The Instigator
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Hylion
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Does the Bible oppose Civil Unions?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
pcmbrown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,171 times Debate No: 7888
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

pcmbrown

Con

Resolved: The Bible opposes Civil Unions.
Parameters: The only acceptable sources are: Biblical quotes, biblical scholars. Arguements should involve logic derived from such.
This debate does not involve the Bible's legitimacy. It is assumed, for the purposes of this debate, that it is the undisputed word of an almighty God.
Proposition argues first.
Hylion

Pro

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic with you. Before I begin my points, I would like to address the definition of "Civil Union". According to www.dictionary.com the definition of "Civil Union" is a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex. Parties to a civil union have all the same protections, responsibilities, and rights as partners in marriage.

Point 1. Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

From these two verses, and I'll expand them if I need to, you can clearly see that not only is homosexuality wrong, it is part of God's justified wrath on man for his disobedience toward God. Having made the point that homosexuality is against God's word, you can see that there is no purpose behind civil union. Civil union was created for the purpose of allowing man to continue living in sin, which has been established as against God's word.

Point 2. Using the same verse from above, you can also notice that the act of homosexuality is unnatural. Marriage, having been ordained by God, is the natural union between man and woman. Civil union, which is not ordained by God or mentioned in the Bible, is a man made (or unnatural) union between two people who are living in sin. By a civil union's nature, being unnatural, it is opposed by God's word.
Debate Round No. 1
pcmbrown

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.

As I've adopted the Contradictory stance, I will attempt to discredit my opponent's examples. The burden of proof lies with him.

I accept my opponent's definition of "Civil Union" and would like to note that a civil union constitutes neither a sexual or religious union, but a legal one.

1. This passage demonstrates that homosexuality was induced in man by God. It does not state that homosexuality is in any way wrong, abhorrent to God, only that it is shameful to one and one's fellow man, presumably because it eliminates a man's, and a society's ability to produce progeny, a truly shameful situation in the primitive B.C. Era.
a. To state that homosexuality is wrong is unwarranted, as I've explained. The Bible does consider homosexuality a punishment, but this in no way makes it wrong/immoral/unnatural, just as confinement, a punishment, is not wrong/immoral/unnatural. Because God created it, it is not, and cannot be, "against God's word". The purpose of civil unions is not to promote homosexual intercourse, but to grant homosexual couples the equivalent rights of married couples. The union does not result in sexual acts.

2. Civil unions are a legal relationship/union, not a religious or sexual one, and thus do not require God's ordination, just as foster parents do not require it. Also, as I have said, these unions are not unnatural, as their basis (homosexuality) was created by the Almighty.

I await your defense.
Hylion

Pro

I would agree that, by definition, a civil union does not imply a sexual union. However, a civil union is, by definition, a religious union. A civil union has "all" the same protections, responsibilities, and rights as a marriage. Considering that a marriage is a God ordained joining of two people, then a civil union would have to agree to that responsibility. The fact that marriage is a law, given by God, is located in Exodus after Moses' reception of the Ten Commandments.

My opponent would believe that "homosexual was induced in man by God", however, this is not correct according to scripture. According to my previous posted scripture in Romans, God "gave" man up to his vile passions. This would indicate that homosexual is something inborn within man that is only prevented by God. By implication, God's wrath is separation of God from man.

My opponent would also state that "homosexuality is (not) in any way wrong, (or) abhorrent to God". However, the listed verse also indicates flawed belief in this regard. The Bible is the word of God, which is noted in John 1, and the Bible states that homosexual is a "vile" passion. This means that God feels that homosexual is "vile".

My opponent also makes the claim that homosexual is not unnatural. However, once again, quoting the above scripture "exchanged the natural use for what is against nature" which indicates another flaw in his belief.

I will end by reaffirming that civil union was, by definition, created for homosexuals for the same purpose as marriage. Since God considers homosexual to be unnatural and vile, the very purpose of a civil union would have to be displeasing to, and thus opposed by, God.

I appreciate the continued debate and look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
pcmbrown

Con

"…a civil union is, by definition, a religious union" This is not the case. Civil unions merely create a legal relationship between two persons. The rights that a civil union entails may be equivalent to those present in marriage. However, this does not make it a religious union, as no such ceremony, ordination, or vows are involved in its creation. Also, be it noted that nearly all of these rights were in no way present in Scripture, and therefore a purely legal, a construction of man.

God created man. Man was born with homosexuality innate. Thus, God created homosexuality. It is not "against God's word", but instead, was created at his very hand.

The passage does call homosexuality a vile passion. However, I contend that society, not God, finds it to be vile. God created homosexuality, and thus, it would not be vile to him, but per my progeny argument, it would indeed be viewed as vile by society. Also, merely because something is vile, does not make it wrong, or morally abhorrent to God, as the definition of "vile" centers around disgust. Notably, this "vileness" applies only to the sexuality itself.

The Scripture merely states that a homosexual act, not the actual sexuality is unnatural. Therefore, this passage does not demonstrate that homosexuality is unnatural.

My opponent fails to state the manner in which a civil union is unnatural.

A civil union is a purely legal relationship resultant of a sexuality which originated from the hand of God.

Thank you.
Hylion

Pro

My opponent states that a civil union entails the same rights that are present in marriage. According to Genesis, the purpose of a marriage is to join two people as "one flesh". This cannot be accomplished and thus is contrary to the purpose of marriage making it unnatural. A Physical ceremony, ordination, or vow were not required at the first marriage listed in the Bible, thus saying that those factors make something a "religious" union is invalid.

My opponent also continues making the point that everything God creates cannot be wrong, unnatural, or immoral. I would like to address this point by stating that God created Lucifer, who was evil and cast out of Heaven. Lucifer was wrong, even though created by God, and tempted Eve, which was immoral.

To address, definitively, the wrongness of being homosexual, you can look to 1st Corinthians 6:9, which states "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" Addressing the sentence structure, sexual immorality (those that practice) and homosexuals (those that are) are listed as two separate entities, but both are considered wicked.
To further address this issue, Jesus, who is God the Son, spoke in the first four books of the New Testament and gave the message that evil starts in the heart. Even without physical action, things can still be evil. (Matthew 5:28, 9:4, 15:8, 15:18, 15:19, just to name a few)

God is all-sufficient (as noted as El Shaddai in Hebrew). God directly created and only created marriage as a union between two people. According to God, marriage is the only union needed between two people and considering that God is all-sufficient, marriage would not need to be circumvented to be made applicable to homosexuals. For man to say that civil union is needed to make up where God fell short is in direct opposition to God.
Debate Round No. 3
pcmbrown

Con

It is my opponent's burden to prove that a civil union has religious significance, which he has thus far failed to do, his latest explanation being very unclear.

Yes, God also created Lucifer, but the intent with which He did so is dissimilar. Homosexuality was created as a punishment. God directly caused persons to commit homosexual acts. Lucifer was created as a loyal servant, but failed to serve this purpose. God does not create that which is morally abhorrent to Him with the intent to do so.

The passage states "homosexual offenders" which would seem to apply only to those who commit homosexual acts. As I've said, you cannot equate civil unions with homosexual acts.

Evil is comprised of "acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish", which excludes homosexual acts and thoughts, as they are none of these things. Also, though it starts in the heart, this does not necessitate that the thoughts themselves are evil.

Most legal relationships are not ordained by God, nor must they be. These were left to man to establish. Thus, the creation of civil unions is entirely proper.

I uphold that both homosexuality and civil unions are not unnatural, as this has not been refuted.

Thank you.
Hylion

Pro

I have addressed the fact that a civil union is a replacement for marriage so that homosexuals can have union. Simply because my opponent claims that isn't true doesn't mean it isn't. Along with that, I have addressed the fact that marriage is an institution granted by God, thus making it religious. Regardless of man's careless attitude for it, God still determined it. Being that God has established marriage as the natural union of two people, civil union has to be the unnatural union.

I have also stated and provided evidence that homosexuality is not invoked by God, but caused by separation from God because of man's disobedience to the law. (See Galatians 3:10 for man being cursed by breaking the law and Romans 1:26 for result of that cursed when man is separated from God)

To refute the point about acting on homosexuality being wrong, but simply being homosexual is ok. I'd like to bring up the definitions of a few words. First, a homosexual is someone who "practices" homosexuality. Homosexuality is someone who "desires" another person of the same sex. As person Matthew 5-28, a person who "desires" another person has committed adultery.

In closing, I have repeatedly shown, with evidence, that being a homosexual is opposed by God. I have also shown, with evidence, that marriage is the only acceptable union between two people and that it requires two members of the opposite sex. Thus civil union, which is supposed to be an alternative to marriage, is by nature and definition, unnatural.

God would not have created civil union knowing that it would support something that He, according to Leviticus, considers and abomination. That would be like me saying that it was wrong to kill my mother, but then locking her in a freezer knowing that she would die of exposure.

Thank you, and I await your response.
Debate Round No. 4
pcmbrown

Con

A civil union is a purely legal institution. Proof to the contrary is my opponent's burden. He has failed to establish otherwise. Civil unions are entirely distinct from the institution of marriage. They consist of a series of legal rights granted to a couple. This institution does not merit or require the ordination of God. Given the legal nature of civil unions, religion has no bearing upon them.

As I have said, God created man. Homosexuality is innate within man. Thus, God created homosexuality. It is not specifically invoked by Him, but instead, an intrinsic part of human nature, established by Him.

My opponent's definitions seem to have no legitimate source. I therefore substitute those of Merriam-Webster, which states that homosexual do not necessarily practice homosexuality, but instead "direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." This, as I've demonstrated, is a condition innate in man. God cannot oppose homosexuality, for it is He who brings it upon man, by removing Himself from them.
A civil union is a set of rights, a "legal status", as defined by Merriam-Webster, not a religious union.

Leviticus states that, to lie with another man, is an abomination. As I have said, a civil union, and an act of homosexuality, are two entirely separate things. Therefore, God's views on homosexual intercourse are irrelevant to this debate, not to mention hypocritical, given that he created the basis for said intercourse. Your freezer example is fairly ridiculous.

My opponent can establish only that God finds homosexual intercourse to be unnatural, an abomination, etc. However, he cannot prove that God specifically opposes a legal bond between two persons of the same gender.

I remain firmly in the Contradiction of this resolution.

Hylion, thank you for the fantastic debate, and thank you to everyone for reading.
Hylion

Pro

Hylion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
I apologize that you felt patronized, I'm a colloquial typer.....

A civil union is not the same as gay marriage. I will say so what to the point that the bible recognizes Civil Unions a civil union is a band - aid over a bullethole and is simply the government throwing a bone to the GLBT community. The fact of the matter is seen here, when elected officials take the oath of office they place their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, not the other way around. As long as we have politicians who hold the bible at more face than the Constitution the state of our social government will be in serious disrepair.

Sarah Palin wanted a FEDERAL ban on Gay Marriage, she wanted to amend the Constitution to take away rights. That is exactly what Proposition 8 has done. People wonder why the gays parade around for rights... that's why
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
PS- I think that it was the use of the (what I would consider) patronizing term of "buddy" that threw me off guard.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
See, I don't necessarily believe that to be true. All states of the union have majority Christian populations (which is something you would claim to universally approve legislation that would block gay marriage, as God is at odds with science, as it were), and yet we have states that have successfully implemented civil unions. Hawaii is a most notable example. And though not in the US (clearly), Canada is majority Christian and very open about its rights policies toward the homosexual community.

There's more to it than religion. I think that any strides made, including coming to the conclusion that the Bible does support civil unions, is key to the advancement of rights, especially since our government's policies and our own laws are steeped in biblically based moral codes.
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
Points noted Alto - however, the wall of separation applies itself aptly too. There was no attitudem that's just the way I type/talk. I agree that people seem to lay heavily on the bible and I must argue myself despite whatever religious label I subscribe to, I would find no liturgy completely legitimate in a debate on governmental ideals and simple logic. As long as science and the church are at odds Gay Marriage/Gay Rights will not gain much more momentum than they have now, and that is the sad fact.

Ah, thanks for clarifying pcmbrown.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
"church *and state"...my bad :)
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
"Alto, the bible shouldn't be influencing any legal structures (theoretically) at least in the United States, Wall of Separation, buddy. Why does the word of God reign over human rights? Why does the word, of supposed God hold more value than any rational argument? Is he that Monopolistic?"

First of all, the separation of church as state, buddy, is implied within Supreme Court precedence. It doesn't actually exist within any sort of foundational document. While the freedom of religious practice is an established right, the Bible or Christianity influencing our laws is just a historical reality. Where do you think most of our fundamental laws stem from? Our founding fathers were all monotheistic Christians, so naturally it plays an integral part in our legal system.

The word of God, as you put it, doesn't reign over human rights, necessarily. It simply informs the viewpoint of Christians, who happen to be a majority. I'm not sure why the attitude, but that's what I was getting at.

As for this debate, the topic itself is important to the ongoing struggle for the equal rights of homosexual couples because the Bible may be the only thing that fundamental Christians will actually take into consideration, rather than so-called "logical arguments." Hence, if one can justify civil unions via biblical text, it makes a dent in that fundamentalist argument base.

I also take issue with the fact that the Bible and logic are mutually exclusive, and that using Biblical passages makes some people automatically tune out, but that's another can of worms. Some people just don't understand the historical contexts within which the Bible was written, nor how to read that genre of mythology...
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
untitled-entity, I only started this debate because I was tired of homophobes arguing that civil unions are against God.
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
sorry pcm, I had to give hyllion the legit points. You're gonna need more than the bible to convince me, maybe because I'm gay....
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
Alto, the bible shouldn't be influencing any legal structures (theoretically) at least in the United States, Wall of Separation, buddy. Why does the word of God reign over human rights? Why does the word, of supposed God hold more value than any rational argument? Is he that Monopolistic?
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
That doesn't change its doctrinal importance to the world, nor its undeniable influence on numerous legal structures in the US :) The debate is necessary since the Constitution and most of our laws have a firm basis in Christian montheism. If The Bible, no matter how we believe it came about or whether we think its "the word of God," remains neutral on the topic of civil unions, it establishes a critical detail in the gay marriage debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
pcmbrownHylionTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
pcmbrownHylionTied
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 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
pcmbrownHylionTied
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 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
pcmbrownHylionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30