The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Being gay is ungodly.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,380 times Debate No: 32619
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




Being gay is ungodly. I only want a Christian to accept this debate to keep the debate religious.
(This could have been in society or religion but society usually has more traffic so I went with it.)


First, I want to thank my opponent for posting this debate. When I first joined the Army, I was a pagan. Eventually, I found myself in a really dark place. I realized that my religion did absolutely nothing for me in my time of strife, so I picked a new religion. I found Christ in the Army, that mini bible that the Gideons had given me the day I enlisted probably saved my life. I saw it laying at the bottom of my locker and just picked it up, opened to a random page, and started reading. I opened up to proverbs (still my favorite part of the bible) and invested in some well needed wisdom, courtesy of King Solomon.

One of the passages in proverbs actually lists the things God hates:
Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.

Nowhere in that passage is homosexuality mentioned. Additionally, nowhere is it mentioned in the ten commandments [1]. Many people also quote the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, arguing that God destroyed the cities because of their homosexual acts. A quick look at the bible, with a dash of anthropology and logic, reveals this to be false however. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his family are visited by two angles of the Lord. Lot invites them inside his home.

Genesis 19 records what happened next: "all the people from every quarter" surrounded Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of" [2], the people of Sodom could have been attempting to check the credentials of these unknown visitors, but we'll assume for the purpose of this debate that their intent was to commit a gang rape. Lot offers his daughters, but the people refuse. The Angles blind the aggressors, then carry Lot and his family to safety before decimating the city [3].

Facts to observe about the above:
1. Lot's offer suggests he knew his neighbors had heterosexual interests.
2. The judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness had been announced BEFORE this incident.
3. All the people of Sodom participated in the assault on Lot's house. In no culture known to exist have homosexuals been more than a small minority of the population.
4. If the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexual in nature, why would God spare Lot after he had incestuous relations with his daughters immediately after the cities were destroyed?

Ezekiel 16:48-50 states the true crimes. The people of those cities had an abundance of wealth and goods, yet they still failed to help the poor and needy. In addition, the cities were rife with injustice, idolatry, and false idols. These sins plagued generation after generation and were systemic in nature. Sodom and Gomorrah were lost causes, and if left to their own devices they could have eventually damned all of humanity, Lot and his family were the only things worth saving in the whole city.

Another reason many followers of Abrahamic religions brand homosexuality as a sin is the misinterpretation of scripture. Scripture is infallible, but out interpretation of it isn't. The people who first wrote those words to parchment died thousands of years ago, their works have been translated and edited so many times, and the languages based on those translations have changed so much, that the original meaning of the verses often isn't clear without an experienced guide to help you (I.E. a pastor, priest, deacon, etc.).

In closing, Christianity as a whole has changed remarkably over the last 2000 years. Things that were once taboo, such as racial integration, are now encouraged and accepted. Other things that were commonplace, such as executing people for witchcraft, are now shunned.

John the Apostle said it best:
"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."
1 John 4:20-21

Debate Round No. 1


First, I think your story is amazing. Second, thank you for excepting my debate.
Down to business.
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
This is proof that the Bible shows condemnation of gay behavior. There are many other examples I could find but this is just what I will use to prove my next point.
Genesis says that God created all people.
Leviticus says that homosexuality is an abomination.
If people are born gay, then God would have made them gay. God would have made them to be an abomination. Thus, since being gay is a sin and sins are poor choices, being gay is a choice.
Since I have now established that gay acts are a choice and sinful, I can now say that being gay is ungodly.
I will rest my argument for now.


Leviticus is an often quoted example of why homosexuality is a sin, but what most Christians forget is that Leviticus is from the old testament. The old testament covers the struggle of the Hebrews, and the pact they made with God (the covenant). As Christians, we are bound by the new and everlasting covenant, detailed in the new testament. With the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, the rules were changed. Some examples include a shift away from animal sacrifice in favor of prayer, and an end to strict prohibitions regarding the consumption of pork.

The old testament is used by Christians as a foundation, a reminder of the stepping stone from which we lept from into the great unknown. If the topic of homosexuality were so important, why then is it completely absent from the new testament? Wouldn't Christ have taken the time to highlight such a heinous act? But he didn't, it didn't even earn a footnote in the gospels of the new testament. Instead, the only thing Christ advocated was love of god and respect for our fellow man.
Debate Round No. 2


1. The Bible, the holy book of Christians, is old and new testament.
2. I have found that the old testament is more a book of philosophy while the New Testament shows letters and stories of Jesus.
Both testaments have their own purpose in the Bible. To say that one is more applicable to Christians is false.
3. You mention loving your fellow man. Never have I said that society should ridicule them, at least in this debate, but I did say that it is ungodly. That means that God does not approve of gay ACTS, he still loves his children.
I am going to stop while I am ahead.


I didn't intend for this debate to get bogged down on one verse from Leviticus, but pro hasn't left me any other option. The core of pro's argument is that Leviticus states it is a sin for a man to sleep with a man as he does with a woman. But pro has made the same mistake that countless others have; he's taken a single verse of scripture and ignored the rest completely. When you take scripture out of context, it undermines the very integrity of the rest. Think of the bible as a tapestry. Rip out a single thread to look at and not only have you devalued the rest of tapestry, but you're left with just a thread. The verses of the bible work together in tandem, painting a picture too big to be summed up completely by any one single verse.

In order to understand the bible and the different parts of it, you need to understand the CONTEXT in which it was written. Take the book of Revelation for example. When John the Apostle wrote that book, he was the only apostle left. ALL his friends had been murdered, he was banished to a small island called Patmos all alone, repeatedly tortured by the Romans for public amusement, and the church as a whole was facing both insurrection and extermination. Without feeling that pain, understanding the CONTEXT of Revelation (John's line in the sand), the book becomes a useless pile of paper.

Leviticus has it's own context too. The book of Leviticus was originally called "wayyiqra" by the Hebrews. This is actually two Hebrew words, "way"and "yiqra". They mean "and" and "he called" respectively [1]. It was called that because "And He Called" were the first words of Leviticus. When the book was translated into Greek and Latin (the two most popular languages of the day) the title was changed to Leviticus, which is Latin for "the book of Levi". Levi was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and his descendants formed the tribe of Levi.

The Levites had distinguished themselves before God during the golden calf incident. They refused to worship before the false idol, and thus God gave them the task of being his priests. Priests of Israel and Judah were held to a higher standard than the rest of the population, they had to adhere to a "code of holiness" in which certain activities (such as eating pork or clams) were prohibited, and if done then a ritual of purification would need to be undertaken to make themselves "clean" again. The book of Leviticus is called the "book of Levi" because it's what contains the code the Levites used to separate themselves from the rest of Israel and Judah. Everyday Jews aspired to those regulations, but they were not bound by them.

If we use the above in conjunction with a little more logic, we can see that God didn't forbid homosexual acts by themselves. Most followers of Abrahamic religion believe that God does not experience time in a linear fashion, that is to say that there is no beginning or end for him, he just exists in every second and point of existence at once. A homosexual is defined by the Webster Dictionary as "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex" [2]. Yet, Leviticus makes no mention of gay women whatsoever (lesbians) [3]. Don't you think that if God knew this debate was coming (the global one, not ours of course), that he would have taken the time to draw restrictions for the other 3.5 BILLION people (all females) currently walking this planet?

Based on the fact that Leviticus was originally meant to be nothing more than a manual for priests of the day, that the coming of Christ made the book obsolete for the most part, and the total lack of mention of gay females ANYWHERE in the bible, I can only assume one of two things:

1. God condemns homosexual behavior of only males and not females, and just forgot to mention the entire topic when he walked the earth, died for our sins, and brought himself back from the dead.
2. That God doesn't care what your sexual orientation is, as long as you aren't a 2,000 year old Levite priest, in which case I know a few scientists that might want to have a chat with you.

That isn't to say that homosexual actions can't ever be a sin, it has restrictions just like heterosexual relations. But if done in the proper context, with a loved one you are married too, I must maintain that it it is NOT a sin, until I get a chance to ask Christ myself and get clarification.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your time and consideration, vote Con.

[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by toolpot462 3 years ago
wiploc - God, that doesn't make any sense!
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
Yes, what do you mean by "ungodly"? When god hardened Pharaoh's heart so he would be mean, was that meanness godly since god arranged it?
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
Define ungodly
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: If pro knew a damn thing about the bible he would know that the Bible is horrendously bad at defining what is or isnt unholy. 4 lines before Levictus's quote about Gay Marriage, Levictus said that a child who curses at his parents should be put to DEATH. Other then that pro argued his case horrendously and con easily tore it apart.
Vote Placed by Marauder 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should be embarrassed as a debater. I strongly side with Pro on the issue of the debate, however its unquestionable that pro completely failed in arguing it. Leviticus was a good starting place for him as it spells the morality of the issue our right there, then Con gave the classic rebutal to that about it being the New Testament that mattered, Pro should have used that opportunity to point out where homosexuality is condemned multiple times in the new testament. but he did I said....Pro should be embarrassed.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
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: Con argued his case well - particularly that one must consider the totality of the Bible like a tapestry to understand its lessons, rather than ripping out a single thread and calling it Truth. Con argued that most of the Bible (even parts discussing what God hates) do not speak of homosexuality as ungodly, and the few threads that do lack widespread applicability (for example, Pro's verse from leviticus). Arguments to Con.