The Instigator
gt4o2007
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Harbinger
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Harbinger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 34601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

gt4o2007

Pro

With most religious people that have a disagreement with homosexuality they say that there is a "choice" on what sexuality you can be. Or that the bible and god have told them that it is a sin for a man to lie with a man. I would like to debate someone on this matter someone that believes it is a choice and also believes that the bible and god have told them it is a sin.
Harbinger

Con

I accept. I await your case.
Debate Round No. 1
gt4o2007

Pro

Alright with respect to the bible I have read it start to finish now the only book that has any mention of homosexuals is Leviticus 20-21 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife of his neighbor both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a man sleeps with his father's wife he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be out to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Ok so the only quote I have been able to ever find in my time of reading the bible is in Leviticus 20-21 and it compares adultery to being gay or cursing your mother and father as the same. Now when it comes to a choice of being gay, straight, or bi for you to say that it is possible for you to switch your sexuality that would then mean you are a bisexual because you have the same feelings for the opposite and same sex. I would also like to ask you this question when did you become straight? Now back to the bible. Leviticus 11: 9-12 "These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters' is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you." For someone to argue that god or the bible say's something against religion they must also accept everything in the old testament. You kill your neighbor if they work on Sabbath day for one. But who knows maybe you have an argument that the bible say's something I don't know about.
Harbinger

Con

I would like to thank Pro for this debate.

The resolution is: For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

I would like to remind the readers that Pro has the full burden of showing there is no argument against homosexuality for the religious. I am Christian and will use the King James Version Bible, now known as the KJV. My task is to dismantle Pros argument and show there is an argument for homosexuality in the KJV. I think I should define homosexuality.

Homosexuality is defined as: 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

I do not think I need to define argument, I think it is clear enough it means in opposition of homosexuality. I will now offer verses supporting my argument.

My first piece of evidence is Leviticus 20:13. My opponent has already mentioned this but used it as referring to straight people also. Well that would be incorrect. As we read it describes men lying with men as women. This can include any act a man would perform in the bed or in lying with a woman. This includes a host of thing as: Touching sexually, Penetration, Orally, and intimate kissing.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

My next verse will be in Romans 1:26-27

"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: 27 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."

We see that the women left their natural use to go against nature and then the next verse describes what use they were being unnatural in. It says likewise the men lusted for one another as did the women lust after one another. We see further that it lead to sexual intercourse and uses words as, vile, unnatural, unseemly, and an error. I think we can say this verse is in opposition against homosexual behavior in either way. This is also a New Testament verse and very relevant today.

My next verse is in Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

We see here it describes men with men and here it adds that it is an abomination.

These verses should suffice for now. I will address my opponent now.

"Alright with respect to the bible I have read it start to finish"

It appears my opponent has missed some verses.

"it compares adultery to being gay or cursing your mother and father as the same."

This is nonsense and my opponent needs to dig in more to convince us of that.

"I would also like to ask you this question when did you become straight?"

This is not part of the debate at hand but I will answer. When I hit puberty.

"For someone to argue that god or the bible says something against religion they must also accept everything in the old testament."

This is anything but true. We can use the the Old Testament for reference and a guide but we are to follow the New Testament. I have given evidence supporting the Old with the New.

"You kill your neighbor if they work on Sabbath day for one. But who knows maybe you have an argument that the bible says something I don't know about."

Indeed I do. Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the the Old Testament Law not making us accountable for it and gave us new Revelation in the New.

I think this is a great start for this debate and I send it back to my opponent. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
gt4o2007

Pro

Other Christians interpret the passage differently. They note that the persons involves in the orgy were former Christians and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature their heterosexual orientation and engaged in same gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature their homosexual orientation and engaged in opposite gender sexual behavior would also be sinning. Another interpretation is discussed by Douglas Campbell in his book "The Deliverance of God" Campbell suggests that in Romans 1:18-32, Paul was presenting an argument by other that actually oppose his own beliefs. He this in order to refute the other writers' false teaching. For millennial, Christian theologians have generally interpreted this passage as representing Paul's beliefs. If Campbell's interpretation is correct, then the church has reversed the meaning of the passage and condemned behaviors that Paul would not have condemned. Still another interpretation is asserted by author Jack Levison . He suggests that the start of chapter 2 of Romans is the key message and should be used to interpret Romans 1. Chapter 2 condemns judgmental behavior that causes internal conflict within the Church. Those who judge others are themselves condoned. Now back to the old testament part you most certainly do have to accept all of the Old Testament Law's or you are just cherry picking random quotes because you do not agree with it your self. In Leviticus you can not eat shell fish or mix fabrics commit adultery or curse your parents I should not have to convince you of how the bible is comparing them as equal if it is within the same page and with the quotes I have provided at the end of every paragraph about adultery and cursing your parents as the blood in on their own heads. They might be different acts but have the same consequences are consistent with all of them. Now onto your statement that you turned straight once you hit puberty I would challenge that because if you can turn straight I can turn gay but by this statement you made everyone is bisexual because they can simply switch over and go have sexual relations with opposite or same sex. The reason I asked this question in the first place was because I was asking someone that believes it is a choice to argue for the motion. But anyways thank you.
Harbinger

Con

Pro is correct that many people interpret passages differently but does that mean they are right? No it doesn't. We need to know the correct interpretation, so lets find it. Pro just asserts, disturbingly I mite add:

"They note that the persons involves in the orgy were former Christians and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature their heterosexual orientation and engaged in same gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature their homosexual orientation and engaged in opposite gender sexual behavior would also be sinning."

Now, I have never heard this before. I would actually like the link so I can go there and debate them on this subject because they are flat out wrong. Let's read the full passage in Romans:

Romans 1:26, "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."

This verse describes something against nature. In the next verse we see that which is against nature, Romans 1:27, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with menworking that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." We see the phrases used to describe these acts as, "lust, unseemly, error, vile and against nature." These descriptions do not sound like they are good in the sight of God. This goes more into my opponent suggesting that homosexuality is natural in this passage and they are going straight. Well it says nothing about homosexuality as nature or ok. It says that straight people are being vile by having sex with their own sex. Let's remember my opponent must show that the Bible supports homosexuality activity. That has not happened so far.

"Douglas Campbell in his book "The Deliverance of God" Campbell suggests that in Romans 1:18-32, Paul was presenting an argument by other that actually oppose his own beliefs."

Was Paul an apostle? Yes He was. Was He chosen by God to write the scriptures? Yes He was. Would God chose Him just inflict his biased opinion? No He would not. Would the Spirit allow Paul to post personal biased material? No the Spirit would not. If this interpretation is correct by Cons source, would this mean God is not in control of His message? Yes it would. How can we believe anything about the Bible is God is not in control of the authors? I have no idea.

"For millennial, Christian theologians have generally interpreted this passage as representing Paul's beliefs."

Indeed they were Paul's belief because He believed in what Christ taught and what the Spirit placed on his heart. This is the entire creditability of the scriptures and my opponent is trying to dismantle their vadality. The creditability of the Bible is not on debate here.

"If Campbell's interpretation is correct, then the church has reversed the meaning of the passage and condemned behaviors that Paul would not have condemned."

My opponent inserts this and his source said no such thing. This flagrant dishonesty.

"Still another interpretation is asserted by author Jack Levison . He suggests that the start of chapter 2 of Romans is the key message and should be used to interpret Romans 1."

Chapter one came first so my opponent my give us a reason to believe this and then I will address it.

"Now back to the old testament part you most certainly do have to accept all of the Old Testament Law's."

No, I do not. Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the Old Testament and gave us His testimony. He nailed the Old Law to the cross through His sacrifice, making the Old Law no obligatory for man. We know have the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ personal testimony that we must follow. See if Romans did not mention homosexuality, then it would not be something a Christian should not do, possibly. But it does and is a vile sin.

"you are just cherry picking random quotes because you do not agree with it your self. In Leviticus you can not eat shell fish or mix fabrics commit adultery"

Like hear, my opponent mentions this and yes it was a Law but Jesus took that on Himself on the cross. My opponent needs to show this is a teaching that Jesus taught in the New Testament and He would be right.

"Now onto your statement that you turned straight once you hit puberty I would challenge that because if you can turn straight I can turn gay."

I had no interest in women or men(never have been interested in men) until I hit puberty. This topic is not the debate at hand. It is not religious or in the Bible so I do not have to address it. If my opponent shows that homosexuality is not condemned in the scriptures or is suggested as good in the scriptures then He wins the debate, so this point is not called for.

Thanks and back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
gt4o2007

Pro

Starting with nature, something within this universe is natural based on definition something that can happen within the universe is natural. A god would not be natural because it is not within the universe a god would create the universe. Now you would know if you kept reading Romans 1:29-32" They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things DESERVE DEATH, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Paul has compared sleeping with the same-sex as disobeying your parents and that in doing so you would deserve death something almost every son or daughter has been guilty of in their life time. If you would like to use Romans as a source of knowledge to go against homosexuality then you must accept that if your child disobeys you they deserve death. Romans 6:16-23"Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teachings to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin you free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Now this is a very important quote from Paul from what he believes to be God telling him this because when you talk about sin he says the punishment is death when you are the "Slave" to sin you are given death as a punishment. But yet if you are a "Slave" to God himself you can be saved notice though it is not just homosexuality that is mentioned within this book as a sin it is things that someone may not be proud of but it includes adultery, disobeying your parents, stealing, worshiping other gods, and dishonoring God's law's. The reason I chose this quote is because there is not one person on this earth that can say they have completely honored every law within the bible whether it be the old, new or both testaments but it does not matter because we have all sinned and without accepting God and becoming his slave you will have to be the slave of sin and be sent to death where you will be judged by God. Romans 7: 2-3 " For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage . So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress even though she marries another man." This quote has effectively sentenced the woman that have had a divorce to death, this is within your own book and if you believe this all to be true then I would say that you sir have an argument that your religion preaches against homosexuality but without accepting all of the rules and laws in it you cannot pick one thing. I send this back to Con.
Harbinger

Con

I would first like to apologize to all the readers and my opponent for my last round. I made many typing errors and it can make things difficult to read at times, it may not be the case but I still apologize.

As for the debate, my opponent as basically conceded. My opponent showed us a lot of sinful things in the Old and New Testament. He has also stated that, "this is within your own book and if you believe this all to be true then I would say that you sir have an argument that your religion preaches against homosexuality." I may be wrong but to me this equals a concession if I agree with all the things within the Bible, I do. Therefore, my opponent has conceded.

Let's address something new here for educational purposes. Homosexuality is a sin and so is, adultery, dis-obedience, and every single thing called sinful within the Bible. My opponent has tried to say I am picking and choosing here, I am not, I condemn everything given these marks within the Bible including the acts I commit which are sinful. The act of homosexuality is not what sends someone to hell. We all commit sin and are worthy of death because of it. The problem lies with not recognizing the sin as a sin and therefore not repenting for it. If we do not repent and feel a burden for the sin that has been clearly described as such, then we are subject to the punishment of hell. One that admits their sin as sin and wrong by God, are forgiven.

My opponent wants to play all fields here but knows very little about the Bible as a whole. He has no idea what the purpose of Jesus Christ, it appears. Jesus Christ came and pinned all sinful actions on the cross for all men. When one accepts this sacrifice by Christ then their sins are washed away because of Him. When one does not accept Christ and His sacrifice then they cannot receive that salvation from the sin, they must then go back to the Old Testament way of cleansing, which puts the act of Christ into shame. They reject His sacrifice. We then are to follow the teachings that Christ established in His ministry and not the Old Law. It is not picking and choosing this and that, it is Biblical teaching simple and plain. The act of homosexuality is not what sends one to hell, it is the refusal of Christ and His Word that does, by living willfully, without remorse or confession to Christ for their sinful actions.

I await Pros response, Thanks.
Debate Round No. 4
gt4o2007

Pro

Sense this is the last round I do not want to open up a new argument I am hoping you do not either I will just use this round to respond to the last. I thank you for stating and normalizing homosexuality and comparing it to all other sin's instead of making it the ultimate sin. But you have also stated that by simply accepting Christ you would have your sins washed away to me this sounds like you can do most of what you want repent and accept god and it would not matter you can still go to heaven. I in this entire debate have not mentioned hell and at all within any of my quotes or rounds I have only stated that the punishment would be death. I have definitely not conceded because I said if you would give the same punishment that is stated in Romans that homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, and disobeying your parents deserves death then yes I completely agree that you have a religion that is against homosexuality with extreme consequences for it and many different things it compares it to as well. From my understanding to accept Christ would not save you from dying it is said it can save you from hell but I also never mentioned hell anywhere is this debate. I thank Con for this debate and hope you just respond to this round.
Harbinger

Con

Thank you Pro for Harbingers first debate here at DDO. I will keep a brief summary of Pros previous comments and my own for fairness. 

Pro has conceded the debate but admitting that if I accept all sin as worthy of death then I have negated the resolution.

"But you have also stated that by simply accepting Christ you would have your sins washed away to me this sounds like you can do
most of what you want repent and accept god and it would not matter you can still go to heaven."

Your sins will be washed away but this by no means you can do anything you want. First off, once you have accepted Christ you will
naturally want to follow His teachings, we will fail many times, but we will have that desire always. Secondly, there is difference in wanting
to live Biblically and failing too, that was what Christ was for, and a whole different story to just keep living sinfully without a burden and call
for repentance.

I think Pro for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Praetor 4 years ago
Praetor
Are you distinguishing between Sodomy and homosexuality, or is sodomy a natural extension of homosexuality. I don't mean to nitpick, but I have often considered that homosexual desires themselves aren't sinful, but engaging in homosexual sex is, as the bible constantly refers to the act of homosexuality rather than someone being a homosexual.

Either way, I think Con has clearly won this debate.
Posted by Harbinger 4 years ago
Harbinger
On slaught.
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
Read the damn bible pro
Posted by curious_boy 4 years ago
curious_boy
so what con has to prove, that it is a sin or it is correct???
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by effimero89 4 years ago
effimero89
gt4o2007HarbingerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Haha I love it when Christians say the Old testament is only for reference but we just need to follow the New. Ok so what you get to choose which parts of the bible is ok with you and then list the complete other half as reference?
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
gt4o2007HarbingerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall: Con. Conduct: Tied S&P: Just look at Con's last round. The print is tiny and inconsistent with everything else. Arguments: Con rebutted Pro fairly well. And, since Pro has the BoP, he loses. Sources: Tied. Both just used the Bible.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
gt4o2007HarbingerTied
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: Pro said in the course of the debate that he wanted somebody to (1) make a religious argument against homosexuality, and (2) show that being gay is a choice. However, only (1) is in his resolution, so I decided to judge this debate only by what's stated in the resolution. Pro lost this debate in the second round when he acknowledged that Leviticus condemns homosexuality. He went on to attempt a reductio ad absurdum by showing all the other things Leviticus says that we are expected not to accept. But that struck me as irrelevant. The fact that Leviticus has laws we might not like doesn't mean it doesn't condemn homosexuality. And Pro doesn't deny that it condemns homosexuality. The rest of this debate was just unnecessary. Both of these debaters really need to work on their spelling and grammar.