AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage
Debate Rounds (5)
We know that God is a "just" God according to the Bible so he would not make a law or rule for one person and not another. These people are clearly born this way and through no fault of their own, are forced to deal with this dilemma.
My opponent's debate proposition is absurd. The existence of AIS intersex individuals does not in any way establish God's stance on gay marriage, any more than the existence of people born without limbs would establish God is fine with you lopping off your right arm or the existence of the black widow spider justifies spousal cannibalism.
AIS intersex is, for all intesive purposes, a birth defect - that's not to be rude to people with this syndrome, it is simply stating the fact. Birth defects are abnormalities - in other words, they aren't normal in comparison to the population. Many religions take exceptions for individuals with birth defects or situations diferent than the average person - for example, in Islam the pilgramage to Mecca - the Haji - is considered mandatory for all able-bodied Muslims of financial means, but those who are not able-bodied or lack the financial means to attend are not obligated to attend, while in Judaism (the basis for almost all religious opposition to gay marriage) virtually the entire Torah, except for bans on blasphemy and murder, can be overriden if following it would result in risk to human life. One could easily argue that AIS intersex individuals would fall under a similar exemption, as, at the time the law was written, it would be difficult to impossible for the individual to know their true gender. Another argument one could make is these individuals are called to celibacy. Another answer could be God doesn't exist. But regardless, in no logical way does the existence of these individuals justify gay marriage, especially since the religious texts of all three major montheistic religions condemn homosexual acts and, by extension, gay marriage. To assume the only answer to this issue is "God approves of gay marriage" is folly.
"The existence of AIS intersex individuals does not in any way establish God's stance on gay marriage, any more than the existence of people born without limbs would establish God is fine with you lopping off your right arm or the existence of the black widow spider justifies spousal cannibalism."
The subject here is AIS intersex people. Your examples make no sense in light of this topic at all. "Lopping off your right arm" would be a choice one would make. One could argue that God is not fine with CHOICES people make. The second "example" you gave is even more ludicrous. First of all, murder is a sin because according to Galatians 5:14, "The entire law is summed up in this one; love your neighbor as you love yourself". Eating one's spouse would not be a very "loving" thing to do. Furthermore, insects are not equal to humans, so your logic escapes me.. AIS people are born with that condition through no fault of their own.
For this debate, I am not interested in what other religions think or believe. That would be an infinite amount of ground to cover. Your previous arguments of "exceptions to the rule" have no barring on this topic. I'm am only interested in what the Bible has to say and how a Christian sustains the contradiction of "God only made man and woman", when clearly, AIS intersex people exist. They are born with characteristics of BOTH sexes.
"One could easily argue that AIS intersex individuals would fall under a similar exemption, as, at the time the law was written, it would be difficult to impossible for the individual to know their true gender."
According to the Bible, God does not change and therefore, neither do His words. Malachi 3:6, ""I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." Furthermore, as I already stated, God is a "JUST" God. 2 Thessalonians 1:6, "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you." You would need to explain how someone that is born with a birth defect needs to follow different laws (celibacy) when they did nothing wrong to begin with. Again, these people are BORN this way. What scriptural evidence do you have that they must remain celibate? You also would be telling these people that they will never be able to have a romantic relationship for their entire lives. That means, they can't fall in love, kiss, have sex, date, or go to the prom with someone they are attracted to and have feelings for. They CAN, however, live alone, go home to an empty house, crawl into an empty bed, and fall asleep in their own arms because of the way they were born??? Explain God's justice here, please.
If God only created male and female like most Christians love to say he did, they still need to explain why he made intersex people. It does not matter if it is the result of a birth defect or not, the fact of the matter is, they are here. This condition contradicts the Conservative Christian view that God only made man for woman and woman for man. Who did He make intersex people for?
Your whole argument is based on GENDER. In other words, you argue that if one is born a woman (GENDER) they should be with a man( GENDER). If one is born a man (GENDER), they should be with a woman (GENDER). If you are BORN as 2 genders, then your argument completely falls apart. They will technically be gay and straight at the same time because they are both sexes.
To begin, I strongly object to my opponent attempting to retroactively define his definition of 'God'. He did not specifically define 'God' in his opening arguments, and to do so now is unfair. If he wanted to define the definition of 'God', he should have done so when he started this debate instead of when he saw my argument. Even if we do accept his definition of 'God' as the Christian God, any reasonable definition of the Christian God would note the laws, commandments and precedents of Jewish law - which basically every Christian would agree God established for Israel during the Old Testament era.
My opponent has attempted to refute my argument that the existence of AIS individuals does not show God approves of gay marriage, in the same manner that the existence of those born without limbs does not show God approves of your cutting you right arm off, or that the existence of the black widow spider does not show God approves of spousal cannibalism. He actually fails pretty poorly in doing this on every point:
*First, he argues the three have nothing to do with each other. This is a dumb argument, given he is arguing a pre-existing condition (AIS) justifies an act (gay marriage). The two examples I noted are similar and use this exact same logic - being born without a right arm is a pre-existing condition that naturally occurs, so why doesn't it justify you lopping off your right arm? Black widow spiders naturally exist, so why doesn't this justify killing and eating your husband? He cannot refute this point because the resolution of this debate lends to these sorts of justifications.
*Second, he argues that cutting off your right arm would be a choice and God doesn't approve of all choices. Well, getting a gay marriage is a choice too! Are all gay people obligated to get married? Do gay people not have a choice on whether or not to get married?
*Third, he argues killing your spouse would be wrong because religious law forbids murder. Well, religious law also forbids homosexuality and gay marriage! You can't have it both ways here: how does the existence of AIS individuals demonstrate God's approval of gay marriage (despite the ban of it in religious law) any more than the existence of those born without limbs demonstrates God's approval of self-mutilation (despite the ban of it in religious law) or the existence of the black widow spider demonstrates God's approval of spousal murder (despite the ban of it in religious law)? The obvious answer here, of course, is that it simply does not.
In his second part of his rebuttal, my opponent doesn't actually rebut anything - he just rants about how unjust religious laws against gay marriage are to intersex people. He does not contest the existence of religious exemptions for disabled or unable individuals, and that such exemptions could exist for intersex individuals - he even quotes it! But then, he acts like my entire arguments revolves around them remaining celibate - despite the fact that he had just quoted where I argued these individuals might be exempt from religious law on marriage! Celibacy is simply one argument you could make, as is arguing the non-existence of God.
More confusingly, my opponent argues that God's law never changes and that God is just. If God's law never changes, we have the following logical progressions:
*God's law never changes.
*God's law bans homosexual sex and gay marriage.
*Therefore, God's laws on homosexual marriage and gay marriage will never change.
*God is just.
*God's law bans homosexual sex and gay marriage.
*Therefore, God's laws on homosexual sex and gay marriage are just.
My opponent is insisting this debate is predicated on the existence of the Christian God, and also specifically proves from Christian scripture that this God's law is eternal and is just. My opponent has just disproven his own argument: a just God making eternal laws would make just eternal laws. No just God would lie to his own people about his laws, so we can establish that God is telling the truth regarding homosexual sex and gay marriage. Ergo, God does not approve of gay marriage, his ban on it is just, and the existence of AIS intersex individuals do absolutely nothing to change that. By his own hand, my opponent has been defeated.
The fact is, my opponent's main argument has been utterly and completely refuted - in no way does the existence of AIS intersex individuals prove God's.
"My opponent has attempted to refute my argument that the existence of AIS individuals does not show God approves of gay marriage, in the same manner that the existence of those born without limbs does not show God approves of your cutting you right arm off."
You would need to show evidence that God does not approve of homosexuality in the first place. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Second, AIS hermaphrodites are tangible proof that people are born BOTH SEXES and since they will straight and GAY with anyone that they are with, it contradicts the position that God only made male and female. Again, your entire argument is based on GENDER. As for your quote above, I don't know if God approves of you cutting off your arm or not. I stand by my original answer and He obviously does not approve of all our choices. I would like to add, He has no problem with you removing the foreskin of a penis and I fail to see where the Bible condemns such a practice of cutting off one's arm. In fact, some would argue that Jesus encouraged it! Let's look at Matthew 5:30, shall we? "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
" Black widow spiders naturally exist, so why doesn't this justify killing and eating your husband? He cannot refute this point because the resolution of this debate lends to these sorts of justifications."
As I have already explained, we are not animals or insects. Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." I have never argued that ANYTHING found in nature is right in God's eyes. My opponent is attempting to put words in my mouth. His examples have nothing to do with what we are talking about. He has failed to show how they do, once again. Furthermore in Genesis 1:28, God shows that humans were above animals, "...Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
So let's review so far:
1) His arguments about cutting off limbs or black widow spiders prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as far as this debate goes. In fact, some would argue that Christ encouraged it.
2) My opponent blamed me for not understanding that I was talking about the Christian God of the Bible when I clearly mentioned God and the Bible in my opening statement.
3)My opponent has offered no scriptural evidence for his position of the subject of either homosexuality OR AIS individuals.
"He does not contest the existence of religious exemptions for disabled or unable individuals, and that such exemptions could exist for intersex individuals - he even quotes it!"
I don't contest religious exemptions for disabled or unable individuals, simply because you have not offered evidence that the exemptions exist in the first place. All you did is REFER to the Torah; that is not evidence. I need chapter and verse, please. By the way, what I quoted was a verse to prove that God is just; that's it. Once again, you are reading things that are not there. Go back and read the verses before you respond next time. You said that celibacy is "simple one argument you could make", however, you have not given a rebuttal to my reply that God would be going against His "just" nature. Furthermore, you would still need to explain what scriptural evidence you have to support that position. Your opinion does not matter in this debate. You would still need to show evidence of why God would make these people suffer by being without a mate because of the way they were born.
You listed 3 things in reference to God. The only one that I agree with you on is that God is "just" and I offered evidence. Galatians 5:14 makes it clear that God's laws HAVE changed, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." We do not live under the Old Testament laws anymore, Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Where in ANY of those verses is homosexuality mentioned?
Need more? I got more! Heb. 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
It is clear that my opponent lists opinions instead of evidence of his views. My opponent also never answered the following questions:
1) If your argument is based on position that God made male and female and they are only supposed to choose the opposite as a mate, who should intersex people choose?
2) What scriptural evidence do you have to support that they should remain celibate?
3) He never explained or offered scriptural evidence of why a "just" God would make one set of rules for on person and not another when they were born a certain way.
To summarize, there is simply no way around it, if God is so hung up on sexual orientation, why did He create people that were born as BOTH GENDERS??? If your entire argument is based on gender, in other words, you argue that if one is born a woman (GENDER) they should be with a man( GENDER). If one is born a man (GENDER), they should be with a woman (GENDER). If you are BORN as 2 genders, then your argument completely falls apart. They will technically be gay and straight at the same time because they are both sexes. Sorry to be repetitive, but my opponent never explained this contradiction.
I think it is very clear by this point my opponent should be docked any awarded conduct points. His debate strategy thus far has been insisting he defined this as only referring to the Christian God (by using the term 'Bible') despite never clarifying this and only using the generic term 'God', not 'God of the Bible' or 'Christian God'. My opponent should have indeed clarified which God he was referring to - in the first round of the debate. This is why definitions are so important. Beyond that, he has extended to personally insulting my knowledge of the Bible. I have no interest in quitting this debate because I don't quit debates.
First off, my opponent argues I need to prove the Bible disagrees of homosexuality. Aside from the fact that I already have in round 2, where already established with three different sources (one from Christianity, Judaism and Islam) ban homosexual relations, I present multiple verse that condemn it such as Leviticus 20:13 ("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.") Jude 1:7 ("Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.") and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ("Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."), as well as verses like 1 Corinthians 7:2, ("But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.") Romans 1:27 ("And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.") that make it clear homosexuality is considered unnatural. If my opponent honestly wants to suggest the Bible condones homosexuality, he must be reading a different Bible.
Bizarrely, my opponent than argues that hermaphrodites (I guess he's expanded to beyond AIS intersex folks?) are proof God didn't create us male and female, but in the very next paragraph he quotes a portion of the Bible that says God made us male and female. Well, which is it? Was God lying? If we are predicating this debate on the Christian God existing and him approving homosexuality, establishing him as a liar (which would contradict earlier points from my opponent) doesn't help that case at all.
After this, my opponent attempts to claim the Torah is not a reliable source because I didn't quote exactly. This is an absurd argument - I do not need to quote directly from the Torah. I have supplied a source that explains the principle, and if my opponent doesn't want to read it that's his fault. Beyond that he asserts I haven't given a response to his claim it would not be 'just' for God to have a rule against AIS intersex individuals not having sex and that my opinion doesn't matter. This is a ridiculous straw man ploy, as my opponent has ignored two arguments (intersex individuals may have an exception from this law, and God might not exist) I gave on this, arguing as if I gave only one, and further my opponent is arguing that AIS individuals being bound to celibacy isn't 'just'. What definition of 'just' is he going by? His own opinion. Even further he states God's law does indeed change (which runs contrary to what my opponent said in round 2, that God's word does not change) and thus the Bible must approve of homosexuality under my opponent's definition of 'just'. Aside from the fact that even in the New Testament homosexuality is condemned, quite frankly at this point my opponent has contradicted himself so many times it's hard to argue against him because his stance is constantly changing.
To conclude this round: my opponent has not established any sort of proof that the existence of AIS intersex individuals proves God endorses gay marriage. His arguments to this point have been contradictory, and have often gone into ranting or attacking me - not my stance. He has ignored key points of my argument and has done little to advance his own. He has been demanding I cite everything directly to scripture (even though there was no such precondition to this debate), including religious bans on homosexuality, even though I have already cited to scriptures that condemn homosexuality. He has contradictorily argued that I am arguing on my opinion, when he himself is basing his argument on his own definition of justice. It should be very clear at this point my opponent simply has no valid argument here - his resolution has been disproved.
As for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we must understand that the Bible was not written in English, but was written in Hebrew and we must have the Hebrew translation.
Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing.
(The women"s portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men"s half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman"s quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael"s tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21)."
Leviticus KJV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)
Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
As you can see, as we go from Hebrew through the translations and bible rewrites, to the present time (I've only stated a few examples but its a lot more complicated then this) it's original meaning like many statements in Leviticus sound none relevant in modern society, if 18:22 stayed with its original translation nobody would pay any attention to it. Its been translated like this purely to boost bible sales. Newer bible sales have become more and more homophobic to boost sales. Homosexual global population is around 10% lesbians 6%. By hurting the minority the bible publication have boosted sales for the overhaul majority 90% straight male. he plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The "bedding" or "bed" in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out. So, looking at the meaning of the original text, we get a little closer with "Likewise male shall not lie bed wife is hated it". Fixing the grammar just a touch can give us a better translation of "Likewise, (you) shall not lie down with a man in (your) wife's bed. It is hated."
This actually makes sense in the context of the entire chapter, which also prohibits incest of various forms, and other sections of Leviticus that prohibit adultery. Many Christians don't realize that some men today will pretend that homosexual sex isn't adultery because it's not "real sex"; I wouldn't be surprised if this was going on in the days of Moses as well. And of course, it makes sense that the Bible would prohibit same-sex adultery. What doesn't make sense is why the Bible would prohibit two males from having sex (under any circumstances) and not prohibit two females.
Furthermore, those two verses in particular were in the Old Testament. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that the entire law is summed up into one commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14. Either that verse is true or it is not. Eating pork, wearing clothing that contains more than one type of fabric are ALL forbidden. Eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), a woman wearing a man's cloak (Deut 22:5) and the Hebrews breaking bread with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32) are ALL abominations too. We are not under the law anymore, but under grace, so unless you follow ALL the laws of the Old Testament, then please don't quote it to me. Furthermore, I have already shown we are not under the law of Moses anymore in Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13. My opponent has yet to give a rebuttal to these verses.
As for Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
If you read the first sentence in Genesis 19, it says what that "strange flesh" or "unnatural desire" actually was; "1Now the two ANGELS came to Sodom..." The "strange flesh" were "angels", not men. Furthermore, Genesis 19:3-5, "3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom"both young and old"surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we?
I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. there was not Greek word for "homosexual" at the time that verse was written. The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. So you have NOT "proven" anything at this point. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. http://carm.org......
The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak."
Now for Romans 1, First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we?
Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE":
1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair! It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans .
"phusis " We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another.
Just because I UNDERSTAND what the Bible says, does not mean that I BELIEVE it is infallible or does not contradict itself. That is why 1Cor 7:2, contradicts the fact that AIS people exist! If God told us that each man should have his own wife, what sex should AIS people choose? God was addressing everyone in the Bible, right? This proves my point and you have yet to give a rebuttal for it.
Was God lying? Good question. I'm asking YOU how you reconcile your position on homosexuality, the Bible, and AIS people together without contradicting the Bible. That was the point of this debate. I have not contradicted myself at all.
I never claimed the Torah was not a reliable source; I simply told you to quote it exactly. That is only fair. I can't pull any verse out of the Bible and expect you to trust ME without telling you where I got it. I stand by my claim that God claims to be "just" and that God's law DID change. I offered evidence of such as well. My opponent called the Bible "God's Word". I see no evidence of such a claim and once again, no evidence was offered to defend that position. Since the law changed because the Bible says it did, my opponent has no argument. My stance has not changed at all. Let me be perfectly clear about this; I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and I intend to prove that you can't hold the view that you do on homosexuality, AIS people, and the Bible, without contradicting yourself.
My opponent wants to know what my definition of a "just God' is. I would say, "A God that practices justice or fairness" The Bible says, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34) That means that all men are equal in his sight, therefore, He is "fair". Psalm 89:14, "JUSTICE and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face."
Please offer evidence for the following, for you have yet to do so:
1)If your argument is based on position that God made male and female and they are only supposed to choose the opposite as a mate, who should intersex people choose?
2) What scriptural evidence do you have to support that they should remain celibate?
3) Explain or offer scriptural evidence of why a "just" God would make one set of rules for on person and not another when they were born a certain way.
Once again, my opponent opens his debate trying to justify his demand that this debate only refers to the Christian God, despite the fact he never explicitly laid this out in the opening. My opponent does not seem to understand the value of defining his resolution - he failed to lay out his definition, and it is his fault that he failed to do so, not mine.
Beyond that, most of my opponent's argument for this round is simply unfounded ranting that has little to nothing to do with the debate resolution. Because of this I am ignoring most of it, with the following exceptions:
*My opponent's first argument is trying to justify his claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. He mostly claims every single condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is a translational fault, but provides no sources to back up his claims. Further, this interpretation is simply bizarre given that both Christians and Jews have historically interpreted it as a ban on homosexuality. If the English translation is faulty, wouldn't the original readers - the ancient Jews - have been all hunky-dory about gay relations being great and gay marriage being fine and critical of any interpretation that states otherwise?
*Even more bizarrely my opponent states the present translation is only used to 'boost Bible sales' (lolwut?) and that newer translations are increasingly 'more homophobic'. He further claims 10% of people are gay and 90% are straight (what about bisexuals?) and thus the evil cabals that write the Bible are marketing to the 90%. Aside from the fact none of this is sourced, my opponent is being blatantly bigoted and heterophobic by assuming all straight people will buy a Bible that condemns homosexuality and this logic should be disregarded.
*My opponent claims we do not live under the law of Moses anymore. However, in round 2 my opponent claims the word of God does not change. Which is it? This is yet another example of my opponent contradicting himself.
*My opponent claims that Romans 1 doesn't condemn homosexuality because heterosexuality "isn't natural to them". This assumes homosexuality is purely genetic (which there is no actual proof of) and that people back in the days of the Bible knew it was genetic. Quite frankly it is an absurd argument.
*He claims the point of this debate was to "asking YOU how you reconcile your position on homosexuality, the Bible, and AIS people together without contradicting the Bible." and that he hasn't contradicted himself at all. Both points are flatly wrong - the resolution has nothing to do with my personal feelings, and I have plainly established multiple times where my opponent contradicts himself.
*He claims that "I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and I intend to prove that you can't hold the view that you do on homosexuality, AIS people, and the Bible, without contradicting yourself." This flat-out pisses me off. My opponent has gone from creating a definition of God ex post facto to literally changing the debate resolution ex post facto. This debate is predicated on the existence of God (or, as you claim from Round 2 on, the existence of the Christian God), not hypothetical - if there is no Christian God, there is no God to approve of the debate resolution and thus I would win by default as Pro has the burden of proof here. This revisionism from my opponent should be proof enough of his poor conduct and reason for him to lose conduct points.
*My opponent is using his own definition of 'just' - not a Biblical definition - to assert that no just God would oppose gay marriage. This is flat-out hypocritical, as he previously accused me of using my own opinions rather than evidence.
Finally, my opponent asks me questions. I will not answer them, as:
A) I've already answered most of them in some way or the other.
B) They do nothing to establish, positively or negatively, the factually of this debate resolution.
The fact of the matter is, nothing my opponent has said has proven that the existence of AIS intersex individuals proves God approves of gay marriage. To the contrary, his debate arguments have hardly even argued the point. For example, the whole discussion on Biblical texts on homosexuality? It has nothing to do with intersex individuals justifying gay marriage in God's eyes. I have argued multiple alternate reasons (religious exemptions, celibacy, God might not exist) that could much more efficiently and adequately provide answers, but my opponent has hardly addressed any except for celibacy - and even then, he attempts to debunk it by arguing that, under his definition of 'just', God must support gay marriage. Add on to that my opponent's horrendous conduct and contradictory arguments and it becomes clear: a vote for Con is the only rational choice. The debate resolution has not been proven, and has in fact been adequately disproven.
As for 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, the word, "arsenkoites" was never used before that time. The only way to be sure that a new word is being used in the correct way is to see how it was used in other situations. Since it was the first recorded use of the word, there is no way to do that. "Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek - so rare, there is no other extant use predating or contemporary to the Bible (a linguistic phenomenon known as a hapax legomenon). Philo is often claimed to have used it around 35 CE. That claim is in fact, false. The context in which it is used in Corinthians is not enough to determine the original meaning. As such, the translations of this word into English and other languages are little more than guesses. Some liberal Christians insist it refers specifically to pimps or pederasts, but there's no more evidence to support this meaning than any other. ationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites
As for the Jews being ok with homosexuality, gays have been hated throughout history. So, my answer is, "No, Jews would not have been ok with homosexuality." People hate anything that is "different".
My opponent believes that I am contradicting myself by saying that the Word of God does not change, but God's laws did. That is not my belief, but a fact. For example, polygamy is allowed in Exodus 21:10 and 2 Samuel 5:13. THEN, in the New Testament, (1 Timothy1:6) it says, "..the husband of ONE wife". Furthermore, the Bible tries to justify itself by saying that this was Christ "fulfilling the law, not ending it." (Matthew 5:17). We are no longer required to keep that Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, but it WAS one of the ten commandments. The list goes on and on. This proves my point that LAWS can change and God's LAWS and His Word are not the same. I would like to point out that my opponent never gave a rebuttal to refute my Bible verses that say that we are no longer under the law of Moses, therefore, even if homosexuality was a sin, it no longer is. Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13
As for Romans 1, I never said homosexuality is not condemned here simply because heterosexuality "is not natural to them". I said Romans 1 doesn't condemn 2 loving and committed members of the same sex because there is nothing sinful about that type of relationship. My opponent is supposed to prove that homosexuality in EVERY circumstance IS. The people in this chapter of Romans were idolaters, promiscuous, adulterous, and lustful. That of course would be the reason homosexuality in that context would be condemned; just as heterosexuality would be condemned in those circumstances. My point for bringing up the word "natural" is to show that "natural" had to do with "custom", not biology. That was my reason for quoting 1 Cor 11:13-15
At this juncture, my opponent has not shown how he reconciles the Bible with the AIS condition. He has not explained how we are to determine our sexual orientation if it is not done by our gender. If we have 2 genders, what are we to do? I have not changed the debate. I didnt' "create a definition of God" either. My opponent is really getting off topic here. I simply stated my belief that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. That does not change the debate. I'm not sure where my opponent is getting some of these strange ideas from. In fact, I am saying that we can assume that it IS the Word of God for the sake of argument while debating. What I am saying is that IF it is the Word of God, it will not contradict itself. There is no way to reconcile the Bible, AIS condition, and homosexuality without contradicting yourself.
My definition of "just" comes from https://bible.org...
"While the most common Old Testament word for just means "straight," and the New Testament word means "equal," in a moral sense they both mean "right." When we say that God is just, we are saying that He always does what is right, what should be done, and that He does it consistently, without partiality or prejudice. The word just and the word righteous are identical in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sometimes the translators render the original word "just" and other times "righteous" with no apparent reason (cf. Nehemiah 9:8 and 9:33 where the same word is used). But whichever word they use, it means essentially the same thing. It has to do with God"s actions. They are always right and fair."
I hope that is satisfactory to your request.
Now that I have answered my opponent's requests for sources and definitions, we can finally get some answers to the questions that he is refusing to answer.
1) Since I have shown what "Biblical justice" or a "Just" God is, please explain or offer scriptural evidence of why a "just" God would make one set of rules for on person and not another when they were born a certain way.
2) If God is so hung up on sexual orientation, why did He create people that were born as BOTH GENDERS??? If your entire argument is based on "gender", in other words, you argue that if one is born a woman (GENDER) they should be with a man( GENDER). If one is born a man (GENDER), they should be with a woman (GENDER). If you are BORN as 2 genders, then your argument completely falls apart. They will technically be gay and straight at the same time because they are both sexes. This shows the clear contradiction of the Bible and my opponents view. I have already shown that God is "just" and my opponent has offered no rebuttal, except, "That is YOUR definition of "just"! This is probably THE MOST important question that I have asked and you still have not answered it. My opponent tried to give the answer that "celibacy" would be an answer, but offered no scriptural evidence to show as of yet.
3) If our sexual orientation is NOT determined by our gender, how is it determined then?
I feel compelled to post my opening argument again. My opponent has accused me throughout this entire debate of not being honest about the God and Holy Book that I was referring to. Here is my opening statement again:
An AIS intersex person has a vagina, female breasts, and is hormonally more female than the average female. They also have internal testicles (sometimes external, but usually internal) and their DNA is male. They do NOT have ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, or cervix. If God is against gay marriage and you believe the Bible agrees with your position, how do you sustain the contradiction in light of science? In other words, they are clearly born with male and female parts, which sex should THEY marry? Their DNA is 100% male. Outwardly, they appear female and are almost always attracted to men. If God is so caught up on our sexual orientation, and says marriage is only for male and female, what is a person with this condition to do?
We know that God is a "just" God according to the Bible so he would not make a law or rule for one person and not another. These people are clearly born this way and through no fault of their own, are forced to deal with this dilemma.
I would like to remind the audience that I am the one that picked the content of the debate and was posing the challenge, not the other way around. My opponent was supposed to answer the questions in the opening statement and he never did. I have shown that a just God could not make a law about "not committing homosexuality", call himself "just", and create people with both sexes! They will be gay and straight with anyone that they are with. Could God not make up His mind? Who would He expect them to choose for a mate? My opponent mentioned celibacy. God said in Genesis 2:18, "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone." Which is it?
To close, my opponent accused me of ranting. I found that offensive. My opponent simply cannot understand that I can comprehend the Bible without believing that it is true. I dare say that I know the Bible better than than most, but I don't believe it is the Word of God. Since Christians consider it the ultimate authority, I agree to use it. Unfortunately for most of them, they don't really know what is in there.
To open his final round, my opponent claims to have cited his claim on translations - unfortunately, he has not. He has cited words, but he has not sourced what Hebrew version he is using in any of these verses. Voters need to take this into account. To refute his claim, however, in the Halakha - the body of Jewish law - homosexuality is forbidden based on the Leviticus verses. In addition, the Mishneh Torah - a Hebrew translation of the Torah written by Maimonidies, one of the most well-known Torah scholars - specifically forbids both male and female homosexuality and marriage in Halacha 21:8 and 21:18, using those verses in Leviticus as proof. This is the same section that discusses the immorality of incest, adultery, and bestiality.
If my opponent's claim is correct, and the Hebrew text does not forbid them, wouldn't those who know Hebrew the most - the Jewish people - be on the forefront of correcting it, not listing it among sexual misconduct and crimes? My opponent's only response to this is that Jews 'hate gays' because they are different. Never mind that, assuming his is correct, ignoring this would be twisting and changing what they perceive as the literal commandment of God. The Jewish people might be able to tolerate that (after all, the Bible notes many times where they turned away from God's law), but rabbis? I doubt it. The logic just doesn't make sense - it's all assumptions on my opponent's part, and you know what they say about assumptions.
Next, my opponent attempts to argue that the Word of God does not change but his laws do and the OT laws are abolished. He does this by making several bizarre claims: among them, he quotes part of the Bible that says Jesus did not abolish the OT law, and then argues that since the law was abolished (even though he established that it wasn't), homosexuality is OK. Never mind all those pesky NT verses that establish marriage as one man, one woman, or those that condemn homosexuality.
After this, my opponent claims that Romans does not condemn 'loving homosexual relationships' because it 'isn't sinful'. This is utter garbage because I have already established homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, and Romans 1 does indeed condemn homosexuals ("For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.") He then claims that I am supposed to prove that homosexuality in every situation is sinful. For the umpteenth time, my opponent attempts to change the debate resolution: nowhere in this debate was I supposed to prove homosexuality is wrong, because this is not a debate on homosexuality. It is a debate on whether or not AIS intersex individuals prove God endorses gay marriage. What does the morality of gay sex have to do with AIS intersex people proving God's stance on gay marriage? The fact of the matter is, it doesn't.
Next, my opponent commits a straw man fallacy by falsely defining my argument. He says "my opponent has not shown how he reconciles the Bible with the AIS condition. He has not explained how we are to determine our sexual orientation if it is not done by our gender. If we have 2 genders, what are we to do?". Aside from having no standing on gay marriage (my opponent hasn't even bothered to establish why the existence of AIS people proves God supports gay marriage), this is a blatant lie because in round 1 I clearly stated that there are numerous alternatives: for example, there could be a religious exemption for these individuals (something I clearly established has precedent in the Torah and Koran), they could be called to celibacy (something my opponent has assaulted me on, but has never proven why it isn't a viable option), or there could be no God. My opponent is trying to pigeonhole me into a position I have not taken and is ignoring key points of my argument. Add onto that his false claim that he defined 'God' in the first round and this establishes my opponent is being deceptive in his debate tactics.
From there he claims that he believes the Bible isn't the word of God (despite him continually quoting in, the debate by his own retroactive definition being dependent on it). Then, he claims there is "no way" to reconcile the Bible with AIS. Well, guess what - I already have. Multiple times. You've just ignored all of them because you can't handle the truth.
Next, my opponent has defined the word 'just' to give his definition of a 'just God'. Naturally, he doesn't explain how it is unjust for AIS individuals to have a religious exemption or be celibate - he already ignored the first and ranted about the last.
After this, my opponent once again gives his three questions. These questions are designed to ignore my debate points: for example, question 1 has already been superseded by me suggesting AIS individuals could have a religious exemption. My opponent has never bothered to debate this argument (and probably can't effectively do so), so he designs the question to ignore it. The second question is just as deceptive: he's claiming intersex people are born with 'both genders' (they aren't), acts like my 'entire argument' is based on gender (it's not). Once again, my opponent creates a big straw man and ignores my actual point. My argument has actually not even addressed the topic of gender at all but my opponent's acts like it is all I talk about. He claims God is 'just', but never explains why it would be unjust under God's law for AIS people to remain celibate. He's explained why he thinks it is wrong, but never establishes why God thinks it is wrong, and that's a big distinction. Question 3 isn't even worth answering because it has nothing to do with the debate premise.
After literally re-posting his entire first round argument (easy to do because it is short and shallow), he claims it is 'offensive' for me to accuse him of ranting. Given the definition of rant is to "
speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way" and the example sentence is "she was still ranting about the unfairness of it all", I think describing my opponent as ranting is entirely appropriate. After all, where in this debate has he actually been focusing on the resolution? He's mostly been yelling about how wrong it would be (under his definition of wrong) for AIS people to remain celibate, claiming the Bible doesn't oppose homosexuality in contrast to its words, and accusing the evil Bible publishing companies of putting in all the stuff about homosexuality.
He also claims I cannot comprehend the form of his attack (I can, and it is pretty weak) and claims I am ignorant about the Bible. That, I will leave to the voters. If you, after reading this debate, have been honestly convinced through my opponent's changing debate resolutions and definitions, poor conduct, rants on Bible manufacturers, and arguments that are contradictory, irrelevant to the debate (or both), that AIS interesex people prove God endorses gay marriage, by all means vote Pro. If you've come from this debate realizing my opponent's stance is not accurate, that there are other legitimate (and very much more sensible) options, and that my opponent never refuted any meaningful points of mine vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 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: I am of the opinion that Pro did not fulfill the BOP. Even though we are assuming God exists, the fact that intersex humans exists in no way proves God approves of marriage. I think this is an impossible claim to prove as there needs to be an actual text that says God approves or one is assuming a position that can not be verified. This is not the way a good debate works, even if it may sound logical it is not i.e. who should intersex marry? Conduct was poor through out and so no points. S&G and sources are shared.
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.