The Bible and God disagrees with Gay Marriage

You brought up your conversation with a friend on this site, about gay marriage, and tried to make it sound like divorces wouldn't go up with legalization on same-sex marriage. Your friend proposed that the divorce courts would be full, and actually, I had that thought a long time ago too, and I was going to bring it up on this debate so here we are! First of all, we both have assumed too much causing fallacies to be broken, as neither of us know if divorce rates will go up or not within the next few years of this legalization. Second, to prove my original point (according to the title of this debate) God and the Bible don't agree with divorcing either, so that in the first place is a sin. You'll probably bring up the fact that a lot of Christians divorce their spouses, and trust me, I don't agree with that at all and there is no justification for that. But if gay marriage promotes more divorces, that just goes more against what God wants for our world. Even using atheistic views and plain common sense, we'd all agree that divorces cause corruption and our goal is peace. "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 [1] 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') ABOMINATION 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. [2] 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. [3] 3 COMMON SENSE 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! SOURCES. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... 1 [2] http://carm.org... [3] http://www.charismanews.com...