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

Should Homosexuals Be Granted Marriage By The Church?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 77012
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




This is my open argument and my first debate so don't expect the most professional responses out of me. I'm just going to make my position plain and simple.

NOTE: Please keep in mind the difference between religious marriage & federal marriage throughout this debate,

Gay marriage was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court today in the United States. There was celebration across the country.

My philosophy is that a person can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect the lives/property of others in a negative way. So yes, I believe that gays deserved the same rights as everyone else in federal terms.

However, there are many that also want Churches to allow gay marriage. My response to this is that homosexuals should not be granted marriage by the Church in any way. In our Government there is a separation of Church and State. The Church has no power over the Federal Government and the Government cannot impose laws onto the church. So therefore, it is the church's decision as to whether or not a gay person is allowed to become married, on a religious standpoint. (It cannot do anything involving federal recognition.) As of now, the church is 100% against gay marriage and they will not be allowing it anytime soon. This is not a debate about civil rights, it's about the authority a religion has over its own institutions.


This is also my first debate, I wish my opponent luck but this is where I leave my pleasantries. I am not a gentle character I am in the business of destroying enemies of civilisation, standing against those who believe in discrimination, and constant capitulation towards theocratic madness.

I'm assuming this debate was sparked after the recent high court decision made in america on gay marriage. It's about time.

Now to begin separation of church and state does not mean the government cannot impose laws on the church or members of the church. What it means is as follows: "Individual citizens are free to bring their religious convictions into the public arena. But the government is prohibited from favoring one religious view over another or even favoring religion over nonreligion" (1). For example religious law may have us execute those who worked on the sabbath "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death" (Exodus 35:2), thankfully this church law is prohibited by the government. Thus government can interfere with the church's practises.

The church is not 100% against gay marriage Pastor Rob Bell supports gay marriage (2), this is just one example of many who prove that there are those within the church who want to perform gay marriages. Now it would be highly hypocritical if the church then prevented members like Rob as he is as much of a part of the church as any other member.

"Government has a right to demand that religious institutions and individuals comply with reasonable regulation and social policy" (3), along with the anti discrimination act I believe that the church should either be forced to meet of of two contentions, either 1 end discrimination and allow all marriages of consenting adults or 2 be disallowed from arranging any marriages. This is the only way to avoid discrimination and you will notice the 2nd option does not discredit the "authority a religion has over its own institutions".

I would like to close by saying I find it sad especially because the church preaches about being the moral beacon for humanity; how far this shrin of bigotry and ignorance has fallen with each passing day they expose themselves as nothing more than a hate filled cult unable to recognise morality and compassion when it is staring them right in their face. And to my opponent and all those who support this ghastly temple of filth and discrimination, I am utterly ashamed to breath the same air as you do.

Debate Round No. 1


You misunderstand me. Maybe it is my fault. Think about it like this.

It is unconstitutional for the government to force any religious establishment to adopt THEIR terms as to what a marriage is. The U.S. Government is 250 years old. A 250-year-old government should have no right in any place to dictate 2,000-year-old religious traditions.

The Christian Church has had its own definition of marriage for quite some time now, and just because a government changes its view on what exactly that definition is, the church in no way has to change it as well. Religious freedom, period.


No I dont misunderstand.

It's unconstitutional for a religion to dictate rules to a government, the church does not run the usa the government does. If the church is in their country I'm afraid to say they must play by their rules not the otherway around. If they don't want to allow gay marriage in the vatican the church's own state then fine but they should not be allowed to get away with blatant discrimination in a country they do not run. So a 250 year old SECULAR government has every right to tell a church with no authority on laws what to do.

In fairness my two options stand still. either 1. end discrimination and allow all marriages of consenting adults or 2. be disallowed from arranging any marriages. This is the only fair way. If the church doesn't like it to bad, freedom from religion, period.
Debate Round No. 2


Never did I say the government has to listen to the church. Your entire first paragraph in round two is incorrect. In where did I EVER claim that? The government and the church are SEPARATE BODIES that each have their own definitions on what marriage is. The church can't MAKE a law, that's outrageous.

The government can, by all means, have whatever definition of marriage it believes is most constitutional. And the church can have whatever definition of marriage fits its religious beliefs best. Thus is religious freedom.

Both definitions can exist at the same time. If a gay couple wanted to get married both federally and religiously, they would only be able to get married federally, considering that the definitions of both institutions of what a marriage is are different. However a couple consisting of both male and female would be able to get married by both institutions because they meet the requirements.

The church (as stated in round two) is 2,000 years old, and it has traditions that are 2,000 years old as well. In no place in the world is the church (Catholics, specifically) forced to marry a gay couple, even in countries with governments that recognize a relationship as more than a man and a woman.

Basically, your argument is that it is downright discrimination to allow a church to decide who it can marry in a society in which people can marry any gender they please. What you aren't looking at is religious freedom and the right that a religion has to dictate how it operates.

So what is it? Religious freedoms or civil freedoms? Personally, I believe that the Supreme Court decision this last Friday was a good decision, I don't agree with the idea behind being gay, but I believe people should have the freedom to love who they desire. However, in no way does this have to go any further with the church changing its ways as well. Besides, making the church do such a thing is unconstitutional and it violates the First Amendment.

Thank you for the interesting debate russian_metaphor_man, I found it quite interesting and enjoyed my time. Maybe I will see you again sometime, as I have come to greatly enjoy and I plan to stay active in the community. This is the conclusion of my debate.


russian_metaphor_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
>Reported vote: ThatChristianGuy// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Even if he had not, my vote would've gone towards Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for argument, sources, S&G. Pro only forfeited one round so this doesn't justify a seven-point vote.
Posted by russian_metaphor_man 1 year ago
Sorry I misjudged my schedule, my apologies
Posted by Truth55555 1 year ago
I've read through this debate and my outlook is this. Gay couples should be allowed marriage because that's a basic right of today's government however, I don't believe that forcing churches to break their own beliefs should be allowed. Why is the churches rights any less important than the lbgt communities? They can get married in other places by other means. Why must they be allowed to bend others beliefs to their own? I'm not antigay I'm pro equality... True equality where everyones rights and freedoms are kept as such. Also alot of people share the stance of pro. But why are religious rights allowed to be discriminated against so freely?
Posted by Episteme 1 year ago
Just a couple points. I know President_Vern also had an opinion poll made about this.
Why do we refer to 'the church' as if there's only one type of religion around? I did this in my own argument too, so I'm at fault for this, but just thought it should be brought to people's attention. There are also synagogues, mosques, etc. Also, when we talk about 'The Church' (which is actually a cool pub, where I am) we usually refer to Christianity. I suppose we should be careful and mindful that there are other religions out there.

Also, PRO, I agree with you, but just wanted to say that there is no law relating to what the separation between church and state actually is. In Lynch v. Donnelly, in the Supreme Court, in 1984 it was said: "The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. . . . [b]ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state."
Posted by President_Vern 1 year ago
Yes, I am sorry. As I had originally stated, this is my first debate, so not everything would be perfect. My argument is that the church should not be forced into marrying gay couples.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
You should probably be a little more specific on what the topic is. Are you arguing that the church should not be forced to marry gay couples? Are you arguing that the church, as a whole, should not be required to accept gay marriage? Are you arguing that marriage, but not the civil rights that come with it, should be denied to homosexuals? I'm not clear on which of these it is.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF