The Instigator
robbiesp
Pro (for)
Winning
68 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Losing
53 Points

God does NOT hate gay people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 22 votes the winner is...
robbiesp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,334 times Debate No: 12259
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (111)
Votes (22)

 

robbiesp

Pro

In this debate I intend to prove that most conservative Christians are wrong, and that God does not hate gay people, but sodomy(non-vaginal sex).

Conservative Christians have long been pushing the error-ridden belief that God does not approve of homosexuality, with the majority of their conclusion coming from the book of Leviticus "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." However, the above quote is clearly saying that it is not homosexuality that is wrong, but homosexual sex. In the period that the Bible was written, to "lie with a man" referred to having sex with a man, which not all gay couples do. The quote says nothing about homosexuality. The Bible frequently talks about how sodomy is wrong, and since there is no physical way for two men or two women to have non-sodomite sex, all gay sex is sodomy. In fact, the bible never even mentions homosexuality, just homosexual sex. So basically, Conservative Christians are arguing that all gay couples commit sodomy, when it is wrong and stereotypical to come to the conclusion that all gays have sex with one another. Another quote from the Bible (Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may have sex with them."
is talking about how God punished a town, according to homophobes "because they were gay", but in reality, it wasn't until they wanted to have sex with the men that God destroyed their town. Proving again that it is not homosexuality, but homosexual sodomy. Conservative Christian organizations have been saying that being homosexuality leads to eternity in hell, when according to the Bible, all those who believe in God, the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, will live with God for eternity in Heaven. (Matthew 21, 34-40)
FREEDO

Con

I contend that God does indeed hate gays.

===Argument===

. God will send people to hell.

. God must hate those he sends to hell.

. At least some of those he sends to hell are gay.

. God must hate gays.

===

I will back up these arguing points further in later rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
robbiesp

Pro

I would first like to thank Freedo for accepting this debate.

I will start by countering his main points. It is indeed inevitable that God will send people to hell, but according to scripture it is only the people that do not confess their sins to God. Matthew 21 34-40 "When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducee's, they came together, and one of them, an expert in the Law, tried to trap Jesus with this question. "Jesus, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?""Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." It is wrong to say that all gays do not confess their sins, because there are indeed many churches specifically for homosexuals to confess their sins. And even so, there is no proof that all homosexuals are sexually active, or sexually active with other homosexuals for that matter. In conclusion, God will send people to hell, but only those who repeatedly sin without confession.
FREEDO

Con

"I would first like to thank Freedo for accepting this debate."

You're welcome.

"It is indeed inevitable that God will send people to hell"

First arguing point is accepted as confirmed.

"but according to scripture it is only the people that do not confess their sins to God."

Inevitably some of those people will be gay.

"It is wrong to say that all gays do not confess their sins"

Notice the title of the debate does not say "all gay people" but rather it is just "gay people". This is where you went wrong.

"In conclusion, God will send people to hell, but only those who repeatedly sin without confession."

Your conclusion does not refute my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
robbiesp

Pro

"First arguing point is accepted as confirmed."
I said that it is inevitable that God will send people to hell, because your first point was that God will send people to hell. However, your comment was completely irrelevant because you were talking about average people, when this debate is about gay people. I also said following my statement, that it was only the people who didn't confess their sins, and is therefore not confirming your argument point, even though it's irrelevant to this debate.

"Inevitably some of those people will be gay."
Yes, but those people were not sent to hell specifically because of their sexuality, as argued in round 1.

"Notice the title of the debate does not say "all gay people" but rather it is just "gay people". This is where you went wrong."
But there is no other specific group of people that I'm talking about, so it must be a whole generalization of the entire LGBT community, and I would've thought that to be obvious.

"Your conclusion does not refute my argument."
Because your argument did not refute my initial statement that God does not hate homosexuals, therefore I can not refute your argument when it really isn't an arguing against my first statement at all.
FREEDO

Con

"However, your comment was completely irrelevant because you were talking about average people, when this debate is about gay people."

Actually all people who go to hell are being referred to, which include some gay people. So it is entirely relevant.

"Yes, but those people were not sent to hell specifically because of their sexuality, as argued in round 1."

Notice the title of the debate is not "hates gay people because they are gay", it is just "hates gay people". He could hate them for any reason.

"But there is no other specific group of people that I'm talking about, so it must be a whole generalization of the entire LGBT community, and I would've thought that to be obvious."

Saying "gay people" instead of "all gay people" can only properly be interpreted as any multiple gay individuals.

"Because your argument did not refute my initial statement that God does not hate homosexuals, therefore I can not refute your argument when it really isn't an arguing against my first statement at all."

False. Also, may I remind you that you have the burden of proof here, not me. It is upon you to prove that God does not hate gay people. In only refuting my arguments and not making any yourself, you are actually forfeiting.
Debate Round No. 3
robbiesp

Pro

Actually all people who go to hell are being referred to, which include some gay people. So it is entirely relevant."
In case you forgot to read my introduction and all of round one, I said that I intend to prove that God does does hate gay people, but sodomy. I never said anything about a mass majority of people going to hell, but I talked about how being gay does not necessarily mean you are hell-bound. I have already stated that the people who are going to hell may include gay people, but as I stated, it was my intent to prove that they are not being sent here because of their sexuality, but for other reasons.

"Notice the title of the debate is not "hates gay people because they are gay", it is just "hates gay people". He could hate them for any reason."
But in the context provided in the introduction and round one, it was clear that the debate was about sexuality.

"Saying "gay people" instead of "all gay people" can only properly be interpreted as any multiple gay individuals."
Yes, but in the context provided it is referring to sexuality, and whether their sexuality is punishable by the law of God.

"In only refuting my arguments and not making any yourself, you are actually forfeiting."
Since I am the only one here that has made an argument against the theory that God hates people for their sexuality, you are indeed the one who is forfeiting. Your job as Con is to prove me wrong, and you have only nitpicked at my few wording mistakes. You have yet to prove to the voters that God doesn't hate people for their sexuality, whereas I have already proved that God doesn't hate gays specifically for their sexuality.
FREEDO

Con

"In case you forgot to read my introduction and all of round one, I said that I intend to prove that God does does hate gay people, but sodomy."

I assume that's a typo and you meant "God does not hate gay people", not "God does does hate gay people."

"I never said anything about a mass majority of people going to hell"

Neither have I.

"but I talked about how being gay does not necessarily mean you are hell-bound"

I agree.

"I have already stated that the people who are going to hell may include gay people, but as I stated, it was my intent to prove that they are not being sent here because of their sexuality, but for other reasons."

The truth is it doesn't matter what God hates them for. Just that God hates them. Whether it's for being gay or for having gay sex, it doesn't matter. He still hates those he sends to hell. And some of those he sends to hell are bound to be gay. Thus God hates gays.

"Since I am the only one here that has made an argument against the theory that God hates people for their sexuality"

Well obviously I wouldn't do that due to my position in the debate. :P

"Your job as Con is to prove me wrong, and you have only nitpicked at my few wording mistakes."

It may seem dirty, you may not like it, but I have used semantics to crush your points. And you have failed to counter it.

"You have yet to prove to the voters that God doesn't hate people for their sexuality,"

I had no need to do that. God hates people he sends to hell and some of those people are gay. Thus God hates gays.

"whereas I have already proved that God doesn't hate gays specifically for their sexuality."

Oh really? Proven? Case-closed? You stated your beliefs on the matter. Do you think anything you said would hold up in a court room? Not that it even matters. Even if you proved that, I've still won this debate based on the points that I keep reaffirming.

Good debating. Have a nice day. :)
Debate Round No. 4
111 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by desmo 2 years ago
desmo
this is always a heated discussion, but truth is people has always tried to validate the things we love to do, that goes against what God has condemned as sin, unrighteous, or evil. If a person, or people want to find a way to legalize, or except what is immoral by legalizing it by public or by political means, it will be done. But that in no way makes Gods word of none affect. People can twist and confuse issues to the point that many may doubt plainly what God says. All one needs to do is deny the very existance of God, and therefor you can do almost what ever you want, whether immoral or by passing a law that allows you to do what you believe is your right, because to you there is no God, so you cant be held accountable. So atheist and such like can almost do what they like because Gods law does not apply to them (they believe). so, if a two women have romantic feelings for one another, and engage in physical romantic like contact, which would involve kissing, fondling, touching, whatever, this is uncommon and not a Godly act. Just because they don't engage in a sex act does'nt exempt them. Many don't have sex because of medical or physical reasons. But those that have none of the affor mentioned, how long will it be before the flesh takes control. Bottom line is, it is wrong to engage in such acts with the same sex. If two women or men like each others company but have no romantic feelings for each other and does not engage in behavior that is common with a man and woman, as a couple, there is no scripture that condemns them
Posted by Gwydion777 3 years ago
Gwydion777
The Pro is half-right. God doesn't hate gay people because if he hated that would make him be fallible to sin, thus making him de-throned of being God. However, he does clearly say in the Bible that any marriage besides one man and on woman is an abomination. In fact, this proves God's all-knowing-ness as well. He knew it would rise back a few thousand years ago. IF that isn't a proving fact of God we could debate about others as well.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
This is the only debate I think I lost unfairly. I won with semantics. But it's not up to the voters to take vigilante justice against semantics. I won this debate.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
This is the only debate I think I lost unfairly. I won with semantics. But it's not up to the voters to take vigilante justice against semantics. I won this debate.
Posted by jimchristian1994 4 years ago
jimchristian1994
The main point of the con is that "God will send some gay people to hell, therefore, he hates gay people"
But:
- God will send some men to hell, therefore, he hates all men
- God will send some women t hell, therefore, he hates all women
- God will send some Americans to hell, therefore, he hates all Americans
so on and so forth...

Just because the Old Testament is TRUE, that doesn't mean it should become our moral code. In Leviticus, we are told to kill sheep and circumcise, so we're all going to hell because we don't do that anymore?

In the wonderful book of Psalms, it's filled with people declaring themselves righteous before God and others wicked, clearly being very judgmental. But in the New Testament, how many times are we told not to judge?

Is the Psalms wrong? The Psalms weren't meant to teach us how to behave, it was meant to record what people of that time prayed about.

Similarly, Leviticus wasn't meant for managing the complex society of this day and age, it was an instruction manual for the Jews on how to survive.

The Jews were told to wash their hands, so they wouldn't get sick, and not to eat pigs in the desert, lest they get disease. But it was never meant to keep them away from sins, as Jesus asked Peter to eat pork and sometimes did not wash His hand.

The same principles apply to homosexual relationship.

And why do you arrogantly declare yourself winner? Didn't the Bible say there is none righteous except for God, and weren't we told to be humble?
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
Is that what God told you?

He told me to ride my bike to Mexico naked.
Posted by Candice2233 5 years ago
Candice2233
Posted by Candice2233 1 day ago
@FREEDO
The old testament is not used any more the new testement was for the jewish people... we follow what the new testament tells us to do which is love others no matter what just like god loves us even though we are sinners...

I meant to put "The old testament is not used any more the old testement was for the jewish people..." not "The old testament is not used any more the new testement was for the jewish people..."
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
That has to be out of context though.

Or maybe just God's plan for that time and now it's outdated...for some reason.

Yeah.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

That close enough?
Posted by Candice2233 5 years ago
Candice2233
@FREEDO

Where in the old testament does it say to kill gay people? Please leave a verse
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wesswll 7 years ago
wesswll
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:50 
Vote Placed by Wayfarer 7 years ago
Wayfarer
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
robbiespFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gabe17 7 years ago
gabe17
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Dingo7 7 years ago
Dingo7
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by sqr47 7 years ago
sqr47
robbiespFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by herpderp 7 years ago
herpderp
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ChuckHenryII 7 years ago
ChuckHenryII
robbiespFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
robbiespFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50