CANNOT lie with a man "as" with a woman anyway, because men do not have vaginas"

This is the only text of the three that was actually written in Hebrew. However, this point still is false. Just try removing the word "as" from some other translations and you wont get any resemblance to gang rape. For example, the New American Standard version says, " If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie as a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act..." Additionally, I would like to see some evidence that the Hebrew has no equivalent of "as".

In conclusion, it seems that the only way you can hold to the opinion that the Bible condones homosexuality is to try to hold on to an impossible and far fetched theory riddled with holes.

I appreciate the time you have taken to debate with me, I have enjoyed it.
Purushadasa

Pro

Okay, you were 100% wrong on every point, except that I did indeed make a minor error when I wrote the word "Hebrew" when I meant to write the word "Greek." That error was due to rushing (I have no real dog in this race, being neither gay nor bigoted against gays). I apologize for that minor error, but you failed to refute any of my actual points other than that minor linguistic error, so here is my revised response to your incorrect and bigoted claims, with the minor error fixed:

My opponent wrote:

"First of all, being gay ... to think."

I never made that claim, so that is just a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" These were ... doing before."

No, they were straight, both before and after the penalty. Their sin was idolatry -- and that is also your sin, BTW.

"Notice how ... them become gay."

Actually, he pro-actively made them burn in lust for members of the same sex -- if they had been gay already (which they were not), then that would not have been a penalty because it wouldn't have bothered them.

" Because of ...of their own freewill."

No they weren't.

"God ... do evil,"

Being gay is not evil. By claiming that it is, YOU are committing idolatry.

"To think ... of blasphemy."

He didn't, and I never claimed he did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"That ...disapproves of it regardless."

No it doesn't, and by dishonestly claiming that, YOU are committing the sin of idolatry.

""The sexually immoral, men who practice *homosexuality*, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is *contrary to sound doctrine*"" [1]"

That is an incorrect translation of that verse: The original GREEK does not mention homosexuality at all. The word in question refers to the practice of prostitution in Jewish temples, not homosexuality.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice *homosexuality*, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers *will inherit the kingdom of God*." [2]"

Again, that is an incorrect translation: The original GREEK does not mention homosexuality at all. The word in question refers to the practice of prostitution in Jewish temples, not 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." [3]"

That is also an incorrect translation: The original Hebrew does not include the word 'as." Actually, this verse is about gang-rape, not about homosexuality, and should have been translated as follows: "If a man lies with a man and with a woman," which is a description of gang-rape, not homosexuality. Also, a man CANNOT lie with a man "as" with a woman anyway, because men do not have vaginas.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
The hell you talking about, canis1?
Posted by canis 11 months ago
canis
Are you thinking about your life or your so called "after-life" (fear)..
Posted by philochristos 11 months ago
philochristos
This is just a suggestion. I would change the resolution to address the question of whether the Bible ever forbids same sex marriage, or if there are principles in the Bible that were exclude same sex marriage. The reason is because nobody thinks the Bible explicitly condones same sex marriage. What some people rather think is that the Bible doesn't forbid it, that it's allowed, etc.

To make an analogy, the Bible never explicitly forbids us to make ice in the freezer. But making ice in the freezer is something the Bible never forbids either, and most of us think it's allowed. So a person who thought the making of ice is Biblical permissible wouldn't be able to show that the Bible explicitly condones it.

In the same way, a person who thought same sex marriage is permissible and not forbidden by the Bible wouldn't necessarily be able to show that the Bible explicitly condones it either.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
GodstruthPurushadasaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.