The Instigator
Tristboi22
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
78iamhere
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Tristboi22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 49569
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Tristboi22

Con

The Bible does NOT say that gay marriage should be illegal and I would argue that it does not even call homosexuality a sin. What evidence do you have to support your position that it does?
78iamhere

Pro

True. Government can't stop people from making personal choices. But look at what the bible says, "18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)" and, "20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV). In addition, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is said to be about homosexuality. After all, Sodom is another word for sodomy, meaning homosexuality. Here's the verse, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them". (Genesis 19"5). Notice the phrase, "we may know them." That word is used in the story of Adam and Eve to refer to love. Specifically sexual love. The verse is Genesis 4:1: And Adam KNEW his wife.
The reason homosexuality is a sin in the Bible is because the idea of a man and a woman coming together to produce children is human nature. Most people would agree it is natural to for a man and a woman to come together and have children. Look at all the animals. They do the same thing: Sexual Reproduction not Asexual Reproduction. Would the creator of the world want his creation to be forcibly changed against his will? Let human nature go about its own ways but if a person wants to violate it themselves, it's their choice. I can't stop people from making bad choices.
As for gay marriage being legalized, I can't agree with it. Although I have a lot of libertarian leaning beliefs, the gay marriage is more about violating states" rights than it is about protecting personal liberties. Although many libertarians support gay marriage, what most of them don't realize is that state laws on marriage is all about giving out a license for the purpose of taxes, property, and living laws. States do not regulate what people do in their own personal lives. It just determines tax laws and determines how it's given out.
No one has a civil right to a state license, just to make a personal choice in their personal lives. If a state wants to determine how it gives out it's state license, then let it. State license may make it legal, but spiritual love is beyond that. Thank you and I yield to my opponent .
Debate Round No. 1
Tristboi22

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my invitation in debating this topic. I think it is important to deal with the Bible verses my opponent quoted right away and address them properly.
I think my opponent will agree with me that the Bible was not written in English and sometimes it is imperative that we consult the original Hebrew and Greek translations in order to be accurate.

As for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,
(Hebrew) "V'et-zachar lo tishkav mish'k' vei ishah"

Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing.
(The women's portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men's half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman's quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael's tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21)."

Leviticus KJV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)

Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

As you can see, as we go from Hebrew through the translations and bible rewrites to the present time, (I've only stated a few examples but its a lot more complicated then this) it's original meaning, like many statements in Leviticus, are not relevant in modern society. If 18:22 stayed with its original translation, no one would pay any attention to it. It's been translated like this purely to boost bible sales. Newer bible sales have become more and more homophobic to boost sales. Homosexual global population is around 10% lesbians 6%. By hurting the minority, the bible publication have boosted sales for the overhaul majority (90% straight male). The plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The "bedding" or "bed" in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out.
Most English translations leave the word, "bedding" or "laying" out the the verse when translated.
" "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526)
I would like to point out that those two verses in particular, were in the Old Testament. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that the entire law is summed up into one commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14. Homosexuality is not mentioned in that verse at all. Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." This verse makes it clear that we are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws. Eating pork, wearing clothing that contains more than one type of fabric are ALL forbidden. Eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), a woman wearing a man's cloak (Deut 22:5) and the Hebrews breaking bread with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32) are ALL abominations too.
To put an end to this argument once and for all, Christ came to set up a NEW Covenant and we are no longer bound by the old. Heb. 8:13, "In that He says, 'A new covenant, He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.' "
This is why I believe that even if your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were correct, they are still irrelevant because Christ has come and we are under a NEW COVENANT.

My opponent made reference to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. He also said the word for "sodomy" meant, "homosexuality". My opponent did not offer proof of this assumption. Until he does, we cannot assume that it does. Furthermore, there was not a Greek nor Hebrew word meaning, "homosexual" at the time the Bible was written.
As for when the word "homosexual" appeared in the Bible, ""The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946." That was taken from a CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS website.
http://carm.org......

Now let's deal with Genesis 19:

"9 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant"s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom"both young and old"surrounded the house. 5 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."

This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we?

My opponent goes on to make the argument that the reason homosexuality is a sin in the Bible is because the idea of a man and a woman together is to produce children. He argues that producing children is human nature. So is sex. Should people that are over the age of childbearing not be allowed to marry simply because they cannot reproduce? Are they not partaking in "human nature"? Should an intersex person (person born physically male and female) not be allowed to marry because they will be gay and straight at the same time no matter who they choose as a mate? What about people who are infertile?
My opponent mentioned "animals". "Homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 animal species."
Taken from http://www.news-medical.net... Having said that, I don't believe that just because animals do something that it makes it "right". Some animals eat their young. I only mention "animals" because my opponent did.

My opponents asked a very interesting question, "Would the creator of the world want his creation to be forcibly changed against his will?" I think we would first need to clarify what his "will" is in the first place.

My opponent made the following argument:
" Although I have a lot of libertarian leaning beliefs, the gay marriage is more about violating states" rights than it is about protecting personal liberties."
The problem with that argument is that there is still no argument about why gay marriage should be illegal in the first place. If one sect of people does not have the right to marry and another sect does, is unconstitutional. It goes against, "All men are created equal." Remember, back in the Civil War times, certain states wanted to keep slavery legal. It went against the Constitution and lost out. Furthermore, in the 1960's many states allowed segregation. That too, went against the Constitution.

In closing, my opponent has not made a valid argument of why gay marriage should be illegal. I have shown that when the Bible verses my opponent quoted are looked at in their historical context, they take on a totally different meaning. In Leviticus, I proved that the verses show that Jewish law prohibited a man from having sex with another man in his wife's bed. Genesis 19 dealt with homosexual rape, not homosexuality in the context of 2 loving and committed members of the same sex. Even if we were to accept the English version and accept the interpretation that man lying with a man WAS a sin, it no longer is because Christ set us free from the law.
My opponent offered absolutely no argument other than the premise that the sates have the right to determine what is best for themselves and the Federal Government should stay out of it.
Thank you and I yield to my opponent.
78iamhere

Pro

78iamhere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Tristboi22

Con

I am still waiting for my opponent to respond to my previous arguments. I would like to add just one more though; even if the Bible was infallible, you would still need an infallible person to infallibly translate the infallible translation of the infallible Greek and Hebrew text in order to be accurate.

With that, I yield to my opponent.
78iamhere

Pro

78iamhere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
78iamhere

Pro

78iamhere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
78iamhere

Pro

78iamhere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+JonathanDJ
First of all, you can't even explain why you trust your BIBLE in the first place. You can't explain why you believe it is "The infallible Word of God". AND you can't explain why you trust that book wholeheartedly. Yet, you claim that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. Would you like to challenge me on that topic as well? WHO CARES who"wins" or loses any way? I sure as heck don't!
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
JonathanDJ
Sorry I meant the Con side. The question was put in a screwed up way too.
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
JonathanDJ
This debate right here is why I don't waste my time with debating here nearly as often. I'm seriously considering not debating members at all but only use this for outside challenges so that people can't abuse their moderator status on other sites against me. The Bible's prohibition against homosexuality is overwhelmingly clear and only desperation or outright dishonesty can argue otherwise. Yet the Pro position is winning. I have lost all respect for the majority of people who belong to this website. What a f@cking joke.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+The scapegoat bleats
I think when you voted, you meant to say, that Con forfeited, not Pro.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+MysticMansion
None of what you just quoted provides a rebuttal to my answers to those passages. Repetition does not show evidence of anything.
Posted by MysticMansion 2 years ago
MysticMansion
Romans 1:26-27[edit]
Saint Paul writing his Epistles
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27

" For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10[edit]

Wycliffe Bible (1382): "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"

King James Version (1611): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Amplified Version (1987): "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality"

Book of Revelation
The final book of the Bible, Book of Revelation, in Rev 22:15 contains a likely reference to homosexuals in the final sin catalog of the ungodly. The Good News Translation uses the word 'perverts' and other paraphrases such as J.B. Phillips and The Living Bible respectively use 'depraved' or 'those who have strayed away from God'. The "Complete Jewish Bible" uses the word 'homosexuals' while the KJV, the Revised Standard, Arabic, and Holman Broadman simply use 'dogs' to refer to souls completely outside the Holy City and Book of Life. David H. Stern[17] translates 'Outside are the homosexuals, ..... much more available
Posted by 78iamhere 2 years ago
78iamhere
Sin is actually rebelling against God. What makes homosexuality a sin is that it violates the human nature God has made by loving someone of the same gender instead of how it naturally is.
Actually, they are rebelling against their own human nature so they are just fighting themselves for nothing.
Posted by 78iamhere 2 years ago
78iamhere
Sin is actually rebelling against God. What makes homosexuality a sin is that it violates the human nature God has made by loving someone of the same gender instead of how it naturally is.
Actually, they are rebelling against their own human nature so they are just fighting themselves for nothing.
Posted by Jeanine 2 years ago
Jeanine
Being gay is a sin regardless of whether you personally want to admit it or not but if you are gay then it really should not matter because many homosexual people are not christian and therefor the bible standards do not apply to them. I am not saying it is impossible everyone has a sin they struggle with gay people are still loved by God. God detest sin not people. As far as marriage goes I used to believe if you were not a christian you should not get married but as I got older I understood that marriage is a promise to each other an not always God also. As long as no one is forcing a religious man/woman/preacher/person to go against his belies and marry people against is will. It is really not anyone else's business who is or is not getting married.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Tristboi2278iamhereTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Hence conduct goes to Con. Con made very convincing arguments, showing that translation produces mistakes in the interpretation of the Bible, so sources and arguments go to Con. Good job!