The Instigator
justiceandtruth
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 63541
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

justiceandtruth

Pro

First round acceptance
Second Rebuttal
Third Closing Arguments
AbandonedSpring

Con

I accept, however I do not fully understand how we are to rebut if neither of us have given arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
justiceandtruth

Pro

Since from on objective standpoint debating whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong is complete and utter dogmatism. It is an improbable debate that would be comparing apples to oranges. Thus for this debate we must establish a standard for which we view the issue. My standard will be religion, and why we should use religion as an arbiter for this debate. It is imperative for this debate to establish a concise metric for which we can compare and ultimately measure the resolution and which side most effectively validates their burden of proof.Now I will show why we need to use religion as this metric.

A.Let us assert that humans by virtue of nature aren't inherently born with knowledge thus do not have a sense of morality
According to John Locke humans learn from a system of empiricism, which consequently is learning from experiences.
Syllogism
Hot objects Burn, an unknowing naive baby touches a hot stove, The baby is burned
Through this proof we are able to see that though humans have instincts ,knowledge is learned through experiences, ie you experience calculus from a class, you have learned calculus from this experience

B.Now that we have established that we are born absent of knowledge but are born with present instinct we establish a need for prescribed morality.
Since we are born with instincts we need something to categorize those instincts as good or proper or bad and unwanted.
I.e A boy becomes aroused by a girl and becomes erect. The boy acts on sexual instinct and rapes the girl. From his perspective he was just acting on instinct. From her perspective she has had her autonomy violated. Now absent of a metric we cannot judge the situation as good or bad. We have to contrary views in an event. Since we have no way to judge the happenings as good or bad it is just an event. History for lack of a better word. Now if we have a metric let's say the bible we can now view this as a contemptible act that needs judiciary restitution.

C. Conclusion
Absent of the metric of religion we would as humans all have differ forms of morality. Our morality would be based on what ought to be proper. What ought to be would be based upon our individual knowledge. Our knowledge as proven by point A derives from experiences. As humans it is common knowledge that our experiences differ. The problem from this is that we have no measure for what is right and wrong and thus everything would be gray. No issues would be resolved and anything would be technically acceptable. This is why religion is our metric for this debate. Since we use religion as a basis of measurement since religion says homosexuality is wrong it ultimately is.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Okay, I suppose religion can be some of your points, however, I hope that they are not your only points.

Now, I will organize my argument into the contingencies, then seamlessly sew them together with short conclusion.

Contingency A. religion is not a standard that everyone must follow. According to the bible, God gave us free will- the will to chose whether we believe in him or not. To say that a religion is the reason why you are wrong, whether said person believes in that religion or not, is ignorant.

Contingency B. The bible is not necessarily "anti-gay". Of course there are some parts that deem it inappropriate. However, if I recall correctly, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Next, The bible is taken out of context far too often. The bible says homosexuality is wrong because of the need for population. Do you believe this to be true? If not, then check out Genesis 38:9,

"And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother"s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother."

Contingency 3: It is not my business what goes on in another persons house, it's theirs. However, I can imagine you recall John 8:7. I believe that alone is the reason pecan pie we should not persecute others for being different.

I suppose I should stone my black friends because there different too?

Finally, I would like to explain early in the ld estimate is the only real mention of homosexuality, when population was a hug deal.

Thank you, I am finished.
Debate Round No. 2
justiceandtruth

Pro

I will respond to each contingency one by one, starting with A.
You misunderstood my argument. I did not say that we must all follow religion, but that religion acts as measurement for the debate. Without some sort of prescribed morality we would all have different views of what was moral. Ambiguity would arise and society would cease to progress.
On to B
I concur that the bible isn't anti-gay, but the bible doesn't condone the act only for population.Romans 1:26-28

"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."
At this point in the bible the population was large partly due to the population of Rome. The lord condones these acts because they are contrary to his words.

On to contingency 3: I solely agree I am surely not a fit candidate to judge the actions of another, neither is anybody else. Except the fact you said the bible only mainly talks about homosexuality in the old testament not true as shown by my Romans quote.
Great Debate
AbandonedSpring

Con

Alright, to begin, I will jump straight into rebuttals.

"You misunderstood my argument. I did not say that we must all follow religion, but that religion acts as measurement for the debate. Without some sort of prescribed morality we would all have different views of what was moral. Ambiguity would arise and society would cease to progress."

I did not misunderstand. You were wanting to hold everyone to the same religious values, but that is simply not fair.

next, "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."
At this point in the bible the population was large partly due to the population of Rome. The lord condones these acts because they are contrary to his words."

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen. (NIV)
Now we"re seeing a bit more of the big picture, aren"t we? This is clearly not talking about Christians. Paul is talking about those who have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Verse 25 makes the point clear. They "worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." But is Paul talking about same-sex relationships, or something else?

But what are those "created things?" Is it something God created or something that man created as images of deity? But let"s see if that holds true by going back another paragraph to verse 21:

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Verse 23 is yet another statement that clearly discusses the worship of idols. "images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." This is one of the most telling phrases in the entire passage. Paul is writing about men who claimed to be so wise that they became fools, and delved into idolatry. They didn"t glorify God and their hearts were darkened.

This passage is so often taken out of context! The big picture is that God was getting sick of, "filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity."

Next: "I solely agree I am surely not a fit candidate to judge the actions of another, neither is anybody else. Except the fact you said the bible only mainly talks about homosexuality in the old testament not true as shown by my Romans quote.
Great Debate"

If you stop taking bible versus out of context, people will finally stop looking at all christians like people who are only judgmental. They were being punished for being bad people. Also, My argument still stands. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. You never really replied to my quote about Onan, which I'm slightly disappointed about because I found that to be interesting, as well as impressive.

Thanks, I am finished
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dekotacat1 2 years ago
dekotacat1
homosexuality is fain theirs nothing wrong with it you are who you are
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
miss....... You are free to do whatever floats your boat.All the bible tells us is there are consequences to all of our choices.The curse came when Adam united with satan. All God did was to declare them. Not impose them.He said " if you follow my advice, you will not run into the curse and the blessing is yours.If you do not listen to my advice, the law of sin and death is waiting out there for you."One thing God will never do is make you do anything.

Satan is the one that tries to force us to do things. But even he cannot do that. He is just a fallen angel. Not even in our class. All he can do is try to get us to speak words against ourselves. Then he can bring the curse. God gave us life words to speak and with them we can avoid the curse.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
If Christians are serious about following the bible they should admit that god never gives us the freedom to follow the commandments we like and neglect the rest. Nor does god tell us that we can relax the penalties he has imposed for breaking them.
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 years ago
justiceandtruth
I feel every one's concerns. The true reason I wanted to debate this topic is because I wanted to establish need for e religious view as human beings.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
how is consensual sex between adults immoral, or for that matter anyone else's business?
Some Christians take their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith?
Religion Breeds Ignorance and Intolerance.
Claims about faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything on an equal " and equally unreasonable " basis. Faith has no value when it comes to evaluating whether a religion is likely true or not. Religion gives value to faith not the other way around and that is one of religion's greatest failings. Believing in something does not make it true. The more you know the less you believe.
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
While I do not think debating based on religious standards is unacceptable, the opening argument and subsequent links to other points were rather weak. There was only one point, and I feel that Pro's arguments do not cover the topic fully. There could be points on morality and nature yet none were used...
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 years ago
justiceandtruth
You guys miss the point. My established position is not whether religion is right or wrong but rather a need for religion.From a need for religion we must abide by what religion says which is basically my argument.
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 years ago
justiceandtruth
Well Scott I challenge you to provide a better standard by which we evaluate the debate. We need a metric or the debate would just be ideas. For the sake of debate something had to be established.
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 years ago
justiceandtruth
Well Scott I challenge you to provide a better standard by which we evaluate the debate. We need a metric or the debate would just be ideas. For the sake of debate something had to be established.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
It is wrong in so many ways. Not the least is being a burden on society. AIDS is 40 times more likely among homo's than the rest of the population. And who foots the bill for there right to this lifestyle?The taxpayer.
No votes have been placed for this debate.