The Instigator
Jenx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Gay's and Church

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 3 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,575 times Debate No: 24469
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Jenx

Pro

I am a Christian and believe that gay's should bbe allowed to attend church, recive communion and even get married; however there are people out there who believe it is wrong. I would love to hear your opinions.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I thank Jenx for starting this debate, and I wish him luck in the following rounds.

I assume we are debating the resolution, "Resolved: According to Christianity, gays should be allowed to attend church, receive communion, and get married."

Note: I will be arguing this from a Christian and Biblical standpoint.


Opponent's Case

"I am a Christian and believe that gay's should be allowed to attend church, receive communion and even get married."

Your personal opinions are of little to no relevance in this debate if they are not substantiated with argument and evidence. I disagree with your assumptions, and I will show you why in the following contentions. Also, there’s a correction: gays*. That belief encounters cognitive dissonance, and is an independent view from the Bible and God's commands.



My Case

God is unwaveringly anti-gay
For Christians who believe that the bible is the word of God, there can be no getting around the fact that homosexuality is detestable in the eyes of God and a sin to that effect. Not only does the supreme deity of the Bible hate homosexuality, he's killed homosexuals for participating in homosexual acts. Genesis 19:24, "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gommorah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." The word "sodomy" is derived from this tale of God's anger against homosexuals, and is today synonymous with homosexual intercourse with negative connotations. Consider Romans 1:26,27 which states, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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." Here God, the creator of the natural world, is calling homosexuality unnatural, and in his arbitrary morality, immoral. Sodomites (homosexuals) are occasionally referred to as "dogs" in the Bible such as in Deuteronomy 23. God is unchanging and unwavering in his decisions; what he deemed abonimable thousands of years ago will therefore be aboniable today. 1 Corinthians 6:9 (lol 69) demonstrates that homosexuals will not enter heaven, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Unless homosexuals genuinely sought true repentence for their abominable sins, there is no way for true Christians to accept them, especially as a collective body that worships God.

"In spite of great pressure today from humanists and other liberals to get homosexuality recognized as an acceptable—if not even preferable—life style, the Bible makes it plain that it is really unnatural and animalistic wickedness that must be rejected by true Christians." -Christian Answers

God has made it clear that he thinks homoexuality is immoral, sinful, and unnatural; he will not offer a spot in heaven for a homosexual; and he will only accept a homosexual once he has shed his sinful ways, turned to Jesus, and mold himself to God's image of a man.

[1. http://christiananswers.net...]
[2. http://www.catholic.com...]
[3. http://www.ambs.edu...]


The Church is anti-gay

Whether you think the church should or shouldn’t allow homosexuals into its congregations, one fact is patently clear: the greatest source of hatred against homosexuals in the United States comes from the Christian Church. This is precisely due to the aforementioned teachings in the Bible and

The Catholic Church, although having a history of homosexual, pedophilic priests, is vehemently anti-gay. They state emphatically on in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” They hold that homosexuals harm the role of the family, marriage, and thus, harm communities.

Among mainline Protestants overall, 56% say homosexuality should be accepted in society, compared with only about one-in-four evangelical Protestants and four-in-ten members of historically black Protestant churches. When we average those, we see that less than 50% of mainline protestants say that homosexuality should be accepted by society, and a much lower percentage say they should be accepted in the church, and even less for the acceptance of homosexual clergy. While this can’t be used as a strong reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed in the church, it does carry some weight when the majority of Protestant Christians think homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted in the church whatsoever.

If God doesn’t accept homosexuality and the church is the body of people who join in seeking God, why should homosexuals go to church? In order for homosexuals to be accepted by God and the church, they must cease being homosexual.

[4. http://www.catholic.com...]
[5. http://www.ambs.edu...]
[6. http://www.pewforum.org...]
[7. http://bible.org...]


Gay Marriage is not Marriage
Marriage between two gay men will never be recognized by the church as a union of two people before God. God is very clear: marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. Genesis 2:24 states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The shall is a command. Disobeying God’s commands leads to eternal punishment in hell, immoral actions, and perverse relationships.

The Divine Law of God condemns homosexuality as a vile, animalistic behavior unbefitting of someone who wishes to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is immoral, unholy, and despicable in the eyes of the LORD.

Marriage is an institution for procreation from the biblical standpoint; and non-procreation type sex is immoral according to God. Relationships that lack this procreation ability are immoral in God’s eyes, and hence, not recognized as marriage.

[8. Michael Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) 192-195]
[9. http://www.gotquestions.org...]


Conclusion
God has made it clear that he thinks homoexuality is immoral, sinful, and unnatural; he will not offer a spot in heaven for a homosexual; and he will only accept a homosexual once he has shed his sinful ways, turned to Jesus, and mold himself to God's image of a man. The Church, as a body to seek God, should not allow people who reject Divine Law, engage in sinful behaviors against God’s commands, and who are on “The Highway to Hell” into their congregations. It follows from disallowing them in Church, based on the Bible, that they should not receive Communion. Gay Marriage is incompatible with the Bible, Divine Law, and Moral Law; therefore, such a perverse union will not be recognized by the Church or God.

Thank you~
Debate Round No. 1
Jenx

Pro

Jenx forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Jenx did not post an argument, but someone in the comments named carpediem presented an objection. It's not a good one, but at least it's something to argue against. I love playing team debate! What a naughty caprice!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She objected to my statement, "God has made it clear that he thinks homosexuality is immoral, sinful, and unnatural; he will not offer a spot in heaven for a homosexual."

Her objection was, "The Catholic church is open to the possibility that homosexuality occurs genetically and does not condemn homosexuality whether it were to occur through genetic, social, or personal situations. What the Catholic church does condemn, however are homosexual acts. This condemnation of homosexual acts does not make the church 'anti-gay.' On the contrary the church teaches that 'homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care.'"

My Rebuttal
1)
The particular statement I made was concerning the position of God on homosexuality, not the Catholic Church.

2) If the Catholic Church produced a doctrine stating homosexuality and homosexual acts were normal and fine, that would not be the position of God. God's word always supercedes and invalidates the contrary teachings of the Church. Period.

3) By accepting homosexuals and not accepting homosexual acts, the Catholic Church would be commiting cognitive dissonance. We perceive the world through our cognitive models; if the model opperating in someone's mind is that he is homosexual and the logical continuation of such a model is to be romantically involved with other homosexual men, then the Catholic Church cannot logically justify homosexuality but demonize the acts. God makes it clear that both the model and its continuation are sinful. Why kind of nutjob says to someone, "I know that is the person you are, but don't act life as that person." The ridiculousness of that can be applied to a great deal of scenarios to demonstrate its inherent absurdity and cognitive dissonance (e.g. I know you were born male, but you shouldn't act on it; I know you were born with higher intelligence, but don't seek truth and wisdom; etc, etc).

4) The position that homosexual acts are immoral and ungodly does constitute being anti-gay. The position holds that a homosexual person cannot experience the height of romantic closeness with another human being. Placing a value on what goes on in someone's bedroom is the epitome of psychological repression. God and the Church are both masters of the arbitrary guilt phenomenon.

5) Thousands of children, even male children, have received the "pastoral care" you refer to by being raped by pedophilic priests. I must ask, if the church is so anti-gay, why are priests still being prosecuted for the most depraved homosexual rape against children? Perhaps the Catholic Church should deal with the issue of pedophilia in its own organization before flaunting its blatantly gay rhetoric?


Hopefully Jenx will post this coming round.

Debate Round No. 2
Jenx

Pro

Jenx forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

My oppoment forfeited yet again, so I will allow Fred Phelps to argue the last round in speech format and with his boy band.




Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
What fun. Don't mind if I do!

1) While my post in the comments section as referring to the Catholic church was not meant to be used as a rebuttal to the entire debate, con's rebuttal to my "objection" posted in the comments section certainly brings up a key point in the debate, being, who exactly is "the church" con cites throughout the debate. The "Christian church," as he chooses to call it, is admittedly comprised of many different churches, all with diverse doctrines, variant beliefs, and even different translations of the bible.

"The particular statement I made was concerning the position of God on homosexuality, not the Catholic Church."

This is not what the debate is about. "Resolved: According to Christianity, gays should be allowed to attend church, receive communion, and get married." Con bases is entire argument on the assumption that the "Christian church" (whatever that is supposed to be) directly follows the teachings of the bible, and yet again, that the teachings of the bible are God's view points, however he provides absolutely no justification for this argument. Before con continues with this debate, I would advise him to decide what exactly the "Christian Church" is and if he is actually qualified to determine what God believes.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
2) Again, according to the resolution that con himself produced, this point is immaterial to the debate. The resolution states "according to Christianity", not "according to God." An example: I can profess to follow the teachings of my parents, but if I create a personal doctrine that comes in conflict with those teachings, I am still my parent's child. In essence, forming a rebuttal to what con might bring up, the "Christian church" is still the "Christian church" even if it does not follow the biblical teachings.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
3) "If the model operating in someone's mind is that he is homosexual and the logical continuation of such a model is to be romantically involved with other homosexual men, then the Catholic Church cannot logically justify homosexuality but demonize the acts."

The Catholic church teaches that "the unity of sex is not to be separated from the element of procreation." Therefore the Catholic church can logically justify its stance when it states that a person can be homosexual without sinning.

"What kind of nutjob says to someone, ‘I know that is the person you are, but don't act life as that person… I know you were born male, but you shouldn't act on it.'"

Con seems to be suggesting here that we aren't living up to what we were meant to be unless we act on our sexual inclinations. One's sexual acts do not constitute the whole of his or her existence. They are simply what one has the ability to do. Obviously one can still be male, female, or homosexual without participating in sexual relations. Therefore the Catholic church is not committing cognitive dissonance.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
4) "Placing a value on what goes on in someone's bedroom is the epitome of psychological repression. God and the Church are both masters of the arbitrary guilt phenomenon."

These statements are both irrelevant and con's opinion which has nothing to do with the debate. If you don't like what a church teaches, then you shouldn't be in it and then maybe you'll be able to sleep at night!!
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
5) While this point is wholly immaterial to the debate, it might as well be addressed. Firstly, I think the point should be made that even priests are human, not gods or angels on earth as you so obviously wish them to be, and with human qualities also come human sin. Secondly, the Catholic church has been dealing with these issues of pedophilia committed by priests who were obviously so highly unqualified for their job. However the occurrence of these unfortunate events does not mean that Catholic church should or will disregard their doctrines.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
"God has made it clear that he thinks homosexuality is immoral, sinful, and unnatural; he will not offer a spot in heaven for a homosexual."

The Catholic church is open to the possibility that homosexuality occurs genetically and does not condemn homosexuality whether it were to occur through genetic, social, or personal situations. What the Catholic church does condemn, however are homosexual acts. This condemnation of homosexual acts does not make the church "anti-gay." On the contrary the church teaches that "homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care."

http://www.saintaquinas.com...

http://www.americancatholic.org...
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Jenx, I will accept this debate if you change it to: 'Gay-marriage should be legal in the US'. Or you can create a new debate with that resolution and challenge me. Or if you want, I can challenge you.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
What's the resolution?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
JenxWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited twice and Con was the only person who presented an argument whatsoever.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
JenxWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel weird voting for the side that posted a Fred Phelps video. Lol but it was mighty entertaining.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
JenxWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never actually argued in favor of the resolution and FF'd twice.