Instigator / Pro
2
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4186
Oral sex between married couples male and female is not permitted or justified biblically.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1709
rating
565
debates
68.23%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The con side can provide scripture to support their position but not necessarily. They can just challenge mine with an inquisition in an attempt to debunk it.
Questions concerning the topic, please leave them in the comments.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I'll start with Genesis 1 at verse 24.
"24 And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind".
Ok how ?
"28 And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth".
So God had it so all these creatures brought forth to produce after their kind.
They were given the ability to do so as the scripture says "and it is so".
To not do so is to be disobedient.
We go further in Genesis to chapter 38 about a man's disobedience.
In verse 8, "And Judah saith to Onan, `Go in unto the wife of thy brother, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother;'
9 and Onan knoweth that the seed is not [reckoned] his; and it hath come to pass, if he hath gone in unto his brother's wife, that he hath destroyed [it] to the earth, so as not to give seed to his brother;
10 and that which he hath done is evil in the eyes of Jehovah, and He putteth him also to death."
Put the death what he done. It was evil.
Like those who are doing what's evil in Romans 1.
"28 And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly;
29 having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoredom, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil dispositions; whisperers,
30 evil-speakers, God-haters, insulting, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things".
This brings out the wrath of God. Of course this likewise equates to death.
"32 who the righteous judgment of God having known -- that those practising such things are worthy of death -- not only do them, but also have delight with those practising them."
Now what do all these passages have in common?
How can they be tied in line upon line?
Good questions, I'm glad they were asked.
Starting from Genesis through Romans, the context concerns the male , female, male and female, the male and female.
The book of Genesis chapter 1 I provided talks about male and female. Chapter 38 of that book, mentions a man which is a male and a woman which was the female the male was supposed to go in unto or into.
The book of Romans, likewise, the male and female.
The second or next line, the evil that was done which connects Romans and Genesis 38 which we know Genesis 1 sets the standard for those two accounts.
See, why is it evil? It's because it's unrighteous. Why is it unrighteous?
It's ungodly, it's not of God, not approved of God. What's approved of God is disapproved by those that meets God's disapproval.
God gave them up to a disapproved mind.
See we start with God telling the male to be fruitful and multiply. Being disobedient to that are those leaving the use , changing the use of themselves as mentioned of the males and females in Romans 1.
Likewise in Genesis 38 the man was disobedient to the same cause.
So by keeping the use , staying with the use of the male and female, the male and female is obedient to being fruitful , multiplying.
In turn which would cut out oral sex, withdrawal and any other sex act used to serve the creature, not the Creator.
You can't serve the Creator denying Him through works at once. Can't serve two masters.
Now the Bible gives no ground for unmarried folk so the only ones justified to be fruitful are the married male and female as indicated in Genesis.
Con
#2
I agree that sex acts outside of marriage are condemned in the Bible.
I disagree that a healthily reproducing married man and woman cannot enjoy oral sex and be good Christians, so long as they do try to reproduce and have a family
Round 2
Pro
#3
I see comments made about homosexuality in the bible and the Bible mentions nothing on oral sex.
But what is the precept? Line upon line what is the Bible condoning?
It condones the use of the female and male established in Genesis. When you leave the use of the female and male , that's what is not being condoned.
How does this include oral sex? Next question, why is homosexuality condemned?
It has to do with the use of the woman and man. See if we just go with the argument that the scripture doesn't speak on something so therefore it's justified, we'd run into a lot of problems.
There are many things the scripture doesn't specifically state but line upon line, there is a biblical conclusion that is reached.
But I digress in regards to addressing the comments.
Back to the con side here.
A couple of things I wanted to point out. You can have your disagreements but does the scripture support my position or yours?
Do you have scripture that supports oral sex inside of a married male and female?
Has the scripture I provided not rule out any use of the man and woman besides what they were created as a whole to do?
Another thing you said was a family can be produced while oral sex is occuring. That's contradictory.
In Titus 1 in verse 16 "They profess to know God, but they deny [Him] by their works, being abominable, and disobedient, and disapproved to every good work."
A man and woman trying to produce a family and doing oral sex is to go backwards. Created to be fruitful then defying that serving the creature and the creature's pleasures. That's all it really is in a nutshell.
You can't produce a family with oral sex. Every time you deny fruitfulness to take time out on oral sex, you're leaving the use . The creator that created the parts to you to be fruitful that are being denied would be to deny Him which would be abominable, disobedient as conveyed in Romans 1 and Leviticus 18.
Those are the precepts line upon line. All of these things fall under a man leaving the use of a woman and woman leaving that of a man. Which this falls under unrighteousness and ungodliness as it is not of God , the Creator in which He is righteous. So to leave the use behind which that use was created, would not be serving the Creator. It be denying the Creator, serving yourself the creature.
Con
#4
No, I don't understand your point whatsoever. If the Bible doesn't explicitly rule out something, we can assume it's biblically permitted, we wouldn't assume it's biblically prohibited.
The Bible does not in any shape or form tell you that you need to be reproducing at any given opportunity. If anything it insists firstly that to do so outside of a patiently awaited marriage is a mortal sin. If a man or a woman paints, does exercise, eats food, relaxes or any such thing, it is not a sin just because at that minute they could be impregnating or impregnated. Furthermore, by your very own logic what is the man and woman to do while the wife is pregnant? What if a pregnant wife and her husband engage in oral sex, what could you possibly argue then?
Round 3
Pro
#5
"If the Bible doesn't explicitly rule out something, we can assume it's biblically permitted, we wouldn't assume it's biblically prohibited."
There's a number of problems with this. One, by what standard?
Two, it's a double standard.
The Bible doesn't specifically state you can't slap your mother. Your mother feels disrespect when you do such a thing. The Bible when read line upon line will give the answer to what is permitted because the Bible will give an answer. There's nothing new under the sun.
Here a little, there a little, line upon line , precept upon precept as those mentioned in the comments.
The Bible doesn't state in clear language that I can't deal in hazardous narcotics on Alumni Blvd. See if we just go by the argument of silence which is a fallacy, we're in conflict with the scripture regarding harm.
There are many things including this topic you have to rightly divide the scriptures on.
"The Bible does not in any shape or form tell you that you need to be reproducing at any given opportunity."
It gives the shape "fruitful " and form "multiply " in Genesis 1.
"If anything it insists firstly that to do so outside of a patiently awaited marriage is a mortal sin."
Please rephrase this statement. I don't understand if it's something besides the point of the topic or possibly something that just contradicted your previous statement.
"If a man or a woman paints, does exercise, eats food, relaxes or any such thing, it is not a sin just because at that minute they could be impregnating or impregnated. "
I take this as a question but it was cut off with a period. Those examples are not sin depending on what those things are serving. It may help you to let scripture do your refutation efforts. Scripture says do ALL to the glory of God. So the man and woman is to serve the Creator. So each one of those activities you have to ask, is God getting the glory out of it? When the man is leaving the use of a woman in which God had created, is God getting the glory? This is where unrighteousness comes in which is no less than sin and is not justified.
"Furthermore, by your very own logic what is the man and woman to do while the wife is pregnant? "
.
You really have to know and understand scripture. I mean really, you have to understand scripture. Otherwise you wouldn't even be bringing up "your very own logic ". Everything I'm giving is scripture.
I notice all your points are your thoughts but unless you can actually show that scripture is not supporting my position, you'd have to yield and concede.
"What if a pregnant wife and her husband engage in oral sex, what could you possibly argue then?"
Yes see you have all these questions because your not really sure what to make of the scripture on this. So you're looking for something to walk you through it. All the answers are in that book. You just have to know it.
I don't want to go in circles either .
These answers were given in the last round. So your next question should either be with elaboration or a " what do you mean by that?".
"A man and woman trying to produce a family and doing oral sex is to go backwards. Created to be fruitful then defying that serving the creature and the creature's pleasures."
"You can't produce a family with oral sex. Every time you deny fruitfulness to take time out on oral sex, you're leaving the use ."
You're not serving the Creator by leaving the use He created. Do you follow? The creature is serving the creature.
The use was created with the creation of male and female. The fruit(work of the use) of multiplying (the practice of that work) is left, forsaken, denied, defied, not to the glory of God. Taking that use, doing something else with it is not of God, it's ungodliness, it's unrighteous, it's not just so therefore not biblically justified.
Round 4
Round 5
Pro
#9
In conclusion the Bible is not explicit on this topic as well as other things. But making assumptions according to personal thoughts is wrong.
Mainly because the thoughts are obviously other people's thoughts and can't be accounted for biblically.
So line upon line we know biblically that the male and female was created according to Genesis 1. In that chapter there are not explicit elaborations of all the functions of the male and female. But in that chapter the male and female as well as other creatures are told to do something. Something that would be in there created ability to do.
As we move forward in Romans 1, we read more about the Creator and creature. This time it's explicitly noted about the use applying the term "use".
That "use" was created along with the creation of the creature. So all this conveys the denial and disobedience of what the Creator say do with the use in the context of disobedience. Calling it serving the creature as it's not possible to be serving the Creator you're disobedient to.
So starting from Genesis 1 , being fruitful in multiplying is a created use but can be swapped or exchanged , leaving the use of that for oral sex and any act not fruitful in multiplying.
Con
#10
God default permits things in the Bible. If it isn't outruled specifically and only premarital intimacy is taboo, it follows that a husband and wife can pleasure each other as they want, especially as oral sex doesn't take away from the ability to reproduce...
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
I voted for Mall since his conduct was better and the arguments laid out better than RM. Rm had forfeited multiple rounds and his come back were the same thing over and over. I feel that Mall's arguments were weak since he did not bring to light any scriptural reference specifically noting oral sex. It was all in reference to sexual immorality, which would be done outside of marriage.
Although I do not agree with Mall on this issue, I feel he did win the debate as debate standards go.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments were a tie. I don't think RM's point about no specific prohibition was quite addressed, but Mall had a lot of circumstantial evidence that was never addressed due to RM's forfeits. Mall's arguments weren't great, but RM dropped most of them and just repeated what he said earlier (which, to be fair, wasn't really countered either). Conduct breaks the tie in favor of Pro.
who are you talking to?
"I'm about to go on a walk"
"Oh no, you can't."
"Why?"
"It's not glorifying the lord."
There's so many ways to counter some of your arguments i'm surprised holes weren't put through your argument.
rm left website so he forfeits.
romans 1 in its context is talking about people who disobey God, homosexuality especially.
onan basically had sex with tamar and ejaculated on the ground instead of her. he hated his brother by not giving children and tamar by using her body for just sexual pleasure.
when a man or woman is married, scripture specifically says 1 corinthians 7:4-5,33
and ephesians 5:20-33
so if the woman is pleased by giving oral sex, or the man is pleased by giving oral sex. no wrong is done, they are in covenant with each other by God who makes them 1 flesh.
i mean, technically scripture doesnt even mention oral sex. you have to impose a precept that you think deals with it.
if you think its used sinfully then verses about it will be used, however the covenant of marriage is bound in THIS precept. the husband loves the wife and his body is for her and the wife the husband.
but assuming the relationship isnt marriage, then all forms of sexual acts fall under fornication or unlawful contact.