The Instigator
bwbraves
Con (against)
Tied
1 Points
The Contender
TrueScotsman
Pro (for)
Tied
1 Points

Gay marriage should be allowed in a church.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,414 times Debate No: 39525
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

bwbraves

Con

I am writing this debate because I can see this becoming a national debate in the future.
1. By church I am referring to a Roman Catholic church. That is the branch of Christianity I am referring to and all arguments against me should keep that in mind.
2. I believe that gay people should be able to be married in state.
3. I am not gay.
4. I am not homophobic.
5. I am Roman Catholic
6. I have been studying religion for four years, including a class in theology.
7. This is my first debate on this website.
TrueScotsman

Pro

Hello,

Happy Monday!

I will have to disagree with you on this one, and though I am not a Roman Catholic I do know quite a bit about it's teachings and therefore will contend that they should not.

Here are a few excerpts from the the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Sixth Commandment

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Source: http://www.vatican.va...

The purposes of these Catechisms is to teach the faith of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, based upon these off statements by the Vatican this Church should not be coerced to contradict it's official dogma and concede to allow Homosexual marriage. The RCC's official policy is rather that the individuals use the virtues of "self-mastery" and "prayer and sacramental grace" to overcome their "disordered" condition.

Now, if your argument is simply to allow people to be married in the church building, but not actually recognize that marriage then I also have to disagree with you. Churches are private property and based on their historical Christian beliefs should not be obligated to marry anyone, straight or homosexual and if their official doctrine constrains them by their conscience and devotion to abstain then to enforce such a law would be tyranny against the freedom of religion.

I also am not homophobic, but I am an Agnostic (in regards to Epistemology) Christian (choose to believe in) of the Protestant variety. I believe that Domestic Partnerships which entail homosexual couples the same rights regarding the law as a married couple to be the proper course of action. It is not the government's responsibility to define marriage, but to recognize equally those couples regardless of life style regarding the law.

Welcome to Debate.org and hope you enjoy your time here. :)

Kindest Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 1
bwbraves

Con

bwbraves forfeited this round.
TrueScotsman

Pro

Extension of my previously unaddressed arguments.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 2
bwbraves

Con

I did not reply to your first posted argument because it was agreeing with my original statements. I am against gay marriage being allowed in the church. The argument you posted supported my opinion on the matter. I believe that you misunderstood my statement as being pro gay marriage in the church. I posted this debate in hopes that someone would post an argument in favor of gay marriage in the church. I believe that this will be an issue in my lifetime and I would like to hear possible arguments in favor of it.

I apologize for not making my stance clear in the original statement.
-braves
TrueScotsman

Pro

Hello again,

Not sure how we all became so confused on the matter, but looking at the comments on this it appears I was not the only one confused by this.

Some helpful notes for the future, is that when you begin a debate you should state clearing the format of the debate and what you will be supporting.

For example, you could have said, "I will be supporting the Con argument, to contend that Gay Marriage should not be allowed in the Church. And Pro will have to defend the motion that Gay Marriage should in fact be allowed in the Church."

This is something I do when I create debates, as it makes it crystal clear to those who are in opposition what stance they will be defending.

Ultimately, it was my failure to notice that I was Pro and you were Con at the outset of the debate and take responsibility for that.

Sorry for wasting your time, and hope that next time you create this debate you find a worthy advesary who can take up the contrary argument.

Kindest Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bwbraves 3 years ago
bwbraves
I am arguing against gay marriage in the church. That's why i chose con when setting up the debate. The other person debating chose pro yet is arguing against marriage in the church.
Posted by mikicat10 3 years ago
mikicat10
Are you arguing against gay marriage or what???
Posted by Parksterthejenkins 3 years ago
Parksterthejenkins
If you mean by force of the government, I may accept your debate. But if you just leave it as a moral issue saying religions should accept homosexuality then I'd agree. But I may accept your debate if you think that church's should be required by law to marry homosexuals.
Posted by Epiphron 3 years ago
Epiphron
So you pretty much want the church to go against one of its fundamental values.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
bwbravesTrueScotsmanTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concurs with Con. If Pro had checked that the instigator had taken the Con position on the topic "gay marriage should be allowed in church," Pro easily could have avoided the mix up. Thus, because all sides were in agreement, I will not evaluate the arguments. I will only award a conduct point to Con, due to Pro's failure to support his side of the issue.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
bwbravesTrueScotsmanTied
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: Conduct for the forfeit. Can't really score the rest, since the debate was kind of a mess, but a forfeit is a forfeit and I don't see Pro's error regarding the setup as being anywhere near conduct-worthy. To Pro: while it's a common error to not notice the Pro and Con at the top of the debate (as apparently evidenced in the comments), they are there, and it would probably be a good idea to verify that to avoid accepting under the wrong impression in the future.