Gay Is Okay
Debate Rounds (3)
Gay just means that two people of the same gender fall in love. There is no harm in loving someone. According to society and the media, relationships are in, so why is a relationship with two guys or girls bad? Twaimz (Issa) once made a video on YouTube called 'You're Gay' in which he protested against haters and stood up for the people who just wanted to love. "Why hate someone because they love someone? Like, they're not hating you."
Being gay myself, I know that it can be hard with the haters. It's especially hard when you are a homosexual AND go to a Christian church. With my religion, I'm told that God says homosexuality is bad. Sure, God created a man and woman and people will protest with the common phrase, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" This is true, but if God created Adam and Steve, there would be quite a lot heterophobic people or no females at all! How would you females feel? Not so great huh? What about straight (or bi, pan, etc.) people didn't get who you loved?
Homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and any other sexuality that is with one gender liking the same gender (even the slightest bit) has all the rights to be as equally accepted as heterosexuality.
First, I just want to thank my opponent for stepping up and creating this debate. This topic, especially in our current culture, is extremely important. And in the Christian church we need to come to a conclusion regarding what has come to be known as "Gay Christianity." I don't think I will be providing a case that will solve this issue for everyone, not even my opponent. But I do intend to provide a biblical warrant for why homosexuality is wrong, as well as why sexual immorality in general is wrong. I do not think homosexuality is a worse sin than adultery, for example. Both forsake God's plan for marriage and both are condemned by God.
Second, I do not just plan on arguing that homosexuality is wrong. I also plan on contending that Jesus is right, in all that he does. Jesus proclaimed one-man and one-woman marriage, and Jesus proclaimed forgiveness and fulfillment in him. So this debate is much broader than "is gay okay?" It necessarily forces us to ask questions about the Christian God and about Jesus.
Third, my case is not against the homosexual person. It is against homosexuality as a morally permissible act. By extension it will seem to be attacking people who identify as LGBTQ, but that is not my intention.
Contention 1: Defining Normative Standards
The topic of this debate is "Gay is Okay." As con, I ask have two questions for my opponent. A) "who says?" and b) "by what standard?" By "okay" I assume you mean good, morally permissible, even morally commendable. But, who told you that homosexuality was okay? How do you know homosexuality is okay? Or, to take it a step further, how do you know that homophobia is bad? I agree that homophobia is sinful, but I know it is sinful because of a standard I appeal to; God's Word. But the question remains, how does my opponent know these things are either good or bad?
The standard I appeal to is God's revelation. In fact, this is the only acceptable standard. If God exists (which is not the topic being debated) then it follows that he has the authority to command his creatures. As his creatures we are morally obligated to obey his commands, and we must be willing to receive the consequences for obedience or disobedience.
God, in his Word, has made it clear that homosexuality is sinful. It is on that basis that homosexuality is not "okay." In short, if my opponent were to ask, "why is gay not okay?" I would reply, "because God said so." It really is as simple as that. If God said it, that settles it.
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error"(Rom. 1:24-27).
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"(Lev. 18:22).
"and (Jesus) said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"?"(Matthew 19:5).
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God"(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
Both the Old and New Testaments agree that homosexuality is a sin. It is defined as an "abomination." Those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is considered "contrary to nature." Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in full agreement that marriage was between a man and his wife, and "the two shall become one flesh."
God, who does exist, has made it known that homosexuality is not okay. He has a purpose and design for marriage and homosexuality is not a part of that design. He has forbidden it, and that is the basis for why it is wrong. If we allow our feelings about the issue to dictate if homosexuality is okay, then we must extend that principle to other people as well. If a group of people have a feeling that stealing is okay, does that make it so?
We also cannot allow what we see in the animal world the dictate this issue. Homosexual advocates often say, "Homosexuality is present in other species of animals, so it is only natural for us to accept it." The problem with the reasoning is that murder, rape, incest, inter-generational sex, are all also present in the animal world. Should we therefore allow these acts to be committed by humans? Certainly not. But why not? If we impose our moral categories onto the animal world when it comes to homosexuality, why can't we impose our moral categories on them when it comes to other things? If we are to be consistent, we must abandon the "animal principle" as an argument for homosexuality or embrace all of its implications.
I assert that there has not been a consistent normative standard offered by the homosexual advocates. And any attempt to provide one leads to harming their case more than helping it.
My opponent offers a very moving and emotional case for homosexuality. Essentially, it is summed up in the "how would you feel if the situation were flipped around?" kind of argumentation. The only problem is, the situation isn't flipped around. We live in the world we live in (I will address the validity of my opponents statement later, though).
First off, Pro says "there is no harm in loving someone." However, this can be refuted quite quickly. If I were to fall in love with someone who was manipulative, deceitful, and hurtful, it can easily be seen how this would harm me, even those around me. I am not equating homosexuals to manipulative, deceitful, and hurtful people. But, I am showing that there can be harm in loving someone.
It should be duly noted that according to the standard of God's Word, there definitely can be harm in loving someone of the same sex. Romans 1:27 says, "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." There is a penalty for the error of homosexuality. And as in the passage from 1 Corinthians quoted above, those who practice homosexuality do not inherit the kingdom of God. Surely, not inheriting the kingdom of God means you do not receive the blessings that come with it, including life with God forever. So yes, romantically/sexually loving someone of the same sex and acting on those feelings is harmful.
Secondly, my opponent quotes a YouTuber, Twaimz as saying, "why hate someone because they love someone? Like, they're not hating you."
I agree with this statement prima facie. Indeed, as a Christian, I am called to love my neighbor as myself and even to love my enemies. Christians are not called to a life of hate but to a life of love. But that love is defined by God, not man. And hate is defined by God, not man. Telling someone that they are sinning and they should turn to Christ is not hate. It is quite loving, actually. We do not want the homosexual to have a more boring life, we want them to have a greater and more fulfilled life in Christ.
The Christian attitude however, should not be like the Westboro Baptist Church, a group of people that shouldn't be called "baptist" or "church." The only thing Westboro loves is hating people, which show that they are not a part of Christ's church. They are more sinful and abominable than someone who blatantly denies Christ. For they say they believe but lead people away from the good news of salvation and grace in Jesus Christ.
Moreover, the church as a whole has not done a good job in this area and has marginalized and mistreated the gay community. Both truth and love need to be shown. The church has called sin what it is, but has pushed the sinner away. We need call sin sin, but with open arms embrace the sinner, pointing them to a new life in Christ.
I believe I have adequately showed how we need a normative, consistent standard for the issue at hand, and so far the LGBT activists have not provided one. I have also shown that there can be harm in loving someone, especially in the eternal perspective. Finally, even though the church has failed to show both truth AND love, the goal is to help homosexuals find fulfillment.
Answering your questions, A) a lot of people say. The homos, bis, pans, supporters, etc. B) I mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Okay means not wrong but right. Good.
Now, about your argument ice Church basics, yes, the bible does say homosexuality is wrong, but things change, correct? Women used to be seen as people who create more "powerful" men and take care of the men. Now look at us. We are strong, independent, powerful, and free. Hasn't that changed over the years? It has.
I was going to ask you why you think gay is not okay in a short answer, but it seems you have given that reason. A very u logical one. "Because God said so." "Homosexuality is a sin." I do worship God and believe He will save us, but if you think that homosexuality is a sin, go for it.do you know what else is a sin? Not treating everyone equally: telling people what they are doing is wrong, put someone at a lower position, ignoring the word of God. Everyone sins. You sinned by dissing the baptist Church. Did you realize that?
Now, even if homosexuality is a sin, God will love you just the same. I am Christian. I have been for a long time. I only realized I was gay after I joined Church and accepted God. And you know what? He helped me. He turned my life, which was awful, just a little bit better. Slowly each day, my life is getting better because He is with me.
You, my fellow opponent, contradicted the fact that there is no harm in loving someone. You stated that you could love someone who abuses and mistreats you, but in reality, if they do that and you have to leave them, it's not love. It never was. You were just blinded by something. What? I have no idea.
You also stated that "We do not want the homosexual to have a more boring life"" May I ask, in what way is a life of being homosexual boring? Is it because you stereotype gays as non Christians? Are you saying people who aren't Christians have a boring life? No. Our life is perfectly entertaining and attention grabbing as yours is.
Everyone sins, God loves us no matter what, and it's okay to fall in love with someone of the same sex.
My opponent did not address my contention of defining normative standards. I assume that means we agree that God's Word is the standard from which we are to proceed.
I will address my opponents arguments paragraph-by-paragraph.
Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” According to Jesus himself, God's Law will be valid until the heaven and earth pass away. Have heaven and earth passed away yet? No, they have not. Therefore, God's law has not changed. It is still valid. And according to the Bible, women were never supposed to be looked down on. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”(Eph. 5:22). “An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain”(Prov. 31:10-11). My opponent is arguing against misconceptions of biblical teaching. My opponent is constructing strawmen and attacking those, rather than the actual teaching of the Scriptures.
My opponent likewise appeals to a culturally relativistic ethic. “Things change.” However, the folly of this ethic is seen when applied to other laws from God's Word. We are told not to murder (Ex. 20:13) and not to steal (v.15). If the ethical principle is that “things change,” then it very well may be the same when it comes to murder and theft.
To my opponent, if a friend stole from you and you told them that stealing is not okay, what would your response be if they said, “things change”?
My opponent says that not treating everyone equally is a sin. Again, this is one of those statements that I can agree with prima facie. But it must be qualified. Does the murderer, pedophile, rapist, and such deserve to be treated in the same way as everyone else? Justice demands discrimination against those who break laws. If we were to treat everyone equally without discriminating against those who break laws then society would crumble.
If telling someone that they are wrong is a sin, then God/Jesus is a sinner. (Zech. 3:2; Pss. 119:21; Jude 1:9; Jer. 30:11; Heb. 12:5)
If putting someone at a lower position is a sin, then God/Jesus is a sinner (which I never did, by the way). (Deut. 8:2,16; Isa. 5:15; Pss. 116:6; Mark 10:17-22). God strikes at our pride, bringing us low and humble before Him, and that my friend, is a good thing. “He adorns the humble with salvation”(Pss. 149:4).
Who is ignoring the Word of God? The one arguing that the Law of God is still valid today or the one arguing that “things change”?
If dissing the Westboro Baptist Church because they refuse to love God and to love their neighbor is a sin, then Jesus is a sinner (Matt. 15:1-20; Matt. 23).
Jesus is guilty of the things you listed as sins. And if Jesus is a sinner, then he was not a perfect sacrifice. And a perfect sacrifice can never take away sins (Heb. 10:1-18). And that means there is no hope for you or I to be saved.
I agree that if homosexuality is a sin, God will love. And I am so glad to hear that you have been able to experience God's life-changing love in your life. God never leaves us where we are at. Even you attested to that fact. Titus 2:12-14 says that “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, TRAINING US TO RENOUNCE UNGODLINESS AND WORDLY PASSIONS, AND TO LIVE SELF-CONTROLLED, UPRIGHT, AND GODLY LIVES in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, WHO GAVE HIMSELF FOR US TO REDEEM US FROM ALL LAWLESSNESS AND TO PURIFY FOR HIMSELF A PEOPLE FOR HIS OWN POSSESSION WHO ARE ZEALOUS FOR GOOD WORKS.”
God's love is not a static love that leaves us unchanged. If homosexuality is a sin, then God will work out the salvation within a Christian to fight against that sin so that the Christian may be conformed to the image of God's Son (Rom. 8:28-30;Phil. 2:12-13).
My opponent ended this paragraph by saying “You were just blinded by something. What? I have no idea.” This last sentence leads to the conclusion that this paragraph does not have any valid point. If I were to tell an atheist that they were blinded to the evidence of God's existence, they would expect me to tell them what is blinding them. Otherwise, it would seem that I am making a naked assertion. My opponent's entire paragraph is a naked assertion.
I never said that the homosexual life is boring. I said that we do not want the homosexual, by forsaking the practice of homosexuality, to live a more boring life. There is a difference. The point I am trying to make is like what C.S. Lewis said:
“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
As entertaining and attention grabbing as a homosexual lifestyle may be, life lived in accord with God's law is much more so. That is what I am saying.
I am not stereotyping gays as non-Christians. I would say many gays that profess to be Christians are not, because they insist on affirming something for which Jesus died for. I am not talking about my opponent. I have not had hours of long conversation with Pro, as I have had with many other gays. It is a case by case basis.
The stereotyping question can be flipped: Are you stereotyping me as a Christian who stereotypes gays as non-Christians?
Again, I ask my opponent a) by what standard and b) who told you that homosexuality is okay? How do you know that I sinned by dissing the baptist church? Why do you believe that God will save us? Where did you get that information?
Thank you and I turn it over to Pro.
debRAEtorXlulz forfeited this round.
I extend all of my previous arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited a round. This is poor conduct
You are not eligible to vote on this debate