The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Gay marriage should not be considered a sin for Christians.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,657 times Debate No: 16235
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




This is my first debate, and this one particular topic has been annoying me.
I do not consider being homosexual a sin.
For many reasons that I will cover.


My thanks to comeatmebro1010 for initiating this challenge. In this debate, I will argue two points. These being that (1) homosexuality is immoral, and that (2) same-sex marriage is unjust. Though we both are Christians, my arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriage will be purely philosophical in nature.

Why Homosexual Acts Are Immoral

First, a word of clarification. I will be arguing for the immorality of homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation. With that important distinction in mind, my argument is as follows:

1. The proper function of human sexual organs is reproduction
2. It is morally wrong to willingly act in a manner contrary to a thing's proper function
3. Homosexual acts are contrary to the proper function of human sexual organs
4. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.

Premise (1) is clear from reflecting on how our sexual organs are structured. Complementarity with the opposite sex reveals that they are to be used with a member of the opposite sex in a conjugal act for the purposes of procreation.

The second premise is also obvious upon reflection. The purpose of a heart is to pump blood. A heart which fulfills its function excellently can thus be properly called a "good" heart. A heart which does not exercise its function properly can thus be referred to as a "bad" heart. So "goodness" and "badness" are understood in terms of acting according to the proper function of a thing. For humans, this becomes moral goodness insofar as we can choose how we can act.

(3) is quite obvious, since homosexual acts cannot in principle result in reproduction. As it has been said, "homosexual reproduction" is a contradiction in terms.

The conclusion therefore follows.

Objection: They were born that way! / Gay Gene/ Homosexuality is observed in animals

Suppose I grant that a gay gene does exist, what difference would it make? None. Simply because one may have the genetic tendency to act in a certain way doesn’t mean that therefore there’s nothing wrong with acting that way.

Perhaps an analogy will help. Scientists have already identified a gene that predisposes certain individuals to alcoholism. Yet we don’t see people rushing to defend the acts of drunk drivers by saying “But they were born that way!” — for despite the fact that they have a tendency to drink excessively, they still can choosewhether or not they’re going to act according to it.

Similarly, attempts to justify homosexual acts on the basis of their being regularly observed in the animal world fail. Simply because animals sometimes act a certain way doesn’t mean that we are free to act that way as well. Animals are regularly observed eating their young and forcibly copulating with others — does that therefore give us license to do the same? Of course not.

The underlying mistake here is that of attempting to derive a normative claim from a descriptive claim. We can’t conclude that because something is a certain way that therefore it ought to be a certain way. Descriptive statements are just that — they describe a certain state of affairs. They don’t tell us anything as to whether or not that state of affairs is morally permissible. So there’s no logical connection between “genetic” and “moral”

Why Same-Sex Marriage is Unjust

I will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [1]

Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

Ask yourself this: "Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with?" Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well? Well, the state is not concerned with regulating friendships because there is no compelling reason to do so. On the other hand, the very reason that marriage law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage is about more than just love or attraction, a key part of its nature is centered toward the production of future citizens. It is for this reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriages, but not other types of relationships (Such as friendships, aquaintanceships, etc...). This is also what sets apart a marriage from a mere friendship.


The previous arguments have demonstrated how both homosexuality and same-sex are unjust from both a moral and legal point of view. I now extend the floor to my opponent.

[1] --;

Debate Round No. 1


comeatmebro1010 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2


comeatmebro1010 forfeited this round.


Con has not provided an argument. As such, I extend my arguments once again.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
Contradiction conflates functional goodness/badness with moral goodness/badness. They are surely not one and the same.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago

Well, debating the principle of double effect would be a full debate in itself. Good answers. Stick around this site for a couple more weeks (after my exams) and I'll challenge you to a debate on one of these topics.
Posted by meowmixxx 5 years ago
How can you non-arbitrarily make a distinction between what has a proper function and what doesn't?
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Whoops, I meant "No, via the principle of double effect."
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Kinesis: Yes, via the principle of double effect.

Cliff: Not all things have proper functions. Arguably things such as rocks and some man-made things don't -- at least not in a morally significant way.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
"Natural law theory does not say that it's wrong to use something *other than* its natural function, only that it's wrong to use something in a manner that's *contrary to* its natural function"

Okay then, is it immoral to use a bayonet to remove an infected finger to save someone's life?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
"The entire idea that things have some teleological functions is worth questioning."

Indeed what is this for Strontium-90?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
"it's wrong to use something in a manner that's *contrary to* its natural function"

What would be an immoral act I could do with a chair. Not something trivial like beat someone to death, but something immoral only because of the usage being contrary, i.e., there is no suffering/harm directly caused to a conscious agent.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
No, refer to my previous comment.
Posted by meowmixxx 5 years ago
It's morally reprehensible for me to use a chair to defend myself? To use a TV to sleep on? The entire idea that things have some teleological functions is worth questioning.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: "For many reasons that I will cover." - possibly homersexual