The Instigator
DictatorIsaac
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

God doesn't like 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,089 times Debate No: 15590
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

DictatorIsaac

Pro

I argue that the Christian God is against the acceptance of gay marriage, albeit still loving gay individuals.

My main reason for believing this is that God mentions his abhorrence of homosexual behavior numerous times in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. Most famously, Leviticus 18:22, according the New Living Translation, "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin" [1]. Again, in Romans 1:12, "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved" [2]. If he indeed dislikes homosexuality so, he would feel a similar distaste for gays marrying, especially since marriage has largely been based from religious grounds - as noted in Genesis 2: 18, 21-24 [3].

I look forward to anyone who accepts my first debate here. :)

Sources:

[1]: http://www.religioustolerance.org...

[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...

[3]: http://www.biblegateway.com...
boredinclass

Con

I'm guessing that 1st round is for acceptance, so I accept your challenge
Debate Round No. 1
DictatorIsaac

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope we'll have a good one.

My argument is fairly simple. As said in the first round, God has clearly explained his dislike of homosexual behavior in both Testaments. Additionally, since marriage is also explained in the Bible as a religious matter, God would therefore dislike homosexual marriage as well.
boredinclass

Con

Thanks for the debate, let's have fun! Basically, my opponent fails to recognize his Burdon of proof.
To win, my opponent must establish that
(a) there is a god, with scientific studies
(b) all sources he uses are directly from god. (not inspired by him, he must have written it himself)
(c) That god has gone to the public and announced that he doesn't like gays being married.

This debate is won by me, because there are no documentations of god, or what his likes and dislikes are. If muy opponent asserts that the bible is the true word of god, then he must prove it

Also, his sources do not say that they cannot marry. They just can't have sex. therefore, I win

Now, he asserts the bible verses. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. there is a label on the back of the bible that reads: WARNING DO NOT TAKE THIS BOOK LITERALLY.
jk
but seriously let me give you some other verses that "should be followed"

Now I've been told that 4/5ths of all households have a bible. so this should be very easy for alot of you. I encourage you to look it up. otherwise, You'll think I'm lying.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."
exodus 21 7.
I wonder how much I can get one for?

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
leviticus 19:28
I wonder if god really disaproves of tatoos. even the cross ones?

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you"
leviticus 11:7
Does that mean alot of the old football players are damned now?
And does god not like it that I had ribs last monday?

" 9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 9-12
So God doesn't like me because I ate at red lobster?

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
1 corintians 14:34
This is one verse the Taliban would agree with

Vote con
Debate Round No. 2
DictatorIsaac

Pro

My opponent claims that I fail to recognize my burden of proof when I've already accounted for it. I listed verses to lead one to believe that God doesn't approve of gay marriage.

He then goes on to state that I must fulfill three requirements:
"(a) there is a god, with scientific studies
(b) all sources he uses are directly from god. (not inspired by him, he must have written it himself)
(c) That god has gone to the public and announced that he doesn't like gays being married."

(a) There is a god, with scientific studies.

For the purpose of this debate, God's existence is assumed true. Whether or not He exists does not affect His opinion on gay marriage.

(b) All sources I use are directly from God (not inspired by Him, He must have written it Himself).

Since when were credible sources required to be primary sources? The Bible is intended to act as God's word, including guiding people through their lives. Supposedly, God acted through the forty or so authors to enable them to write down the Bible as God's word. How is this verified to be true you ask? There are multiple prophecies throughout the Bible that were later confirmed some time later, some in huge time gaps. [1] However, I do not want this to be a debate on the validity of the Bible. Instead, it was assumed that the Bible was true for the purpose of the debate. Back on topic, if God deems something immoral, that thing is immoral. Now, the Bible lists countless examples of what He deems wrong.

(c) God has gone to the public and announced that he doesn't like gays being married.

God doesn't need to announce to the public that He dislikes gay marriage. Homosexuality has already been cited to be detested by God from the Bible. As marriage is of religious significance, it would also be of great matter to God. Bringing the issue of homosexuality into marriage would ultimately be condemned as well (from the Genesis verses I listed in the first round).

"but seriously let me give you some other verses that 'should be followed'"

My opponent then proceeded to list many other verses also lists many verses, all except the last are interestingly from Leviticus of the Old Testament. He also doesn't explain the significance of his verses. Instead, he just provides them as if I have to interpret his intent. All the verses can be answered simply: they were commanded during the Old Testament, where de facto situations played a role. As for the 1 Corinthians verse, notice how it's also under a de facto situation, where it says: "as also saith the law." Even if they applied to this day and should therefore be followed, that lays no weight against my side. I contended that God doesn't like gay marriage. Whether or not he also commands your listed verses to still hold true today doesn't change God's judgment on gay marriage. But what about law and gay marriage nowadays? Since gay marriage was never stated in the Bible to pertain to law, unlike the other commands, God would adamantly hold gay marriage as immoral to this day.

In conclusion, my opponent is missing the topic of this debate, i.e. gay marriage, along with his flawed idea of what constitutes reliable sources. God's existence and his other controversial rules are of no influence on His commands on gay marriage. Moreover, the Bible can be held to be a reliable source of God's orders as explained earlier. Despite these misconceptions, I thank boredinclass for providing himself as my opponent of this debate.

Sources:

[1] http://www.truthnet.org...
boredinclass

Con

(a) it would have been preferable if he had established this in the first round, but, I'll manage.
(b)
"Since when were credible sources required to be primary sources?"
-SInce the age of reason began

basically, he tries to wiggle out of it by listing an un-credible source. That was thw purpose of the verses, it was to say that the bible does not display an omnibonevolent god

(c)
One, he doesn't prove that god wrote the bible, so he has to tell us directly that he dislikes gay marriage
two, he drops the entire argument so you must vote pro

ok, now on my verses. youn cannot pick and choose what you want to follow. either A- god didn't write the bible, therefore he has no source. or b- he wrote the bible, and now his rules don't apply now.

________________________________the main reason you HAVE to vote con, is that- HE DROPS MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENT

" his sources do not say that they cannot marry. They just can't have sex. therefore, I win"
since I also, destroyed his only source, he has no sources. he has never heard god say that he despises gay marriage.

YOU MUST VOTE CON
Even if you buy that the bible is the word of god, the bible never says that they cannot marry. They just can't have sex.
(which if you're married, you don't really have alot of that anyway)

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
boredinclass, I think the "other" source twsurber is referring to is the one I used in the last round: "[1] http://www.truthnet.org...; to prove the validity of the Bible.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
@ twsurber did you even look at the links? all his sources were of the bible. Also, this isn't policy, it's more pf, you can't claim fiat, because there is no plan to be enacted
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
It's not that I'm against asking for votes; it seems that your entire purpose of this debate hinges on trying to win this debate by giving a biased perspective to appeal to the judges.

Like in your last round: "basically, he tries to wiggle out of it by listing an un-credible source. That was thw purpose of the verses, it was to say that the bible does not display an omnibonevolent god"

That information could've been a lot more helpful if you provided it in your second round, where I may have been able to give you a better response. Instead, you just listed them out without any explanations.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
I've debated this topic so much, there aren't really any arguments I haven't heard. And what's wrong with begging the vote, I'm making it easier on the judges.
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
I also forgot to mention that boredinclass seems more interested in winning this debate through debate tactics rather than being concerned of the issue at hand. Examples include his fervent begging of votes.
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
PervRat, I've never heard of the inclusions of "homophobic proclamations" by King James. May you tell me what source that is?

As for confusing sex and marriage, I already distinguished the two and related them in my first round: "he would feel a similar distaste for gays marrying, especially since marriage has largely been based from religious grounds - as noted in Genesis 2: 18, 21-24." Both you and boredinclass have blatantly missed that statement.
Posted by PervRat 6 years ago
PervRat
I had to give you some points, however, because of Con's poor grammar and unprofessional jokes.
Posted by PervRat 6 years ago
PervRat
If you cite the bible as a source, then it is upon you to establish its legitimacy despite the numerous retranslations and edits; I have read there is evidence, for instance, that much of the homophobic proclamations in the bible were edited in by King James and were not present in earlier versions of the Bile.

Further, you confused 'sex' and 'marriage' repeatedly in your arguments.
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
"God acted through the forty or so authors to enable them to write down the Bible as God's word. How is this verified to be true you ask? There are multiple prophecies throughout the Bible that were later confirmed some time later, some in huge time gaps."

You continued to claim that I couldn't support the Bible as being written by God, yet you avoided what I wrote here. Again, this wasn't intended to be a debate on whether or not the Bible is actually God's word.
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
Um, I actually wanted you to post your rebuttals and counterarguments. Sorry, this is my first debate. :P
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
DictatorIsaacboredinclassTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: convinced me!
Vote Placed by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
DictatorIsaacboredinclassTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped the argument that all sources say they can't have sex
Vote Placed by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
DictatorIsaacboredinclassTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: The Aff is using fiat power in establishing his base for the existence of God. Con is playing the prove it logically/scientifically card that is always played by unbelievers. AFF used sources other than scripture, CON did not. AFF wins.
Vote Placed by PervRat 6 years ago
PervRat
DictatorIsaacboredinclassTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not seem to take the argument seriously, but nonetheless did make better arguments. High among them, and something completely missed by pro, is the existence of a deity as a non-fictional entity, and whether that entity has ever expressed an opinion about same-sex marriage. Pro argued entirely based on an oft-mistranslated book and confusing sex with marriage in his book.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
DictatorIsaacboredinclassTied
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: Easy win for Con. Pro in no way sustained the BOP.