The Instigator
JonathanDJ
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
henryajevans
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 44874
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

JonathanDJ

Pro

I will be arguing that the act of homosexual sex is wrong. I will point out a religious reason. I will give a philosophical reason. I will also give medical reasons. I expect my counterpart to independently provide his own burden of proof as to why homosexual behavior is not wrong. I also except this burden for my self.

First round is for acceptance:
henryajevans

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
JonathanDJ

Pro

I would like to make it clear I do not wish harm nor harbor ill will toward those who have same sex attraction or who act on it. I do not support the illegalization of same sex sexual activity. I DO think that same sex sexual activity is evil and state it unambiguously. I view other forms of sexual sin as being equally evil. We should not call any form of evil an alternative lifestyle, love, a relationship, or any other term that normalizes or legitimizes that form of evil. I believe it is vital for us in the Western World to regain our sanity on this matter. I'd like to remind the readers of the debate of the reasons same sex sexual activity or "homosexual behavior" is evil.
henryajevans

Con

I don't see what's wrong with it. It is hardly a concern for wider society whether or not one of the parties in a relationship or liason has a Y chromosome or not.

My only hope is that you don't just regurgitate stale arguments against homosexuality á la most of the religious right.
Debate Round No. 2
JonathanDJ

Pro

I'd like to explain why same sex sexual acts are wrong from a religious viewpoint. First I want to talk about why I think there is a God. I won't go to deeply into detail and I don't expect people to simply accept my arguments as conclusive. I think that the Big Bang theory is evidence that God exists(1). I think that fine tuning(2) in the Universe is also evidence. I consider Intelligent Design theory to be strong evidence of design in living systems. I infer from that that there is a God. ID is supported by statistical analysis (probability)(3) and observation and analysis of living things. Malaria can adapt around malaria drugs but not around the sickle cell mutation even though it has had plenty of time to do so in evolutionary terms. This shows that the mechanism of undirected processes doesn't work(4). One other thing. ID predicted that the so called "Junk" in DNA might not be junk and that we should reserve judgement. Evolutionists declared it junk(5). ID's prediction is being proved right(6).
When I logically analyze this information I come to the conclusion that the Creator whoever he or she is one and is eternal, all powerful, and all knowing. I think the faiths that match with this best are the Abrahamic religions. I like Judaism because it describes a God like the one I've already discovered so far. It also tells me that He cares about us and what happens to us. He leaves us with clues about how to tell when it's Him specifically talking to us. He sends prophets, they do miracles, and they teach things consistent with what He taught before. The problem with Judaism is that is makes promises that go unfulfilled and commands unobeyed. The Christian faith provides answers to these problems. Jesus fulfills the promises and obeys the commands. Jesus is a perfect answer to the puzzle left unsolved in the Old Testament. Islam doesn't work because it rejects one of the central concepts taught in both faiths that came before it and that is blood atonement. So let's have a look at what God has to say about same sex sexual acts:
Leviticus 18:22 ESV
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Romans 1:26-28 ESV
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
1 Timothy 1:10 ESV
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
Now, it's true that the law was given only to Israel. I include it here only to help clarify what God means when he says the word "Homosexual". Some have argued that it means "Male prostitute". The passage doesn't support that. The passages of the New Testament are very clear on what "Homosexual" means and that it's wrong. To try to make the passages mean "Temple prostitution" or something similar strains the passage to the breaking point. We need to ask ourselves what the passage most likely really means not what we can make it mean.
(1) http://www.smatteringsbooks.com...
(2) http://www.geraldschroeder.com...
(3) http://www.arn.org...
(4) http://creation.com...
(5) http://www.mythofjunkdna.com...
(6) http://www.junkdna.com...
Biblical references are derived from the English Standard Version http://www.esvbible.org...
henryajevans

Con

I don't want to go into a long and tedious argument about the existence of God, but it is interesting that you elevate Christianity (and to a lesser extent, the other Abrahamic religions) to this privileged position of having overarching moral authority over matters of sexual conduct.

There are innumerable religions that do not condemn homosexuality that are every bit as implausible as Christianity. They include but are not limited to:

Buddhism
Hinduism
Jainism
Sikhism
Confucianism
Taoism
Wicca
Satanism
Shinto
Unitarian Universalism
Hellenic Paganism
Voodoo
Most Native American Religions
Norse Religion
Pastafarianism

Furthermore, if we are going by what the Bible forbids, perhaps I should provide examples of other things prohibited by the Bible.

Several meats, notably pork and rabbit (Leviticus 11:4)
Shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)
Fat and blood (Leviticus 3:17)
Women not covering their heads (Leviticus 10:6)
Clothes with multiple fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
Cutting hair on the back and sides of the head (Leviticus 19:27)
Shaving (Leviticus 19:27)
Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)
Diversified gardening (Leviticus 19:19)
Mixing breeds of animals (Leviticus 19:19)
Communion wine (Leviticus 10:9)
Working on Sundays (Leviticus 23:3)
Intercourse when a woman is menstruating (Leviticus 18:19)
Owning land (Leviticus 25:23)

I assume you also believe these acts are morally reprehensible too, since the Bible is God's word, and it would be hypocritical to follow one part of it and not the others.

Anyway, there is nothing to suggest that because something is written in the Bible, that makes it true or even moral. There is an entire article here that shows God's condoning of all sorts of vile things such as slavery, genocide and bigotry.

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

To conclude the round, I shall say that this round has been completely useless in the debate, as it frames a debate on a universal issue within Christian parameters, and the Bible does not apply to non-Christians. I'll allow the argument, and present mine. It can be found on this link.

http://www.venganza.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
JonathanDJ

Pro

I find my counterpart's behavior a little disappointing. I stated that the reason Christianity was to be preferred over other religions was because of what the evidence I gave inferred. It seems my counterpart simply ignored it. My counterpart brings up details from the Mosaic law like dietary restrictions. I addressed that when I said that we didn't live by the law I was only mentioning that verse to give us insight into what God meant by the word homosexual. Frankly I interpret my counterpart's attitude as rank disrespect. It seems that he didn't even bother to read my argument. Then he didn't do us the courtesy of even posting an argument to this website, instead he gives us a link to an old post of his at a different site and assumed that that would due. To say that my counterpart has been obnoxious so far would be to understate things.

At this point I'd like to share some philosophical reasons for staying away from the homosexual lifestyle. It's reasonably obvious that mens and womens bodies are complemantary in a way that mens bodies aren't to other mens. The number of adaptations mens and womens bodies have to accomadate each other is astonishing. (1)(2) This documentary is superb. I highly recommend you take the time to view it. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

Think of it this way; imagine you are an alien from a planet circling Alpha Century. Your species doesn't reproduce sexually so it's a totally foreign concept to you. You arrive on planet earth and put on your high tech invisibility suit. You follow humans around and study them and their bodies and behavior. Given that homosexuality is relatively rare in the population, would there be anything that you observed about human anatomy or human sexual behavior that would lead you to think that there was even such a thing as homosexuality? Let alone that it was normal and healthy. If you did see it you would think the couple was nuts! What I'm saying is that the only reason we aren't shocked and repulsed by it is because we have been brainwashed and conditioned to accept it.
henryajevans

Con

You gave minimal evidence for the existence of God, and failed to explain on universal standards why your version of the Christian God is an accurate representation of the Supreme Being.

'I think the faiths that match with this best are the Abrahamic religions. I like Judaism because it describes a God like the one I've already discovered so far'

Neither I nor the spectators particularly care about your personal religious beliefs in the parameters of this debate, since it is not universal. All you succeeded in doing was winning a non-argument with yourself about which of the thousands of deities and millions of methods of worship fits your personal views the best, along with a half-baked avec vous-même debate about what the Bible means in the passage provided.

And don't bother using the Bible as evidence, since it is not universally accepted. This is not a website for Christian debate, and according to the parameters you set out, this debate is not Christian. The Bible is worth as much as evidence for a secular debate about homosexuality as The City and the Pillar or Morrissey's autobiography.

I didn't provide a sustantial religious argument for homosexuality because I have no real argument to make. I have no religion, therefore no religious opinion on bedroom etiquette.

You seem to brush away my Mosaic prohibitions casually, as though they do not matter, dismissing them as 'details from the Mosaic law like dietary restrictions'. You then go on to say that we are not intended to live by those laws, and that you were only framing the biblical definition of homosexual behaviour, which is not even an argument, as the title of the debate is not: 'Homosexuality is accurately defined in Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-28 and Timothy 1:10 in the ESV'.

Your argument from a body-altering perspective only applies to defining homosexual behaviour as 'anal sex', which is rather prevalent among the heterosexual community as well (1). Also, anal sex in and of itself is not dangerous or body-altering, provided adequate measures are taken, such as the use of a water-based lubricant and of a condom (2). Oral sex among men is, again, made safe through either condom use or both partners being free of STIs (3). That just leaves non-penetrative sex which is almost completely risk-free, and are carried out by both communities.

Your first argument is irrelevent, your second is inaccurate; but your third is positively stupid. Homosexuality is present among 1,500 animal species, including lions, dolphins, orca whales and man's close relative, the chimpanzee (4). Besides, who cares what an alien from Alpha Centauri would think about our actions? Humans do thousands of actions every day that would seem odd to an outside observer, but they are accustomed to the actions and therefore do not perceive them as strange. Living in a tolerant society is different to brainwashing and indoctrinating, and has a wholly positive effect. There is not a single negative consequence of treating everybody in the same manner.

(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
(2) http://www.nhs.uk...
(3) http://www.nhs.uk...
(4) http://www.news-medical.net...

Are you going to post any actual arguments in the next round?
Debate Round No. 4
JonathanDJ

Pro

JonathanDJ forfeited this round.
henryajevans

Con

Looks like Pro has provided no substantial arguments proving that homosexual behaviour is wrong.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
How was my conduct deplorable?
Posted by JonathanDJ 3 years ago
JonathanDJ
MartinKauai
You should be ashamed of your self for your vote. Your reasoning is BS. Con's conduct was deplorable. The fact is your progay and that's the only reason you voted what you did. Have the honor to admit it.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Then you should have argued that. You can disengage from the moral debate, but you have to provide a reason first and support it.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Not everything is either moral or immoral. Most things are amoral, since there is no moral baggage associated with it.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I can't believe I'm doing this, but I can't give arguments to either debater.

Pro never explains why homosexual behavior is wrong. He spends the entire debate arguing that God says it's wrong, therefore it must be wrong. That's not really sufficient in support of the resolution here. You have to provide reasons why. Over and over again, you essentially state that it is overtly strange, and yet I never see a single reason why it's "wrong." Having not fulfilled your burden, I can't give it to you.

Neither can I give it to Con. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of your arguments, but again, we're not getting into moral rightness or wrongness on your end. Your R3 is almost entirely defensive, simply meant to show that we shouldn't agree with anything in Christianity because we can't agree with everything. Pro's response isn't a bad one, albeit it is kind of a cop out. Con then proceeds to post his argument in a link that is, for some reason, no longer functional. That's the reason for the conduct vote here, by the way - your arguments need to be posted in the text, not in a link, though admittedly both of you provided links with information that you were unwilling to present in the round, forcing anyone who wants to understand your points to read through multiple pages. Pro's forfeit was at least kinder than the blatant nonchalance of posting that.

Con finally gets down into some argumentation in R4, but it's all scientific, without a single reference to the morality of homosexuality. It's not that hard to defend, and frankly, I'm at a loss for words as to why I don't see that defense anywhere. The closest Con comes is saying that the Bible supports vile things, but that's not a reason why homosexual behaviors are morally right. I don't even get a reason why we should disregard morality in this case and just focus on the science. What's more, you let Pro get away with defining homosexual solely as male-male relationships. It's just a threadbare argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
JonathanDJhenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO not only forfeits a round in what was otherwise a decent and entertaining debate, that he himself initiated, but also got caught up in trying to prove the existence of his god, rather than justifying his resolve. This is poor conduct and amounted to poor arguments. CON demonstrates that homosexuality is prevalent in nature. This single fact alone demolishes the position that it is somehow wrong that homo sapiens engage in it too.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
JonathanDJhenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con would of won the debate(but he didn't) because Pro validated his resolution based off of his belief system. Con undermined this belief system in Rounds 2 & 3. This debate tended to go on some tangents which left me lost on how it was relevant to the resolution at hand. No one wins from my point of view. No one receives the S&G point. Source point goes to no one since both provided valid sources. Conduct goes to Pro due Con's multiple sly remarks throughout the debate("your third is positively stupid"). Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
JonathanDJhenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins by default as Pro forfeited the final round. However, even if Pro didn't forfeit Con would have won, anyway. Pro's arguments against homosexuality are religious and have no scientific merit. Moreover, Pro did not address the problematic and questionable verses that Con mentioned.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
JonathanDJhenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Described in comments. Conduct goes to Pro for Con posting his entire argument in favor of his case in a link. Convincing arguments go to no one since neither debater was convincing. And, frankly, both of you need to work on sources and actually providing some information from them before you post the link. Con deserves some props for R4 in this regard, but did such a blatantly dismissive job in R3 that I can't in good conscience award him points for it.