According to the Protestant Christian Bible (KJV), is Homosexuality Sinful?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing that the act of Homosexuality is a sin according to the New King James version of the Bible as interpreted through a Protestant Christian view.
Arguments will be as follows:
Round 1: Pro: Definitions and Boundaries of the Debate
Con: Acceptance and Initial Arguments
Round 2: Pro: Arguments and Rebuttals
Con: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 3: Pro: Arguments and Rebuttals
Con: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 4: Pro: Arguments and Rebuttals
Con: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5: Pro: Rebuttals and Summary of Arguments
Con: Summary of Arguments
No new arguments in final round. Con agrees to not rebut any arguments in final round also.
BoP is on Pro
I would ask that whoever accepts this debate please also be of the Christian religion.
All arguments from the Bible should be from the New King James Version, any other sources that are considered reliable Protestant Christian resources are allowed. Any issues with the translation of the King James Version may be challenged, and I encourage my opponent to also look towards the original Greek and Hebrew texts to supply evidence.
Con agrees to the following definition:
Homosexuality: "Sexual Behavior between members of the same sex or gender."
I am not arguing that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a sin, rather the actual act of being in a Homosexual relationship, emotional and/or sexual, is a sin.
I accept this debate and I wish my opponent luck.
The bible says that Eve was came from Adam's rib, so that he can leave his parents and find his significant other. This doesn't necessarily mean women. As Plato's theory of Androgyne, which claims what I said. Man leaves to find his significant other, and significant other can be either male or female. (http://www.reconnections.net...). A significant other is someone another person has established a romantic and sexual relationship with. The definition itself doesn't say anything about it having to be male with female.
In Genesis 19:5 and 19:8, men come asking Lot to send out the men who were staying in his house, but Lot said that they were protected by his roof, and he offered to send out his two daughters in their place. These sections are referring to sodomy, and after these my opponent may claim that these same sections claim that one can't be gay. Now if we look at the actual definition, sodomy is the act of anal and/or oral sex. This occurs with heterosexual people on a daily basis, though the research people have performed has come up with small numbers. (http://kinseyconfidential.org...). Christians and Jews didn't start to attack this until the Medieval era when Pagans began to accept homosexuality. If translated properly, these sections of the bible tell its readers to treat guests properly.
Sodom is also talked about in the New Testament Ezekiel. If my opponent looks at looks at Ezekiel 16:48-50, they will see that God is condemning someone for sodomy and a few other things. This also drags peoples' attention to homosexuality, but it really isn't. It's actually talking about idol worship and human sacrifice and not gay relationships. At the time this section was written, society was know for its unkind nature. There is a story about a man who was covered with honey, and then stung to death by bees.
Now lets look at Leviticus. In Leviticus:13 there is a section that seems to state the people who are homosexual must be stoned to death. During the time of writing of this section, Pagan priests known as Kedoshim, they would cross dress, take on the role of a female, and they would perform anal sex. (http://www.hebcal.com...). The Canaanites worshiped Kedoshim as well, and when the Israelites invaded the region they condemned the practices. These events are seen in Gary Rendsburg's "Israel without the bible" and Frederick E. Greenspahn's "The Hebrew Bible: insights and scholarship".
I'd like my opponent to direct their attention to the phrase to'evah, which is Hebrew for wicked man. It is seen in multiple verses of the bible, each of which seem to "condemn" homosexuality. It is, in fact, yet another thing referencing the rites of the Pagan priests who practiced Kedoshim.
Another reference to Kedoshim is found in Romans 3:1.
In Romans 3:23, its condemning Jews, Pagans and Gentiles for worshipping the God of Cyblee, also known as the Protector of Rome.
In Leviticus 18:23-25 talks about bestiality when it seems to be talking about homosexuality, especially in Leviticus 18:23.
There is hardly anything in the Christian bible that can prove these points wrong.
Due to the nature of the debate, even one instance that the Bible condemns homosexuality will allow me to meet my burden of proof, as we are arguing from a Christian perspective, and the Bible cannot contradict itself. I guess I put the BoP on the wrong person, because it will fall on Con to refute every single one of my arguments. Likewise, if there is mention in the Bible of an explicit command stating that homosexuality is NOT wrong, it will fall on me to refute all of those arguments. Really, the BoP should be shared. My apologies.
First, I will refute my opponent's arguments.
Section 1: Genesis 2:24 states: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."(NIV) In almost every single English translation of the Bible the word "wife" is used in this verse. The word ishshah, which is here translated wife, can be translated a few ways in the original Hebrew. It can mean "wife, woman, woman of the wives, female, girls, adulteress," or "childbearing". Clearly this verse can not be referring to a significant other of any gender, it is very gender specific towards women. Likewise, the word man, or 'iysh/ish translates to "male, husband," or "man". This is also very gender specific. Con then goes on to cite Plato's theory of the Androgyne, or the idea that heterosexuals are a "third gender". However, Plato is certainly not a Christian source, and his comments regarding Zeus clearly shows he is not a reliable Christian source, and therefore this argument is irrelevant. This idea of a third gender also directly contradicts the Bible. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)(NIV)
Section 2: I will gladly concede this point. If the passage indeed condemns oral and anal sex, then this also supports the idea that homosexuality is wrong, because the only way for a homosexual to have sex is either orally or anally.
Section 3: Your link seems to be completely irrelevant? Nowhere does it give mention to the Kedoshim being a reference to pagan priests. I have taken it upon myself to search anywhere and everywhere for mention of Kedoshim priests, but I have not found anything. Is my opponent mistaken? The only mention of the Kedoshim is a Jewish ritual reading of Leviticus.
Section 4: As Con has given no specific examples of any part of the Bible that "seems" to condemn homosexuality and only again mentions these imaginary Kedoshim priests, I have nothing to refute in this section.
Section 5: My opponent must be extremely mistaken because both of his verses from Romans have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, and Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."(NIV) This has nothing to do with the Protector of Rome or even homosexuality.
My opponent has finally found a link that matches what he is trying to argue, and while it most definitely is referring to bestiality, it is also irrelevant to the matter at hand, homosexuality.
So far, my opponent has not been able to give any evidence showing that homosexuality is not sinful. Now, I will get on to my own arguments.
In order to prove that homosexuality is sinful for Christians in today's society, we must rely on the New Testament, since that is primarily where Christians derive their doctrine from. (See my other debate, "Should Christians take the Entire Bible Literally")
Romans 1:26-27 tells us, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."(NIV)
In order for us to understand this more clearly, let's look at a more literal translation:
"Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving."(YLT)
In this chapter of Romans, Paul is turning his focus to the consequences of sin and turning away from God. That's why god "gave them up" to their sinful desires and "affections". In the original Greek, the phrase "gave them up" can be translated "to give into the hands of another" or "to give into custody of (someone) to be judged or punished or put to death". Clearly, being "given up" or "put into custody" of "sinful affections" to be "judged or punished" is not something that is desirable, and it is not what God wants for us. So, this sentence tells us that what is coming is not what is desired for us.
He then describes women and men "changing the natural use" of the other gender and changing it "into that against nature". The phrase "changing the natural use is a key to understanding what this verse is trying to tell us. Well if the natural use is being changed into unnatural use, we must first understand what the natural use of the opposite gender is. As we have already seen, the natural use must be procreation by a one male and one female in marriage as we have already seen in Genesis, a man leaves his parents to be with his wife (a woman). That can be the only natural use because that is the only thing that God tells us in the Old Testament about how he created nature. So they gave up natural use, so unnatural use, or what is against nature can only be homosexuality. And remember, God has told us already that this is the sinful affection that he was referring to. And they will be punished as God has already told us. And it then goes on to say that the men, in this unnatural use, are "working shame" as in, the shameful lusts that they had for each other and acting upon them. And the word "recompense". That word means payback, but it certainly does not mean good payback for righteous actions. It has such a negative connotation, and going along with the punishment mentioned before, it can only mean retribution for sin that has been committed.
I would again like to thank Con for accepting this debate and taking the time to try to argue it. I certainly hope that Pro can really gather an argument for the next round as I would love to know the reasoning behind Con's arguments, especially the argument regarding the Kedoshim. Thank you, and best of luck to Con.
Well if my opponent looks at it that way, I'd like them to look at the bible this way. The difference between the text of the bible and the full equality of homosexuals is known as a false dichotomy. God, in fact, never asked anyone to choose between the compassion and their faith. One does not have to just sit down and dig deeper into the bible to understand how it condemns homosexuals, one can sit there and carefully read like any other verse without jumping to conclusion. Plus if we look into the layout of the bible, out of the 31,173 verses of the bible, homosexuality is only supposedly mentioned in 6-7. Personally, I believe that this is not enough to just assume that the bible condemns homosexuals. (http://notalllikethat.org...).
Now I'd like my opponent to look at the verses Proverbs 6:16-19. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...). In these verses, the bible says that God only hates abomination unto him, a proud look, a liar, a murderer, one who has a "deviseth" wicked imagination, people who quickly turn to mischief, a false witness, and one who soweth discord among his brethren. I see nothing in here against homosexuality or even a hint (or mention) towards it. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...). Nor in either of these verses.
For the record not all homosexual men have anal sex. Some perform mutual masturbation instead of sticking each others things up in each other's posteriors. Plus everyone, no matter your sexual preference, fantasizes about anal sex anyway. (http://goaskalice.columbia.edu...). As Romans 3:23 puts it, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god". (http://biblehub.com...). Also seeing how Straight Americans out number our homosexuals citizens 10 to 1, more of them are having "gay sex" then the actual homosexuals. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).
I will admit my opponent has me there, but it was a very real practice, and it was bad. This wasn't on the site either but people who practiced Kedoshim supposedly cut off another mans penis, and then raped him.
Many people jump to conclusions and over look the bible, so people could have found someway to turn it against homosexuality and other things people may deem immoral.
What my opponent says is true, but people probably thought they were one and the same at one point in time. Which goes to show that I am somewhat justified in bringing it up, making it relevant.
A priest randomly, unknowingly proved that the original bible did not condemn homosexuality itself, but homosexual rape, child molestation, prostitution and rituals. (https://moanti.wordpress.com...). This next resource gives 6 reasons as to why the bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality.
Reason 6- Verses that "condemn" homosexuality actually don't. The author goes into text about how God gave Adam a suitable helper and it just so happened to be a woman. They then continue to talk about other things that are wrong in that same section of the bible.
Reason 5- There's at least one homosexual story in the bible. In their reasoning, the author brings up the story of Ruth and Naomi. After all the men in their family die, apparently they join a relationship together. This story in itself should be enough for people to understand that the bible does not condemn homosexuality.
Reason 4- The bible has always been used to target minority groups. This section actually should speak for itself.
Reason 3- Turning down a child's love interests could damage their life. In this section readers are told that Jesus taught people how to see things for the way they really are and how to respect one another.
Reason 2- The bible claims that change is necessary for growth. This is another section that should speak for itself.
Reason 1- Jesus was a promoter of homosexuality. The author states that he actually supports gays in the sections of Luke 4:18, Matthew 5:8-13 and Matthew 19:4-5 and 11-12. If people read these they'd probably rethink the lies they've been preaching.
Sections 2 and 5 practically make my opponents last argument irrelevant as to his argument only holds 2 verses of the bible supposedly condemning homosexuality versus the 5-6+ verses I have mentioned in this round. Plus Section 5, Reason 1, can be considered my rebuttals to his argument itself as it proves Jesus Christ's support for homosexuality.
Section 1: I am assuming that Pro is talking about accepting gay people into the church and still loving them. And most of that point I have to concede. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not, we must still love them as we love anybody else. Jesus loves homosexuals just as much as he loves murderers, liars, thieves, etc. The Bible teaches us that we should love the sinner and hate the sin. God will forgive the homosexual just as he will forgive all of those others, because we are ALL sinful. We all fall short of the glory of God. However, I partially disagree with what Pro and his link seem to assert. Like I said, if the Bible says 1 time that homosexuality is sinful, then it is sinful. Clearly as I have shown, especially with the verse from Romans, homosexuality is called sinful. He shows a few verses in Proverbs, but they are irrelevant towards this matter, because they don't speak of homosexuality at all, whether good or bad. These seven things that it mentions were not an exhaustive list of all the sins that God doesn't approve of, but rather, a list of some motives and things of the sort that cause people to sin purposefully. But just because we have good intentions, doesn't mean that sin is no longer sin. Even accidental sin separates us from God. There is another thing I disagree with on Pro's first link. That is the idea that sins have a degree of wrong. The Bible is clear that all sin separates us from God, even small sins such as telling white lies or breaking a promise. God calls these the same as murder, rape, etc. because of the fact that they all separate us from him. The point of what I'm saying is this: should we love and equally treat gay people like anybody else? Yes. Should we lovingly accept them like anybody else? Yes. And out of love, we must also teach and inform them that what they are doing is wrong, just like any other sin. Because ALL sins separate us from God. However, ALL sins can also be forgiven by the power of Jesus.
Section 2: Ok, I will concede this point. However, this does not mean that homosexuality is acceptable, just that it is not what is being addressed in the case of Sodom.
Sections 3 and 4: Pro again brings up the Kedoshim priests, admitting that he has supplied no evidence for them, but yet he still asserts that it was "a very real practice". But as he supplies no evidence whatsoever, we have no reason to accept this assertion as truth, so until he can provide evidence for his claims, this argument remains irrelevant.
Section 5: I will mostly concede this point as the certain parts of the Bible being addressed in Pro's link are not necessarily referring to homosexuality, but rather other sins that should not have been committed. However, just because these sections aren't necessarily condemning homosexuality, this does not mean that homosexuality is acceptable. In fact IF homosexuality is indeed sinful, it would not contradict these passages either.
-Reason 6: Pro does not give many specific examples other than Adam and Eve. I would disagree that she just "happened to be a woman", because if it could have been either gender, God would've made it possible for males to procreate with each other, but he didn't, and he also would not have included the verse that I have already mentioned about a man leaving his parents to be with his wife (gender exclusive)
-Reason 5: Ruth and Naomi were not in a homosexual relationship. They loved each other for sure, but not in a homosexual way.
-Reason 4: Yes it has been, I completely agree and that is unfortunate. That is completely irrelevant as to whether or not homosexuality is sinful.
-Reason 3: There are certainly other ways to love someone, not just romantically. That is a great alternative to homosexuality that is not sinful.
-Reason 2: Again I agree, but still this is irrelevant.
-Reason 1: The first two Bible verses do not even address homosexuality whatsoever. The third verse supports my position, as I have already shown, the final verse also is not referring to homosexuality, but it talks about those who have been castrated, whether by choice or force. Also irrelevant.
"Love the sinner, but hate the sin" is a contradicting statement. When one says that, they are telling the other person that they hate them. (http://www.plainsimplefaith.com...). How? My opponent may ask. Well first of all, most sinners' sins are part of their personality. They can't help what they do, its who they are. Take homosexuals for instance. Recent psychological and scientific research has shown that homosexuality is genetic. These studies have shown that there are, in every homosexual, the gene on the X chromosome and on chromosome 8. (http://www.natureworldnews.com...). To add onto this point is the fact that God created everyone in his image. Meaning, God meant there to be homosexuals in the first place. (http://biblehub.com...).
There is also evidence that my opponent can't quote Leviticus to prove the bible condemns homosexuality because Christians are no longer under the law. In other words, they don't have to listen to it because it's part of the Old Testament Law, and the Apostle Paul made it clear that it was not created to be used in arguments. In fact, when Jesus died on the cross, he nullified the Old Testament. (http://biblethumpingliberal.com...).
Kedoshim is very old, so it's difficult to find evidence. I will say more on this topic in a future round.
In the gay Christian bible, it tells stories of homosexuals throughout the actual biblical history. The first of which is the relation ship between David and Jonathan. Their argument is that since God passionately told the story of their relationship, then he obviously approves of this, while the straight community argues the opposite. Unfortunately for the straight community they haven't provided enough proof that the bible does actually go against homosexuals. (http://www.gaychristian101.com...).
The bible is so misinterpreted that the bible itself is being considered a sin. People go looking for verses in the bible that they "think" supports their ideals. Notice how I said "think" and "ideals". I say this because straight Christians are condemning homosexuals because they THINK that they're unnatural. (http://www.newsweek.com...).
Plus, Christians have no right to condemn homosexuals, because by doing so, they are condemning their brethren. 3.5% of the Christian population is gay. That is approximately 8 million people, if it were 4%, then it would be 10 million people. Also when they do this, they are ignoring the verse Matthew 7:1-5. In this verse it says that if one judges another, they themselves will be judged in turn, and that when they judge another, they are more sinful than the one being judged. (http://www.openbible.info...). Meaning, by judging and condemning homosexuals, they themselves are sinning.
Legendary_Houp forfeited this round.
All points extended.
In any case, thank you for your arguments Con.
Section 1: Con's link actually argues MY case and says that "love the sinner but hate the sin" IS Biblical. My opponent then goes on to cite a study on the "gay gene". There is no conclusive evidence that this gay gene exists, and if you look at the study that Con cites, it was not completed and therefore cannot conclusively prove the existence of this gene. Compare this study with the eight different studies conducted on identical twins (http://www.redflagnews.com...). Even so, the "gay gene" Pro proposes may have an INFLUENCE on behavior, but it does not DETERMINE behavior (http://www.onenewsnow.com...). However, lets pretend that this gay gene does exist. Pro says that sin is part of our personality, and he is right. All people have a sin nature. But it is not considered a sin until those people ACT on that nature. For instance, there may be a gene that influences murder (http://www.npr.org...). This does not make murder acceptable, it is still a sin if we commit it. So, yes, we are all born being PRONE to commit sin, but God does not punish us because we are at higher risk of committing sin, he punishes us when we actually COMMIT those sins. (http://www.trueorigin.org...) Therefore, homosexual thoughts of attraction are not sinful, but the actual act of being in a homosexual relationship IS.
I also agree with Con's argument about OT law completely. But let the voters note, I addressed this in an earlier round. All of my arguments were from the NT, and it was actually CON that used evidence from the OT, and all of my arguments were just rebuttals to what Con said in the first place.
Section 2: My rebuttal should be quite obvious here.
Section 3: Just like Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship. They were simply very committed and devoted friends, and the view of what a perfect (or as close to perfect as possible for sin-filled humans) friendship looks like. The main argument from gay Christians for David and Jonathan's relationship being gay is the verse in 2 Samuel 1:26: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women."(NASB) This does not imply in any way that they were in a sexual relationship. This only shows that they were committed to each other in a loving friendship. It is certainly very possible to love someone strongly without being sexually involved with them, and any attempt to imply that David and Jonathan's relationship was sexual is improper eisegesis.
You must also remember that David was married to Jonathan's sister Michal as well as a few other women, and that he lusted for Bathsheba, who he saw bathing on a rooftop. This shows how illogical it would be for David to be romantically and/or sexually involved with Jonathan.
However, even if they WERE in a sexual relationship, this still does not make homosexuality acceptable. David did many other things involving marriage that were sinful, including polygamy (1 Chronicles 3:1-5), and adultery (2 Samuel 11). That does not make these things right. Con will certainly agree, it is in people's nature to sin, and therefore just because David has done those things does not make them right. As a note to the voters, Con also contradicts his argument that one cannot argue from the OT about Christian doctrine, which he does by bringing up the story of David and Jonathan. (http://www.charismamag.com...)
Section 4: Con's first paragraph is merely an empty assertion. If he is trying to imply that my methods of hermeneutics are faulty, this is a completely baseless accusation for which he provides no evidence.
Pro is right on this part, Christians have no right to CONDEMN homosexuals. As Christians, it is our duty to lovingly show people the way to Jesus Christ and the way to live righteously. Yes, just because someone is gay, we should not judge them or condemn them for it, that is for God to do. But we must lovingly show them the truth of their error, so that they may live a more complete life that God so desperately wants for all of us.
So, as we can see, the Bible clearly shows us that homosexuality is sinful. This is mainly shown by Romans 1:26-27 which Con has failed to refute or even ATTEMPT to argue against. May I remind the voters, even one instance that the Bible condemns homosexuality wins me the debate, because the Bible cannot contradict itself. (This can be assumed due to the nature of the debate.) This is also true for Con's arguments, as even one instance that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bible condones homosexuality should win him the debate. Clearly, Con has failed to do this. His arguments were for the most part baseless, some not even arguments, only empty assertions. His arguments that did try to provide evidence were weak at best, and I have adequately refuted each and every one of them. I would also like to remind the voters that Con contradicts himself, especially when he argues directly from the OT, which he himself notes is something that he is not able to do. I would finally like to remind voters not to vote based on personal opinion or ideas, but on who was able to argue their side correctly and convincingly.
However, this was still an interesting debate, and I learned a few new things in the process of refuting Con's arguments. I hope that Con also gained something from this debate, and I thank Con for giving me a few new perspectives to ponder. What we should remember here is that whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality, all of us as humans are sinners, but we can all be forgiven of our sins by the power of Jesus Christ. It is out of love and compassion for our brothers that we wish to inform them of why homosexuality is wrong and against God's plan for us. It is out of love that we tell our friends the truth because we don't want them living in the darkness, out of love, we want them to experience all that God intends for them. So whatever you believe, we must still continue to love our fellow community members, gay or straight, pro-life or pro-choice, or Christian or Atheist. And to do this, we must continue to strive to seek the truth, and to change our behavior based on that truth, so that we can live this beautiful, God-given life with love, integrity, and honesty.
Apology accepted: I understand. Memorial day is a very big holiday that deserves more attention than a debate.
Summary: As I have continuously shown in my previous arguments, the bible doesn't actually say anything against homosexuals, even though it seems to.
Every argument I have stated during this debate, as either proven my opponents points null and void, or debunked their points. For instance, I have revealed that a majority of the bibles verses that "condemn homosexuality" is actually talking about a more serious issue. And though I admit my opponent did manage to prove one of those points wrong, the proof still out weighs the points against it.
Also with the help of science I have helped carry the fact that homosexuality is actually genetic (http://www.independent.co.uk...), and that not liking them in itself is a sin. Saying this, we're no better than them. So if the bible really does condemn homosexuality, we'd still be going against what God and the good book says. So in the end, like I said in an earlier round, we're all sinners.
Now that we're coming to a close, I'd like to thank my opponent for this wonderful opportunity. I hope my opponent enjoyed it as much as I did, and I'd like them to know that they made a pretty good argument. Good luck in your future debates.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.