The Instigator
calvinknightley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Christian and being Gay

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Freeman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,312 times Debate No: 9607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

calvinknightley

Pro

Christians argue that the Bible says gays are going to hell. But when they say we are sinning, they sin themselves; by saying we're sinning their judging, Matt 7:1, 2 says, "Judge not that you be not judged. 2. For with what judgment you judge it will be judged unto you." So if they call us the fg word or gays and say that we're sinning, they will be judged as fgs or gays as well. In the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I cannot find one single passage in which Jesus condemned homosexuality. Wasn't it Jesus who said, "Love one another as I have loved you."? And yet, Christians shout, fg, you're going to burn in hell, God hates gays! I'm sorry but that last one is totally wrong. 1st John 4:8 says, "Any man who does not love knows not God, for God is Love." In Luke, it says, "A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit." So how can God hate if God is love? John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave us His Son...." The Bible says to be Christ-like, but Christians shout hate when they should preach love. That's hypocritical! And I have to say, that come judgment day, the Christians who shouted those things, I believe, will be judge swiftly and without mercy, (as will all of us) for they knew that what they were doing was wrong; they shouted hate in Jesus Name! The only Scripture I've been able to find, well several but they basically say the same thing, is in Leviticus 18:22,"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." First, abomination, in that time, didn't necessarily mean sin. It meant that it was, in English, frowned upon. Two, it says in Deuteronomy 22:9, "Thou shall not plant a garden with two different kinds of seed." If you do, that a sin. It goes to say, in verse 11, "Thou shall not wear any clothing made from two different kinds of fabric." So, if that shirt you're wearing right now is cotton and polyester, you better take it off, because you're sinning. It also says, in verse 28, and 29, "If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold of her, and lay with her, and they be found. 29. Then the man that lay with her shall give her father money and she shall be his wife...." So this says rape victims should marry their rapist. But Christians don't take that seriously. It seems that the Gay-hating-Christians pick and choose their Scriptures. It also says that if a woman is not a virgin before her marriage day then she shall be taken to her father's house and stoned to death. But Christians don't bother with that either. Why against gays and not against hate? Why are gays sinning (why am I supposedly sinning) and those who preach hate and anger are not? I spent three years of my life, trying to make myself straight. And those were the darkest years of my life. I wondered if God loved me. Then I wondered why God didn't make me straight. And then I realized something; He made me the way He wanted me and that His love for me is without measure, and is unconditional, for He loves each and every one of us. I hope that any who reads this will not hate Christians, for those who are described above are not Christians. And don't let people like that ruin your thoughts about Christianity, because all Christians are not like that. They will love the sinner and not the sin. Even if they think homosexuality is or is not a sin, they will still love you!
Freeman

Con

Let me begin by thanking calvinknightley for instigating this debate.

There is something somewhat disingenuous and insipid about Christians trying to mold Christianity however they please while disregarding its supposed pillar of authority. Religious faith is too irrational, poisonous, and harmful to modern society for us to allow it to snuggle against reason unchallenged. With this in mind I do occasionally stress my points with sarcasm or irreverence. So, try not to take any of my proceeding blasphemy personally. :)

---> "It seems that the Gay-hating-Christians pick and choose their Scriptures."

It would seem that you do the same. The fact that you can cherry pick passages of the Bible for the cynical purpose of repudiating other parts of the Bible does not make the Bible a morally wise book. It simply makes it irrelevant. Your argument is vapid and your reasoning is circular. [1]

Contention 1: The gay community should not shelter Christianity

My opponent has already established in his first round that the Bible is homophobic. Consequentially, he has done most of my work for me. Simply put there shouldn't be any gay Christians because gay people shouldn't be flocking towards a religion that has been oppressing and demonizing them since its inception on the basis of its teachings. When taken seriously much of the Bible contains vast amounts of life destroying gibberish created in large part by desert dwelling epileptics and schizophrenics that weren't bright enough to keep their excrement out of their food. As a result of this it has many problems to contend with both scientifically and morally. To support Christianity is therefore to support the hatred and ignorance that it inspires. And this is equally as true with the gay community as it is with any other group. One ought not to be Christian under any circumstance; therefore one ought not to be a gay Christian.

Contention 2: The Bible is ridiculous and should not be followed seriously by anyone

To put it mildly the Bible is almost entirely bogus as a book that accurately describes the evolution of our species or that proscribes cogent moral principles for a human to live by. Consider, as though for the first time, the contents of this supposed divine text. The Bible is a very long book, it contains pages and pages on how to kill people, how to beat slaves, and detailed instructions on how to sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Try to imagine how this would look to someone like me who stands outside of the faith. At no place in the Bible does God care to mention DNA, relativity, evolution, or any other bits of knowledge humans have gained for themselves. As though this weren't odd enough for some strange reason that surpasses human understanding God decided to make Shakespeare a better writer than himself. Given that this is the case it puzzles me why anyone would want to follow the Bible, especially groups that have been notoriously mistreated by its application.

=====
Slavery
=====

The Bible (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4) St. Paul even admonishes slaves to serve their masters well-and to serve their Christian masters especially well.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

The Bible (Exodous.21:20-21) – Slaves can be beaten so long as they don't immediately die after the process.

=============
Animal sacrifices
=============

The Bible (Lev.chs 3; 7:11-21, cf.ch. 7:22-27; Ex.29:20-28; Deut.12:7, 18, 1 Sam 2:15-17)

=========================
Crimes that carry the death penalty
=========================

Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13)

False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. (Zech 13:3)

Witches should be killed. (Ex 22:18)

Anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. (Ex 35:2)

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)

The list is long and it is preposterous. If I dedicated my time to writing all of them down I would be busy for quite a while.

=======
Conclusion
=======

Religion faith is a particularly obnoxious species of ignorance and it would be better if it died off. To achieve this end we shouldn't try to support Christianity by making it more inclusive. Nor should we pretend that the Bible is friendly to gays or to straight people for that matter. I write this not so that you may bear your illusion without fantasy or consolation, but so that you may throw it away and learn about the pleasures of critical thinking and intellectualism.

Best,
Freeman

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
calvinknightley

Pro

First, you seem you don't really have an opinion on being gay and a Christian. Your argument is mostly about how the Bible and religion* itself is "poisonous", "harmful", "demonizing", "oppressing", "ridiculous", and "bogus". You personally hate religion/Christianity and are therefore taking the opportunity to persecute, harass, and loathe Christianity and other religions faiths.

Second, it seems you've misunderstood me. I wasn't saying the Bible is homophobic. You put those words in my mouth. I was merely saying that Christians consider homosexuals to be sinning based upon Lev 20:13. That doesn't make them homophobic. Just like they consider sexual abuse a sin. Does that make them agraphobic? ** No.

Thirdly, the Bible doesn't give specific instructions on how to kill somebody. If your Bible gives specific instructions on how to kill somebody, then I don't know what kind of Bible your reading.

Fourthly, "To support Christianity is therefore to support the hatred and ignorance that it inspires."

No, not necessarily. This statement is morally wrong on many accounts, religions, and humanity for that matter. I support this website: debate.org. Does that mean I support everything everyone debates, writes, and talks about? No. But according to your logic, I do and so do you. Which means that you and I not only support religion in general, but slang-use***, gun control***, abortion***, pre-pay pumps after dark***, you are Ann Coulter***, I think Hummus is delicious***, and God knows how many other things. I support the Internet. Does that mean I support porn websites? **** White supremacies websites? **** Anti-Freedom of Speech websites? **** No. I'm afraid that your logic, in this area, is wrong.

Fifthly, "The Bible is ridiculous and should not be followed seriously by anyone."

This statement puzzled me. Let's say the Bible is a fantasy. But strictly speaking, the Bible is unique. There are two major divisions of the Bible: The Hebrew Scriptures and what Christians call the New Testament.

It was written over a fifteen-hundred-year span by more than forty different authors from every walk of life. For example, Moses was a political leader trained in the universities of Egypt. David was a shepherd, poet, musician, and king. Joshua was military general. Nehemiah was a palace official to a pagan king. Daniel was a prime minister. Luke was a physician and historian. And Paul was a rabbi, to name just a few.

It was written in different places: a desert, a dungeon, a palace, a prison, among others.

It was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Greek, and a couple short sections in Aramaic, the "common language" of Jesus' day. *****

It was written on three different continents at different times. For example, David wrote in time of war and sacrifice; Solomon wrote in time of peace and prosperity.

And sections of the Bible are more than just rules and laws. Some sections are proverbs, poetry, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, auto-biography, prophecy, parable, and allegory.

The fact that the Bible contains all of this and has survived over hundreds of years is nothing short of a miracle and something to be taken very seriously and not as a fantasy.
"At no place in the Bible does God care to mention DNA, relativity, evolution."
No, you're right. But He does mention His love, compassion, understanding, joy, peace, motives, and even hilarity in the Bible.

And sixthly, "Slavery", "Animal sacrifices", and "Crimes that carry the death penalty".

One of your Scriptures is wrong in this topic. Deu. 12:7, 18, has nothing to do with neither animal sacrifice nor anything else in this discussion. Now, Deu. 12:11, says, "Sacrifice" not animal sacrifice. There are other things in which one can sacrifice. Such as food, time, money, clothes, jewelry, etc. Unless it says specifically, it just means to give up something important, not just animals.

"Crimes that carry the death penalty" has a Scripture that isn't wrong but reading the Scripture alone is misleading. Zech. 13:3. Does in fact say, False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. The Chapter in which the verse is found in is talking about false prophets who worship false idols. ******

"Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)". This Scripture has some holes in it. I'm getting technical, but I think there are some finer points in which you missed. These points are: A son who is stubborn, rebellious, glutton, and drunk.

In conclusion, of everything I didn't reply too: "Anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. (Ex 35:2)", "Witches should be killed. (Ex 22:18)", "Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13)", "Animal sacrifices: (Lev.chs 3; 7:11-21, cf.ch. 7:22-27; Ex.29:20-28; Deut.12:7, 18, 1 Sam 2:15-17)", "(Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4) St. Paul even admonishes slaves to serve their masters well-and to serve their Christian masters especially well.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
(Exodous.21:20-21) – Slaves can be beaten so long as they don't immediately die after the process." in Freeman's words.
Jesus counter-argument all of this and that these rituals, sacrifices, etc. were to stop.
It's just that SOME Christians don't believe that Jesus counter-argument all of these. Such as, Lev. 20:13. But we do not believe in killing witches nor do we believe in slaves, killing false prophets, animal sacrifice*******, and anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. And I'm not saying that Freeman said this either because he didn't.

Sources

*Religion: system of belief in, worship of a supernatural power or god. Christianity is a type of religion but Freeman specifically says religion in general. This means every belief there is.
**Wikipedia.com
***Debate.com
**** I will neither speak nor give direction to these websites. And strongly advise you NOT to view them. Women are to be respected and treated equal. We are all equal no matter race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc. I'm a firm believer in the Freedom of Speech.
***** W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, rev. ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1960), 218.
******Zech. 13:3
*******Matt. 9:16, Matt. 12:7. Heb. 10:10.
Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. Heb. 9:26, "Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."
Freeman

Con

This is certainly an interesting topic so lets try to get right in to it. Some of your last round that you spent describing the Bible was interesting, but orthogonal to the issue at hand. So, please don't mind if I ignore it in my response.

====================
Summarizing the argument
====================

---> "First, you seem you don't really have an opinion on being gay and a Christian."

I've tried to make my views on this matter clear. So, allow me to surmise my arguments tersely. Firstly, the Bible condemns gay relationships. Therefore, even from a biblical perspective your argument fails. Secondly, Christianity is spurious and has no evidence to support its key metaphysical claims. Therefore one should not be a Christian under any circumstance, especially if one is gay. Lastly, gay people shouldn't be Christians because this would be an unacceptable form of collusion with a bigoted and loathsome religion.

Christianity is culpable in its contempt for knowledge; for its mistreatment of women; for it mistreatment of gays; for its hatred of sex; for its mistreatment of non-believers; for its mistreatment of other religious people; for its mistreatment of children; for its mistreatment of animals, and for the snide superciliousness with which it promulgates its delusions. And to support Christianity by being a member is therefore to give tacit support to this system.

You may wish to claim that the Christians who engage in this behavior aren't following the Bible. But deep down you know that that isn't true. Given a prejudiced selection of the bible certain passages can be used to bring out the worst in people. And as long as those verses remain in the Bible your going to keep hearing people like Pat Robertson make their same bigoted arguments over and over again.

======
Case Con- Rebuttals
======

---> "To support Christianity is therefore to support the hatred and ignorance that it inspires."- Freeman

"No, not necessarily. This statement is morally wrong on many accounts, religions, and humanity for that matter. I support this website: debate.org. Does that mean I support everything everyone debates, writes, and talks about? No. But according to your logic, I do and so do you."- calvinknightley

This argument consists of both a straw man fallacy and a false analogy. [1] [2] Debate.org isn't a religion or worldview and is not committed to any ideological perspective. To compare the Internet or DDO with Christianity is therefore fallacious. If Debate.org had any underlying principle it would be something close to the following, "free and open inquiry are to be respected". Unlike a particular religion DDO isn't committed to vindicating any specific belief or point of view. Therefore by supporting DDO you and I are both supporting the idea that "free and open inquiry are to be respected" and not any particular argument. The essence of Debate.org is not some aggregation of every debate that has ever been presented; it is simply the medium through which ideas can freely be contested. Christianity, on the other hand, does have a particular ideological purview and by supporting it you implicitly support that purview. I'm afraid that it is you not I that is guilty of faulty logic.

---> "The fact that the Bible contains all of this and has survived over hundreds of years is nothing short of a miracle and something to be taken very seriously and not as a fantasy."

The fact that the Bible is old and has survived does not make it credible. The Iliad is even older than the Bible; perhaps you should consider converting to paganism. [3] Unless you have any arguments in favor of the Bibles veracity that aren't fallacious my points about the Bible being ridiculous and implausible remain standing.

===
---> "Thirdly, the Bible doesn't give specific instructions on how to kill somebody."
===

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21) Last time I checked stoning someone was a specific method of murder.

===
---> "Jesus counter-argument all of this and that these rituals, sacrifices, etc. were to stop."
===

I would appreciate it if you show me the passage you are referring to. Jesus also said that every aspect of the law must be followed. "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:18 NIV [4] The last time I checked heaven and Earth haven't disappeared.

Secondly, the fact that Jesus contradicts the Old Testament is only evidence of the Bibles inconsistency. Furthermore, your exegesis of scripture was partly amusing but I'm not all that impressed with the way you try to defend certain instances of murder, slavery, and barbarism. I think we can say with reasonable moral certainty that children's parents shouldn't murder them even if they are stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous, and drunk.

========
Conclusion
========

Unless one has good reasons to believe that something is true one should not believe it. And this method of logic would apply equally to Christianity, because no Christian has good evidence that would vindicate the main core of their beliefs. In other words, one shouldn't be Christian period because the core claims of Christianity are unsupported by evidence. It follows from this gay people should also not be Christians because the foundation for Christianity is no more validated for them than for anyone else. (Resolution negated)

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://classiclit.about.com...
[4] http://bible.cc...
Debate Round No. 2
calvinknightley

Pro

I will start with this: Some of your last round that you spent describing the Bible was interesting, but orthogonal to the issue at hand. So, please don't mind if I ignore it in my response. –Freeman.
It maybe orthogonal to the issue at hand but it still plays an important part in this debate. For instance, the Scriptures to which we have quoted are found in some of the areas in which I describe. Plus, it looks to me; the only reason why you didn't respond to it was maybe the possibility to you might be wrong. For instance, what if there is a fact in your statement that I can't prove wrong, I think I would just find it interesting and choose to ignore it too. You choosing to ignore hard facts that I presented in the last round (which was the basis of my argument) is highly suspicious and interesting to a person such as you.

Second, "Christianity is spurious and has no evidence to support its key metaphysical claims."
I'm not here to ask how the earth began or anything like that. I'm here for your opinion on being gay and a Christian. It has very little relevance to this discussion.

Thirdly, "You may wish to claim that the Christians who engage in this behavior aren't following the Bible. But deep down you know that that isn't true." -Freeman.

Please, don't tell me what I think and what I know. It may be you who you are referring too and not me. You don't know me. Almost anything can be used for bad or good. The Government, for instance, licenses people to drive but not to live. Anyone can be just as dangerous behind the wheel as a drunk is. What matters is not what it can do, but what our intentions to do with it. The Bible can also bring out the best in people; it all depends on how you view it, see it, take it, and respond to it. No one likes to be wrong, but sometimes, we all have to be wrong at something.
P.S. Pat Robertson is an idiot. I hope people don't see Christians as people like him. I'm in understanding with you in this area!

Fourthly, "The fact that the Bible is old and has survived does not make it credible. The Iliad is even older than the Bible; perhaps you should consider converting to paganism."
First, I never said the Bible was credible. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. But the fact that it has survived hundreds of years I think should be taken into account and should be taken seriously. Second, the Iliad has nothing to do with the Bible, even if it's the oldest religion.* and finally, "Unless you have any arguments in favor of the Bibles veracity that aren't fallacious." –Freeman. Please, you don't believe or accept the possibility of any belief. You will probably consider hard evidence or any evidence supporting the Bible fallacious. You see what you choose to see. And if I gave hard-evidence you would probably believe them to ridiculous and implausible which makes it almost correct that your points remain standing, in your own eyes though. And in your last statement, you do not deny the fact that you had facts which had holes. In other words, some of your facts were really fiction. Though, since I brought it up, you'll probably respond now.

Fifthly, I agree that stubborn, rebellious, glutton, and drunken children do not deserve to be stoned or killed. I wasn't saying that but I didn't put that into my text.

Sixthly, "Jesus counter-argument all of this and that these rituals, sacrifices, etc. were to stop." "I would appreciate it if you show me the passage you are referring to. Jesus also said that every aspect of the law must be followed."

Well, Heb. 9: 26. "Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Heb. 10:1-18. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4. Because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
But a body you prepared for me;
6. with burnt offerings and sin offerings
You were not pleased.
7. Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God. 8. First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9. Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16. This is the covenant I will make with them
After that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
And I will write them on their minds. 17. Then he adds:
Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more. 18. And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." **

I think that summed it up. If not, try: Matt. 22:15-22. *** Luke. 20:22-25.**** Mark. 12:17.**** Mark. 12:30-34. Luke. 20:25. Matt. 22:34-40.

Seventhly, "Unless one has good reasons to believe that something is true one should not believe it. And this method of logic would apply equally to Christianity, because no Christian has good evidence that would vindicate the main core of their beliefs."

Neither does any other religion. Nor science. Nor anyone alive. And besides, Christianity itself has different core beliefs. Catholicism is different from Pentecostalism. Baptist is different form Methodist. There are different core beliefs and you didn't specifically say which. Plus, no matter what point of view; Christian, science, religion, paganism, and each human, no matter what, we will never have physical evidence on such things like how the world began. Only our belief, faith, and hope are what we have. Science has made good cases, but they have been susceptible and no matter what, everyone will not have the same answer as to, for instance, how the earth began because each group's evidence comes to the same core: unknown, belief and no evidence.

And lastly, I want to make it clear to everyone out there: Don't let other people ruin your thoughts about Christianity. The true genuine Christians are nice, loving, kind, generous, hopeful, faithful, loyal, inspiring, accepting, and understanding people. Don't let this discussion choose what you believe. No matter what I or Freeman has said; don't let it choose for you. But remember: Jesus Christ loves you and He died for you.

*http://wiki.answers.com...
**Is backed by OT Scripture: Ps. 40:6-8.
***Is backed by Deut. 6:5, and Lev. 19:18. But see Matt 22:15-22 anyway. Very Important!
****The story of Jesus' response to a question about taxes teaches us something about how Christians are to relate to government. Jesus taught that we should pay what we rightfully owe to the government and, by implication, obey the law of the land insofar as it does not require us to disobey God. See also: Law of the Land on the web.
Freeman

Con

Let me first begin by thanking calvinknightley for starting this debate. There has been a lot of unnecessary back in forth about the Bible so allow me to try to bring this debate back on topic. Much of the content of my opponent's last round failed to get at the heart of what is at issue here. Moreover, my key arguments have essentially gone unscathed.

The resolution is "Christian and being Gay"

This could be interpreted in two different ways.

1.It's all right to be a Christian and also be Gay.
2.Christian doctrine is essentially not opposed to being gay while remaining in the faith.

Either way this argument fails. Allow me to demonstrate this by briefly summarizing my previous arguments.

The first resolution fails because there isn't adequate evidence to validate Christian teachings. Therefore one ought not to be a Christian regardless of their sexual orientation. Moreover, Christianity is fundamentally hostile to open inquiry and gay rights out of deference to its teachings. And to support the religion by being a member is to give tacit support to these prejudices.

If we are to interpret the resolution to mean that Christian teachings are unopposed to gay relationships then my opponent's arguments still fail. I have already pointed out that gay relationships are contrary to Biblical scripture. Moreover, my opponent has established this even better than I have so it wont be necessary for me to say anything else. (Vote Con)

Best,
Freeman

Good Luck :)
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
Very astute arguments Freeman. Perhaps you should be an agnostic/athiest recruiter for recovering catholics like myself. You definitely had some chutzpah with your arguments but some of your comments seemed a tad harsh and didn't add to your already well laid out argument.
Posted by mcmhare 7 years ago
mcmhare
I quite agree, Lunalovgood! A lot of Freeman's arguments have some gapping holes. And as one who as a Master's psycology it seems to me that Freeman has a lot of insecurities. But I do take my hat off to CK; bringing up those Scriptures in your last round was superb!!! Fm's argument in the second round challenged you to show the Scriptures and you proved him wrong! Congrats!!! And at least CK doesn't act like he knows it all! The way he writes shows that he could be just as wrong as the next man in line. Goodjob, Calvin! It doesn't matter weither you win or lose you were great!!!
Posted by lunalovgood 7 years ago
lunalovgood
Freeman's last round was lame!!! He didn't even say anything! Probably because Calvin had brought up hard evidence and Freeman couldn't even dispute it! Wimp!!!
Posted by calvinknightley 7 years ago
calvinknightley
Yes, studentathletechristian8. Sorry that I didn't specify. oppps! :)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Are you referencing me?
Posted by calvinknightley 7 years ago
calvinknightley
I realized that after I Freeman posted his first round. I really, really, thank you for your words just now. They are touching me deeply. I appeciate them more than you know. But I hope through this comment you have the jest of it.
:)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
ck- you really did not need most of that crap in your first round argument.

Personally, I think a Christian can be gay. Same thing as saying there can be a Christian who has committed adultery over and over again. The key is that this sin of homosexuality is repeated constantly without repentance. That is one of my main concerns with homosexual Christians being admitted to heaven. We should be repentant of all our sins, and honestly, I think homosexuals may struggle with that. However, I commend you for being ready to move on with your faith.
Posted by calvinknightley 7 years ago
calvinknightley
Thank you all for your opinions, comments, and only one true real post that everyone gave! I was personally hoping to debate a Christian but I got Freeman and I really enjoyed this debate with him. I am truly glad I got his imput and yours as well! I take all, no matter weither it be for or against gay and Christianity, into very serious account and thought!
Always Laughing,
Calvin. :)
Posted by calvinknightley 7 years ago
calvinknightley
alex_hanson911: It seems you should practice what you preach! You need to read what your judging and commenting on. You said it yourself, "Calvin know what your talking about before you debate. I stopped reading after the first 3 sentences because it was clear you have no idea what your talking about." You stopped reading after the first three senteces. Well its clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about either.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Asteroix- no offense, but about 75% percent of the Catholics at my school openly hate gays without any reasoning. Homosexuality is just an issue that has gone too far in the Church. Why should it matter if you're gay? Does sexual orientation affect how you learn, teach, perform daily duties, etc.? To some extent, it may, but overall, it does not.
I'm embarassed to type this, but I used to be one of those Christians who hated gays and anyone who was not Christian. However, I'm now much more open-minded and realized the faults of my previous "logic."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gilgameshdg 7 years ago
Gilgameshdg
calvinknightleyFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04