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

Should the Bible be used in arguments involving political issues such as gay marriage?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 69146
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




I believe that the Bible should not be used in arguments involving political issues such as gay marriage or the transgender rights movement. The book is a religious icon; politics should be kept separate from religious arguments, as stated by Thomas Jefferson himself when he proposed the "separation of church and state".



Sure why not?

I think it should be argued because there are religious people that vote. If they find that God does not want to do it, they will probably not vote in favor of it.

So whats your point about Jefferson? He had some secular ideas about the governemnt, ones that I do not share. If there was less "seperation from church and state", I think that there would be more benefits to the religious crowd. It may even help shape policies that are more compatible with religion in general.

But to point out, religious areguments have been shown to be profitable. For as it is written in the constitution, "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." If they use religious arguments to resolve issues like human rights, I don't see why the Bible can't be used to resolve political issues... after all it's a religious text.
Debate Round No. 1


Although there certainly are people who believe in the BIble and its teachings, not everyone does. I, for example, am an Atheist. If someone brought up the Bible while arguing with me and used it as a source, it would be entirely ineffective no matter how much they attempted to argue their point with the Bible.

If a politician stood at a stand and argued their point using the Bible as a source, how many individuals in the audience would roll their eyes in exasperation? Likely many of them -- because the Bible is not proven to be true. I feel that my greatest point here is that the Bible is not necessarily a reliable source; albeit tiny bits and pieces of the text are proven to be historically accurate, not all of them are. There is no proof that Jesus turned water into wine; no proof that he walked on water.

Thus, in modern day society, why should the Bible be argued as if it is a reliable, truthful, and modern source?

Also, I would like to address this point of yours --
"If there was less "seperation from church and state", I think that there would be more benefits to the religious crowd".

Perhaps that is true, but it would also inconvenience those who are not religious. This is a biased decision and favours those who are religious over those who are not. In a democracy such as America, both parties should be treated equally and laws/policies should apply to and benefit both of them. How would incorporating religious ideas (particularly Christian ideas) benefit the masses of people who disagree with them (non-religious people)? Sure, not all of us can agree with America's policies and laws, but there are a GREAT deal of people who are not religious in our nation who would oppose these Christianity-centred ideas.


I agree with you, you probably wouldn’t. But I don’t see how that matters, some people may not be interested in arguments that they find are controversial because they don’t believe in them. If you were not an atheist you may have more interest in Biblically based arguments.

To be clear here, are you trying to say that it is immoral to advocate what you believe in?

In the context of a politician, it may not be prudent to bring up controversial arguments to gain favor with the certain crowds… If his agenda is to gain favor with say God, then he might need to speak his mind. If his agenda is to gain a particular office, then it might be wise to refrain. So what the politician “should” do is subjective here.

On the subject of reliability, it doesn’t matter what your and my opinion is. For example, I view that a lot of things in science is unreliable, things like the big bang and evolution. Does this mean that you shouldn’t vote for policies that favor these things merely because I don’t view the evidence as reliable? No. You should vote in what you believe in, much like I do. We may have our disagreements, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vote in what we believe in.

I believe you are probably correct that there is no absolute proof about the miracles of Christ (atkeast humanly possible to acquire). But this is due to my belief that there are truths that are impossible to prove because of the nature of what they are. For example, it’s impossible to prove what you see is real or a dream because any evidence you see is assumed to be real instead of proven. Miracles that happened 2 thousand years ago are difficult to empirically prove in the present because they don’t naturally happen. This doesn’t mean miracles did not happen because of unprovable evidence much like we can’t prove we are real.

I think here your making the assumption that things need to be proven for it to be relevant to political issues. This is just not so, things like moral good and evil is never proven objectively because it’s subjective (atleast in an athiest), and these mere opinions on morality is intertwined with politics. Raping a woman being evil can’t be proven from an atheist worldview.

Why should the Bible be argued? Because some people believe it to be true.

Yes, It is probably an inconvenience to the non-religious, so? The American government has a secular nature, it can only support secularism over religion. So it’s an extremely big inconvenience for us religious folks. Basically my tax money is going to indoctrinate kids into naturalism through “education”, and I disbelieve naturalism. There really isn’t any neutral ground for equality when it comes to the religious and non-religious, for if you are secular you will favor things that are secular, and if religious, the vice-versa.

What does it matter if people oppose it? If too many people oppose it, it probably won’t come into effect. You lose nothing. As to incorporating Christian ideologies here, I have no problem with it. For these ideologies (at least the biblically based ones) are based off of two things, love for God, and love for one’s neighbor. In this case of gay marriage, it is a matter of love for one’s neighbor. I know that the marriage union between a man and a woman is greater than that of marriages between the same-sex. So I oppose it because I love the gays, for I want them to have a greater life.

Debate Round No. 2


ciel forfeited this round.


Opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3


ciel forfeited this round.


Debate is over.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KnowledgeBot5 1 year ago
The Bible is biased, science is not. its facts versus beliefs
Posted by Tminusfour20 1 year ago
Regardless. Political issues should not be resolved on the basis of unverifiable outdated information. It's not logical and there is a million and one ugly outcomes that can occur.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
1 Peter 2:13-14

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sakFor for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Romans 13:1-7

God would want the Government to be guided correctly.
Posted by ChristianPunk 1 year ago
The bible should not be used because Jesus would be against all these politics. God was asked to establish a theocracy with certain leaders, but his chosen in the OT would always fall from grace (Samson, David, Moses, etc.) So to me, anarchy is more of the philosophy of the bible since it teaches to respect the authorities on earth, but not to obey them like gods.
Posted by Longline 1 year ago
All the laws we have today, most of them are actually based on the Bible. God new that without him there will be chaos, so he had to entrust us with some responsibility. Politician are welcome to do as they pleased, if they want to use the Bible there is nothing wrong with it, if they don't still God does not mind, because he told his people to give to the government what belongs to government, and give to God what is God.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
It should be used, but it won't be used.

If it was used, gays would get mad and Atheist would continue to make their unlearned claims about violence and incest in the Bible.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
Would you challenging me to a debate.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
@ciel, I would not mind debating you on this subject.
Posted by Perfectly_Imperfect 1 year ago
The bible should not be used to argue political issues surrounding gay marriage.... I feel whole heartedly that gay marriages are wrong based on my religion. However, so is lying, abortion, murder, and premarital sex. Not only are those acts not being made illegal, but there are laws set that protect your right to do majority of them. So how is it that the gay community is being singled out, bible beaten, and denied the right to live the personal lives that they chose to live? It's not a cult. Everyone in the gay community are consenting adults, so they're certainly not hurting anyone.

Also it's only wrong in some religions NOT ALL. There are gay atheists that are being forced to live by the government's religious values, which is a CLEAR demonstration of religious oppression. America is described as a "Melting Pot" and we pride ourselves on that description. We are supposed to respect other's religions or lack there of, regardless of if we agree with them or not. So dose that only apply to religions that we approve of?

It completely baffles me how America looks to the constitution and every law book ever published to guide us in ALL legal issues. But as soon as "gay" anything comes up they turn to the bible. Where dose this sudden spark of morality come from? In between wars?
Posted by sadolite 1 year ago
And then it predicts that people will deny they are doing that and persecute those who say they are.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times