The Instigator
KIRA_OKASHI
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Homo and bi sexuality is against the Bible

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,619 times Debate No: 4446
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (13)

 

KIRA_OKASHI

Pro

First of all i will give no proof in ths first round because i want to save it till the remaining rounds.

I can and will prove that homosexuality is mentioned and said to be wrong/bad in more than one book of the bible.

Anyone who wants to debate me start how ever you want.

I am open to all coments
Tatarize

Con

The Bible is against homosexual sex not homosexuality. There are about six different parts sections of the Bible which specifically condemn homosexual sex. This is not a condemnation of homosexuality as being homosexual only has a slight causal relationship to having homosexual sex. Allow me an example:

If a bisexual man falls in love with a woman in high school, gets married, lives out his life and dies... the Bible has no condemnation for him being bisexual. Bisexuals are generally sexually attracted to individuals of both genders, however the Bible condemns (and commands murder of) homosexual sex (female-female homosexual sex is only noted in Romans and is an observation and doesn't spell out the death penalty).

So we see that so long as homosexuals and bisexuals ignore the attraction they feel for the same sex and never engage in homosexual sex... the bible has no condemnation for them.

Further, the term "is against the Bible" is consistently poorly worded. To say that a person wearing clothing of two different fibers is against the bible is "accurate" but ambiguous as it seems to imply that the person in question opposes the Bible. The same holds true for the topic: Homosexuality opposes the Bible. It may seem rather persnickety but the topic doesn't make much sense.
Debate Round No. 1
KIRA_OKASHI

Pro

First of all i would like to thank you for being involved in this debate and I am very glad that someon had the nerve to touch this subjct besides me.

but on the the actual debate:
you are splitting hairs.

By the dicionary deffinition a homaosexual is a person who ingages in or practces sexual relations with someone of the same sex. So just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean that you are homo or bisexual if they are the same sex as you, you must have some sort of sexual interaction with someone of the same sex to be classified as homo or bisexual.

And it does also say in the Bible that if you have thought about doing something that is shameful or and abomination in the eyes of God then you might as well have done it for real.

Therefore your idea that acting in homosexual sex is wrong but being homosexual is okay is not backed up, to be considered homo or bisexual you must PHYSICALY ACT ON A HOMOSEXUAL URGE AND BE INVOLVED IN HOMSEXUAL RELATIONS.

Here are just a few mentionings of homosexuality being seen as a sin and being wrong in the eyes of God

"In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling." It is reprehensible and unclean.

In Leviticus 20:13 it is again described as an "abomination" but here as one worthy of the death penalty!

Deuteronomy 23:17 forbade the presence of a "sodomite" in the land of Israel.

An incident similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen again in Judges 19. Again the sin of homosexuality is described as "wickedness."

In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is "unclean," "impure," "dishonoring to the body," "vile," "degrading / disgraceful," "contrary to nature," "unseemly/ obscene," "improper activity of a depraved mind," "unrighteous," "wicked," etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is "unnatural"--contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then and now, a particularly rebellious sin.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" who "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The terms he uses here seem to be specific REFERENCES TO BOTH ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PARTICIPANTS IN A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. Such people are "unrighteous," he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.

From all this we can draw at least the following three conclusions:

1) Homosexuality is contrary to Scripture. There is no way to speak of any kind of acceptable or "Christian" homosexuality. There is never any allowance for it. It is never anything but sinful." <http://www.biblicalstudies.com...;

BY THE WAY I agree with you that the way i worded the topic wasn't correct. I would have been better off saying " homosexualty is VILE and an ABOMINAION according to the Bible"
Tatarize

Con

I am not splitting hairs. Homosexuals are attracted to individuals of the same gender. There are more than a few who are Christian and choose not to act on those feelings specifically because the condemnation is upon the actions and not upon the feeling. Further, a good many Christian groups specifically council homosexuals to not engage in homosexual activities. At least those who aren't so stupid as to figure they can fix gay with prayer.

You claim that attraction is not a key issue that finding individuals attractive does not make one homosexual. I must strongly rebuke this statement as patently false. People are, in general, attracted to some particular gender. I find many women quite sexy and have not found any men as such. Regardless of actual sexual intercourse this makes me straight. Likewise, if one were to find those of the same gender attractive that would make one gay, regardless whom they had sex with. -- The Bible is quite clear on such pronouncements and it does not condemn the attraction but rather the sexual act.

When a man lies with a man as one would a woman it is an abomination. The Bible does not say that when a man finds another man attractive its an abomination.

Would you consider all virgins to be asexual? What about a child whose only sexual encounter unwilling and with a gender he or she does not find attractive?

As for your claim that thoughts about doing something shameful as condemned by the Bible, I believe you refer only to Matthew 5:28 which reads:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "

Clearly what sticks out most pronounced is the genders involved. Men looking lustfully at women is "adultery in his heart". However, accepting your premise that this applies between any genders one is faced with problem: this would apply to any genders. This argument you make applies to just as soundly condemn heterosexuality as it could be construed to condemn homosexuality. This clearly is a pronouncement against adultery and moving it remarkably close to a general all purpose thought-crime. One could, at best, use this to conclude that we are all sinners in the eyes of God and therefore God sees homosexuals as sinners! This argument does not hold water.

One need not act on an attraction for the attraction to exist. We consider virgins to be homosexual and heterosexual based on their desires. Actions need not be taken and it is for these actions that one is condemned to die by biblical law.

I fully understand the Bible condemns homosexual sex. It does so in no uncertain terms. One may choose to construct elaborate schemes by which the plainly written commandments become ambiguous or to use such similar pronouncements to rebuke the Bible itself. After all, the Bible also clearly condones slavery and condemns shellfish, to have a child is deemed a sin and to have a female child is twice as sinful, picking up sticks on a Saturday and murdering your father on a Monday are equal crimes in the eyes of the Bible. -- Why should we not overlook all such antiquated ideas of justice? My reason is because specifically the topic is whether or not the Bible actually condemns homosexuality, not as to the backwardness of doing so.

I fully concede that the Bible condemns homosexual sex. One need not make the case on those grounds. Homosexual sex is clearly condemned and one is to murder those engaged in such actions. I must, however, make clear that all of these are specifically the action of homosexual sex. One must be careful to note that there is no word for homosexuality in ancient Hebrew, the wording therefore depends strongly on the description of the act: lie with a man as one lieth with a women, used contrary to nature, abusers with mankind... these are all descriptions of the actions.

We do not see anywhere a condemnation of attraction for other men or sexual desire except that of a man for another women which cannot be so construed as be remotely specific as to the genders involved to include homosexuals desires while excluding others.

The Bible opposes homosexual sex. However the existence as a homosexual is not condemned by any jot or tittle. Make no mistake, there are more than a few Christian homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual acts because only the acts are condemned. They are depriving themselves of love and life and sex and a large measure of happiness because of some bronze aged nonsense. However, they are clearly not in any violation of biblical commandments.
Debate Round No. 2
KIRA_OKASHI

Pro

I in no way believe that homosexuals should be murded for there actions only pittied and helped . . .

Secondly i put he DICTIONARY DEFFINITION of homosexual in my last argument. So just thoughts dont make you homosexual i speak specificsly of those who engage in homosexual relations. Truthfuly you are agreeing with me.

A HOMOSEXUAL CAN ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH IF THEY HAVE INGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

As far as finding another man attractive, i dnt mean you want to have sex with them i mean that you think that they are handsome or mabey more attractive to a woman than yourself.

Since we arguing the same side i beleive that neither of us will respectfuly "win" this debate.

well i have no more to say so thanks for debating me on this widely contreverial topic . . .

GOOD JOB

and enjoy all the other debates you are or will be in.
Tatarize

Con

>>I in no way believe that homosexuals should be murded for there actions only pittied and helped...

I am myself completely opposed to treating people as anything less than people. I encouraged that my state of California currently has legal gay marriage and hope that legal remedy by the 14th amendment progresses to render unconstitutional every unjust law on the subject across the nation. However, we are discussing the Bible, and the Bible says very specifically in Lev 20:13 that homosexual sex is an abomination and those participating are to be executed. If one is to render the Bible as an accurate account of the desires of God on the subject you should be far less pity and far more Phelps.

Those homosexuals who act upon their homosexual desires and attractions are to be killed. My objection is very specifically that just because a gay man doesn't have sex with other gay men doesn't make him any less gay. As such, a homosexual can follow biblical commandments without impediment by either not engaging with sex or only engaging in sex with women.

You didn't put the dictionary definition of homosexuality, although you did claim reference to the dictionary as if it were some grand arbiter as to what words are suppose to mean rather than a reference guide to how they are used. However, let me do exactly what you claim to have done:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

We have but one disagreement. Is homosexuality to be defined as sexual desire AND behavior as you contend or does it refer to sexual desire OR behavior? The dictionary is kind enough to side with me in this regard.

If one has desires directed towards a person or persons of one's own sex they are homosexual.

Further, sexual desires aren't thoughts. When I see an attractive women, I do not think about why she is attractive rather, I simply become aware of such perceptions. There is no choice or thought involved. Likewise if I found myself inversely inclined that would imply something different all together.

As this point is the linchpin of our entire argument allow me to spell it out: I have not nor have every agreed with the proposition that a homosexual need 'lay with a man as one would lieth with a women' or 'use men against their own nature'... just that there is a desire within some people to do that. The bible condemns the actions not the desires.

Clearly if one were to simply ignore those desires, deem them a test, a live out their lives in solitude as many practicing Christian homosexuals endeavor to do, they would not be violating Biblical commandments.

As it says in Ezekiel 18:27 -- "When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul."
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
There's nothing really special in the OT about the ten commandments, all the commandments apply and the bible says homosexuality should be put to death. It's not that important. It's right up there with bestiality and incest. Which isn't to say it isn't one of those jots or tittles which shall not pass until all be fulfilled, but it's just a sin for which the Bible says one should be killed. Jesus mentions nearly nothing of the OT, except to say that it all applies.

The Bible does condemn homosexuality, and it's wrong to do so. It's a book of evil lies that condemns certain people for even existing. Stop trying to white wash the nonsense bronze aged amoral drivel folks find in the Bible with arguments from silence.
Posted by Mark40511 6 years ago
Mark40511
One thing.........So Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality........But why????? I mean, if God spoke of how detestable he thought it was, shouldn't Jesus at least have spoken of it? I realize Jesus didn't mention a lot of things, but so many say the Bible condemns homosexuality CLEARLY, so wouldn't one assume Jesus would have brought it up and shouldn't it be in the Ten Commandments specifically since it was such a detestable act in the eyes of God?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Luke, no. It is certainly the case that our lack of detecting something does not establish the non-existence of thing not detected. This is simple understanding of the world and acceptance that an absence of evidence is not evidence for absence (at least concrete evidence). However, to take this plainly stated understanding and declare God exists is, I believe, not only wrong but pathetic.

First off, it is incumbent on someone making a claim to establish the validity of the claim. Undetectability does not establish the non-existence of God but neither does it establish the claim has merit. I cannot detect Santa Clause or magical fairies with any of my senses and the possibility of a goblin, ghosts, or non-existent anything. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

Secondly, any God who wants to be loved and spare the people from ever lasting torture, should not be hiding in the UV range of light or in sound frequencies we can't hear. Providing evidence would be a remarkable good for a large swath of people who can now reasonably believe in such a God, who would otherwise allow them to be tortured forever, and go to heaven. Your God exists, he's just really good at running away and hiding? You can't find him, and thus you burn forever and ever.

Thirdly, we have technology to detect many things beyond our own evolved abilities to detect. We know a number of highly impressive bits of information beyond our native ken because of this ability to build machines to open up the universe to us... however, even with this, there is still no evidence for God.

Likewise, the inability to detect the Loch Ness monster or Tooth Fairy doesn't mean they don't exist. However, it would still be stupid to suggest that they do.

-- Unrelated bits of scripture to the topic are unrelated to the topic, regardless what godbotherer logic you apply to the issue.
Posted by lukepare 8 years ago
lukepare
Tartarize,
I was reading one of your other debates and found this statement interesting...
"I could go on and on, but simply because we are bad at detecting something or don't detect it does not imply that that doesn't exist. We are limited not only in our perception of things but in the interpretation of those things we do perceive. The philosophy that suggests that those things which aren't detected aren't real is a very narrow view of the world hardly a step above solipsism."
Would this statement not also apply to the fact that God could exist. Even if you don't believe in him, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist does it?
You may criticize my beliefs, but at least I won't vary on them.
As far as unrelated scripture goes... al scripture is related as it all comes from 1 point of view and std. God's
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
If if God existed, the Bible would still be a really crappy book. There's very little historicity in the Bible and it is a very poor guide for anything. My position of debate was pretty clearly stated and very unambigous, your reply of a bunch of very unrelated bits of scripture was, plainly stated, really stupid.
Posted by lukepare 8 years ago
lukepare
libertarian,
Sorry it took me a while to respond as I was on vacation.
I find it interesting that simply quoting scripture from the bible is deemed as judging someone. Peoples opinions are simply that, their opinions. It's true that although I hold the bible to be truth that my opinions will differ from others but in no way do I suggest that it is the only option. To do so would go against my very beliefs. As I do not state my opinion but only what is written in scripture. If you accept it to be true, it is truth to you, if not, it is but another book. I accept it as a historical document full of life changing truth. This is what my statements are based on.
As far as being God??? Well, you are right, I'm not God, nor do I think I ever suggested I was. But if the statements out of his word offend you so deeply I have to wonder, why? does the truth sting so deeply?
As far as scripture out of context, you are correct that a vast majority of people do take the word out of context. This is why I will never post simply 1 verse, as to get the concept of what is being talked about takes usually 5-7 verses. Please feel free at all times to read the verses around what I have included, as I'm sure you will agree that the messege remains the same. The view is always the same if you view it in context of when it was written and in light of all other scripture knowing it never contradicts itself.

As far as my position on this topic, Homosexuality is outline in the bible as being unacceptable to God, if you accept the bible. But, the persons behaviour does not mean you throw out the person. We are required to show compassion and understanding to all men, regardless of their behaviour. And I understand their behaviour, as I have a brother who has chosen this lifestyle. I still love my brother and invite him and his partner to all family functions, but that doesn't mean I agree with his lifestyle. 1 does not constitute the other.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
@ShannonDowds, let me guess. You've never actually read the Bible? Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with religion, I am a vociferous atheist, and extremely pro gay rights. However, I cannot endorse your statement because you think the Bible is a good read. I recommend you read it. It's a terrible read. It's a god-awful book. It isn't just the drab condoning of slavery and damning of this and that and the other, or the genocide and rape. I firmly believe people who say the Bible is a good read have never read the sucker.

Eloise, the premise is entirely valid. Ofcourse there's no God. Ofcourse the Bible is really really crap. However, I can easily argue what the Bible actually says because despite the falsehoods the book still exists.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
First, let me state that I don't believe in God and I think that the Bible is a pile of crap. That being said, it is still valid to debate whether or not the Bible is pro or con something. The Bible still exists, even if the words therein are false.

One of Kira's problems is that he does not have a correct understanding of homosexuality. All that is required for a person to be a homosexual is that he or she be consistently (that is, not incedentally) ATTRACTED to members of the same sex. Homosexuality does not require that the individual act upon those desires.

It is clear that the Bible condemns acts of homosexual sex. However, I cannot remember any passage that makes reference to the DESIRE for homosexual sex. What you infer from what you read is not part of the debate. What is being argued is what is actually written.

As for bisexual sex, the only incidence in which I could conceive of such a thing being possible would be sex with a pre-op transgendered person.
Posted by Eloise 8 years ago
Eloise
The premise of the entire argument is not valid..... there is no god and the bible is a mixed set of stories that were created by the conmen of the era to gain power and money. What is more hopeful than eternal life, and what is more frightful than "just dying" and rotting. Humans are animals just like dogs and hippos, they die, we die, and the world goes on. Your argument is another proof the the god of the bible is "cruel!" If god created man, why did he make some of his creatures homosexual? Is god not perfect? If he is perfect, then homosexuals are also perfect.
Posted by ShannonDowds 8 years ago
ShannonDowds
The Bible Is A Good Read, Admittedly.
But Then Again, So Are Fairy Stories.

Honestly, Gay People Are Attracted To Members Of The Same Sex, For No Apparent Reason, So Why Would "God" Care?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mark40511 6 years ago
Mark40511
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 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 debatist 8 years ago
debatist
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Mattowander 8 years ago
Mattowander
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ShannonDowds 8 years ago
ShannonDowds
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by DreamingBearcat 8 years ago
DreamingBearcat
KIRA_OKASHITatarizeTied
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:30