The Instigator
Ozzyhead
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites.

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...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 67127
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Ozzyhead

Pro

I believe that the people of America who use the Bible as a reason to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites and liars. I strongly believe they are lying about the bible.

First round is acceptance and that is my only rule. Voters have free reign to vote however they feel provided your decisions aren't biased towards one side of the debate.
kasmic

Con

I accept! Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Ozzyhead

Pro

Often times people use the Bible in America as justification to not allow homosexuals to be married. Some go as far to say that homosexuals should be killed. However, many Americans seem to be hypocrites because of their reasoning for this. Why? Because, they are protesting against homosexual marriage because the Lord's displeasure with homosexuality is made clear twice. However, the Bible mentions 8 different times that the lord is displeased with the consumption of shellfish. Leviticus 11:10 bans it. Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says the same thing as well. The bible also forbidden wearing clothes of multiple fabrics as shown in Leviticus 19:19. The bible also shows a displeasure towards round bowl haircuts as displayed in Leviticus 19:27. Leviticus 11:8 forbids the eating and touching the flesh of the swine (pork, American Football). Leviticus speaks out against tattoos, or any marking on one's own body in 19:28. Mark 10:11-12 forbids divorce, for after marriage you are no longer two people, but one, and you cannot separate what the lord has joined together. Remarrying is found right after that, for remarrying is committing adultery according to the bible.
Many Christians try to defend all these arguments, whether it be context of the quote, or the time of the quote (Old Testament). However, all laws except for the sacrificial laws are still laws of the land according to Jesus himself as quoted in the bible as saying "not a tittle of the law shall pass away before heaven and earth do". Jesus came to enforce the laws, not change the laws. He did not come in peace, but instead came with a desire to enforce the laws. "Do not think I have come to bring peace, but the sword". Either he came to kill, or he came to enforce.
But regardless of all these laws, Christians are not protesting Red Lobsters, clothing stores, tattoo parlors, divorce courts and lawyers, football, or barbecue joints. It seems as though Christians are only Christians when it suits their interests. When it comes to things they enjoy, it seems very convenient that they can enjoy it regardless of what the bible says. And when it comes to things they are morally against, the bible conveniently has a quote to support their arguments.
kasmic

Con

Rebuttal:

1: Definitions

Hypocrite:a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.” (1)

In this case we are talking about “People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage.” This makes Pro’s burden of proof incredible large as he has required of himself to show that every person that uses the bible to argue against gay marriagepretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. I agree that there are many hypocrites that claim many different faiths, or belief systems, but to fill a burden showing that all who use the bible to argue against gay marriage are "pretending" to believe and are therefore hypocrites would be very difficult, if not impossible to do.

2: Summary of Pros argument and my responses.

Pro says “I believe that the people of America who use the Bible as a reason to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites and liars. I strongly believe they are lying about the bible.”

A statement of belief hardly constitutes filling a burden of proof. Thanks for sharing your belief though…

Pro says “Often times people use the Bible in America as justification to not allow homosexuals to be married. Some go as far to say that homosexuals should be killed. However, many Americans seem to be hypocrites because of their reasoning for this.”

Pro seems to be abandoning the certainty of his resolve. The resolve says “People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites” yet pro here says “many Americans seem to be hypocrites.”

Pro then provides examples of other things that “the bible also forbids.” For example, haircuts, multiple fabrics, divorce, tattoos, etc.

He then says “regardless of all these laws, Christians are not protesting Red Lobsters, clothing stores, tattoo parlors, divorce courts and lawyers, football, or barbecue joints. It seems as though Christians are only Christians when it suits their interests.”

The following link is a Christian site that argues against the practice of divorce. (2)

Likewise here is a Christian site that argues against the practice of tattoos. (3)

As the links show, there are plenty of people who sincerely believe in the bible and are against such practices.

3: Conclusion

Pro’s burden of proof is likely impossible to fill. His argument’s do not reflect the certainty of his resolve using words like “seem” or “many” as opposed to “people who.” He has not provided any logical reason to conclude that, those using the Bible to argue against the practice of gay marriage to be “pretending” to believe as is required to be a hypocrite by definition. As such, the resolve is negated.

Sources:

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...
(3) http://bibleresources.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Ozzyhead

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal. As a quick note, I have seen my opponent debate in the past, and I after observing my opponent's other debates, I consider it an honor to debate him.
I would have to applaud my opponent for pointing out that I made a major flaw in my wording. Using the words I did, I have made my burden of proof a lot bigger than I intended it to be. I believe however that there are many Christians who use the bible as an argument against gay marriage are hypocrites, as many tend to ignore the bible when it comes to the parts that go against what they morally believe and what they find to be in their best interest. An example of this is that a large portion of conservatives in America are Christians and a large portion are in favor of the free market and usually do not want to pay taxes on welfare or school lunch programs. However, a lesson that is often taught all across Christianity, not just couple denominations either, is that the poor get in to heaven before the rich do. The bible teaches to be charitable and to give to the less fortunate, but many conservatives that are Christians are concerned about themselves.
I understand there was a huge flaw in my wording, and I encourage the voters to vote fairly and not biased. Trying to fix it now would be an unfair advantage, and I will not attempt to do so.
Again, it has been an honor to debate such an opponent, and I wish to debate him again soon under better circumstances. Thank you
kasmic

Con

Pro says “I thank my opponent for his rebuttal. As a quick note, I have seen my opponent debate in the past, and I after observing my opponent's other debates, I consider it an honor to debate him.”



Thanks it has been a privilege to debate you as well.

Pro says “I would have to applaud my opponent for pointing out that I made a major flaw in my wording. Using the words I did, I have made my burden of proof a lot bigger than I intended it to be.”

The burden of proof is very large and as I said last round near impossible to fill.

Pro does argue that “The bible teaches to be charitable and to give to the less fortunate, but many conservatives that are Christians are concerned about themselves.”

This may be true, however does not fill the burden required in this debate.

Pro admits that there was a flaw in his wording and that the burden is not filled. As such the resolution is negated.

Pro says “I wish to debate him (being me) again soon under better circumstances. Thank you”

Anytime, thanks for the debate.

Vote con!

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
God must be a Marine, because Marines don't get bowl haircuts. Those are Army.
Posted by ItsRenee 2 years ago
ItsRenee
@yoshidino The holiness of God in my life? I'm assuming that you think i'm unholy because I'm basically pro everything Well, I can be holy without having the exact same opinions as God does and i don't think he expects that from me. I think gay marriage should be legal i think abortion should be legal (i don't think its good but i think a women's right shouldn't be taken away on her decision of what to do with her baby.) etc I can be pro everything and still go to Heaven and i can be con everything and still go to Heaven. By assuming that i am not "holy" or whatever just because I'm basically pro everything you are judging me because you don't even know me, you don't even know my name. Isn't that a form of unholiness? Aren't you sinning? k. bye.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Pro everything!!!??? Where is the Holiness of God in your life!? Jeez!
Posted by ItsRenee 2 years ago
ItsRenee
I think Pro kind of has a point on how Christians tend to flip flop on what they fight for and what they don't fight for. Although there are people who fight for divorce and tat's they aren't (to my knowledge) holding up signs saying "People with tattoos go to Hell!" "God does not like you!" "You will burn!" or with the case of divorce standing out of divorce courts saying "You are separating who God gave you" "It's a sin" "You will go to Hell" trying to make it illegal. I do believe that Christians fight harder for things they find 'morally wrong' they tend to think that this is the 'United States of Christianity" when its not. Not all Christians or religious people live here and that's what they have to understand. Well, at least some do because I'm a Christian but I'm basically pro everything.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Amazing!! for the first time, I agree with an Atheist! lol! Making it Clear, I fully believe In the God of the Bible.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Con didn't mention anything about the eating unclean... uhohh!
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
They are not lying about the Bible; read it yourself.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
OzzyheadkasmicTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con uses multiple sources so he gains that set of points, Pro doesn't meet BOP, and he fails to exhibit certain capitalization skills and makes several noticiable grammatical errors so that point also goes to Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
OzzyheadkasmicTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made his bop too large, so argument to con. Only con had sources.