The Instigator
bountyhunterjack
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gay is Right in Christianity

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 1 vote the winner is...
bountyhunterjack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 780 times Debate No: 63538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

bountyhunterjack

Con

Conditions should first be stated:
I'll take burden of proof.
This debate focuses on Christian views of the subject. Other philosophies and religions are not included in this argument.

Many arguments have been made that Christianity does not condemn Gays. The bible clearly states that being gay is wrong:
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)
The confusion is that the bible loves sinners but not sin. Therefore, BEING gay is condemned but not the gay.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I love controversial debates!

Okay, so I will start out with the pieces of evidence, and then I will provide summaries of each. Keep in mind that the versus that I will post will not directly translate to Gay rights. They will translate to the overall picture of equality, in which gay rights fall into.

Example one: I'd like to start off by debunking the "Adam and Eve v. Adam and Steve" argument, which is oh so clever because it rhymes.

Yes God provided man with woman and woman with man, but that does not necessarily mean that homosexual relationships are "unnatural". If that is what you will to call it, I guess since God did not provide up with glasses, we should ban the use of glasses, and persecute any one who uses them

Example two: The ridiculousness of using Leviticus to condemn ANYTHING is simply in looking at what in the world the Book of Leviticus condemns.

Rules in the Bible were always tied to some sort of reasoning. In the case of this gay sex prohibition, a consistent thread in early Judeo-Christian understanding was that semen alone was considered unclean, because sex was ONLY meant to be procreative.

Check out what God does to Onan when he ejacuates outside of a woman in Genesis 38.

In the same passages where gay sex is condemned and punished, so is eating shrimp, crop co-mingling, eating rabbit, wearing linen and wool at the same time, and eating raw meat. So if you"re gonna be a Biblical literalist, you might as well start sewing your own clothes and becoming a vegetarian.

Example three: Now that we have gone through the old estimate, let me look for something that Jesus says about gays.
Oh, that's right. He didn't talk about it. I believe this was not an issue he talked about, because he wanted us to use our knowledge of God, and form our own ideology. If Jesus said, "Gay is not okay", then I would be on board with that. But, the fact remains, instead of focusing on the hatred on one based on sexuality, he focused on loving all despite diversity.

Thanks, I now stand open to Rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
bountyhunterjack

Con

I am glad that we can share a hobby. I just came back from school and an activity, so sorry about the wait...

I wanted to start with rebuttals, but decided against it. Instead, I want to start by restating a fact that I stated above and adding reference to other facts that I have stated:
God loves sinners, not sin.
The use of Leviticus as a reference was randomly picked. (I should put more consideration into my examples next time.)

Quoting from the book of Leviticus and the book itself is not ridiculous. In fact, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Is one bit neglected or outdated? No, all scripture is God breathed.

What is "unnatural" and what is "natural"? With no specific reference to this topic, let us consider the denotation of "natural" and apply what we know in the bible about this:
existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature. (Stated by Merriam-Webster)
We know that God created the world with no sin inside of it. This antecedent condition was "natural". It was the temptation of the serpent that brought sin into the world. Therefore sin is "unnatural".
Theorem: Sin is "unnatural"
axiom: sin is disobeying God.

God not going into the specifics about whether or not to wear glasses is different from him saying being gay is right or wrong. The bible did talk about homosexuality, but not glasses. There is a difference. I have heard some argue that the bible does not go into descriptions about what homosexuality is. But, the bible certainly mentioned it and let us not forget, all scripture is God breathed.

Rules in the Bible were and still are tied to reasoning. This explains the other laws stated in Leviticus. If the entire passage of Genesis 38 was read, then it would be seen that Er was the firstborn of Judah. Er was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" and therefore was condemned. Judah was in lost of a first born's off-spring. This would make worshiping God hard and fulfillment of his promise impossible. So God, through Judah, told Onan to give Er's wife children. When Onan refused to give Ers wife children, he wasn't committing sin against Er's wife, He was directly disobeying God. Therefore, Onan's case was not proof that semen alone was considered unclean. It was that disobeying God is a sin, which is in consistency with the above stated axiom. The fact that the semen was spilled is an understatement.

Is only what Jesus said directly while still on Earth holy and valid? Is not all scripture God breathed? Certainly, Paul's writings were moved by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, Timothy, John and other believers and apostles were also moved by the Holy Spirit. Again, it should be restated that we can love sinners but hate sin. Sinners are the victim of sin. Therefore, Jesus' love does not abolish all law, Jesus' love does not make sins valid. Jesus' Love is not an excuse to sin or a proof that an action is not a sin.

The most controversial topic was saved for until now. (Believe it or not, homosexuality is not the most controversial topic I have debated before in my lifetime.) I will start by listing bible verses I will use in order to more easily reference them. Please do not rebuttal my choice of verses until all verses and the synthesis of what these verses conclude have been read.

Matthew 5:17-20
17 "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. 18 For truly I tell you, 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. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

John 8: 3-11 (These verses put together is very long, opening it in the bible is recommended. The passage of most interest is below.)
0 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
11 She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Peter 2:21
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill them. He goes on that subsiding any of the law will result in restriction from heaven. In fact, deciding whether or not we can keep the WHOLE law is futile. God already told us we already failed. How depressing. But, Jesus' love for us, the one mentioned before, made him feel pity for us. He saw that he could keep the law but we couldn't. He felt love for his creation even though they rebel against him and scorn at him. So, he came and excepted God's negligence and the humiliation of death. Let a moment of silence be made to consider the magnitude of Jesus' actions.

We all failed. I failed miserably, cheating on tests, lying about everything from not shoplifting to not brushing my teeth one morning. But, Jesus suffered for us so we can live. That also means that because of our love and gratitude towards Jesus, we will want to be more like him, to follow the law more.

The point is that God told us to obey all the law, all of it. In fact, the law is the description of perfection. So, linen and wool, unclean meat, etc. are all valid laws. Symbolically or Literally, a perfect person would follow all of it. Considering this and that the rebuttals mentioned before, it is wrong commit homosexuality. The verses John 8:3-11 show that we shouldn't judge other sinners. We should love them. But, at the same time in our hearts, we should acknowledge that doing so is wrong. Notice that the topic is Homosexuality Is Right. The "-ITY" refers to the sin, not the people.

On a side note, sex out of marriage is just lust. Pro and Con can both agree that all laws have a physical use, but also a symbolic meaning. Sure, sex is a way to produce offspring, but it really it is the physical symbol of a spiritual union. At least that is what the Bible says. Physical symbols without a spiritual meaning is pointless then. Therefore, sex without a spiritual union is just a lust.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

To begin, I'd like to jump straight into rebuttals.

" Is one bit neglected or outdated? No, all scripture is God breathed."

When did I ever say scripture was outdated? Never! The word of God it be upheld whether it be new or old testament- however, what separates us from the Jews? the new estimate, and the belief that it is composed of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

"God not going into the specifics about whether or not to wear glasses is different from him saying being gay is right or wrong. The bible did talk about homosexuality, but not glasses. There is a difference. I have heard some argue that the bible does not go into descriptions about what homosexuality is. But, the bible certainly mentioned it and let us not forget, all scripture is God breathed."

Glasses are just as unnatural as homosexuality, the only exception is, your not born with glasses! You are however born homosexual. The closest you will ever be to God until you die is birth, so would it make sense to say that even though God just put through birth, you would be gay? That's what happens! It's not a choice, and therefor cannot be unnatural!

"But, the bible certainly mentioned it and let us not forget, all scripture is God breathed."

I know good and well that this was an attempt to portray me as person who does not follow God. I also know that you are attempting to make me feel like I am preaching against the word of God. I feel sorry for you, because I can assure you it did not work. I am a follower of God who knows that cherry-picking versus is grossly inappropriate, and hypocritical.

"Rules in the Bible were and still are tied to reasoning. This explains the other laws stated in Leviticus."

I understand this, which is why I included my 'Onan' argument, which you promptly dismissed.

"He was directly disobeying God. Therefore, Onan's case was not proof that semen alone was considered unclean. It was that disobeying God is a sin, which is in consistency with the above stated axiom. The fact that the semen was spilled is an understatement."

This is the equivalent to pulling a bunny out of a hat. You can provide "reasoning" which is not necessarily the full story. the bottom line is, of that time period, God needed people to have lots of children. Which was pecan pie homosexuality of frowned upon, along with pulling out.

next, "Is only what Jesus said directly while still on Earth holy and valid? Is not all scripture God breathed? Certainly, Paul's writings were moved by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, Timothy, John and other believers and apostles were also moved by the Holy Spirit. Again, it should be restated that we can love sinners but hate sin. Sinners are the victim of sin. Therefore, Jesus' love does not abolish all law, Jesus' love does not make sins valid. Jesus' Love is not an excuse to sin or a proof that an action is not a sin."

I understand all this! However, without Jesus Christ, and the new testament, we would basically be Jews. I'm not saying one is more important, but different religions is a major difference! And either way, in context, there is not a single chapter in the bible that only go's after homosexuals because it's "unnatural".

I'm not even going to bother to read the rest, just know that I still disagree with your stance, regardless of what those versus say.

To wrap things up, I'm also going to say, that just like you have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions, man is full of evil. Some might say the devil himself. However, everyday men were allowed to write the bible. It would be ignorant to think that personal agendas were not put first. At the end of the day, humans are human. Could Bias be in the bible. You better believe that man is imperfect. But there is no reason for us to judge. just like the verse that you did not give an argument to, "Let he who is with out sin throw the first stone". Which WAS said by a perfect man. One who only wanted better for us.

Thank you, I have finished.
Debate Round No. 2
bountyhunterjack

Con

I wanted to thank you at first for introducing me to debating, but after the way you shamelessly insulted your fellow debater in a personal, first-person manner, I can not thank you any more. WHEN HAVE I INSULTED YOU? WHEN HAVE I CALLED YOU AN ANTI-CHRIST? If I have been overtly obvious, that is my mathematical brain telling me to list all sources of proof in order that no section should be misunderstood. This is no insult. It is just a simple principle of reasoning.
"IT DID NOT WORK!" What is that supposed to mean? Do you conjure that I was mad at you for going against me? You should be careful when you say "I know good and well that this was an attempt to portray me as person who does not follow God." because your tone interpretation was flawed. I will not say any more mean things about you. I understand that you have only debated twice, yourself, so you might be subjective sometimes. Just remember this:
Never be subjective. NEVER!!!
I realize that I have been subjective in this argument, but I will apologize right now. I hope that you will accept it.
On with a rebuttal and final statement:

"This is the equivalent to pulling a bunny out of a hat. You can provide "reasoning" which is not necessarily the full story. the bottom line is, of that time period, God needed people to have lots of children. Which was pecan pie homosexuality of frowned upon, along with pulling out."

A bunny pulled out of a hat is completely conjured. It is creating something out of nothing. Er was Judah's first born. Traditional actions such as priesthood was passed down through the first-born. If Judah's first-born was killed without having children, then those traditions could not be carried on. This is not conjured, the bible states these first-born only rules. It is stated that God wanted people to have a lot of children. Including the argument from round 2, which still doesn't have proof against despite the claim, there were two reasons that Onan was condemned: He directly disobeyed an order from God, and he disobeyed a commandment. This point is not concluded. It will be synthesized with the next points. As for "Which was pecan pie homosexuality of frowned upon, along with pulling out.", faults in grammar make this sentence impossible to understand. (Pecan pie is a noun, not a verb. I do not pecan pie.)

"Cherry Picking" a cute term for confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is where only supporting cases are analyzed, and contradicting cases are rejected without reasoning.
When I presented a verse directly outlawing homosexuality, I presented a supporting case.
You stated Jesus loves us all, a case of rejection.
I proved the fact that Jesus loves us all does not make sins right. (In fact, now that I think of it, if this were true, what determines the validity of a law?) Jesus' love only makes sins forgiven. Thus, considering and reasoning out your case.
Conclusion, I have not Cherry Picked. All verses stated in Pro's initial statement are still being analyzed. Even that strange use of nouns as verbs, random interjections of prepositions and a compliment that describes no predicate was analyzed.

On the contrary to your accusation that I have selective attention, I would like to counter-accuse Pro of "cherry-picking":
The event of Onan's condemnation was given a rebuttal that states a reason outside of the initial reason the event happened. In the conclusion that the two reasons are independent and can coexist, the initial reason was not counteracted.
This was directly rejected without proof and called a conjuring act even though biblical facts were used.

Glasses and homosexuality both are developed not born with. No gene has been found to cause homosexuality. Most importantly, if God outlawed homosexuality in the old testament, homosexuality must have been a choice. God is a just God, he doesn't punish unfairly.

"To wrap things up, I'm also going to say, that just like you have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions, man is full of evil. Some might say the devil himself. However, everyday men were allowed to write the bible. It would be ignorant to think that personal agendas were not put first. At the end of the day, humans are human. Could Bias be in the bible. You better believe that man is imperfect. But there is no reason for us to judge. just like the verse that you did not give an argument to, "Let he who is with out sin throw the first stone". Which WAS said by a perfect man. One who only wanted better for us."

To what extent was the conclusion that "everyday men were allowed to write the bible." made? The men who wrote the Bible were moved by the Holy Spirit. Those men weren't allowed to write the Bible, they were operated to write the bible. Not only to write the Bible, but to write it exactly as told. When the Holy Spirit moved those men to write the Bible, the Holy Spirit was actually writing the Bible. The Holy spirit is God. When an editor turns on his/her computer and writes an essay, they write as themselves because it is their motive to write the bible. When the Holy Spirit moves people to write the Bible, the people write as the Holy Spirit.
corollary: God wrote the Bible.
You said earlier that in the rebuttal I called you equivalent to an anti-Christ, but that is not the case.
The counter-rebuttal forgot one important fact, all scripture is God breathed. The statement was not repeated as insult, but as an important fact. All of the Bible should be equally respected because it is all God's word. Do not forget that we are not arguing whether following all the law is possible. We are arguing whether homosexuality is a sin, whether it is outlawed in the Bible.

The New Testament also mentions Homosexuality. This verse is specifically picked to seemingly counteract a past developed conclusion.

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

If God is just, why did he give people to vile passions. This is stated in the verses before this passage. The people already had the glory of God shown to them, but they rejected it. They self-proclaimed themselves as the wise. In showing this fact false, God gave them to sin.

(Finally, the final statements.)

The validity of the whole Bible is nonnegotiable. If you want to say the Bible is biased, that sinful people made the ideas and thoughts in the Bible, then you are not Christian. Yes, now I am calling you an anti-Christ.

Homosexuality is condemned in the old and new testament.

Reading part of a reason is analogous to reading half a blue print. Build with either, and your argument (or house) will go crashing down.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

"I wanted to thank you at first for introducing me to debating, but after the way you shamelessly insulted your fellow debater in a personal, first-person manner, I can not thank you any more. WHEN HAVE I INSULTED YOU? WHEN HAVE I CALLED YOU AN ANTI-CHRIST? If I have been overtly obvious, that is my mathematical brain telling me to list all sources of proof in order that no section should be misunderstood. This is no insult. It is just a simple principle of reasoning.
"IT DID NOT WORK!" What is that supposed to mean? Do you conjure that I was mad at you for going against me? You should be careful when you say "I know good and well that this was an attempt to portray me as person who does not follow God." because your tone interpretation was flawed. I will not say any more mean things about you. I understand that you have only debated twice, yourself, so you might be subjective sometimes. Just remember this:
Never be subjective. NEVER!!!
I realize that I have been subjective in this argument, but I will apologize right now. I hope that you will accept it.
On with a rebuttal and final statement:"

I'm going to be honest, I didn't read this. I read the first bit, but it sounded angry, and I don't feel like adding fuel to the agree christian stereotype.

Next, I would argue that you did pull a bunny out of a hat. I would also like to argue that you copied and pasted, and did not provide sources. Therefor, you plagiarized, and that entire argument is invalid.

""Which was pecan pie homosexuality of frowned upon, along with pulling out.", faults in grammar make this sentence impossible to understand. (Pecan pie is a noun, not a verb. I do not pecan pie.)"

I do apologize for this, my computer autocorrects, and I can't fix it.. However, you understood what I was getting at, and avoided it.

You also did a lot of talking. I wish you would just get to the point, because it just seems, once again, like you are pulling a rabbit out of a hat. your turning nothing, into 5,000 characters. Know that as a person who knows the bible, everything I say is fact based, and I also believe I quoted the bible, Including chapters and versus, this, this argument is also invalid.

"To what extent was the conclusion that "everyday men were allowed to write the bible." made? The men who wrote the Bible were moved by the Holy Spirit."

I'll be the first to tell you that every sunday morning, I am moved by the holy spirit, but alas, I am just a boy, who also sins.

"You said earlier that in the rebuttal I called you equivalent to an anti-Christ, but that is not the case."

I suppose I could be mistaken, however I do not remember saying that. You did portray me as a person who teaches a defiled preacher of the word of God, however.

"If God is just, why did he give people to vile passions. This is stated in the verses before this passage. The people already had the glory of God shown to them, but they rejected it. They self-proclaimed themselves as the wise. In showing this fact false, God gave them to sin."

Bingo! He didn't give anyone vile passion! the devil did! God gave us freedom. It was just in this freedom that a dark cloud spawned. God didn't give us sin. He gave us the opportunity. Just like how you are faced with opportunities to sin every day. God isn't forcing you to sin, you do that on your own. He just tests you. therefor, this argument is also invalid.

"The validity of the whole Bible is nonnegotiable. If you want to say the Bible is biased, that sinful people made the ideas and thoughts in the Bible, then you are not Christian. Yes, now I am calling you an anti-Christ."

The bible is biased! Every doctrine is biased in at least one way or another! And also, you say that non christians are the anti christ? That does not sound very christian like yourself. I believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God. I also believe that all humans are born with sin, like the bible tells us. I am accused by my opponent of being the anti christ, simply because I can balance faith in God, and distrust in humans. This is illogical to say the least. Also, you never really argument my main points and for that, you should vote pro! Also, I would like to point out that all you stated was that it's condemned. You never said that there ought to be no gay rights. You argued all that, and failed to answer the topic. I will pray for you, and also, if you actually read the bible, and did not just search, "bible versus against gays", you would also know that any religious figure would also condemn you on just cooling someone the antichrist, simply because they have done there research.

Thanks, vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
what do you mean?! of course I am!
Posted by bountyhunterjack 2 years ago
bountyhunterjack
Really, you are going to bring the argument into the comments?
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
I just wanted to make sure that voters are aware that I was just called the "anti-christ" simply because I had a larger knowledge of the bible, and I had more context.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
bountyhunterjackAbandonedSpringTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con supported his assertion with Biblical reference to both Old and (more specifically) New Testament scripture--which somehow seemed to go unnoticed by Pro.