The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

God Agrees With Gay Marriage

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,476 times Debate No: 77238
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)




The topic is that god, according to the christian doctrine, agrees with gay marriage. The debate will solely be refutation of my logical proof.

You do not accept the folowing upon acceptance of the round...

P1.) The Christian God is a fair god.
P2.) There are homosexuals who are born homosexual.
C1.) God created them homosexual.
C2.) Homosexuality is not wrong and they share the same right to marriage as heterosexuals.

You do accept the following upon acceptance of the round

Rounds, Rules and Regulations

-The opponent cannot Kritik the debate.
-Burden of proof will be shared.
-All argumenatation must be refutation of the pro argument.
-Both Pro and Con should format their debate to some extent for the convenience of the voters.
-Please keep as civil and courteous a manner as you can. No one likes to read a hot headed debate.
-Forfeiting is an auto loss, sources within the given character limit, no semantics or trolling
-The opponent and I both accept everything under the Round Rules and Regulations tab upon acceptance in round 1. violoation of such by either player is an auto loss.
-You assume that god is real and that he has the capacity to concieve, create and recognize ideas.

God: The christian god, as he is concieved in most christian sects.

Agrees with: Considered accetable and/or in line with morality. In the same regard to heterosexuality. Not immoral.

Homosexual marriage: Mariage as it was concieved by the christian religion, or is assumed to be objectively concieved by god, between two homosexual men.


Thank you to Pro for instigating this debate. I do believe that there are compelling non-religious reasons for forbidding same-sex marriage. As this is a debate about religion, I do not expect it to convince non-religious people. That is irrelevant, though, as this debate is about whether or not the Christian God supports same-sex marriage. As this debate is regarding Pro's argument, I will wait until he makes his first argument before responding.

Debate Round No. 1


My argument is the logical proof. In short it is this:

P1) God is fair
P2) Gays are born gay
C1) Gays have the same religious rights to marriage

In long it is the following:

P1) God exists
P2) God is fair
P3) God creates people and their characteristics intentionally
P4) Homosexuality is a predisposed characteristic
P5) homosexuality is intentionally created by god
C1) God creates people with equal religious rights and worth
C2) Marriage is a religious right
C3) God creates people with equal religious right to marriage and worth

P1) Established

a.) "God is a judge who is perfectly fair" (Psalm 7:11)

b.) "Everything He does is just and fair. He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright He is!" (Deuteronomy 32:4)

c.) By definition God is just, anything which is just is fair as unfairness is unjust.

P3) This is something many people are taught, that god creates us specifically. My reasoning here will be that creating someone who is inherently evil (gay) would make The Problem of Evil a correct argument which would invalidate God's existance. Furthermore creating a person who is inherently evil is unfair, we know god is fair from versus, but also if god is unfair then he is unjust and if he is unjust he does not exist, we have forced god to exist in this debate and thus we muste assume that god is just and fair and thus that he does not create people inherently gay.

P4) I will provie my evidence for this if the opponent wishes to challenge this position.

C1-C3) Because this is a conclusion it stands on its own, as long as the premises are acurate.



Pro's argument is a clear non sequitur. It is not clear that God creates homosexuals as homosexuals. If someone is born gay, it does not follow that God made them that way. There are also pedophiles and kleptomaniacs, which are clearly sinful behaviors, but God did not make them that way. However, even if we assume he does, it does not follow from this that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Premise 2:

I accept that God is fair. However, we have to have a correct idea of what fairness is. Fairness is not giving someone everything they want. God clearly considers marriage to be between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-26; Mark 10:2-9). If marriage is only between a man and a woman, then it would not be unfair to deny homosexuals the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. It would only be unfair to forbid them the institute of marriage based on being homosexual -- in other words, to deny them the right to marry someone of the opposite sex based on their being homosexual.

Premise 3:

Here, Pro is confusing the orientation with the action. No one is evil for being homosexual, and being homosexual is not a sin, based on the Bible. Committing a homosexual act is a sin, but being homosexual is not. So Pro's appeal to the Problem of Evil fails.

Premise 4:

I won't challenge this premise because even if I accept it, Pro's argument is still a non sequitur. However, considering it a predisposition means there could be any number of reasons, including nurture, that causes it. It does not necessarily mean they were genetically predisposed from birth.

Premise 5:

This premise I will challenge. Pro certainly hasn't proven it, so I will wait for his evidence.

To quickly recap:

Pro's argument is a non sequitur because even if God creates homosexuals qua homosexual, it does not follow that homosexuals would have a right to marry someone of the same sex. Additionally, Pro's third and fifth premises are unsupported, so his argument fails on those grounds, as well.

Debate Round No. 2


Although I did not intend to, I concede the debate. I spent a while online and after much work I can only muster up an argument that homosexuality itself if not a sin, but I cannot disprove that the act of homosexuality, according to the bible, is morally wrong, nor can I justify marriage between them.

I now realize that my argument has a couple flaws. Firstly, that it isn't unfair for god to deny homosexuals the right to marriage, the argument is that god promotes equality and not equity and therefore it is not unfair for god to say that just because you like the same sex means you get to marry them, as a heterosexual does.

So from the standard christian perspective I can understand how they could think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's as far as it goes though. Christians still would have to justify that marriage is solely a religious thing, when in reality it is a legal thing, a big problem I also have is that christians shouldn't be able to impose their religious beliefs on other people, that is highly immoral, but these are besides the point. Con wins


As per Pro's concession, please vote Con.

Additionally, Pro is correct, that just because homosexual marriage is opposed to the Bible, it does not mean that we should force that view on the general public. As I indicated in the first round, my arguments here will not convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible. I do believe there are compelling secular reasons not to permit homosexual marriage, but they are beyond the scope of this debate.

Again, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
Oh, yeah. I wouldn't do that. I should think that if something is immoral, you would need to argue for that.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
*as being
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
if u dont know its irrelevant, but its basically questioning a fundemental assumption in a round a being immoral and thus unacceptable
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
Okay, so quick question: what does "kritik" mean?
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
I'm against gay marriage, but not because of religion, but I still disagree with your reasoning ;)
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 2 years ago
I'll take this debate if it's alright with you.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
K I think I get what you mean, thanks for clarifying!
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago

nah man, what I meant was that when you accept the round you do not have to agree to the logical proof. This is because the opponent must argue against those very points.

If I let someone else define the Christian god then I would open myself up to an abusive and made up definition which was made only to make my wining impossible, such as defining god as a oneself lol.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
I love the mixed responses haha
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Anyone could argue that the Christian god is unfair.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years 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: pro conceded
Vote Placed by BennyW 2 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Conceded, (it's for that reason I give him conduct points).