The Bible and God disagrees with Gay Marriage
Debate Rounds (5)
2nd, 3rd, 4th Round: Rebuttals
5th Round: Conclusions
I know my opponent is a Christian who
-believes in God
-believes in the Trinity
-believes in the Bible
But he is also quite picky about what to take literally, metaphorically, and truthfully in the Bible. His way of "believing" in the Bible is rare and difficult to figure (and I hope he will make his position clear when he posts arguments).
I will argue that the Bible contradicts what he believes with gay marriage. He will rebut. Then I will refute some of what he thinks which I think is wrong, etc. etc.
The Bible gives many specific references to same-sex marriage, explaining why it is 1) wrong, and 2) a temptation of the Devil. The best books to look to are Genesis, located in the Old Testament, and Ephesians which is found in the New Testament.
Firstly, both my opponent and I agree that God created us. We get this from the Bible's first book, Genesis, because we are Christians and have relationships with Christ. Even most science agrees with the creation story...! But where we split ways is when we both interpret HOW and WHY God created us. My interpretation, as some may disagree or agree with, is that mankind was created (from the start) as instruments of praise, or as people who would 'keep God company.' This leads to the point, on the 6th day of creation, when He created MAN and WOMAN. 
Does my opponent not realize that, having accepted the Bible true, he also accepts that God intended reproduction for only male and female? If he did this, why would He agree with humans marrying in a way that you COULDN'T perform reproduction? 
Besides figuring the common sense, we can dig deeper and find that there are verses in the Bible that specifically say marriage is only for one man and one woman. There are plenty of reasons why this, also, is plain common sense too: the main reason being that reproduction itself can't happen with same-sex marriage. God made the other sex/gender BECAUSE he wanted us to multiply and fill the earth. 
I will clarify that I do agree with the bible and the trinity. So I am a Christian. I do believe that not only is being gay not a sin, but gay marriage is not a sin either.
Anyways, I shall start by saying that Genesis never has the word marriage in it during the story of Adam and Eve. You see Man and Wife, but that can apply to any form of event that's similar to marriage. Unless you can find a verse that says "And God made marriage for man and woman only" then you are rolling snake eyes in this case.
Note that the bible mentions 6 days of creation. Let me point out that my opponent believes God is infinite and all capable of doing. So am I. So with that said in mind, Why would it take 6 days to create the earth when God is currently continuing to build the universe, hear our prayers, answer our prayers, communicate with people, and create miracles on earth in one day? I tell you that the Earth either took time to form or it appeared instantly. Before Adam and Eve, days and nights didn't exist, neither did time. Now this is reasonable common sense. I will use sources for my other claims however.
Marriage meant many things back then. I heard in a documentary where a Rabbi was discussing the topic, he said back then, marriage was a man going to any woman he liked, putting a ring on her finger and he had the right to marry her and she had no right to reject him. So marriage was very sexist back then. Also, many definitions of marriage have changed and I will leave the source to show you those different kinds. But allow me to state a pattern. Marriage doesn't stay the same in the bible. It evolves. (1)
My opponent says that he believes God intended reproduction for male and female. Of course I agree because that's how it happens. Does he think that gay people are idiots who are trying to reproduce but won't admit they can't reproduce? They aren't. It's just sex. I agree with humans marrying in such a way because reproduction doesn't have anything to do with marriage. You could reproduce when your not married. Abraham had sex with his wife's slave. Marriage is just the status of official partners for life. The partner names were later given. Husband and wife. Wife was a name that originated from Germany, while Husband is originated from Old English, Middle English and Old Norse.
(Taken from Wikipedia which also has sources on the site. Just type in "husband" or "wife".)
The term husband refers to Middle English huseband, from Old English h$3;sb!3;nda, from Old Norse h$3;sb!3;ndi (h$3;s, "house" b!3;ndi, b$3;andi, present participle of b$3;a, "to dwell", so, etymologically, "a householder").
The word is of Germanic origin, from Proto-Germanic *wībam, "woman". In Middle English it had the form wif, and in Old English wīf, "woman or wife". It is related to Modern German Weib (woman, female),
Now also note that we are not going to be using much common sense here (well at least I won't.) Common sense had a lot of meanings. Back then, common sense was that the earth is flat and that the bible said that. Today, not only can we find where the bible says the earth is a sphere, but we can actually use science to physically observe the Earth. So for this case, we must use science if we are to learn about what exactly a gay person is and we must use history if we are to learn about what these cultures and times where like in the bible. Thank you and I look forward to a good debate. :3
Now first of all, I see how Con is making many points which are besides the matter which we are supposed to be debating (gay marriage), and that is the topic of Creationism. But I will address his statements about the beginning of time and of the Bible, and then I will get along with how same-sex marriage is wrong according to God.
"Before Adam and Eve, days and nights didn't exist, neither did time." You are wrong in two ways. The first being "before Adam and Eve." If you truly believe that God (well, Moses was the writer of Genesis) meant what he said when saying that each 'day' He made a certain amount of creatures/plants/environment, you believe the 'dates' are chronological and in the correct order. So you also must admit that there was, in fact, time before mankind was created. "In the Beginning..." is how the whole Bible starts.  The fourth sentence in the entire Bible says that God called the light 'day' and the darkness 'night.' Is not 'night and day' a form of time? And is not the word 'when' a form of stating 'time,' also? If it is, than 'when' God created Adam it was already the 6th 'day.' Conclusion is that there most definitely was time before Adam and Eve.
To add to my rebuttal of your 'time' sentence, please take a look at the parts in the Bible where it says 'God is outside of time.' The thing is, nowhere in the Bible does it say that! The only statements which could be mistaken for as saying "God is outside of time' is actually just saying that He is unending, or forever. I argue that, because God is our Creator, He IS time. Not outside of it, not in it, but He is it . But then again, we both know that God is the only One who knows the actual meaning of time itself, so we must not argue this too long.
You ask "why would it take 6 days to create the earth..." I ask you why would it take any longer than 6 days to create the earth? This is an argument neither of us can follow through with as it is outside anybody's knowledge. Besides, let's get back on topic.
To make things clear for the readers/voters, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that 'All scripture is inspired by God...'  That is why I believe that what is in the Bible is, also, what God agrees with or intends. Actually--it is what the Trinity agrees with--because of the parables in the Bible which Jesus teaches, it is not just what 'God' intends but what all three persons do.
"Does he think that gay people are idiots who are trying to reproduce but won't admit they can't reproduce?" No, I don't know what God actually thinks, but I think it is idiotic to marry someone you can't reproduce with. That is not tradition nor common sense and it should not become the norm. But we are arguing what the Bible says about it, so take a look at my source, please! 
" It's just sex. I agree with humans marrying in such a way because reproduction doesn't have anything to do with marriage." From my understanding, all the Bible says about Adam, Eve, and marriage (in Genesis, when God created mankind) is that we were to multiply and increase across the earth, and the only way to do that is through reproduction sex--with opposite genders . But looking at other parts of the Bible, we see that God only intended marriage to be for man and woman because this is what is useful and right. Sexual events which are wrong have consequences, like in Leviticus 20:13 where it plainly says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Is this not clear enough?  In 1 Corinthians 6:19, it says that your bodies are temples. "Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."  This is, above all other sins, directing towards sexual happenings and immoralities. Sex with same genders goes against what God intended when he created us, as I have shown through earlier arguments, and there are consequences for purposefully going against what the Bible (and God) says.
I'm not saying that same-sex marriage can't be forgiven. It is a sin just like all others, and everybody commits sin--including Abraham, in the Bible--so what you need to do is go to the Lord and ask for redemption.
I have some questions which I would like my opponent to answer.
1. On what basis do you still insist that marriage must be monogamous?
2. Will you maintain the same biblical sexual ethic in the church now that you think the church should solemnize gay marriages?
3. Are you prepared to say moms and dads are interchangeable?
4. What will you say about anal intercourse?
5. How have all Christians at all times and in all places interpreted the Bible so wrongly for so long? 
Common sense must most definitely be used in this argument! And I would rebut what you said about how the Bible says the earth is flat, but that is for another time.
I don't know what my opponent was saying about Old English, Middle, Old Norse, etc. but I know it doesn't have to do with our topic on the Bible, God, and Gay Marriage. So I ask con to please go back to our original subject matter.
When I said "does he think that...." I wasn't talking about does God think gay people are idiots, I was talking about you. I agree, we don't know what God would think, but you almost have this type of belief where you believe you know what they do and what they think. This one user on here by the name of annanicole recently talked to me about gay marriage. She said if gay marriage was allowed, then the divorce courts would be full. She said she knew gay people who broke up with their boyfriends after 5 months. She assumed that all gays were like that based off one small observation. One thing I want to remind y'all of is that rather you are gay, straight, bi, lesbian or transgender, your all human and we all think like that. This idea of gays and gay marriages as a sin and abomination against God is degrading and violating the civil rights of people in America. So for you to say being gay is a sin, it's saying let's treat them as dirt. Cuz we treat satan like dirt, why treat the gays different. The Caanites were also treated like crap by the Jewish, but Jesus even helped out the Caanite woman when her child was possessed. (1)
Now my opponent says two of the same sex being married was not tradition. And he is right. Neither is modern monogamous marriage. Back then, polagomy in the Judeo-Christian biblical times was quite common. Children of God were married to Concubines and wives, wives and slaves, and half of the marriages (according to the old testament in Leviticus) were because men would sell their daughters to slavery where they were bought and that's how they were married. He does go to Leviticus by saying it's an abomination and that it's basically saying the gay person should be put to death if he has sex with a man. For this, I have 3 points.
1. Abomination didn't mean what it means today. Just like how homosexual wasn't a word until the 19th century. Abomination in that time and culture meant "Against Ritual/Cultural Norm". It wasn't evil or wicked, but it was different from Jewish culture and tradition. (2)
2. Allow me to point out what else is an abomination. Eating a rabbit, eating shellfish, planting two crops together in the same field, wearing two fabrics together in clothing and eating pork. Half of these are told that if we do these, then we are to be stoned to death. Look it up in Leviticus. That's where most of these laws are at. Also Exodus says we are to kill those we see working on a Sunday. Isn't it clear enough? Also, your passage in Corinthians can be interpreted for any lust and any sin. SO that's beating around the bush. But to break it down, read the first verse of Leviticus 20 and you'll say what the bible verses are for. "And God spoke to Moses and his People." So these verses only apply if you are part of Abraham's covenant and tribe.
3. The reason why Leviticus says that verse is because the Jewish people valued how sperm was able to produce life. They knew what procreation was and who it was intended for. So it wasn't condemning gay relationships. Just gay sex because this law was aimed at Moses' people and they were starting to build the promised land that they were given. So they needed to reproduce it. However, not only are we not Moses' tribe, we have plenty of people on earth. If anybody's a fan of Michio Kaku, you'll know he's made statements that we might be able to find planets that harbor life for us and that we can move there so that Earth has more room for humans. So yeah, I think we are good and nothing wrong with gays at this point. Also, the sin of Onan was that he was having sex with a woman, but he took his penis out and ejaculated out of the woman's womb. God killed him because he didn't finish getting her pregnant. If your gonna brag about common sense, this is where it comes in.
How do you even know same-sex marriage is a sin? Do you think it's a sin for us today to be married to a wife and a mistress or concubine or slave. Some wives back then had to also marry her brother-in-laws if their original husband died. (3)
1. I don't. Marriage can still be it's traditional polygamy which evolved to loving monagomous which led to one of it's evolutions, Gay marriage. Marriage is evolving. Traditional marriage in it's traditionalist form, is barbaric in our modern American culture.
2. I will say that abstinence is cool and you should save before marriage. Having a stance on gay marriage as pro gay marriage is not going to affect my duties as a Christian. And to assume that when two gay people are married, that they will just find more partners that come into their life, is a really harsh statement. It's like saying all they care about is new booty to go penetrate. Whoever wrote the blog these questions came from must probably think Black people can't survive a week without fried chicken and watermelon if we are going by this stereotype game.
3. This is a stupid question. Scientific research shows that by observing both types of parents, gay and straight, we come up with the fact that it's not different. Don't believe me, check out the source where it shows research commissioned by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. (4)
4. Ummmm. Well I'd imagine anal intercourse would have to be a pain in the butt I guess. (pun intended)
5. It's because they don't take the time to learn what it was like back in those times, what people looked like or acted like. When most Christians read the bible verses about what is considered homosexual activity, they think about modern day gay people that the media stereotypes. Not average everyday people who could be gay and you don't know.
I agree. Common sense must be used. And your not using one bit of it. I feel like you are just saying that word honestly and don't know what it means.
I was talking about the origins of the words husband and wife, which is important to this since that's what is in Genesis. But man and wife wasn't a greek set of words. Husband was an English and Old Norse word while Wife was a term invented in Germany. Two different cultures. So I am staying on topic.
I would also like to remind my opponent that if I debate, I am not going to just listen to you preach a sermon, which is what part of your rebuttals are. You just quote bible passages, but you don't use science to support the claims of gays harming society and you don't use any history sources to confirm what times were like back then. I would recommend taking my time on your next turn.
1. Matthew 15:21-28
3. Deuteronomy 25:5
"The Caanites were also treated like crap by the Jewish, but Jesus even helped out the Caanite woman when her child was possessed." Hmm. I hope we aren't treating gays like crap, or "inhuman," and I do realize that the church in general has persecuted the people who claim to be gay, so don't think I'm trying to devalue the 'gays' in society. I try not to criticize gays, because my goal is to show them that it's not right (and unfortunately, a sin). I'm just throwing this out there, but my very opponent has been 'talking' (online) with me about Bible accuracy. He/she thinks that the catastrophic Flood, the Creation story of Adam and Eve, and stories in the book of Jonah  are questionable which they are, but he thinks they are most likely not true and are "disproven" by modern day science. In fact I told him/her that all scripture is inspired by God (therefore what is in the Bible is what God wants/says) and he said "Of course. But now you must show me the proof for these Bible stories." I did that, but he is still very doubtful that what the Bible says is actually true So why must he bring up Bible stories which he ALSO most likely doesn't think are true?
By the way, I'm a girl (just for later reference).
Rebuttal of 1st Point (on 'Leviticus')
When two males have sex, what happens? In Bible times, it was abomination--meaning "Against Ritual/Cultural Norm," as you said--and Leviticus was explaining how gay marriage was basically against the law (because of the consequences, which he says is being put to death). This is what I've been saying: gay marriage breaks tradition; you agree with that, but we don't agree that tradition is the right thing. It is culture that people would be 'put to death' if they were having same-gender physical attraction. It is my belief that being gay is STILL a sort of detestable. But WE are not under the Old Testament law, as you might realize from your studies of the same Bible which I read, therefore we do not kill the gays in our community...! I believe that God's very creation of Adam and Eve signifies the meaning of procreation, as it is not for male and male, likewise with female and female. 
Rebuttal of Point 2
SINS AND ABOMINATIONS
It is already refuted since I explained how we are not under the law of the Old Testament. Remember, I am not saying that God DOESN'T say anything against gay marriage (that would be an untrue statement). Rather I am saying that some of the things in the Old Testament, as you even pointed out, are not valid to us present day people because it was a matter of culture-- If you have any other questions, I am happy to answer them at the best of my ability in the following round. 
Refuted: as of the last rebuttal (above). Actually it WAS condemning gay relationships, because gay sex is about the same thing. What's the definition of 'gay relationships,' anyways? I'd just call it love towards another person who happens to be of the same sex. This brings up another subject matter of why gay marriage is wrong, which is that it's very possible that "gay" people are really just affectionate towards another person. What I think society gets wrong is, though, that just because you love doesn't mean you marry.
17 year old girls may certainly succeed in academics. Lesbian parents might have a hand in that as they are both girls also! What does being happy or having good grades have to do with the puberty and sureness in children and kids transitioning into the life of an adult? And the boys, who have no demonstration in their house that leads them in the right direction as men, can easily (although only some) get a good education and sometimes understand puberty through health classes, but this does not mean they are ready to be manly as adults. For example, how will they end up being dads if they marry (the traditional, heterosexual way) and decide to have kids: it will be harder than kids who grow up with a strong influence from both genders.
You say common sense isn't being used. I won't argue that, looking at your statements, especially when you say "scientific research shows that by observing both types of parents, we come up with the fact that it's not different." Excuse me but heteros and homos are much different. It is obvious that they ALSO have different results in "off-springs" (kids and relatives). If you consider my rebuttals a sermon, good, because I hope it's going to your heart.
Are you trying to hurry and rush through the debate that you don't want to take the time to spell words right? That's points for me, considering your 'cuz' and 'gonna' all over the place. I do see why you'd want to get your words across to me but, if you want to win a debate, please think about correcting all your misspelled words as it makes it easier to read (for the voters and I) and will give you more points!
 http://www.biblegateway.com... 1
Also, Jesus is asked about divorce where Moses said God will allow divorce, but then Jesus quotes genesis and people automatically think this is where Jesus is against homosexuality. I will just point out that if you read the verse Jesus is quoting, then you will know that he is quoting scripture about the question he is being asked by Pharisees. About divorce. Not homosexuality, but about divorce. Jesus is just showing his knowledge of the bible since they thought he was a heretic.
Gay marriage does not promote more divorces anymore than movies and other people do. If a heterosexual couple is married and the man finds this one woman or friend he meets that seems attractive, then he might divorce his wife for another heterosexual woman. So then does that mean sexy or beautiful women are to blame? Or just the men who commit the acts? Either way, it's not divorce's fault. And no. Common sense doesn't tell us that divorce causes corruption. Ken Ham of AiG said the same thing about school shootings and violence being linked to people who believe in the theory of evolution. (2)
3. Unfortunately, gays are being treated like crap an inhuman when we call them unnatural and immoral beasts. Common sense 101, Phil Robertson gives these sermons. I would know because I live in the same town as Phil and went to one of his sermons. You devalue the gays in society by not only calling them sinners, but by putting quotes around 'gays' as if your implying they aren't really gay. Your not gay by choice, but by the natural feelings you get from instinct.
Just because a bible story isn't true, doesn't mean it's worthless. Jesus told Parables, fictional tales, to people in the NT. Where they useless? No. They were stories that ended with a moral that was to be learned. That's what the Old Testament contains at times. Some or half of the stuff in there is stories with lessons that teach morals. But also note that the Old Testament doesn't apply to modern day Christians. Some Jewish people and rabbis don't even take the OT literally.
Your first mistake is assuming Leviticus talks about gay marriage when even the people who read the bible talk about Genesis as the chapter that is supposed to define marriage (even though it doesn't.) Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 talk about homosexual intercourse was an abomination. And the next thing that hypocrites you is that you say "We are not held by OT law, so we won't kill gays, but we will still call them an abomination." It's cherry picking the bible so it can justify your beliefs that you've been raised with. Trust me, as a person who was a fake Christian growing up, you most likely learned about gays through a pastor or your parents. Their parents would've told them back then that the bible promotes segregation. I would know because my great grandfather had a card supporting George Wallace. I believe it was even signed by George too. Also, Adam and Eve is just the model of what Man and Woman are. And if your case is right, then Tina Turner was right when she sang "What's Love Got To Do With It" and that love shouldn't matter, but sex sex sex. Also, if you want to know another marriage tradition, Let me list them in this picture.
You agree with me that it based on culture. I'm glad your seeing that. Although I don't know why your source for that paragraph is 6 reasons why being gay is wrong. O.o
Gay relationships is the same definition of relationships with heterosexual people. The only difference is the sexual orientation.
1.connection: a significant connection or similarity between two or more things, or the state of being related to something else
2.behavior or feelings toward somebody else: the connection between two or more people or groups and their involvement with one another, especially as regards the way they behave toward and feel about one another
3.friendship: an emotionally close friendship, especially one involving sexual activity
There is friends in a relationship and then lovers in a relationship. Relationship is love towards another person, but it's summed up in one word. It's how some people create a word. Like Bisexual where Bi means both and sexual means gender or sexual orientation. Not accurate, but I think you get my point.
Society is wrong, you love somebody but don't marry them because you follow family rules. This same type of law applies to Muslims who apparently will be committed to death if they fall in love with somebody who isn't muslim. In case you haven't noticed, this is sarcasm. I know the subject is about God and The Bible supposedly saying gay marriage is wrong, but America was founded upon the foundations where religious beliefs were not to be enforced unto those who don't agree with them. This source is talking about my point on muslims who kill those that flee from their religion. And I was being sarcastic when I said society is wrong. No society is universally wrong unless there is a society who purposefully wants to destroy the world. (3)
Gender does not have anything to do with rather somebody can incorporate good learning in a child. Men become men through their peers and surroundings. I didn't ask my dad about sex, I was hearing of it and saw pics and pornos of sex. It's one of the pieces of evolution in the brain when it comes to learning. How will they be dads? Instinct. Same as heterosexuals. You are assuming that gay people think or have different or no methods of parenting what so ever. Gender is not involved here. What if a kid who is born of out wedlock is raised by a single mom or dad his or her whole life? What about those kids? If you do research, not much of a difference.
I meant your not using common sense. -_-
The only differences between heteros and homos is the fact that one likes the opposite sex, the other likes the same sex. Another is that heteros can produce offspring while homos adopt. Not much of a difference. At least the homosexuals are offering homes and families to those who were abandoned by heterosexual women.
This is not supposed to be a sermon, but a secular and logical debate of reason. And no, it's not going to my heart, but with the pile of crap that I have heard before.
Don't get too cocky. I've debated one person who tried to do that and I ended up winning the debate because of his arrogance. Just know that your 14 and I'm 20. Not only am I older than you, my education and knowledge has a higher ranking than you. Especially when I study the works of scholars who read the entire bible (and I haven't). They even study the Hebrew bible to learn the original words and meanings. So one more time, don't get too cocky.
As I have gotten that out of the way, I will get the rebuttals started.
"The problem with your statement about marriage is that you said there is no justification that divorce rates of Chiristians are high, while I have the evidence that a majority of Christians...have committed divorce compared to 30 percent of atheists and agnostics who have had divorce." Just one question. How is my statement a problem?
"Gay marriage does not promote more divorces anymore than movies and other people do." We have both already agreed with the fact that neither of us have good sources for this. No one can predict what gay marriage will do until it's been going on for awhile.
No matter what Ken Ham says, divorce does lead to corruption. In what circumstance does it not? Children are separated from both parents (usually staying with one of them or switching off between two houses), and overall it is no longer a family when a couple divorces and lives separately while the kids are in the middle of it left with emotional problems.
How Gays are Treated
As I have been saying this whole time, according to the Bible (which my opponent and I both believe is God's message to/for us), we are ALL sinners. That means everyone in the entire universe has sinned: at least once or twice. Anyone can admit that. So as a Christian it is obviously wrong to devalue gays in any way as humans, even if their lifestyle IS a sin. This debunks all those comments my opponent made such as: "Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 talk about homosexual intercourse was an abomination. And the next thing that hypocrites you is that you say "We are not held by OT law, so we won't kill gays, but we will still call them an abomination." I do not call gays abomination. But Leviticus says that that's what happened to gays in their culture.
The Bible's Accuracy (what's true)
"Just because a bible story isn't true, doesn't mean it's worthless." My opponent says he believes the Bible is God's message to us and that God is our Creator who knows everything, yet he says only SOME stories are true and useful! The reason this doesn't work is because 1) my opponent does not trust that what God says in His Word is true therefore does not trust God, and 2) he believes whatever is in the Bible that sounds right and dismisses whatever sounds fairytale-like, therefore he does not believe/trust God's power and ability. This is not a good way to be a Christian especially when you're trying to interpret GOD'S Word your OWN way. Looking at the things God says about marriage and trying to refute it should be impossible (as a Christian) because of their belief that 'all scripture is inspired by God,' yet some attempt to only to find it is hypocritical to believe in God's Word and than try to defend gay marriage.
On the topic of 'Fake Christianity': "Their parents would've told them back then that the bible promotes segregation." Tell me where in the Bible my parents' parents believed that God promoted segregation. Please do. I don't like assumptions, so be careful with what you say.
The website you gave about "Marriage =..." is already refuted. The chapters which show these marriages are proof that a lot of stories are from the "journals" of real people who lived in a different culture. Earlier I explained why most laws in the Old Testament do not apply to us (because Jesus wasn't born to take away our sins yet).
"The only difference...between hetero and homo...is the sexual orientation." The ONLY thing? That's THE biggest reason same-sex marriage is wrong. The main thing about this kind of relationship is the 'sexual friendship,' no matter what definition we have of it. Same sex marriage is harmful because marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law, and that natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15) Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. 
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
"I know the subject is about God and The Bible supposedly saying gay marriage is wrong, but America was founded upon the foundations where religious beliefs were not to be enforced unto those who don't agree with them. This source is talking about my point on muslims who kill those that flee from their religion. And I was being sarcastic when I said society is wrong." Yes, and I am debating on MY beliefs...my stance on the Bible, God, and gay marriage do not have to do with religion, rather the reasons for why I believe the things I believe. I hope this makes sense to you. I am not forcing anyone to believe what I believe, rather asking them to take a look at my reasons for what I believe.
Gender roles for kids, teaching about sex
Here's the definition of 'family' 
1. a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.
2. designed to be suitable for children as well as adults.
A father not only teaches kids common sense about sex, but gives the family rules and sets the boundaries upon which he is supposed to be the 'man of the house.' From a real family we can get 'examples' and we see that fathers help the family with realizing their OWN family's morals. That father usually gets the morals from his father who taught it to HIS family, and soon there is a sort of custom.
So if my dad divorced two or three women in his life time (which he has), then is my dad slowly falling into being a wicked and evil man. After all, corruption is tuning somebody into what we consider evil. My parents divorced and so did my half brothers. We both turned out to be role models. We had our emotional problems. But emotional problems is what a kid needs if he is going to grow up in this world. It isn't all sunshine and rainbows. People in your family die and that's going to make kids in the family cry and have emotional problems. It's life.
Exactly. Leviticus no longer applies to us. Just the Ten Commandments. And there is the lifestyle of being gay, but then just being gay, in a relationship, which grows into a family and marriage, is not a sin whatsoever. I highly doubt you even know what a lifestyle is. A redneck is a lifestyle. Your not born one. The KKK is a lifestyle. Your not born racist. Your born with your sexual orientation.
Your ignoring the sentence you quotes. I said just because a bible story isn't true, doesn't mean it's worthless or useless. You apparently think it is. Quit assuming I don't believe or trust God, because the bible wasn't literally written by God. It was spoken and written through men who were inspired by God. The holy spirit didn't have a pen.
"14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
2 Corinthians 6:14-17
This is one of the verses. They also compared the blacks to a tribe that God wanted to wage a war against. Look for this in the old testament because plenty of tribes were killed by God's people.
Your saying that "most" laws don't apply to us from the OT? NONE of the laws in the OT, with the exception of the ten commandments, apply to us anymore.
Your right. They also can't reproduce. So natural born sexual orientation that exists even in animals is what's wrong with same sex marriage? If homosexuality was unnatural in the way your thinking, then ducks, dogs, buffalos and elephants wouldn't be gay. There are and have been gay animals whose species lives on. But about humans, marriage is a ritual bond between human beings. It's not a natural thing. It's natural to love somebody, but marriage itself isn't natural because anything could replace marriage. Marriage is a choice. It's the real choice. By natural reason, I can perceive that being gay is as morally good as being straight. I can also perceive that marriage is not limited to one race or gender of humans. I also can perceive the source you use in this round has the same topic that was used in a couple of our other rounds. I can perceive it to be an opinion based source and it's also biased since it is a Christian focused source and not a secular/value free source.
Really? Because racist southerners didn't want blacks and gays to attend college, the military, and didn't even want them to have marriage rights (blacks wanted to marry whites). The blacks so far have been winning because we got over it. Now nobody is going to say God or the bible is against civil rights, but we still have the balls to say God will be mad if let gays have their way. Same Sex Marriage does not oppose nature because nature is not in marriage. Are monkeys or dolphins or elephants or dogs having wedding ceremonies with their animal companions? Actually it's biologically possible because biologically, our mouths are able to say yes and no. Actually, there is an analogy. You just refuse to see it.
The debate is about rather the bible and God disagree with gay marriage. Just saying. If you don't want gays to be married (in other words, be involved with politics) and make it impossible for gays to be married, your going to enforce your beliefs that marriage is only for one man and one woman. And you say it's your religious beliefs. Would you let Muslims practice Sharia Law in America? This means the government is not allowed to interfere with the Muslims as they personally deal with domestic matters. One of the laws says to kill anybody who is an Apostate. Voting to let Christian majority viewed marriage be the only law of marriage there is, would be the same as approving the Muslim majority view of Sharia.
And being gay fits into this definition as well as hetero, bi and transgender families. A father not only teaches kids common sense about sex, but a mother does too. A father not only gives family rules and sets the boundaries upon which he is supposed to be the 'man of the house', but a woman can do the same. What about if a hetero couple only has female kids. Whose going to be man of the house if the father dies in a car accident or is away for work? So in this paragraph about the father, you just admit you can't learn morality through common sense because you need to learn them from a man who is a father. That sounds like you don't give yourself credit, knowledge or wisdom. You have therefore admitted your dumb and have no sense of morality which I happen to find false. If you were born with gay parents, no parents or lived with just your brother or sister, then you'd still have the same thinking and intellect today because your reasoning and thirst for knowledge led you to where you are. Also it says in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that the effeminate, the soft, will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In other words, if you describe yourself to be weak and soft, then you will not be inheriting the kingdom of god.
I'll leave you to your closing statements.
Then my opponent goes on to say that his dad divorced many times, tries to say that divorce is not corruption, it's life, and in life there will be emotional problems. He says, "People in your family die and that's going to make kids in the family cry and have emotional problems. It's life." First of all, divorce is a growing problem in America. In 1920, 14% of marriages ended with divorces. In the 70s' until now, it has been about 50% of all marriages ending in divorce. The Bible says that God hates divorce. (This is another reason America has been turning away from God, as my opponent and I have been discussing and arguing through messages recently. He thinks America is not growing farther away, while I oppose that hypothesis.)
Matt. 19:9 says, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."  As I said earlier in this debate, if gay marriage promotes divorce than I believe that the Bible and God disagree with it.
"...there is the lifestyle of being gay, but then just being gay, in a relationship, which grows into a family and marriage, is not a sin whatsoever. I highly doubt you even know what a lifestyle is." The definition of 'lifestyle': the way in which a person or group lives.  I know what it is, and I think that this is an irrelevant argument because we both agree that being 'gay' is a way a person or group, lives. But I'm going to say that you are arguing this: a same-sex relationship is not a sin according to the Bible. You think that the lifestyle is a sin...? This is unclear. But we have been debating this the whole time so I think I'll go on.
Allow me to ask a question. A man and woman get married. They dated for a whole 2 years with no signs of problems. After they were married for a whole 5 years and they now have a kid. Two scenarios can happen that result in negative ways. A dad can start drinking heavily and will abuse his wife if he does so. He'll hit her or trash the house. If it gets far enough, like it did with my grandpa, he will go get a gun and shoot the wife. My grandpa took the life of a grandma that I never got to meet. Second scenario, the mother usually takes care of the baby when it's born, causing a lot of stress on her. If anything were to go wrong, the wife can emotionally be damaged to do plenty of things. One of them from what I've read in the news, is killing the baby. One woman cooked her baby in a oven because she said God revealed that the baby was the Anti-Christ. One woman took her two kids to the laundry room of their apartment and started bashing their brains in with a brick. One of them was an infant. But there are multiple stories of baby deaths caused by mothers who obtain enough stress. So my question is, would you want to still be married to somebody who is capable of committing these acts. My mom should've been divorced from my dad. My dad did the right thing because my mom refused to get me help with my autism, she always goes out drinking and partying while my dad works, I was alone with a nanny and my brother and sister (nannies my mom hired were either thieves or drunks), and my mom once brought my 6 month old brother to a party of hers where there was cigarette smoke everywhere for us to inhale it. As cruel as it is for me to say this, but my mom should never have given birth to kids because she was incapable of a mother's love. But that's besides the point and I apologize for the emotional story. And the baby death stories were told by my English teacher when we were doing a paper on Morality in the Bible for college. So once again, is it a sin to divorce somebody because they will kill you or your loved ones? You say that bible verse, but then you throw in a percentage of divorce rates when you don't even know what those people in the divorce were going through. Gay marriage does not promote divorce. It promotes love like any other marriage. Latino marriage. Interracial marriage. Heterosexual marriage. All of these marriages have one thing in common. Consent.
Being gay is not the way a person or group lives! There is no gay dress code, diet, or anything. Gay Pride is a lifestyle. But the orientation of gays are not a lifestyle. Saying that is saying that being black is a lifestyle. They do have a black lifestyle(s) that they can fit in with, but their skin color is not a lifestyle. Being an American can be a lifestyle, but I don't want to be in a lifestyle of American culture. If gay relationships are a lifestyle to you, then why is straight relationships not considered one? Why don't you compare them both as lifestyles? This is why I don't like dealing with ignorance in some Christians.
Now then I am wanting to finish by saying this.
If you study the 6 verses in the bible that refer to what some consider homosexual activity, you will find that the bible doesn't condemn same sex relationships. Remember that the bible's real issue is to teach of the grace of God through Jesus, it's not supposed to be a bondage weapon for organized religion to dictate who can have what rights, but it's supposed to be a reason to show love and compassion and tolerance for people. I want everybody to be able to have the same rights as anybody else. Jesus was not trying to be exclude people out for who they are. Jesus would embrace anybody who was black, gay, female or anything else. As Desmond Tutu once said, "I cannot imagine a God who would say, 'I punish you because your black. You should have been white. I punish you because your a woman. You should have been a man. I punish you because your a homosexual. You should have been born a heterosexual.' I cannot imagine it." I agree. I cannot imagine it either. So I didn't really come prepared with a good closing statement, but I will just ask you to read the bible, look into it's history, culture and context. Be sure to read the oldest translation as well so that your getting the original unabridged story. Thank you. And Peace n Love. X3
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I give this to pro because she clearly ended it in the middle of the debate with Lev. while Con argued without the Bible. What's being discussed is Scripture, not societal beliefs.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate, but it was kind of a mess. Prima facie, Pro would seem to have the upper hand, here. But he *failed* to address Con's cherry-picking point in any substantive fashion. That single point was probably easy to address (many theologians have done so), but, to fail to address it in a meaningful fashion is a big deal, and, in my opinion, lost the debate for Pro. As such, arguments to Con. This was overall a hard debate to read, as it was all over the place, just as a comment.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.