The Instigator
Pro (for)
15 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Gay marriage is sinful.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,255 times Debate No: 68778
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)




I would like to thank my friend lannan13 for accepting this debate, and for suggesting the topic of this debate. He is a skilled debater, so I look forward to the challenge.

We will be debating the resolution, "Gay marriage is sinful."

For the sake of this debate, we have agreed on the definition of "sinful".

Sinful: Anything that goes against God's will.

We've also have agreed that for the purposes of this debate, we shall consider the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of God.

I wish my friend the best of luck! I know this will be a charitable, thoughtful discussion.

First round is for acceptance only.


I thank my opponent for the challenge as this will be the first time I defend gay marriage so this will be new to me and this will help me in terms of my faith and other things, so I thank my opponent for a very important debate and concider this challenge accepted.

Debate Round No. 1


I wanted to give the voters a couple things to think about before
casting their votes. Both my opponent and I are going to be offering
many Bible verses (sometimes maybe the same ones). And both of us will be suggesting ways to interpret these verses. The key, I believe, is
which interpretations coincide with what the early Christians


To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once:

Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old
book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin
to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the
author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was
in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase:

I never said you stole money.

Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may
be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote
that meant

I never said you stole money... He said it. Or...

I never SAID you stole money... But I sure thought it. Or...

I never said YOU stole money... I said she stole it. Or...

I never said you STOLE money... I said you borrowed it. Or...

I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car.

Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You
have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for
different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at
different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on
to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later?

Development of doctrine.

Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the
implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians
recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until
some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the
difference between development versus departure is this... Is the
teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one
expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller
and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't
expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip.
Development versus departure.


Both my opponent and I agreed in round one that anything that goes
against God's will is sinful, and the Bible is God's word. So, if I am
able to show from the Bible that God didn't intend for same sex couples to be married, I have won the debate. Let's begin.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

So, here we see from God's word that God, from the beginning of human history, intended for men and women to be married. And we can see from the last verse of the passage that God's will was for men and women to have sex. Anything opposite of that would be against His will, and by definition, sinful.

Now some people may claim that this teaching is from the Old Testament, and we don't follow everything from the Old Testament now. We don't keep, for example, the strict dietary laws of the Old Testament. This is true, but some teachings were carried over from the Old to the New Testament. This is one of them. Specifically, Jesus said:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

So here we see from the New Testament teaching of Jesus that it's always God's will for men and women to be together in marriage, and not same sex couples.


Now, in order to make sure we are interpreting the passages properly and not departing from the original faith passed on to the Apostles, let's see what the early Church fathers have to say. Did they believe that marriages needed to be in line with God's will? The answer is yes:

"If, therefore, second marriage finds the source of its allowance in
that "will of God" which is called indulgence, we shall deny that that
which has indulgence for its cause is volition pure;..." Tertullian, "Exhortation on Chastity" 204-212 A.D. [1]

Although the context concerns second marriages, we clearly see the importance of a marriage to in line with God's will in the writings of the early Christians.



I thank my opponent for this challenge and I hope not to disapoint him. I shall begin by refuting his verse and then move on to some well known Biblical verses that are thought to condemn homosexuality and show that they are really meaning to assult something completely different.

Now before we look at Genesis 2:21-24 and automatically condemn Gay Marriage let's take one more look at it. It states that Eve came from the rib of Adam so that the man shall leave his parents and find women. This doesn't mean that a man has to marry a women, but actually fallows Plato's theory of androgyne. ( Escentially it is that the man leaves his parents to go out and to look for their other half. Now this means that the person can look for a male or female. It matters not their sexuality as long as it they find their other half. This is a methaor throughout the Bible.

Now Pro states that men and women are meant to have sex and that anything else would be against God's will, but that is simply not so. Why's that you may ask? Well let's look further in the Book of Genesis and observe Lot and his wife. In Genesis 16 Lot's wife ask's him to find another wife to impregnate as she is barren. In Genesis 25, he marries Hagar and Katurah whom of which the Bible describes her as being concubine. Now what that means is that the person is polygamous, but they have a status lesser than that of a wife. So we can see that God permitted Lot to enter a Polygamous marriage with now 3 wives. The Bible shows here that it cannot be true about what Pro is saying in terms of Furtality as Lot maintains his marriage to his first wife even if she is infertile.


Now let's observe Sodom and the acts of Sodomy.

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:5

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8

Now one immidately rushes to say, "Ha, there, that condems it," but once again that is incorrect. Sodomy was orginially a sexual act of anal and/or oral sex between two people. This happens between heterosexual couples on an everday basis. it's wasn't until the Mid Evil times that the Christian and Jewish communities used this to attack homosexual couples due to the Pagan acceptance of homosexuality during this time.

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [Heb. 13:2]

The Bible actually uses Lot's story to show that one must entertain guests and treat them well. That not doing so is a violation. Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel.

"Saith the Lord GOD...Behold, this was the iniquity of ... Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good". - Ezekiel 16:48-50

Now look closely and we can see that the abomination is idol worshipping and human sacrafice, not homosexual acts. The society of Sodom was known for its materialistic and uncharitable nature. There is a story in the BIble when a starving man is coated in honey only to be stung to death by bees.


Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. ( Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.

With that, I'll pass things back off to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2



I want to thank lannan for his thoughtful response. I really found the
picture to be quite humorous. He and I agree on many things. We
apparently agree on my arguments concerning how we should interpret the
Bible ("I never said you stole money"and "development of doctrine").I
say that because he never responded to them or tried to refute them last
round, so he must agree with them.

Having said that, I don't see how that helps his case. Here's why:


In "I never said you stole money" I argued that in order to come up with
a proper interpretation of scripture, we need to avail ourselves with
those who lived closest to the time of Jesus and the Apostles. I contend
that my opponent will be unable to find a single member of the early
Church fathers who said the Bible teaches that a gay lifestyle is in
line with God's will. I on the other hand can find plenty of them that
support my interpretation of scripture. And since what he advocates is
opposed to them, we can know his stance is not a development of
doctrine, but rather a departure. This fact alone should be enough for
me to win the argument portion of this debate.


My opponent claims Genesis 2:21-24 doesn't teach that a man can only
marry women, but that flies in the face of the plain reading of
scripture. The verse specifically talks about how God made us man and
woman, and then speaks about how the man clings to his wife, not his
husband. If there's any doubt about the context of the passage, Jesus
cleared up the confusion when He interpreted it for us in the other
passage I quoted: Matthew 19:4

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For
this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
So here we see Jesus saying how the Father made them man and woman, and
"for this cause"' a man shall cleave to his wife. So, in other words,God
made them male and female because He wanted the man to join his wife. So
again, any action that is the opposite of that "cause" is against God's
will, and by definition, sinful.

Con's Confusion

Con pointed out how I said it is God's will that men only have sex with
women, and tried to refute it by giving scriptural examples of a man
having sex with women. This was very confusing to me as his examples
SUPPORTED my claims. I said the Bible teaches men should only have sex
with women, and Con gave examples of men having sex with women. As for
Con's claims that Abraham's wife was infertile, this is obviously wrong
since she gave birth to Isaac in Genesis 21.


I wasn't planning on using the story of Sodom to support my argument. I
don't think the story of Sodom is a good passage to use when defending
the sinfulness of homosexual sex. So with that in mind, there is no
reason for me to defend an argument I wasn't planning on making.


Once AGAIN, Con inserts a bunch of claims about biblical passages that
fly in the face of the plain reading of the passage. He claims the
condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is really a condemnation of
"Pagan Priests called Kedoshim", cross dressing, human castration, and
anal sex during religious ritual.

Here's the problem I have with Con's interpretation... none of that is
found in Leviticus. There's no mention of "Pagan Priests called
Keepshim, cross dressing, human castration, or religious rituals
containing sex. You know what IS in Leviticus? Condemnation of
homosexual relationships. (Leviticus 20:19) Unfortunately, Con has
offered us an interpretation unknown to the early Church, and is
therefore incorrect based on the agreed upon/dropped parameters of this

What We're Not Debating:

As I alluded to earlier, Con posted a funny picture of a man in front of
a chalkboard. This graphic mentioned several other actions other than
homosexual sex that are banned in the Bible. That was all very
interesting... but we're not debating about ANY OF THEM.

We're not debating about cursing. We're not debating about shaving.We're
not debating about football on Saturdays, etc.
All of those may or may not be sinful, but one thing their definitely
not is relevant to our debate.


Biblical Support

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions.Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error."

So here we can plainly see how, according to the Bible, homosexual
relationships are "unnatural". And if something is unnatural, it's
something that God never willed to happen. And if it's against God's
will, then for the purpose of this debate, it's considered sinful.

Historical Christianity

Eusebius of Caesarea

"[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it" [Lev. 18:24"25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

This can't be any clearer. The union of homosexual relationships is an "unlawful marriage".



Hey I'll be gone for the weekend at a Drill Competition, so if you could please hold off until late Saturday to respond I would be eternally grateful.
I do agree with my opponent that we need to focus on the Bible and what was said there, now I know that the Bible does not say here's how to be gay and here's how to live a gay lifestyle. What I am arguing is that the Bible, nor Jesus for that matter, never condemns homosexuality nor gay marriage. Remember this debate is over what the Bible says not what the church has adopted afterwards. Note that even if my opponent finds something to prove that the Bible condemns the act of homosexual intercourse he is still incorrect as this debate is over weather or not Gay Marriage is sinful. Let's move on to the debate.
My opponent completely ignores my argument here. I show that it is not a Biblical reference to a man and female having sex together, but a simple coming of age story. Let's look at the verse once more to emphasize my point.
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24
The Bible verse states that Women has come from man and that once the man has come of age he is to look for the rib. This does not mean that a man should go and find another female, but it is to find a missing half of the person. As my argument of Plato was completely dropped by my opponent as it showed exactly what I was arguing of the two halves make a whole and the human goes out there to look for the person that most completes him. This is obvious as my coming of age interpertation of the verse. I extend my arguments here as he never really refuted it. He only said that my claims supported his, but yet I was quoting the same verse he did for refrence on which verse I was speaking on. Now to further explain the second part of Genesis that I assaulted. Yes I know that Lot's wife gives birth to Iassic with the help of God, BUT before God helped her she was infertile. God told him to have a child and yet he turned to two other people who would become his wives due to her infertality. My opponent also dropps a key point here that I've made as well. He dropped that I stated that if man and women were ment to reproduce and that was God's will that would mean that those who cannot reproduce would be sinful as it would be against God's will in Pro's own interpertation.

Concession by Pro. He's agreed that this poiint doesn't affect the debate.


I will make two arguments here, one refuting by with what I said last round and the second is a new argument from Paul.

First to continue my assult from last round due to Kedoshim. Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. (Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press) The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve’et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to’evah hi.

Ve’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to’evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don’t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to’evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to’evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

Biblical Support

Once again my opponent is sadly wrong as he is not looking at the entire context of the story in Romans. In the passage Paul is being questioned about Gentile idoltry, once again refering to the Kedoshim, and turning around and after the Jews agrees that the Gentiles are guilty Paul states this.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.- Romans 2:1

Here we can see that he also attacks the Jews for doing the same thing. It is determined that the Pagans in Rome worshiped the Pagan God of Cyblee, or also known as the Protectoress of Rome. For in Romans 3:23 he sums up his speech stating that all who have worshiped this idol have sinned. Gentile, Pagan, or Jew.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God- Romans 3:23

Leviticus 18:23-25 refur to Bestiality not gay marriage. let me give you Leviticus 18:23 to show you exactly what I mean by it has nothing to do with Gay Marriage.

"'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."- Lev 18:23

As you can see this has to do with bestiality not gay marriage.

I'll pass the baton back off to my opponent and I ask him once more to please hold off on arguing until late Saturday. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3


I appreciate Con's honest request. I am happy to have honored it.
It's the least I can do for someone who protects our freedoms by
serving in the military.


As always, I capitalize for emphasis only.

Last round, Con said:

"What I am arguing is that the Bible, nor Jesus for that matter, never
condemns homosexuality nor gay marriage."

My response:

With all due respect to my friend lannan, to say the Bible doesn't ever
condemn homosexuality is just silly. Anyone who has read it without
trying to twist it to fit some kind of politically correct world knows
better. Now, as for the Bible not SPECIFICALLY condemning gay
"marriage", that assertion is true. Jesus didn't specifically condemn
gay marriage, but He didn't specifically condemn rape either. So I
have to ask my opponent if he thinks Jesus is okay with rape too? The
Bible also doesn't specifically condemn bestiality marriage either. It
only specifically condemns bestiality. But does that mean my opponent believes the Bible is okay with bestiality marriage? Clearly the Bible doesn't condone either kind of those types of "marriage".

Con said: "Remember this debate is over what the Bible says..."

My response:

I agree. So with that in mind, I have to wonder why my
opponent continues to add things to scripture that cannot be found in
the text. For example, why does he claim the passage in Genesis is
somehow about Plato or androgyne, when neither is mentioned in the
text? Or why does Con claim the passage in Leviticus is referring to
Kedoshim, human castration, or anal sex during a religious ritual when


I didn't ignore Con's claims that Genesis 2:21- 24 was about some kind of "coming of age". That's Con's interpretation, but it's not Jesus's interpretation. As I mentioned last round, Jesus interprets Genesis 2:21-24 for us in Matthew 19:4:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

As I pointed out last round, the reason ("cause") God created man is
for him to "cleave to his wife". So God willed man to have a female
spouse (wife). Therefore, the opposite of this would be against God's
will. And by the definition laid out in round one, sinful.

Infertile Wives

Ther was no reason for me to discuss this issue, because Con was
agreeing with me. He is right to say permanently infertile couples
should not get married. I agree. As we can see from Genesis 1:28 God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply,...". So we see from the beginning that it is God's will that married couples "multiply".
This is not possible with two homosexuals, and therefore clearly not
what God willed. And as me and my opponent agreed in round one,
anything that goes against God's will is sinful.


I never claimed the story of Sodom supported my claims. Con thought I would, so in round two, he tried to counter what he imagined I would
say. However, I never had any intention to use the story of Sodom.
There's plenty of other evidence from scripture I can use.


Again, none of those issues Con used to interpret Leviticus are
mentioned in Leviticus. My opponent is forcing something into the text
that simply isn't there. I can't put it any more plainly. If I'm
wrong, it should be easy for my opponent to prove otherwise. All he
has to do is tell me which verse or verses mention the word "Kedoshim".

Or, since we both agree that all biblical interpretations should
coincide with what the early Christians believe, show me where any
Christian from the first 500 years of Christianity ever interpreted the
passage that way.

If Con is unable to do so, I think it's pretty clear who is going
against the way we agreed to interpret scripture.

Con's Calkboard Picture

This picture lists a number of things that are banned in Leviticus.
We're not debating any of them. Maybe they are all sinful, maybe
they're not. For the purpose of this debate, I'm not arguing either
way because those issues are not what is being debated here. As I
stated in round two, an argument can be made why someone might believe the actions listed are not banned anymore. One could argue that only those moral laws that were preserved in the New Testament are still sinful today. For example, there's no verse in the New Testament that bans shaving, but I have shown how the ban on homosexual sex is still banned in the New Testament (Romans 1:26-27).

Con's Misinterpretation

Con quotes Leviticus

18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of
them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Con then says that these verses aren't talking about homosexual sex,
but rather "religious rites of the Canaanite Priests". But notice what
is NOT mentioned in either of those verses:

1. Religious rites

2. Canaanite Priests

Now as to what is banned in both those verses:

1. Men having sex with
men. Again, Con is forcing something that is NOT in the text.

Biblical Support???

Con then claims the book of Romans refers to Kedoshim and the pagan God of Cyblee. I only have one problem with this claim... It's completely FALSE. There is no mention of either of those characters in the letter to the Romans. Again, if what my opponent says is true, all he has to do is tell us which verse or verses either of those words are found in the book of Romans.

More of Con's Misinterpretations

Con is mistaken to say Leviticus 18:23-25 only refers to bestiality.
Now, it's true that verse 23 is referring to bestiality, the same is
not true for verses 24 and 25.

Let's look at those verses:

Leviticus 18:24 "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for
by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled
themselves; 25 and the land became defiled, so that I punished its
iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

Notice, verse 24 says not to defile yourself with "ANY of these
THINGS". The language of this verse makes it clear that verse 24 is
warning the readers not to do any one of a number of things (plural).
It's not talking about only one thing (singular).

But what are these THINGS that should be avoided so as not to "defile" oneself? That's easy. Beginning in verse 6 of Leviticus 18, God gives Moses a list of sexual sins His people should avoid. They include not looking at your father naked (verse 6), not having sex with your neighbor's wife (verse 20), not having homosexual sex (verse 22), and not having sex with animals (verse 23). Then in verse 24, it says not to do ANY of the THINGS just mentioned.

So we can see that the quote from Eusebius was correct to tie in
homosexual relationships with the defilement mentioned in verse 24.


I have enjoyed this discussion with my friend lannan. I am glad that we
were able to discuss this issue in a respectful manner. Having said
that, I believe I have won the debate, and would like to share my
rationale for such a statement:

1. We both agreed in round one that:

A. The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
B. Anything that goes against God's will is sinful.

2. Dropped arguments

By dropping my "I never said you stole money" and "Development of
doctrine" arguments, he agreed that those approaches were the best way to interpret scripture. I say this because according to standard rules of formal debate, once an argument is not addressed, it is considered true for the remainder of the debate. In other words, it's too late for my opponent to try to refute them now. [3]

With that in mind, we both agree the proper way to interpret scripture
is to lean on the guidance of the early Church fathers. This proposes
a problem for Con, as I have given evidence that the early Christians
interpreted scripture to say:

A. God's will needs to be the center of every marriage. (Tertullian)

B. Gay marriage is not in line with God's will. (Eusebius of Caesarea)

3. Because Con agrees how we should interpret scripture, and because the early Christians taught gay relationships are against God's will, Con implicitly agrees they are sinful. (See definition of "sinful")




I thank my opponent for honnoring my request and allowing me to be able to respond to the end of this debate. Now let us move on to finishing this great debate.
Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality

My opponent moves off on an irrelivant tangent here by stating that Jesus doesn't condemn rape so that must means that he's okay with it. The answer is simply of course not, but that doesn't translate against homosexulaity. Jesus does speak and save a women from being stoned to death for Adultry in John 7:53-8:11. What I'm trying to say here is that Jesus nor the Bible never specifically states that it's wrong and gay marriage at that.

What the Bible says.

We agree here, but in order to fully understand the Bible one must have the background story. For example, one cannot fully understand how Hitler came to power without understanding World War 1. I am merely just showing the backstory and this sheads light on the Bible. Now to clarify the Plato argument. I stated that what the passage is talking about is like Plato's philosphy here on finding one's missing half. Kedoshim is just the missing half of the story in that Biblical passage.

I know by now this part must be getting annoying, but let us observe this once again. Jesus states that this (there being man and women) will cause a man to leave his mother and father. Now let's jump to the end where it states "they twain shall be one flesh?" Now this portion means that together they are whole refuring to Eve Coming from Adam's Rib. This does not mean that all men have to find women, but this is to complete themselves and look for their missing half. Jesus was wanting people to be happy and find their other half. Not be forced to marry someone they don't like.

Infertile Wives

God told Adam and Eve to go forth and muliply, but that's because there was only two humans on Earth. If they didn't then none of us would be here and God's creation would have been in vain. Now there is a large surplus of people and many even believe that the world is overpopulated. Surely humanity has met God's request to multiply as we have mulitplied faster than bunny rabbits.


My opponent wants me to point out in Leviticus where this is mentioned, but though the Bible does not directly state Kedoshim it does indeed mention the Canaanite Pagan religion and condemns it. in Leviticus 18:21, "You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord."

Now who is Molech, how are we to know without reserch and heavens no what could happen if we Google it? Well this is when reserch is necessary. Molech is the Canaanite Pagan God. He is believed to be the god of hell as he was an idol of fire. Which if we observe the link I gave you a few rounds back you can see this ties into Kedoshim and thus the Bible somewhat states it a little more clearly for my opponent here. As my opponent has said I'm completely following the scriptures by showing this evidence from Leviticus.

Now here on the chalkboard portion my opponent has just stated something amazing, let's pull up that quote.

"Maybe they are all sinful, maybe
they're not"

Here we can see that my opponent is going against the Bible by stating that somethings that are "banned" in Leviticus are not sinful. This is a huge concession by my opponent and means a ton of things in this debate.

My opponent is looking at this wrong. We have to look at the Torah, the Old Testiment (what the Jewish call it) and it simply states not to lay on the same bed as evil and those who do preform evil and shall be put to death. This describes their religious rites and has nothing to do with homosexuality. Even if it did it would be refuring to the act of sex not gay marriage. So reguardless this contention goes to me.

Biblical Support

For my justification of using outside information in this debate and these sections in 2 Timothy 2:15, " Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." This is done by reading the Bible and then reserching it's context. For example in an early instance how was I to know the Pagan god mentioned in the Bible without reserch and looking for context. That's what this portion of the Bible does and it's the fact that I have done said reserach and have shown what Peter was talking about proves that it is not condeming homosexuality.

In conclusion, one can see that this debate goes to Con, because of the basis that the Bible never actually condemns Gay Marriage. I have disproved all attacks on homosexuality throughout the Bible by using context clues and reserch. I have sticken down all arguments that my opponent has thrown at me and thus I cannot see any other reason but to Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
I would like to thank lannan for accepting such a difficult position. It made for an interesting debate. I am glad I was able to debate.My friend in a charitable manner.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
I appreciate your vote, Zarroette.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
RFD 1/3:

For this debate, I am going to assume that the BoP is on Pro to show that Gay marriage is sinful [according to the will of God]. The resolution is inherently black or white: gay marriage is either proven sinful or it is not shown that it is.

=Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality=
This point puts Pro in a bit of trouble. When Pro agrees that gay marriage is not specifically condemned in the Bible, Pro then needs to show how it is sinful via other methods, as Con correctly points out that condemning other thins (like bestiality) does not translate into condemning gay marriage. Pro does not lose on this point, but Con now has Pro trying to get out of a tighter room with fewer doors.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
RFD 2/3:

=What the Bible says=
This was a tricky point to come to terms with. As stated under "Biblical Support", I do not find it unreasonable to use outside sources to reveal what is said in the Bible. Con attempts to show the background story, as indicated by the parallel examples to WW1 and other things.

But ultimately, this is going to come down to interpretation, rather than parallels. I have Pro"s interpretation that tells me God created man so that he may "cleave to his wife", and then I have Con"s interpretation that tells me that this is simply about Jesus wanting people to be happy and find their other half. I"m finding a lacking in Con"s interpretation in support, whilst Pro"s is internally supported by the Bible when he cross-references to Matthew 19:4. I think this does mean all men have to find women, as the language of this verse is quite specific "[man and woman as one], for this cause"" However, does this count as marriage? Does this oneness in flesh mean marriage? Pro seems to have the impact, yet I am not convinced of the link. A crippling weakness of this argument is that marriage was not defined, otherwise I could vote for Pro right here if marriage was defined as "oneness between a couple".

=Infertile Wives=
This point suffered greatly from interpretation and psychoanalysing God. The interpretation of the Adam and Eve situation, as I read in this debate, could easily mean that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry (Pro), OR that God was merely talking about the present situation, in that God wanted humans to populate the Earth. After reading the debate, I do not know if God was being literal or metaphorical here, so Pro"s and Con"s arguments are on equal footing, and more importantly, Pro does not affirm the resolution with this argument.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
RFD 3/3

Another tricky point that I spent some time on, largely because I do not think Pro has fulfilled his BoP on the other points. Kedoshim does not appear as a term in the Bible, but Con draws a long-bow and attempts to relate it to the Bible. I think Con"s interpretation has a lot of merit here, yet suffers a fatal blow when Con accepts that Biblical interpretations must be of "Early Church". If that premise is accepted, then Con"s argument does not work.

However, Leviticus 20:19 does not talk about homosexual relationships, so Pro does not win off this. Leviticus 18:22 says not for men to lay on the same bed, but is that marriage? Leviticus 20:13 is about not having sexual relations with another of the same gender, but does that count as not having marriage? Again, Pro has badly faltered in not providing a definition of marriage.

=Biblical Support=
I see no problem with the concept of Con using facts outside of the Bible to support his counter-argument, and Pro never really rebutted this approach either, merely the content of this was rebutted.

This debate is far closer than other voters seem to understand. Especially since Pro conceded that marriage is not specifically condemned in the Bible, I need some kind of definition in order to judge marriage, of which never appears in this debate. Con seems to halt Pro"s critical arguments of this debate whilst being lucky that Pro never quite fulfils his BoP on the ones that Con does not handle. All I needed was a definition of marriage, something to show that marriage is about sexual relations or being one in spirit, but it"s literally not there. There"s no argument to tell me what marriage is, hence I cannot vote for Pro, meaning Con wins by default.

I am willing to reconsider my final verdict because this debate was extremely close and I might have misinterpreted something, so please feel free to talk to me if you"d like to convince me otherwise.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
I believe the Bible bans lobster becuase at the time these laws where written the people had no medicine and -
"Science reveals what may have been God"s reasons for declaring certain sea creatures unfit for human consumption. Clean fish are those that swim in bodies of water while unclean sea life is comprised mostly of predatory scavengers or bottom dwellers. The fish and sea life that do the ocean cleaning are full of toxins and can be harmful to human health. Poisonous fish are generally covered in bristles, spiny scales, thorns or spines and do not have any true scales."

Now we have medicines to deal with these types of diseases, but back then-God was trying to protect the people by marking certain animals "unclean", mainly because of a possible disease it could carry. It was for safety, not to keep them from enjoying different foods.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
@Man_of_Few_Words- This debate is over weather or not Gay Marriage is sinful. This is refuring to weather or not the Bible says it is, so it's kinda redundant if we don't use the Bible for this debate.
Posted by Man_Of_Few_Words 1 year ago
well you see you guys I don't believe in god so its a bit silly for you to use the bible as a reference
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
I would be happy to wait until late Saturday to post my argument. I hope your week is productive!
Posted by rpleyva 1 year ago
It is impossible to defend gay marriage and gay sexual practices if you are using the Bible as the sole moral or behavior standard. My statement is based on using the text of the Kings James, New King James, New International and New American Standard versions of the Bible.

Marriage in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible is clearly defined as between a man and a woman. Male homosexual sex is condemned in both the New and Old Testaments and female homosexual sex is implied in the Old Testament and is specifically condemned in the New Testament.

Homosexuality is first mentioned in Genesis 19:1-13, referring to the wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. The next two mentions are in Leviticus, 18:22, 20:13. It is also mentioned in 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10.

None of this means that God loves or hates homosexuals more than He loves or hates heterosexuals. It is possible to be a homosexual and a Christian. Sexual sin, and this applies to all Christians, is lusting after and/or participating in immoral sexual acts. God hates the sin but loves the sinner and we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. He loves us and is ready to forgive our sins if we will repent.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Willing to reconsider due to the extreme closeness of this debate and a few key areas requiring a bit of interpretation on the voter's behalf.
Vote Placed by Sandra888 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. I give arguments to pro. Although con gave a convincing argument for people to ignore much of what the bible says, that wasn't the terms of the debate. I believe con did not successfully prove that that verse was referring to Canaanite priests. Thus, homosexuality is against the will of god.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both had proper conduct. S&G: No major spelling or grammar errors. Arguments: This was tough, it really was, but I give it to Pro. The definition of "sinful" that was given in round 1 corresponded to Pro's arguments, as Pro, in my opinion, successfully proved that gay marriage was against the bible. Even if Con showed a list of things banned by the bible, they are still against god's will. All of them. Therefore, since Pro proved that gay marriage was against god's will, Pro wins arguments. Sources: Although both used bible verses as sources, Pro had online sources as well.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used scripture to show that homosexuality is sinful (in accordance to Christianity). Both sides did well, but Pro fulfilled his BoP. I applaud @lannan13 for stepping out of his comfort zone, well done.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped Pro's arguments with regard to the interpretation of scripture. Pro was able to adequately demonstrate that gay marriage is sinful (according to scripture) which was enough for him to carry his share of the burden of proof in this debate. Great debate from both parties.