The Instigator
VirBinarus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
someloser
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Gay marriage is against the Bible.

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...
someloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 87194
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

VirBinarus

Pro

As a Christian, I can't see how the Bible can be interpreted to say that Gay marriage is a good thing, yet I've seen some statistics that over 50% of certain groups of priests are Gay. So here's my first argument:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Romans 1:24-27

That passage seems like it is obviously stating that gay marriage is wrong. I'm interested to hear the replies.
someloser

Con

"That passage seems like it is obviously stating that gay marriage is wrong."

It isn't. Nothing about the passage refers to the legal institution of marriage. It is condemning condemning homosexual acts - which are very obviously not the same as a legal institution.

The implications of perceived religious implications (correct or otherwise) are generally meaningless for a secular state. Unless you are arguing about gay marriage within the Biblical context (which would be pointless, as it gay "marriage" wouldn't even be recognized there), none of the given excerpts given support PRO's interpretation.
Debate Round No. 1
VirBinarus

Pro

| The implications of perceived religious implications (correct or otherwise) are generally meaningless for a secular state.

This debate is about it in a Biblical context.

If you are not going to commit homosexual acts, what is the point of homosexual marriage?
someloser

Con

"This debate is about it in a Biblical context."

In that case, gay marriage cannot be considered to be against the Bible, as the Biblical canon does not recognize it in the first place. While the Bible doesn't exactly provide a definition of marriage, it never explicitly mentions same-sex unions being touted as marriages.

"If you are not going to commit homosexual acts, what is the point of homosexual marriage?"

The answer to that wouldn't be relevant to the overall debate. Gay marriage itself does not constitute a Biblical transgression, as it simply isn't acknowledged by the Biblical texts.

One can (quite convincingly) argue that the Bible opposes homosexuality, but that is obviously not the same thing as the legal institution of gay marriage.

It goes without saying that homosexual marriage can occur without homosexual activity, and vice versa.
Debate Round No. 2
VirBinarus

Pro

VirBinarus forfeited this round.
someloser

Con

Pro forfeits, round goes to Con.
Debate Round No. 3
VirBinarus

Pro

VirBinarus forfeited this round.
someloser

Con

Pro forfeited, round goes to Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by someloser 11 months ago
someloser
Thanks!
Posted by VirBinarus 11 months ago
VirBinarus
Well done to Con.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

(1) Conduct

Conduct to Con because of Pro's forfeit.

(2) S&G

There were no significant disparities in the usage of S&G sufficient to award the S&G point, since that point is reserved for *only* cases where the disparity is so huge one side's argument is virtually incoherent due to the number of mistakes. Readability was not hurt by either of the debaters.

(3) Arguments

Con clearly wins arguments. Note: the resolution is a fact-claim; therefore, Pro has the BOP. The BOP in this debate is a proof burden, rather than a burden of persuasion. Pro has to prove the resolution to be true. Con's sole obligation in fulfilling their BOP is refuting Pro's arguments. Regardless, Con has offense as well, positive arguments that uphold Con's position in the debate as true.

Pro begins the debate by quoting Biblical verses, specifically Romans 1:34-27, where -- per the English translation, regardless of correctness or reliability (which is disputable, but this does not factor into my decision due to the obligation to act as a tabula rasa judge) -- homosexual acts are condemned. Con correctly notes that this is a condemnation of *homosexual acts,* not same-sex marriage. Pro responds rather weakly, asking what the point of marriage is without homosexual acts. But that is irrelevant to the resolution at hand, which says the Bible condemns gay marriage. Pro doesn't prove this.

On the contrary, Con shows that the Bible doesn't even *recognize* gay marriage as an idea, and rejects the idea that people of the same sex can even be married. If it doesn't recognize the very concept of gay marriage, there is no way the concept can be condemned. This is a strong argument, and Pro drops the whole argument, thus extending it in Con's favor.

(4) Sources

Both sides only used the Bible as a source; as such, there is no question of any source being "more reliable" if the same source is used.

Con wins arguments and conduct, and all other points are tied
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ZachZimmey// Mod action: Removed<

2 point to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both had good arguments, but pro wins for sources

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a restatement of the point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by VirBinarus 11 months ago
VirBinarus
Aww... I completely forgot about this one...
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ZachZimmey/ Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: YAY

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just an exclamation of approval.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
VirBinarussomeloserTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.