The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Contradiction
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

The Bible is against gay marriage.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,235 times Debate No: 16162
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (7)

 

socialpinko

Con

BOP will be on Pro to provide at least one verse in the Bible which explicitly condemns the idea or practice of gay marriage. Con's responsibility will be to refute any and all of Pro's examples.

Definitions

Bible: the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion,comprising the Old and New Testaments.[1]

Gay marriage: is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.[2]

Against: in opposition to; contrary to; adverse or hostile to.[3]

For my opponent's first round, I will ask that they post any number of examples which they can find where the Bible says anything in opposition to gay marriage.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Contradiction

Pro

My thanks to Con for initiating this debate challenge. Con has asked me to "provide at least one verse in the Bible which explicitly condemns the idea or practice of gay marriage." Accordingly, I will marshall a series of exegetical arguments to show that the Bible explicity condemns gay marriage.

But perhaps a word of clarification is required here. What is meant by "explicit" in this context? And explicit by what standards? Exegetical standards? Layman's standards? Con has failed to provide a substantive definition of these words in his debate terms. Lest he redefine his terms, it appears that we're working with very lax standards.

Perhaps the clearest indication of God's plan for marriage can be found in Genesis 2:23-24, which states: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Now at first glance, there is absolutely no mention of the term "marriage" here. But first, why should the passage explicitly mention the term "marriage" in order for it to be considered explicit? A topic does not have to be mentioned by name for a statement referring to it to be explicit. Let's say that I'm in class, and I want to address my teacher. I don't have to mention him by name in order to make an explicit statement referring to him. I could say, for example, "Sir, blah blah blah." The same is true with written texts.

If anything, the term "one flesh" is synonymous with marriage, so that Biblical marriage is affirmed as being exclusively heterosexual, even if the exact term "marriage" is not mentioned. This of course also means that all other types of relationships are not considered legitimate in God's eyes. Indeed the very idea of "gay marriage" was historically understood to be a contradiction.

Now of course there are also other verses/Biblical arguments against gay marriage, but this will not be covered here, since those are largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

My opponent asks for clarification as to what kind of standards are to be used to decide if a verse is actually against gay marriage. Any verse in which the Bible actually condemns the idea of gay marriage will do. Any mention of gay marriage or explanation of why marriage should be exclusively heterosexual. Now after this needed clarification I shall examine my opponent's single verse of supposed condemnation of same-sex marriage.

Genesis 2: 23-24

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Now in this verse there is absolutely no mention of reference to homosexuality or whether or not they should be allowed to marry. Other rules found in the Bible that are against certain practices deemed 'immoral' condemn the activity instead of advocating the opposite. This is especially common in the Old Testament.

People should be pacifistic----Thou shalt not kill

Everyone should be straight--Homosexuality is an abomination

The Bible has yet said absolutely nothing about whether gays should be able to marry each other or whether marriage should be exclusively heterosexual.

Vote Con

Contradiction

Pro

In response to my request for clarification, Con has stated that "Any mention of gay marriage or explanation of why marriage should be exclusively heterosexual" will do. He has thus outlined two possible ways in which he may be engaged. I can either show a passage which explicitly mentions gay marriage, or show a verse which outlines why marriage must be exclusively heterosexual.

My approach will, and has been the latter. Recall Genesis 2:23-24

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.

These verses are structured in the form of a logical argument, with "Therefore" denoting the conclusion in verse 24. The argument presented, of course, is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because (For reasons outlined in verse 23) only a male and a female satisfy the criteria of "one flesh" found in verse 24. Thus, Genesis quite clearly outlines why marriage must be exclusively heterosexual.

Con's response to me can be completely ignored. His own statements (Especially the first paragraph) indicate that a verse need not specifically mention homosexuality or even why they should not be allowed to marry. Ironically, Con's own criteria helps to defeat his reponse to me.

I therefore urge a vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

I in the preious round stated two ways in which my opponent would be able to conclusively show why the Bible explicitly states that it is against same sex marriage. I wrote that either the Bible must specifically condemn the idea of gay marriage or specifically advocate marriage being exclusively heterosexual. My opponent has stated that he will argue the latter.

My opponent argues that because his verse states that Adam stated that his wife was the flesh of his flesh and then showed an example of a man leaving to marry and become one flesh. This again does not specifically make marriage exclusively heterosexual. Adam in the first verse stated that Eve would become the flesh of his flesh because they would be married. There was again absolutely no reference to marriage needing to be exclusively heterosexual.

Vote Con
Contradiction

Pro

In his previous argument, Con argued that Genesis 2:23-24 does not make marriage exclusively heterosexual. A careful reading of the verses, however, shows this to be mistaken.

Let's revisit verse 24, which reads: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

The phrase "cleave unto his wife" clearly denotes male-female complementarity. The Hebrew word for cleave is "dabaq" which means "to be joined together." But joined together for what? Genesis 1:28, which tells the creation narrative from another perspective, gives us some insight into this by tying procreation into it. In it, God tells Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply." But that is only possible within a procreative framework, which heterosexuality satisfies.

So it's clear that the "one flesh" referred to in verse 24 is that of a type of relationship ordered around procreation with its end goal. And of course, since homosexual relationships are intrinisically non-procreative in nature, they cannot satisfy the Biblical definition of marriage. Since only relationships which have procreation possible as part of their intrinsic nature can qualify as marriages, this defines marriage in terms that are exclusively heterosexual. Therefore, the Bible provides a positive condemnation of same-sex marriage (Marriage is X...) as opposed to a negative condemnation (Marriage is not Y...).

As a further argument, consider the fact that at the end of creation, it is revealed that God said that it was good. "Good" here is a normative term, denoting the fact that the way God originally created is how creation ought to be. Thus, since homosexual relationships is not mentioned in God's original design plan, it can be inferred that therefore that such relationships are not normative. This too consistutes a positive condemnation of same-sex marriage in Genesis. Interestingly enough Jesus himself affirms that marriage is exclusively heterosexual. In Matthew 19:4, he says:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female

"At the beginning" denotes God's original design plan for human relationships. Coupled with the fact that procreation is also mentioned as the purpose of marriage, and that homosexual relationships are excluded from God's explicit design plan for human relationships, it can be inferred that the Bible does not lend support to same-sex marriages.

I now turn it over to Con for his arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Con

//"So it's clear that the "one flesh" referred to in verse 24 is that of a type of relationship ordered around procreation with its end goal. And of course, since homosexual relationships are intrinisically non-procreative in nature, they cannot satisfy the Biblical definition of marriage"//

My opponent argues that because at one point in Genesis, go told Adam and Eve to procreate, this automatically means that that is the point of marriage. I will ask my opponent if men or women who are sterile should they be allowed to marry? Or what about older couples whoAs a further argument, consider the fact that at the end of creation, it is revealed that God said that it was good. "Good" here is a normative term, denoting the fact that the way God originally created is how creation ought to be. are no longer able to have chidren? My opponent is not arguing that marriage be exclusivly heterosexual, but that marriage is for heterosexual, young, and fertile couples. If procreation is the only requirement for marriage, then homosexuals may satisfy this requirement with in vitro fertilization or a male homosexual coupl having a womn carry their baby. My opponent's own definition of marriage contradicts his argument that it is exclusively heterosexual as homosexual couples are now able to have children together.

My opponent then argues that because god said that his creatio was good after he had finished creating the world, this means that homosexuality is not normative. However as homosexuality comes naturlly in nature, if god did create the world he would have also created homosexuals. Here ar some examples of homosexuality occuring in nature.

dolphins
bison
apes
elephants
giraffes
lions
sheep
hyenas
lizards
dragonflies
penguins
vultures
pigeons

Homosexuality most clealy occures in nature.

My opponent als provides a specfic verse from Matthew which he believes proves that the Bible intends for marriage to be exclusively heterosexual. He quotes Matthew 19: 4

Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female

My opponent obviously did not read the entire passage as Jesus was answering the question of a pharisee who asked if a man could divorce his wife. Jesus in this passage was simply answering the specifc question of whether or not a MAN could divorce his WIFE. Jesus did not say anything about the concept of who can marry who. He simply answered the specific question. My opponent did not provide the entire passage as he knew that his entire argument would fall apart if he had.

Vote Con
Contradiction

Pro

I thank Con for his most recent reply.

Con first argues that if procreation is the purpose marriage, then sterile or older couples cannot marry. In responding, we have to first note that this is completely irrelevant to the topic we're debating. The topic at hand is whether or not the Bible is against same-sex marriage, and not whether the procreation requirement makes sense or is a good definition. So Con's response here does nothing to respond to the argument that I employed.

Second, even though the whole issue is more or less irrelevant to this debate, having procreation as the telos of marriage does not preclude sterile or older couples from marrying. The Biblical definition of marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, regardless of whether or not they are procreative in effect. Indeed, the Bible never states that married couples must procreate -- the Old Testament marriage of Abraham and Sarah can be said to illustrate this.

Con then argues, as I quote, that "if procreation is the only requirement for marriage, then homosexuals may satisfy this requirement with in vitro fertilization or a male homosexual coupl [sic] having a womn carry their baby."

First, this argument has moved beyond the parameters of this debate. Pro is no longer addressing marriage as the Bible defines it, but its implications. I could grant, for the sake of argument, that the Biblical definition of marriage as being exclusively heterosexual is a horrible one (As Con argues), but that would do absolutely nothing to show that the Bible does not actually define marriage in this way. Hence, the debate is over what the definition is, not whether the definition is good or bad -- that a completely different issue.

But I do in fact think that the Biblical definition of marriage is a good one, and so for my second point I will deliver an a fortiori argument. Con argues that homosexual couples may satisfy the procreation requirement with artificial procedures such as IVF or surrogacy. However, this appeal does not work. As I have noted in my arguments in other debates:

Artificial insemination is only possible due to the prior fact that male-female complementarity is required for procreation. As David Orland writes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [1] Far from constituting an argument against my position, this actually hurts Con's argument, for the act of procreation is always heterosexual in type. Under the Biblical definition of marriage, homosexual couples cannot be married because sexual acts between two persons of the same gender are not reproductive in type. Homosexual reproduction is literally a contradiction in terms.

In regards to my argument from the normativity of creation, Con points to various examples where homosexuality has been observed in nature. But this demonstrates an utter misunderstanding of my argument. The argument I advanced was based on notions of NORMATIVITY, which is how things ought to function. For example, the normative purpose of the heart is to pump blood. That is what hearts ought to do. The fact that there exists hearts which don't pump blood or don't work at all does nothing to detract from this. Thus, the argument I am offering is not an argument from function, but PROPER FUNCTION.

Notice that in the normativity argument, I appealed to God's having created the world and seeing that it was "good." "Good" refers to God's original design plan for sex in nature, which is explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1 as being for procreation. Homosexuality is a deviation from this design plan and thus does not constitute in any way a counterexample against the normativity argument.

In regards to the verse I offered from Matthew, Con charges that said verse was actually referring to divorce. Indeed it was, but he completely missed the point of it. For Jesus, in responding to the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, presupposed heterosexual union as the proper plan for marriage in his mention of "male and female." Con completely fails to see this point.

In Conclusion

Con has consistently failed to respond to my various arguments for a heterosexual notion of marriage as being the Biblical definition. Rather, Con has continually drifted off topic into issues that are not germane to this debate. Remember, the issue being debated here is the Biblical definition of marriage.

That is, we are asking what the Bible defines marriage as. What is NOT at issue here is whether that definition is a good or bad one, although I think that it is the former.

I thank Con for the time he has taken to participate in this debate, and I hereby urge that any rational voter issue a vote for Pro.

Thank you.

_____________________

[1] -- http://www.boundless.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Contradiction 2 years ago
Contradiction
I like how another person changed their vote to tip the scale.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 2 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I didn't change my vote until after whoever changed theirs. I originally had conduct tied but if someone else isn't going to explain their vote, then I'm going to balance them out.
Posted by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
I know right. ReformedArsenal is always doing that to my debates.
Posted by Contradiction 2 years ago
Contradiction
What's with the vote change to tip the scale? Why did you award him conduct points?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 2 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Social I would really love to debate this with you. I feel like Contradiction did a wonderful job, but there are many more areas that can be touched on.
Posted by Contradiction 2 years ago
Contradiction
Cool, but what about the arguments I presented?
Posted by mvpbob 2 years ago
mvpbob
I agree with pinko and im straight. theres nothing wrong with it.
Posted by Contradiction 2 years ago
Contradiction
Anarcholibertyman must have completely neglected my last response to Con, not to mention the debate resolution.
Posted by Contradiction 2 years ago
Contradiction
Now that this debate has ended, I urge any voters to read the arguments presented *carefully* before voting on preconceived notions of who must be right.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 2 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You are misreading this passage. The sin offering is not for the discharge, she is to give the sin offering for her sins, not for the menstrual discharge. She is unable to go in and do it because of the ritual impurity of the discharge, but after she is cleansed she is to wait eight days to go offer her sin offering.

Verse 28 - But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.

It is after she is already clean that she is to go offer the sin offering (because she hasn't been able to for the time of her menstrual discharge).

Pigs themselves were ritually unclean (they could not be sacrifices, you would be made ritually unclean simply by touching them). It is sinful not because they are unclean animals, rather it is sinful because God says not to eat them. God does not tell women not to have their menstrual cycle. The two are not congruous.

Honestly dude, what kind of exegetical training do you have if you're not aware of these BASIC principles of the sacrificial system/OT Law? That's a serious question even though I'm sure it sounds condescending.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 2 years ago
Dimmitri.C
socialpinkoContradictionTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is engaging a well established and irrefutable tenet of Biblical theology. Pro wins by result of argumentation, conduct, arguments provided and reliability of sources.
Vote Placed by BruteApologia 2 years ago
BruteApologia
socialpinkoContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, Con was a bit unclear and did not confront the passages as much as I would've liked but instead deviated from the discussion. Pro justified his interpretation and as a nice bonus, showed how it is sensical to think that marriage is procreative in type.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 2 years ago
bradshaw93
socialpinkoContradictionTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets sources and conduct as Pro basically tried to distort a passage to fit his argument. Good catch by Con on that one. I also found a few spelling errors made by Pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 2 years ago
ReformedArsenal
socialpinkoContradictionTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a solid point that the Bible illustrates how marriage SHOULD be, and by converse illustrates how it shouldn't be. If God INTENDS marriage to be male/female, then he does not INTEND it to be male/male or female/female.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 2 years ago
anarcholibertyman
socialpinkoContradictionTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument about procreation completely falls apart when taking into account in vitro fertilization and his argument that homosexuality is not normative fell apart when con showed the many animals which show homosexual behavior in nature. I also gave sources to con as he used pros against him in the last round.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 2 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
socialpinkoContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved their point in round one with Genesis 2:23-24, and Con just didn't argue what he framed the debate to be. And with each successive round, I felt Pro proved their point more eloquently. I feel like Pro could have found a better verse as argument basis; such as in 1Corinthians, but they did well with what they used.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 2 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoContradictionTied
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: This was interesting as Con refuted Pro very weakly and for the most part skated around the argument. It is one of the weakest performances by Con recently, very strong and direct argument by Pro. Con should have attacked it and focused simply on the exclusivity of the logic, by finding another similar passage that is not interpreted to be so interpreted (i.e. not all men should act as it says in that reference).