The Instigator
Zinora
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal in a Christian Country?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 78907
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Zinora

Con

Anyone can join this debate, (preferably a Christian).

RULES:
1. No fighting.
2. If you use a website for "inspiration", make sure you state with your source.
3. Most importantly, have FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lannan13

Pro

I accept.

My oponenet may begin with her opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Zinora

Con

Just because it's called marriage, doesn't mean it is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Eve and Jane.

In Genesis chapter 2 verse 22-25 (Kings James version) it says,:

22. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a WOMAN, and brought HER unto the MAN.
23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24. If a man should leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto HIS WIFE: THEY SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
25. And they were both naked, the MAN and his Wife, were not ashamed.

These verses from the Bible clearly state that God created MAN and WOMEN, to be together, to be made as one.

Also, Genesis 2:24 has been quoted many times through out the old and new testament, reassuring us that God ONLY wants Man and Women to be together and have sex so they can produce children.

Think about it... If God wanted man to be with man and women to be with women, realistically , they two would also be able to also have offspring.
But funny enough their not...
lannan13

Pro

Genesis

Now before we look at Genesis 2:21-24 and automatically condemn Gay Marriage let's take one more look at it. It states that Eve came from the rib of Adam so that the man shall leave his parents and find women. This doesn't mean that a man has to marry a women, but actually fallows Plato's theory of androgyne. (http://www.reconnections.net...) Escentially it is that the man leaves his parents to go out and to look for their other half. Now this means that the person can look for a male or female. It matters not their sexuality as long as it they find their other half. This is a methaor throughout the Bible.

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24
The Bible verse states that Women has come from man and that once the man has come of age he is to look for the rib. This does not mean that a man should go and find another female, but it is to find a missing half of the person. This is obvious as my coming of age interpertation of the verse. Now to further explain the second part of Genesis that I assaulted.

Now my opponent states that men and women are meant to have sex and that anything else would be against God's will, but that is simply not so. Why's that you may ask? Well let's look further in the Book of Genesis and observe Lot and his wife. In Genesis 16 Lot's wife ask's him to find another wife to impregnate as she is barren. In Genesis 25, he marries Hagar and Katurah whom of which the Bible describes her as being concubine. Now what that means is that the person is polygamous, but they have a status lesser than that of a wife. So we can see that God permitted Lot to enter a Polygamous marriage with now 3 wives. The Bible shows here that it cannot be true about what Pro is saying in terms of Furtality as Lot maintains his marriage to his first wife even if she is infertile.

Sodom

Now let's observe Sodom and the acts of Sodomy.

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:5

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8


Now one immidately rushes to say, "Ha, there, that condems it," but once again that is incorrect. Sodomy was orginially a sexual act of anal and/or oral sex between two people. This happens between heterosexual couples on an everday basis. it's wasn't until the Mid Evil times that the Christian and Jewish communities used this to attack homosexual couples due to the Pagan acceptance of homosexuality during this time.

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [Heb. 13:2]

The Bible actually uses Lot's story to show that one must entertain guests and treat them well. That not doing so is a violation. Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel.

"Saith the Lord GOD...Behold, this was the iniquity of ... Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good". - Ezekiel 16:48-50

Now look closely and we can see that the abomination is idol worshipping and human sacrafice, not homosexual acts. The society of Sodom was known for its materialistic and uncharitable nature. There is a story in the BIble when a starving man is coated in honey only to be stung to death by bees.

Leviticus

Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. (http://www.hebcal.com...) Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.




Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. (Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press) The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve’et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to’evah hi.

Ve’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to’evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don’t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to’evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to’evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

Debate Round No. 2
Zinora

Con

There are 38 Bible verses about marriage and family (Old testament and New testament), that all back up what I have been saying.
http://www.openbible.info...

You said something about concubine and polygamous. A concubine is a female who VOLUNTARILY enslaves and sells herself to a man for his sexual pleasure. Concubines did not have equal status with a wife. A concubine could not marry her master because of her slave status, although, for her, the relationship was exclusive and ongoing. Sometimes concubines were used to bear children for men whose wives were barren. Concubines in Israel possessed many of the same rights as legitimate wives, without the same respect.

The Bible never explains why God allowed men to have concubines. God allowed divorce and polygamy, too, although neither was part of His original plan for marriage. Jesus said that, God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men"s hearts (Matthew 19:8). We can assume the same hardness of heart led to polygamy and concubine.

You also said that what I was saying about having children was wrong, just because you pointed out that Lot stays with his wife even though she is infertile. Fertility and parenthood are not in God's plan for EVERYONE.

The Bible tells us that CHILDREN are a BLESSING (Psalm 127:3-5). Children are required to fulfill God's purpose for mankind that we may be "FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY, AND FILL THE EARTH" (Genesis 1:28).

At least twice, God used fertility to reward or comfort women (Genesis 29:31; 2 Kings 4:8-17). Yet nowhere does God condemn a woman because of infertility. Only once did God use infertility as a punishment (2 Samuel 6:20-23). For the most part, infertility was cured with the birth of a significant character, including Isaac (Genesis 21:7), Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:21), Samson (Judges 13), Samuel the prophet (1 Samuel 1), and John the Baptist (Luke 1).

According to Genesis 2:21-24, God"s original intent was for marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that has never changed (Genesis 1:27). Men like King David and King Solomon (who had 300 concubines; 1 Kings 11:3) reveals that many of their problems started from polygamous relationships (2 Samuel 11:2-4).

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
This is basically saying, that a man should not have sex with another man, or with a man who dresses up like a woman, but is actually a man.
lannan13

Pro

I will begin with a few insiteful arguments here that will be a key analysis in today’s debate.

Contention 1: Marriage and the Government

Throughout history there has been a great amount of hatred towards religion based on their association with government. A key example here is France. The French clergy imposed their way of life upon the Frenchmen and did not have to pay taxes. They lived such a lavious lifestyle while many of their church goers were increasingly poor. The anger at the church caused the Revolutionary’s to defame Christianity and they even set up their own Pagen church. Today, with the popular opinion of the public swinging towards tolerance and even Pope Francis permitting this we must get religion out of the government completely. By doing this we must privitize marriage. How do we do that you may ask? It is as simple as from the government recognizing Civil Unions instead of marriage. That way the church may protect marriage and the government does not interfear with it.

What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (
http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.

The same sex over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriagenot closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)(
http://www.lambdalegal.org...) Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).

Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (
http://www.people-press.org...)









Civil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)

Now we have officially eestablished that Civil Unions are more popular, effective, and more economically sound, let's move back to the religious argument.

Contention 2: Religion

Opponent didn't actually refute any of my main points, especially Leviticus. She only just reposted the verse. I have shown in my last round that the verse translates into something entirely different and references Kedoshim. This is key in this debate as I have already shown that this verse isn't warning what many miscontrew it to be. This has also occured with Genesisi 1:27. SHe has yet to actually refute my own arguments, but is simply trying to argue threw me.

Hence I extend all arguments across the board.

Debate Round No. 3
Zinora

Con

I do prove that statements you make are false e.g. Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
This is basically saying, that a man should not have sex with another man, or with a man who dresses up like a woman, but is actually a man.
I explained what the scripture means. It backs up all of my other statements I've made, so I don't have to expand it any further (go back and read them).
In round 3 you started to go off topic. The topic is 'Should Gay Marriage Be Legal In A Christian Country?'

You live in America and I live in the UK so I'm going to talk about England.

Across the world, two thirds of citizens believe they are a religious person but, the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world, according to a new study.
Only 30 per cent of British people said they were religious compared with 53 per cent who said they were not a religious person. But only a small amount of Britons believed they were convinced atheists - 13 per cent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

But it doesn't make sense as England is supposedly meant to be a Christian country. The laws in England relating to abortion, same-sex marriage, the teaching of homosexuality, adoption and other issues have changed in spite of vocal opposition from religious groups. For secularists, this is evidence that the Church's level of respect and importance is no longer what it once was. It no longer has the same message as it once did, the whole meaning of being a Christian, worshipping God and and even going to church has or still is being pushed away.

A 2013 Lancaster University study of British Catholics suggested they were wildly at odds with their spiritual leaders on matters of personal morality. According to the survey, only 9% would feel guilty using contraception and just 19% would support a ban on abortion. More favoured allowing same-sex marriage than were opposed. http://www.bbc.co.uk...

If gay marriage was made legal in all Christian countries, then it would make the word "marriage" meaningless. The reason marriage is limited to one man and one woman is that it takes no more and no less to produce children. I cannot get my head round two people of the same sex being in a relationship defined as a marriage, however much they love each other. I hold to a simple traditional view (a Christian view) that the word "marriage" can apply only in a man and women (normal) relationships.
lannan13

Pro

As we come to a close I would like to show you all why I have won this debate here today.

Contention 1: Religion

My opponent has dropped all of my religious arguments or have not even attempted to actually listen to them it seems. The main argument remaining is that of Leviticus. I showed and argued this in my second round, but this was blatantly ignored. Let’s look at it again shall we?

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve’et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to’evah hi.

Ve’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to’evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don’t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to’evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to’evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests. As I have shown the Kedoshim Priests would preform acts of homosexuality, self casteration, and would be considered the feminen member of the church. Almost like that of someone who is Transgender. Now you can imagine why this was looked down upon at the time. Not to many people back then would have liked Caitlyn Jenner, but that’s besides the point. This part was condemning this pagan religion, not the act. As they were settling Canaa this was what the huge issue they wanted to suppress. [1]

Contention 2: Civil Unions

My opponent claims that I was going off topic, but that is not true. The debate is “Resolved: Gay marriage should be legal in a Christian country.” Meaning that we have to argue whether or not it should be legal. Not only does this have to deal with the religious aspect, but the social and economic aspects as well, which I have shown in my last round. Since my opponent is from the UK I will use some UK sources and arguments in regards to the subject. In the UK Civil Union rates are rising at a rate of 6% a year. [2] This is already showing that people enjoy this. The more interesting part is that people who are straight are also entering this program. This already shows a decline in interest in marriage in the UK. That’s not just amongst the atheist populace, but those who are religious are doing it as well. The queen of England has also signed off on this in 2010 giving Civil Unions equal rights as those in marriages. [3] We can see that by privatizing marriage, as I brought up last round and was dropped by my opponent. Would solve this issue of a mixture of religion and governmental affairs. The individual churches could deal with the marriages and the government could stay out of it. The main question I have is why would you oppose it if some Christian churches support it?

In conclusion, we can see that there are many reasons why a Christian nation should support gay marriage. Mainly due to it’s economic benefits, but that it is not against the Bible as I have shown. We can see that no matter the Christian country of US or UK we should have our marriages registered in Washington or London. It should be privatized and left to the churches and on default they will support their legalization (look at the Episcipalians). My opponent has dropped and even ignored most of my arguments and it is for these reasons that I urge you to vote Pro in today’s debate.

Thank you.

Sources
1.
(Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press
2. (http://www.pinknews.co.uk...)
3. (https://www.gov.uk...)

Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
robertacollier
Oh great, another fudge packer debate.
Posted by Antnego 2 years ago
Antnego
First, we're not a "Christian Nation" due to the separation of Church and State.

Second, presuming that in order to be "Christian," one must promote or deny the behaviors of others. That isn't true either, and is directly refuted in the Bible. Acceptance of the covenant made between God and Man by the sacrificial blood of Jesus stands on its own as the sole vehicle of foundation. Salvation and being "Christian" has nothing to do with being in support of, or against, gay marriage, Wicca, murder or anything else the Anglo-wasp majority deems distasteful.

A nation can fully support Gay Marriage, especially because a Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of others. Adam and Steve getting married does not rob you of your prosperity, life, or well-being. If you think it's gross, just ignore it.
Posted by CaptainAhab 2 years ago
CaptainAhab
That opinion is irrelevant as this is a debate about a "Christian Country." Essentially this is a debate about whether or not a country founded upon Christianity should allow Gay Marriage, not whether or not the US should. At least, that is how I read it.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
the bible is not a credible source for morality, knowledge or truth.
Posted by CaptainAhab 2 years ago
CaptainAhab
I would argue that mistranslation and representing that translation as factual is out of line and intellectually dishonest. How exactly is calling you out on that out of line?

The passage you were thinking of was not God calling bears on children, but Elisha calling 2 "she-bears" on children as he was going to Bethel. See 2 Kings 2:23.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
You sir, are out of line.
Posted by CaptainAhab 2 years ago
CaptainAhab
Apparently this website does not support hebrew fonts. Apologies for the gibberish. Towebah is the word mistranslated as wicked man. Venedeah is to know followed by otam which is the mark of the accusative as I said. The rest still stands.
Posted by CaptainAhab 2 years ago
CaptainAhab
Pro mistranslated תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה, it does not mean "a wicked man."

Per Strong's: תּוֹעֵבַה t"wE9;"bah, to-ay-baw'; or תֹּעֵבַה t"E9;"bah; feminine active participle of H8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:"abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

This is the most glaring of Pro's poor exegesis. Pro also quotes Genesis 19:8 out of context. Here is some context:

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.

They wanted to bring the travelers out so they could "know" them. The two words in question are וְנֵדְעָ֖ה followed by אֹתָֽם׃. Venedeah is roughly translated as "that we may know."

Strong's tells us: 3 know a person carnally, of sexual intercourse, followed by accusative.

אֹתָֽם׃ or otam is the mark of the accusative. The people of Sodom wanted to have sex with the travelers, which Lot rightly identified as wickedness, and God eventually destroyed Sodom because of an abomination as Ezekiel (not in the New Testament) tells us. Pro should focus on the fact that the Old Covenant is no longer valid for Christians and we are not bound by its rules, rather than trying to point out inconsistencies or make up wildly inaccurate translations to fit their interpretation.

All sources are from Strong's concordance and Brown Driver
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
There's a passage where God tells a bear to kill children for calling an old man bald.
Posted by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
I could point a lot of the ridiculousness to be found in the Bible like the following passage:
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15) ,
but would rather mention that humans are fallible and (according to Christians who belong to a Christian nation) God is infallible. God clearly mentions that we should not judge others: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." (Matthew 7:1). God will judge others: "So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God." (Romans 14:12). You should not worry whether gay marriage is legal or illegal in your nation. This is not your concern, because it is God's concern.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 2 years ago
Unbelievable.Time
Zinoralannan13Tied
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: Con begins her Opening by quoting some verse from 22-25 from the bible and uses her own interpretation that a man can only marry a woman or vice versa. Later pro begins his part by using Plato?s theory of Androgyne to denote that there are three genders. In addition, Pro also defends himself that Christians do not really condemn Homosexuality by proving that Christians only condemn Pagan. The point that give Pro this debate are that it has already been proven as by Pro that it is economically better. Like, +Civil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence.+ Last but not least, Pro has refuted Con's all points as what we can see in this debate.And, it leads to the reason Con loses this debate