Debate Rounds (5)
The gay marriage debate is a very broad debate though, so we need to find what is exactly the real debate. I would submit that the debate here is not necessarily allowing gay marriages to be performed, but rather the requiring of all those who perform marriages to perform gay marriages upon request. This is where I find issue and it is what I'll begin with.
Marriage is an institution that was brought about via religious context and edicts. Since then, rules and administration of marriage have always been interpreted in the religious context. I believe this is why we are having so much trouble with this today. Gay marriages, I find, are of no issue secularly as performed by the state. But if the freedom is to be mandated to all religions who do not believe that marriage is to be extended to homosexual couples, then I find issue. Equality and freedom are at odds (freedom of religion that is).
My argument essentially then is that as a more religious function, gay marriages or unions could be allowed, but with a stipulation to not force those who perform marriages to perform homosexual marriages if the performance of such a marriage is contrary to their spiritual beliefs or any other beliefs for that matter.
RanelNino forfeited this round.
Anyway going back to the topic.
I am a Latin Catholic (what I'll presume you know as Roman Catholic though), but I agree with the gay marriage with the reasons I stated during the Round 1.
First, with my own views, same sex marriages will slightly resolve abortions right? Well don't make a conclusion, I'll explain to you why is that.
There have been some gays who marry a girl and make a child. There are also some reports that when the girl knows that the boy is really a gay, she will abort the child. Well I do not generalize, but I state some of them and there have been some reports about them.
But I think in your own views that's a little bit unbelievable, so let's shift to another argument.
Christ is open, what I mean is he is forgiving, loving and most especially, he treats us EQUAL. Therefore with that argument, I can presume Christ can permit us to marry whoever we want.
And note this: JESUS NEVER EVER EXPLICITLY CONDEMNED GAY MARRIAGE, WHETHER IN THE BIBLE OR IN OTHER SCRIPTURES AND WRITINGS. PERIOD.
Although proclaiming yourself as a homosexual is not in of itself a sin, i t
is still in fact a sin in Christianity, amongst other religions. This is
shown in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:5) when the cities weren't destroyed
until Lot and Abraham were pressured by the people and subsequently left.
It was also given as commandment in Leviticus 18:22. This creates an
interesting issue since Gay marriage, once a religious issue, has become
secular. Making it legal secularly is one thing, but forcing equality I think
is another; thus is my argument. I don't think it should be legal because
I find it unnecessary, and equality should not be mandated since
enforcement would likely infringe upon religious beliefs. Let me elaborate.
What is marriage?
In religious context, marriage is much more than just the affirmation
of love of two people. If that is all there was to it, then it's basically
a statement to the other person, "if you love me so much, write it down,
make it official, and let's celebrate". Seems almost unnecessary in those
terms. In some ways, I see that as what homosexual individuals are asking
for. Let us just make it official. Granted there are some other things
to consider such as taxes for married persons and what not, but as a
matter of expression of love, the secular marriage isn't what I think
they think it is.
Marriage in religion is much more, which we know from the Bible which
states in Genesis "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." That phrasing is
used five other times. Christians believe that marriage is not just
the epitome of a relationship, but the very culmination of the plan of
God. While here on Earth, we seek to learn, to grow closer to God,
understand His will, and along the way we accomplish certain things that
make us the best people we can be on this Earth. The greatest of them all
I believe is Marriage, an eternal ordinance with spiritual, physical,
and eternal implications. With this in mind, we begin to see the results of
allow homosexual marriages.
Direct Response to Your Argument
To get more to the point and address what you talked about, of course God the
Father loves all of us. To this end He has given us commandments that will
help us be our best selves. Homosexuality is not something to hate someone
over, and nor should those who are homosexual be cast off in any way.
However, God has indeed made it clear that homosexuality is contrary to His
will and the purposes of life here on Earth.
God operates not just under the rule of mercy and forgiveness, but also justice.
The Atonement for example is the ultimate satisfier of justice through an act of
mercy by the Son of God. Justice is still at play here and I think you misinterpret
how justice, repentence, and forgiveness works.
While God is forgiving, I do not believe we can do whatever we want and everything
will be just all hunky dory. Justice still need be satisfied. It is ultimately
satisfied by the Atonement of Christ which is in turn sufficient for us
if we have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ however, for the remission of sins
requires repentence, acts in which would not be satisfied if homosexual marriages
are just simply allowed. Rather than repenting for laws being broken, we'd be
saying to God, "I know you told me not to do it, but that's okay, Christ suffered
for me, it's all good". I recommend you read through James 2:17-26.
Your argument tells me basically that you are expecting mercy despite
deliberately disobeying God. If He were to just give out mercy like that, then why
make it a sin? In Luke 1:50 we read "And his mercy is on them that fear him from
generation to generation". Fear is a common Biblical word that I often interperet
as worship. How can you worship God while at the same time breaking a commandment?
You are right with one thing though, God does treat us equally. He loves us equally,
will help us equally, and will provide mercy equally upon all of us of which he satisfies
justice equally through the gospel which provides for our salvation equally if we
will follow it.
I don't really want to give this much time because I really think that
this point is extremely rare and not actually even relevent. In a day when
people are often having children without even getting married, abortion
has little to do with this. The abortion problem you are talking about is an
honesty issue, a communication issue, a gay-straight relationship issue. I know
a few couples that include a homosexual partner and they can effectually
prevent this from happening just by speaking up. Legalizing gay marriage would have
no impact on this whatsoever.
I hope it's clear from the scriptures I share and the other religious comments
that God and Jesus do have a problem with homosexuality and yet still love everyone.
Homosexual people are not bad people. As I mentioned before, they should not be hated
or turned away. They should be allowed into public organizations and so on and
My main point I wish to emphasize, however, is that despite the religious nature of
this argument, I do not thing the argument is necessarily about whether or not God is
okay with it or not. My concern with Gay Marriage legalization is about how it comes
to be. Should civil entities such as states or what have you legalize it for civil marriages
sure, it's your life. But as a matter of equality, I fear that states will mandate that
all marriage-performing groups or individuals perform same-sex marriages despite
religious beliefs that stand in opposition to the practice. So my question to you is:
can you guarantee to me that that won't happen?
Hi there. I'll now be comprehensive and more specific.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Well this is the most common type of argument that cons would bring up.
My answer: Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction is not about homosexuality, it was a misunderstanding from the other bible versions.
I presume this is the argument that the cons hold for this situation:
From Genesis 19:4-5 (NIV):
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city (Sodom and Gomorrah), surrounded the house [of Lot] round, both old and young
5 And they called unto him, and said, "Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we can have sex with them." (KJV and NRSV: may know them, NJB: can have intercourse with them).
My question is, are the NIV and NJB reliable enough to have this kind of interpretation?
The men are there just to see them.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Did the part "going after strange flesh" really imply having homosexual relationship? No.
Yes, that part is about sex, but it doesn't really mean having a gay sex. It concerns adultery and prostitution.
What would be your views on my views?
Argumentum a silentio
Really? Some cons also use this argument.
Jesus DID NOT say to anybody that he explicitly condemned homosexuality and gay marriage. But some people use this type of conclusion to say that Jesus said that he condemns gay marriage, especially YOU.
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
^ This doesn't concern with homosexual marriage. This concerns homosexual relationships and divorce.
But cons, especially you, use argumentum a silentio as a pointless way to show Jesus's disapproval of the gay marriage.
My question is: on that statement, did Jesus say to us that he DISLIKE, CONDEMN and PROHIBIT gay marriage? Where? I can't see there! Then you'll use argumentum a silentio to prove your answer, right?
Can you provide the closest statement to prove that Jesus strictly condemned homosexuality? Period.
Bibles are interpreted in various ways, but it is pointless to synonymize the word know with sex.
See you in Round 5! :-)
In direct response to your Remarks
I fear that you didn't read my whole argument. In it I shared Leviticus 18:22:
aThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is babomination. I'd honestly be surprised if you could interperet that in other ways than a homosexual relationship. I don't know what you believe, but I believe the God of the Old Testament to be one in the same as Jesus Christ.
I could also include Romans 1:27, spoken from an Apostle of Jesus Christ: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
To know someone in Hebrew, Greek, etc. is often used as a euphamism for sexual desires or intercourse. It depends onthe context of course, but it fits here. In Genesis chapter 4, Adam "knew" his wife eve and bore a son, Cain. Did he "just want to see her" and whoa! A son!?
Finally, regarding being "one flesh", of course it has to do with marriage. If it has to do with divorce like you said then it has to do with marriage as well. How would leaving a father and mother to cleave unto a wife not be marriage? Becoming one flesh is what distinguishes the marriage of a man and woman.
I agree Bible's are interpreted in various ways, but I'm only going over this because you asked it/brought it up. You are in fact ignoring my real arguments and the questions I've posed to you. I refer you to the previous round, if you read through it all.
You should know from my previous arguments that I believe, and I believe many Christian sects also believe this, that I need to do my best to follow God, but I should not compel someone else to righteousness. Sure I believe homosexual relationships are a sin, but I'm not going to force someone to repent or shun them or hate them for their sins; Jesus Christ did just the opposite. My argument is in regards to how Gay marriage is legalized. While you may not believe it's a sin, my religion, and many other religions feel it is. So can you guarantee to me that legalizing gay marriage won't require people of mine and other faiths to perform homosexual marriages? This isn't something like rights of African Americans, it's not just an equality thing. Done the wrong way and you really are trading freedom for equality.
Issues like this were never meant to be decided by politics. It's a social, moral thing. Government is administrative in nature, not a culture judge. Awareness should be made that homosexuals are feeling harrassed for sure. No one should feel that way. But this legalization effort is endangering freedom of religion, and that's where I draw the line.
This last round is to answer all remaining questions and to finally close this debate.
Yada is indeed the Hebrew form and it can be euphemized. However, context matters. Especially in the case of Adam and Eve it is quite straightforward. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is not as clear, but at the very least sexual immorality is a sin, homosexuality being one of those immoralities as pointed out in the Leviticus and other scriptures.
But of course, my real point here is as you point out, the freedom of religion. Though I understand the frustration homosexual couples face, there is a real cause for concern the way legalization is being done. This brings me to my final remarks.
Homosexual people are not bad people. They deserve to be treated like any other human being, I agree. Marriage is quite the interesting institution however which does draw the line. According to many churchs' beliefs, marriage is a sacred ordinance to be performed in fulfillment of the plan of God, a plan which expresses marriage, indeed eternal marriage requires a man and woman to be bound together "as one flesh".
Personally, I feel that if homosexual couples want to marry, by all means do so. However, in an effort to legalize gay marriage, the equality arm seeks to make all things equal for something that can't possibly be totally equal using the government whose role it never was and never was intended to be to make these decisions. Society loves equality because it seems to make everyone happy. And yet, the more we make people equal, the more we find other ways to make us equal or even create other inequalities in the process. This is such an example where we desire equal freedoms for religion and for societal groups such as homosexuals. If you so desire to legalize gay marriage, I believe it must be done so as not as an effort at equality. Doing so will likely require religions to perform homosexual marriages whose beliefs are not in favor of such kinds of marriages.
If anything, I would rather see this happen: Instead of legalizing gay marriage thus jeopardizing religious freedoms, just make it not illegal (leave it unspecified, since it was never meant to be political in the first place), and allow those who religions who wish to perform the marriages to do so and of course civil institutions to do so as well. I do not recommend homosexual marriages because of my beliefs, but I will not force you one way or another and I think this is more fair than simply legalizing and accepting the consequences.
Thank you Ranel for the opportunity to debate you; good luck on future debates.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Risen 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: While I completely disagree with con, pro's arguments were weak and could not support the idea of gay marriage correctly.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.