The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

A homosexual person cannot be Christian.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
JasperFrancisShickadance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 61610
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

No 1st round acceptance. Con must rebut and prove how homosexuality is ok for people to do but most importantly how gays can be Christians. I, pro, will attempt to prove how gay marriage is wrong and God doesn't agree with it, and I will rebut Con's statements such as 'why would God create us if he tells us that homosexuals is wrong,' etc. Gay marriage will never be moral nor correct. Even if people think they love the same sex, nobody can be sure that it's not a sin. In the beginning God made Pandas with strong, sharp teeth yet they were not carnivorous, and it's the opposite with other types of animals who started vegetarian and--after Adam and Eve disobeyed God--they became meat-eaters. This proves it was possible that He made humans (as the Bible says, 'to reproduce: man and woman') and then sin entered the world and people started getting the sense of homosexuality: we now call these people gay, and the general society is quite proud of these people.

I'd like to see a committed debater step right up. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN.
Commondebator

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Well, I said no first round acceptance, but I withstand my position furthermore. Thank you for accepting, Commondebator.

Let's get some things straight - (do NOT take that the way I think you will)! Hebrews 13:4 says "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage be be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." This means that God is perfectly fine with marriage, but the immoral parts in it will be judged by the one who created marriage. If a Christian believes in (God's) Word, or surely they believe the simple sections, they know that God invented marriage itself. I always say that, after all, the Bible is the only easy communication conveyance from Him to us, and if we do not trust that then why do we trust God at all? Therefore we must take the Bible seriously and it should be trusted by all who believe in Jesus.

Secondly you must remember (and I hope you agree, if you yourself are a Christian) that God loves sinners but hates and condemns the sin. It is not necessarily our fault that we were born with that sinful nature and we aren't perfect. But you also need to consider very carefully realizing how if we know God says homosexuality is part of our sinful nature (a sin) and we ignore it, than we are ignoring how God designed and wants us to be.

As Christians...

1) we accept that God's Word is the truth
2) we realize what God says about homosexuality
3) we either predominantly choose to go against 1 and 2 or with them

But if we decide to disagree with 1&2, are we really Christians? If you believe that the Bible is God's Word yet keep practicing homosexuality, you are not going with God's plan by not seeking forgiveness (if you are, you're not trying to be forgiven because you are still doing the sin). [4] You might believe in God but do you truly believe that He's a tri-une God (Trinity)? If that's the case than you are a theist, not a Christian. This is mainly why I say a homosexual contradicts the Christian values and morality.

Matthew 19:2-9 says "And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." [1]
This is not only testimony to what Jesus said about divorcing, but also how 'from the very start of humankind God made them male and female,' and that the only reason for marriage at that time was because of love between a man and woman. In that time, they would most likely start a family--and the marriage commitment was larger because of that. Nowadays teens are having sex outside of marriage, marriage is out of plain love not dedication, and most people do NOT believe the two of you will become one once you are married. The list goes on.

Genesis unveils marriage God"s way. Perceiving man"s need of a loving companion, God decreed, "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). So He pronounced His plan: "I will make him an help fit for him" (2:18). God first prepared the man for his wife, creating a deficiency only she could fill: "The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and"took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh" (2:21). Then He prepared the wife for her man, carefully forming her to be "meet" (2:18), or "suitable" and "just right", for him in every way: "The rib"made he a woman" (2:22). Afterwards He presented the wife to her man: "And brought her unto the man" (2:22). Delighted, man proclaimed God"s provision perfect: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2:23). The first couple then adapted to their new living arrangement: "They were both naked"and were not ashamed" (2:25). Satisfaction and children followed. This was marriage God"s way. It was heterosexual, not homosexual; monogamous, not polygamous; lifelong, not temporary. It was pure, without adultery; faithful, without abandonment; loving, without abuse. It was also fruitful, not futile, fulfilling God"s primary purpose: "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). [2]

Finally, Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." This proves it is contradictory to believe the Bible is God's Word (be a Christian) AND practice homosexuality. [3]

God says gay marriage is sin. God hates sin. Therefore you cannot love God if you love sin.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.openbible.info...

[2] http://www.charismamag.com...

[3] http://christianity.about.com...

[4] http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
Commondebator

Con

Terribly sorry sir/madam!

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"-John 3:16

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved"-Romans 10:9-10

" And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."-Acts 16:13

Sources: http://biblia.com...
http://biblia.com...
http://biblia.com...

I would like to point out that, sinners can be repented and granted eternal life, if they believe in Jesus. Will a benevolent god, who understands every action that you take, really send you to hell, based on your sexual orientation? What you mean is, god will forget about that how much of a good person you are, that you devoted your life to Jesus, yet based on your sexual orientation, a benevolent god will forget all of those things? If you say that gays chose to be gay, why would they exactly chose to be gay? What I mean is, they will be bashed on, and called names, if they are christian and gay. How will they chose to be gay, when they know the outcome?

The last part to my statement has no solid evidence. I shall present them in the following paragraph.

In 1993, a study published that two gay brothers are very likely to have to have a certain genetic marker on the X chromosome known as the Xq28. This led to the possibility of a "gay gene."

Source-http://www.sciencemag.org...

The brain can also be a factor of sexual orientation.

A study in 2001 showed that INAH3 (the anterior hypothalamus of the brain) has more closely packed neurons in gay men than straight men. (Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com...)

PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the brain of gay people are symmetrical than straight people. These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalae of gay men resemble those of straight women. The amygdalae has many receptors for sex hormones and along with processing emotions.
(Source: http://www.pnas.org...)

Based on those studies, it is very likely that people don't "chose" to be gay. If it is a based a mentally, or genetics, problem (of which the gay person has no control of) how is it wrong for them? How is it immoral?

Lets say that some people do chose to be gay. You said in your opening statement that I have to argue how homosexuality is moral. If they chose to be gay, how is it immoral? I have a strong feeling that you believe that it is immoral just because a ancient religious book says so? (Please correct me on that one). It also says that sinners can repent their sins, if they believe in Jesus. We can debate the reliability of the Bible in another subject. Since your title says that gay people cannot be Christian, I won't go on accusing the Bible.

Definition of moral: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Thank you for your reply. Back to you pro.
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Now this round will be all rebuttals.

"I would like to point out that, sinners can be repented and granted eternal life, if they believe in Jesus. Will a benevolent god, who understands every action that you take, really send you to hell, based on your sexual orientation?"
A sinner is not repenting if they say sorry to God but keep sinning. God says gay marriage is sin, right? So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin. I get this off of the Bible. But where else would I get it from? Trust me, God doesn't WANT to send anybody to Hell, but we live in a world of free will and we have a choice to serve Him and repent (correctly), or serve the world and ignore Him. You cannot go to Heaven just because you think homosexuality isn't a sin and you "repented." http://www.scripturessay.com...

"...god will forget about that how much of a good person you are, that you devoted your life to Jesus, yet based on your sexual orientation, a benevolent god will forget all of those things?" You are not a "good" person in God's eyes if you are purposefully sinning. You did not devote your life to Jesus if your lifestyle is against what Jesus said.

"If you say that gays chose to be gay, why would they exactly chose to be gay?" OK...well I don't think people who come out gay think it's a bad thing themselves. But I ask you then, why would they want to be Christian if they know what the outcome will be? Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken. http://www.thepartyofchoice.com...

"If they chose to be gay, how is it immoral? I have a strong feeling that you believe that it is immoral just because a ancient religious book says so?"
Yes. But it's not just an ancient book, and I've been stressing this throughout the debate multiple times. I will do it again: the Bible is the Christian's guide to life. Without it, we are making our faith' into a 'blind faith,' and we have no understanding of who/what God is. If we do not trust the Bible than can we truly trust God? Then we must converse about immorality. Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other. This is why you have to decide if you want to be Christian or keep living "gay." As a Christian you believe that God created us, but how'd you learn that? The Bible. And guess what? In the Bible God says that homosexuality is an abomination or detestable sin. It's a trap that keeps coming back to the Bible.

Thank you for taking this debate seriously and not getting carried away on other topics! I admire your philosophical attack in most of these subjects.

This concludes my behalf for Round 3.
Commondebator

Con

"So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin."

I thought we were all sinners? We were born sinners? Like I said before, being homosexual is not always a choice. In order to be religious all you have to do is believe in a organized belief structurer and believe in god(s). Based on the definition of religion at least. I assume you believe god created us all? Well, as studies show, (I stated them in my previous round) gay people don't always chose to be gay. Why did god create gay people like that? Why did god create mankind to be gay? Its not always because they chose to be gay. They had no choice of their sexual orientation in the first place.

" Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken."

Actually, as the title states, it is "A homosexual person cannot be Christian." It has nothing to do with marriage. Yes, marrying gay is a choice. Your biological sexual orientation is not always a choice.

"Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other."

Well, there are many things that are immoral in god's eyes, yet they are still considered Christian.

"There are six things the Lord hate seven that are detestable to him haughty eyes lying tongue,hands that shed innocent blood heart that devises wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community"-Proverbs 6:16-19

Lets face it. No one in human history has never told a lie. It is a child's motivation to lie, to escape punishment. A study asked two people to talk to each other for ten minutes. After the tape rolled, they were surprised how many little lies came out. (http://curiosity.discovery.com...)

How exactly can you blame the gay person because of their sexual orientation, when they don't always have a choice? (Based on the studies i presented in my previous round).

Thank you for your reply! I too enjoy this debate immensely, and am impressed with tour arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

"I thought we were all sinners? We were born sinners? Like I said before, being homosexual is not always a choice. In order to be religious all you have to do is believe in a organized belief structurer and believe in god(s). Based on the definition of religion at least."

"I assume you believe god created us all? Well, as studies show, (I stated them in my previous round) gay people don't always chose to be gay. Why did god create gay people like that? Why did god create mankind to be gay? Its not always because they chose to be gay. They had no choice of their sexual orientation in the first place."
I am going to attempt to refute that statement - you saying that homosexuality is a choice, since it has become so prevalent in this debate.

#1. Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true. The fact that the "born this way" hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn"t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic. That would be interesting. But still, it wouldn"t make the idea true.

#2. The science is wrong. Though many people--like my opponent--seem persistent in saying 'the evidence and observations all proves that being gay is not a choice...' etc., show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let"s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a "masculine" hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call "male-pattern hands." The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a "fetal androgyn wash" in the womb"that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and" attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is "masculine" (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women.
http://socialinqueery.files.wordpress.com...
The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature"s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way.

#3. Science is wrong (again). First, to say that "being gay" is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by "gay," then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato"s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman"s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble"like feminism, and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and "bad blood." Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains. Is it possible that people who identify themselves as "gay" in the United States (again, keep in mind that "gay" is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren"t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. So, at the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination.

#4. Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual. There are many things I have felt or done for as long as I can remember. I have always loved drawing feet and shoes. I have always craved cheddar cheese. Etc. etc., but was I born with a desire to eat cheddar cheese or make drawings of feet? Are these desires that can be identified somewhere in my body, like on one of my genes? It would be hard to make these claims, because I could have been born and raised in China, let"s say, where cheddar cheese is basically non-existent and would not have been part of my life. And while I may have been born with some general artistic potential, surely our genetic material is not so specific as to determine that I would love to draw platform shoes. The point here is that what we desire in childhood is far more complex and multifaceted than the biological sciences can account for, and this goes for our sexual desires as well.

#5. Last but not least: Secretly, you already know that people"s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context. Lots of adults worry that if we allow little boys to wear princess dresses and paint their nails with polish, they might later be more inclined to be gay. Similarly, many people worry that if young women are introduced to feminism in college, and if they become too angry or independent, they may just decide to be lesbians. But if we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital"or present at birth"then no one would ever worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces.

http://socialinqueery.com...

"Well, there are many things that are immoral in god's eyes, yet they are still considered Christian."
Give me an example and show me how they are Christian. If you are considered Christian it doesn't mean you're truly Christian.

"No one in human history has never told a lie. It is a child's motivation to lie, to escape punishment. A study asked two people to talk to each other for ten minutes. ...They were surprised how many little lies came out." Lying is a sin and it is part of our nature. It is something that Jesus forgives and paid the price for. Homosexuality is a lifestyle PLUS a sin PLUS immoral according to our Creator, and we must try our best to respect God's laws and be moral. Thus a gay Christian is a contradiction.

I am finished! Thankyou for the good debate.
Commondebator

Con

I do agree with what you said about the study presented in 2000. However, I fail to see how disproving the fact that the amount of "male hormone" in your body, disprove genetics, and the brain that is responsible for sexual orientation. For an example, the amygdalae that is responsible for controlling emotions, arousal, creating emotions for memory, and controlling sex hormones is found quite similar to females in gay men. In the tests they have done, the number of gay people seem to have a very similar amygdalae to women.

http://www.pnas.org...

Being gay, can be largely based on genetics. First, there may be genetic foundations for homosexuality. J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, for example, discovered that 52% of the identical twins of male homosexuals were also homosexual, compared to only 22% of non-identical twins. Likewise, they found that if one identical twin is lesbian, in almost 50% of the cases studied, the other twin is lesbian as well, in comparison to 16% of the non-identical twins.

" If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by "gay," then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato"s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? "

Homosexuals do have children, but at a considerably lower rate than do heterosexuals. So why hasn't it "evolved out" of us? There are a number of possibilities, but the most obvious one is that the genes responsible for sexual orientation are similar to those simpler genes that account for sickle-cell anemia: If you have a sickle-cell gene from mom and a sickle-cell gene from dad, then you will get sickle-cell anemia, a deadly disease. But the sickle-cell gene remains a part of the population because, if you only have one of them you will be more resistant to malaria.

http://webspace.ship.edu...

"Secretly, you already know that people"s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context."

I fail to see any evidence based on that. When in fact, humans are not the only animals that show behaviors of homosexuality.
Here is a list of fish, bird, and mammals that show homosexual traits.

Amazon molly
Bennett
Blackstripe topminnow
Bluegill Sunfish
Char
Grayling
European Bitterling
Green swordtail
Guiana leaffish
Houting Whitefish
Jewel Fish
Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)
Mouthbreeding Fish sp.
Salmon spp.
Southern platyfish
Ten-spined stickleback
Three-spined stickleback
Barn Owl
Chicken
Common Gull
Emu
King Penguin
Mallard
Raven
Seagull
Bison
Brown Bear
Brown Rat
Cavy
Caribou
Cat (domestic)
Cattle (domestic)
Chimpanzee
Common Dolphin
Common Marmoset
Dog
Elephant
Fox
Giraffe
Goat
Horse (domestic)
Human
Koala
Lion
Orca
Raccoon

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Give me an example and show me how they are Christian. If you are considered Christian it doesn't mean you're truly Christian."

Well, I am presuming you are Christian? There are about two billion Christians in the world, and like I presented before, none has never told a lie.

" It is something that Jesus forgives and paid the price for. Homosexuality is a lifestyle PLUS a sin PLUS immoral according to our Creator, and we must try our best to respect God's laws and be moral. Thus a gay Christian is a contradiction."

I don't see how if you lie, you can be forgiven (when god doesn't approve lying), and you can't be forgiven for being gay? Like I said before, in the study presented, the researchers were surprised how many times people lie in 10 minutes. How is lying not a life style? Lying is a way of life.

http://www.rense.com...

Definition of lifestyle: a particular way of living : the way a person lives or a group of people live

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Basically, you just proved my point.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
You make it sound like sin is exclusive to gays. The bible is often used to justifies bigoted and hateful behaviour, that does not make it right. Christians should admit that god of the bible never gives us the freedom to follow the commandments we like and neglect the rest. Nor does god tell us that we can relax the penalties he has imposed for breaking them. So do you kill gay people like your god says to? I think I know the answer. So why not? Failing to follow god's commands is a sin.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Yes. This is confusing.

The Bible also says that you must repent of your sins in order to receive the gift of life that God has promised to those who love him. If you love sin--God says that homosexuality is an iniquity--then how can you also love/believe in God/JC?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
like I said, christianity is not a club. "We don't TRY to exclude anyone" well you can't. All you need to do to be christian is believe in JC. All christians are guilty of sin, your god even gave you one to get things started. The most vile of humans can be christian is they believe. Religion Breeds Ignorance and Intolerance.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Missmedic, what if being homosexual contradicts with the Christian faith? We don't TRY to exclude anyone, but there are some limits. Read this debate for a better explanation.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Christianity is not a club any one can be a christian. Straight people, homosexual people, gullible people, delusional people and even crazy people. All you need to do is believe. Some people take their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
@1Credo, I never said there was a conflict between being a non-practicing homosexual and a Christian.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
Though I can see the reasoning for thinking that a practicing homosexual cannot be Christian, I see no justification for the idea of conflict between a non-practicing homosexual and Christianity. I think that idea is a huge distortion of what Christ taught.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Now we have another sex category. Pansexual.And being roman catholic means that you will do anything you feel like doing. Not guided by a higher law, the scriptures.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
I'd like to throw out there that I'm pansexual and I'm Roman Catholic.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by godsnumberis7 2 years ago
godsnumberis7
JasperFrancisShickadanceCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: overall this was a good debate but I think that pro won because she used more reliable sources and her spelling and grammer was better than comondebater. The arguments would be a tie though since they both had good arguments
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
JasperFrancisShickadanceCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill BOP. Con made an excellent point in showing that there is nothing wrong with sexual orientation (the conflict with Christianity would be in the practice, not in the orientation.)
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JasperFrancisShickadanceCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: having better arguments fails to justify hawkeye's other 4 points
Vote Placed by Hawkeye117 2 years ago
Hawkeye117
JasperFrancisShickadanceCommondebatorTied
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 was able to bring out his ideas and show views and bring up logical arguments compared to pro
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
JasperFrancisShickadanceCommondebatorTied
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: Both went completely off topic after Round 2,but pro already fulfilled her burden of proof in the second round by citing Scriptures condemning homosexuality. Con posted irrelevant information that had nothing to do with the definition of a Christian. Con was also disrespectful towards pro's beliefs by calling it ancient as if to belittle them.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
JasperFrancisShickadanceCommondebatorTied
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: In the scope of this debate, the Instigator did not satisfy their premise to over come Con's hole punchings of the case, or in my opinion, relate/rule out why desired scriptural abominations should be held as mortal an unforgiveable, but others can.