The Instigator
Nisectus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
marathonmalachi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Gay Marriage is Morally Acceptable Even Within Christianity

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...
marathonmalachi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 75818
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Nisectus

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing FOR Christian acceptance of gays.
In arguments about gay marriage, people against it always say, "The Bible says it's wrong, so it is." And I always would reply, even though I'm a Christian, "You can't force your religious values on someone else. Forgiveness and acceptance are more important." But with various Christian denominations accepting same-sex marriage, I started to realize that we should consider the context of the passages where the Bible condemns homosexual acts. The ones in the Old Testament are less important. It only mentions them three times, and we can't just take whatever we want from the Old Testament and not do things that are mentioned multiple times. The others are in letters from Paul. He only mentions them along with drunkards, thieves, and murderers. He was talking about the gay sex that he saw, none of which was like the loving same-sex couples begging for rights today. The only examples he saw of homosexual activity were of rape from Roman soldiers on little boys or the prostitution of slaves. These would have been acceptable if they were heterosexual, either.
The bigger themes of the Bible are love and kindness. Let us accept these lovers' differences, and let them love, cast aside our prejudice.

(1) http://www.notalllikethat.org...
marathonmalachi

Con

I accept...
As con, I will argue the fact that the Bible does not condone same sex marriage or relations. I would also argue that what the Old Testament says does still matter in context of all 66 books of Protestant Canon, though the New Testament should suffice in proving my point. Paul does record multiple times in letters to the Corinthians, Romans, Timothy, and others that homosexuality is a sin that will be punished at judgment. Pro claims that Paul was simply referring to the sin of homosexual rape that would be condemned as much as heterosexual rape. While Paul certainly would have condemned homosexual rape, this would not have been the main action he was referring to. Scholars believe that as early as the second century before Christ, Rome had outlawed homosexual rape. If outlawed, it would not have been prevalent enough for Paul to use the term homosexuality and it not be accepted as everything under that umbrella term, whether rape or love. In fact, homosexual marriage was a known fact and practiced in the empire. Emperor Nero was involved in three gay unions. In one of these he is even reported to have worn a wedding veil, and he would choose whether to be the male or female in the relationship. http://historynewsnetwork.org...
Many use Jesus' command not to judge as reason for the Bible's acceptance of homosexuality, or at least lack of condemnation. Unfortunately, they do not continue reading the passage. He says we will be judged as we judge others. This passage is saying that we should not base our judgment on prejudice and preconceived notions or we will be judged by those ourselves. However, according to the Bible we will all be judged according to God's word. Therefore it is not the Christian judging, it is actually the Bible. Another passage that is often referenced is that in which the adulterous woman is brought before Jesus. In an act of great mercy he declares that the one without sin should be first to cast a stone. Those who wanted to stone her quickly realized that they were at fault and left. Jesus then says that he would not condemn her either. When using this verse to support homosexuality, most stop there. One small sentence is usually forgotten in this story. He says,"Go, and sin no more." Though he forgives her and does not condemn, he still recognizes her sin and commands her to stop with his authority and that of Scripture.
Debate Round No. 1
Nisectus

Pro

Nisectus forfeited this round.
marathonmalachi

Con

Due, to technical difficulties, my argument from the last round is where we will pick up...
Debate Round No. 2
Nisectus

Pro

Everything you say here is good and reasonable. There is just one thing that you assume. You are assuming that every single thing in the Bible is God's will. Don't be offended by the following, this is just my point of view. Not everything in the Bible is a fact or a rule. Now, Jesus himself never says that homosexuality is wrong, nor does any heavenly figure (He does say personally that divorce is a sin, but we allow that!). Paul is the one who argues against homosexuality. Unless you convince yourself that every time someone wrote something that would later appear in the Bible, God took control of the writer's hand and made the writer write his will, what Paul says is just what Paul says. It is not really God's will, but Paul's. And if it were God's will, and he will judge the gays, is it our place to prevent them from marriage? We should let God judge them, not us. If they will be punished for their acts by God, we still have no place to judge them ourselves.
The Bible is not a rulebook for our religion, it is literally a bunch of historical accounts brought together in one place and translated so we can read its wisdom. Most of it is there for us to think about. However, it contradicts itself. Leviticus 20:13 says: "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." If your assumption is correct, then all gays who have had gay sex should die. But this contradicts everything we know about our religion. So in general we have to separate the big picture from the Bible's main themes, rather than harsh details.
In the passage about the woman who escapes punishment, yes, he says "sin no more", but she is still forgiven and is not punished.
In the comments, someone said that there was no such thing as a gay Christian. However, there are many gays Christians and Christian LGBT supporters. ( http://www.notalllikethat.org... ) The same commenter said to show where a Bible passage said that a gay person went to heaven. That brings up another point.
One might say Jesus thinks people should not be gay because of Matthew 19:4-5, which says: "Jesus answered, "Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh"? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." " People use this passage against homosexuality. But they forget the rest: "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:11-12). He says this in response to his disciples reaction to his strict ideas about divorce (see first paragraph). Nowadays and ever since ancient times in some places, the term "eunuch" is used to refer to a man who had his testicles removed before puberty, so that he can think differently from other people. In those parts and times, the term was used to refer to an especially feminine or homosexual man.
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org...
I have no more arguments for the time being.
marathonmalachi

Con

You bring up good points. First, as to your point about divorce. I agree with you that it IS a sin, and I believe that the Church as a whole does not treat it as a sin, like they may treat other sins. I would say that this is hypocrisy on the part of many Christians. Now, our topic is whether homosexuality is moral within the bounds of Christianity. I believe that Christians base right and wrong off of the Bible. Therefore, we are debating whether or not homosexuality is acceptable according to the Bible. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is God breathed, some translations may say inspired, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. This verse basically is saying that anything within Scripture is directly inspired by God. The question then becomes whether Paul is valid within the context of Scriptural canon. Do the letters written by the apostle Paul belong in Scripture? Athanasius is believed to have been the first to compile a list of the New Testament books as we know them today. At multiple councils, such as the Council of Laodicea, books were judged as to whether they were canonical. For any letter or Gospel to be accepted into the New Testament it had to meet certain criteria. The first was whether it seemed inspired. They asked if it provided edification to the Church. It was judged as to whether or not it presented the same doctrine as the rest of the canon. The book had to represent high moral or spiritual values that were equal with that of other books in the canon. Another requirement was that it was either written by an apostle, or it had the approval of an apostle. We do know that Paul was an apostle because he met apostolic requirements. An apostle had to have experienced Jesus' earthly ministry. As a zealous religious leader, Paul would have followed his ministry, and he most likely would have seen most, if not all, of Christ's miracles. An apostle also was required to have met the resurrected Jesus, which happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. The final requirement for a book to be accepted as canon was acceptance. The early church had to quote portions of the book and accept its message. From this long process, multiple councils found that the letters of Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant. God obviously endorsed what Paul taught because he chose him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. https://bible.org...
Romans 5:20 says that the law, which includes Leviticus, was given so that sin might increase. By this it means that the law was meant to show us our imperfection and inability to live up to God's perfect standards. The same verse goes on to say that where sin increased, grace increased more. Basically, the law shows us how desperately in need of grace we are, and God provides us that grace. Jesus did not abolish the law; he fulfilled the law. As a result, he was able to take on our punishment and we were forgiven for our sins. Those living in the Old Testament were redeemed because of their anticipation of a Messiah. Their past sins and transgressions were no longer taken into account. This does not make those right, but it does give hope even in the midst of sin. Hebrews 8:13 says that the New Covenant makes the old one obsolete. Because Christ took on all sins, there is no need for traditional Old Testament punishment. Again, this does not make any sin, whether it be lying or homosexuality, acceptable. It just means we do not have to suffer physical or eternal consequences for it. I personally disagree with the commenter that you mention. The Bible says in Romans 3:23 that we have ALL sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We are incapable of living up to his perfect standards. There is no sin that is worse than another. All sins doom us to eternal separation from God. The Bible says in Romans 10:9 that if we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouth Jesus as Lord we will be saved. Therefore, anyone who has committed a homosexual act, or any other sin, can enter God's presence in eternity. I do not believe that a Christian will stay homosexual . 2 Corinthians 5:17 says if anyone is in Christ he is made new. All old things have passed away. Romans 6:11 says that Christians should count themselves as dead to sin, but alive to God. That means we repent and pray for God's mercy to stop our sins, and he will help us to become more perfect in Christ. 1 Peter 5:10 says that after we have struggled a little while, with our sin, God will make us perfect and more like Christ. I believe a homosexual can become a Christian, and that if he or she died ten minutes later they would enter heaven. I also believe that John 16:8 is correct in saying that the Holy Spirit will convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment. If one accepts Christ, they will still struggle with sin, but they will see their error, repent, and eventually be made perfect in Christ.
In Matthew 19, the disciples say that is must be best not to marry. Paul also addresses this in 1 Corinthians 7. He says it is best not to marry, because then one can focus on pleasing God rather than pleasing their spouse, but if one cannot resist temptation of the flesh, it is better to marry than to sin by having sex or having lustful thoughts outside of marriage. When Jesus says eunuchs, he is simply referring to those who do not experience sexual lust. He says if one can avoid marrying and stay within the will of God, they should.
Debate Round No. 3
Nisectus

Pro

As for Paul, the fact that he was a great follower of Jesus does not mean that every opinion he had was the law of God. The fact that one part of the Bible written by a different author than the rest said his writing was directly inspired by God does not prove that it actually is. Using the Bible to support the Bible goes nowhere.
Here we come to a difference of views. Ways of looking at the Bible. I am viewing it as a compilation of historic records around many different times written by wise people. That does not mean that I am not Christian, I still am. It has inaccuracies because of the time. For example, Genesis says the Earth is 6000 years old. That was written a long time ago, so why do we still accept the same number of years? Also the age of the Earth has been proven to be way older. It also, because of the time, says that bugs have four legs. Neither of these are true. Does that mean everything in the Bible is wrong? Of course not. What about more important issues? Well, it says that slavery is morally acceptable and that slaves should show complete obedience to their master. Ephesians 6:5 says, " Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,". Now, let's imagine Jesus if he were around the time of abolition. Would he be on the side of the Confederacy or the side of the Union? The Union, not because history is written by the victors but because they slavery didn't go with his ideas of love and kindness. What about the women's rights movement? Genesis 3:16 says, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. ". That doesn't go with women's rights. But if Jesus were around at the time of the women's rights movement, he would be on the side of the feminists. Other than just themes of love, this is also supported by the fact that from the Old to New testaments, God becomes more forgiving. Of course we can't judge God like a person, but it is clear that laws change, from strict rules, harsh judgment, and chosen people to love, forgiveness, and acceptance. So it all comes down to the over-used, "What would Jesus do?" Would he side with letting love happen in obviously loving same-sex relationships, or with the strict, old testament style ancient rules? With this knowledge and our moral/religious obligation to help the world and those in need, it is clear that gay marriage should be accepted by all churches.
marathonmalachi

Con

We are not debating whether or not the Bible is true; we are debating whether or not gay marriage is morally acceptable within Christianity. As Christians, we base our entire faith off of the Bible. Therefore, the debate is whether the Bible accepts gay marriage, whether it is accurate or not. I will agree that being a great follower of God does not make you right in every way, but in multiple places the Bible says that men wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The second that one word of the Bible is proven inaccurate, it becomes completely useless as anything but a story book. If anything included in Scripture is in error, then for all we know everything written in the Gospels is completely fabricated. The very basis of the entire Christian faith falls apart. So, if we are debating whether homosexuality is acceptable within the bounds of Christianity, the Bible's accuracy and whether or not it was inspired do not matter. With that said, I believe every word of the Bible is inspired. In 2 Peter 1:20-21 Peter writes that no prophecy or teaching given in Scripture is from the prophet's own interpretation, but from direct inspiration by God. That means everything included in the canon is one hundred percent true or none of it is true. Jesus himself referenced Old Testament Scriptures.
I do not believe that the theory of evolution is valid. I do not think the Bible is in error regarding the age of the earth. I believe that Jesus was a champion of women's rights and that the Bible is not anti women. The Bible did not endorse the slavery that was common at the time of the Civil War. Actually, these would all make really good debates in and of themselves.
God does not change. If God changes, then Scripture is not inerrant and debating whether gay marriage is acceptable according to the Bible is completely pointless. Malachi 3:6 says, "I, the LORD, do not change." Other verses such as Numbers 23:19, Psalms 102:25-27, Psalms 33:11, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 43:10, Philippians 1:6, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 13:8 all attest to the immutability of God. If he changes, then the entire Bible is undermined and this debate is useless. I would agree that the question is indeed, "What would Jesus do?" The only answer to that is he would remain the unchanging God and condemn the isn of homosexuality while forgiving and accepting the sinner. Thank you for the debate! It was very enjoyable!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by marathonmalachi 1 year ago
marathonmalachi
Oh ok, that makes it more relevant now... I thought we both did really well actually. Thanks for the debate!
Posted by Nisectus 1 year ago
Nisectus
I would just like it to be known that I brought up the credibility of the Bible to say not whether the Bible is true or not, but to say that not everything in it should be taken literally. I apologize for not making that clear, and I would like people to know the relevance of what I said before voting.
Posted by marathonmalachi 1 year ago
marathonmalachi
No problem...
Posted by Nisectus 1 year ago
Nisectus
WHAT? I did not forfeit that round. I wrote a long and detailed argument, and I don't know why it says that. Please restate your previous arguments, con, so that I can write it again. Thank you. I apologize for the inconvenience. I honestly have no idea why it says I forfeit.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Christians can care. Nobody else..Not even your god.
Posted by Deathbydefault 1 year ago
Deathbydefault
@TheWORDisLIFE
Just because they don't go to heaven doesn't mean they can't believe. They could easily believe your god is real and simply accept that they may go to hell for being themselves. I'm not a Christian and even I know that. Just because you simply are one thing does not mean you cannot be another thing. I'm a guy but just because I'm a guy doesn't mean I can't be a prostitute. Someone may be gay but just because they are gay it doesn't mean they can't believe and worship the same deity as you.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
There is no such thing as a gay Christian. Provide evidence from the bible where it says a gay individual has went heaven.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- Wat???!!!!
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
So how many times does the Bible have to teach something before you believe it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
NisectusmarathonmalachiTied
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
Vote Placed by Henceforth_Truth 1 year ago
Henceforth_Truth
NisectusmarathonmalachiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro steered the debate off topic multiple times, as well as broke apart some of the resolution.