Homosexuality and Religion
Debate Rounds (5)
The Religion Behind It: The first thing anyone has to understand is that when the word "man" was used in the Old Testament, it referred to the human race and not just men. Women had no real presence in the Old Testament save for a few notable ones such as Esther and Sara. Because of this undeniable fact there is a good possibility that both the men and women of Sodom and Gomorrah were included in this passage. For those of you unfamiliar, I suggest you read up on the passage (http://www.usccb.org...). But let us for a moment forget gender in this passage and take a look at the actions of the people in this city. They DEMANDED that the two traveling men be released to the public so that they could have sex with them. If you think about it (and I hope you don't have to think too hard) what deplorable action do these demands reflect? Let me give you a hint: rape.
Now we weigh the crime of rape against the crime of homosexuality which are clearly two different crimes. It is true that God judges all sins equally, but while one is undeniably a sin the other is still up for debate. God repeatedly tells us throughout the Bible that He loves all of his children equally. This includes the bad ones: Lucifer, Judas, Pilate...so if God can forgive a murderer and love him/her, can he not also love a homosexual?
Here Are My Thoughts: I believe, and I have spent hours debating the subject with myself and with others both religious and non-religious, both heterosexual and homosexual, and with those who had no opinion, that God did not destroy the two cities because men were having sex with men. I believe that God destroyed the cities because they were raping people. Demanding that travelers be given to the city to be forced into a sexual confrontation against their own will (never mind that Lot even offered up his own daughters, that's an argument for another time) was the true sin that ended in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These are two COMPLETELY different offenses.
Being gay is not a sin, it is not a birth defect, it is a lifestyle choice that does no harm to anything or anyone around it. To love someone is to be greater than that of a person who hates someone. As Christians we should remember that it is not our place to judge anyone much less make a public statement of outrage against it. Homosexuals are some of the most peaceful and loving groups of people I have ever encountered, although there are those that really put a bad name on their people much like those of us Christians who put our religion in a bad light. We shouldn't judge someone for loving another as God has taught us to.
As for my introductory argument, am I to assume that my position is that homosexuality IS a sin as well as the compatibility of homosexuality and religion? Very well.
Sinner Pride is my motto. Christians are ashamed to be Christians, as well they should be. If boring sermons are Jesus' plan for salvation, then it's time for anti-sermon.
Homosexuality being a sin doesn't have to be a moral disadvantage for the LGBTQ community. The personality phenomenon of gay culture is a rather peculiar occurrence, therefore something Christians should be researching, not avoiding homophobically.
Homophobia is unique to humanity, it would seem. That alone has grounds for supernatural potential. Biblical scale miracles have been absent for two millennia. This relates to my moral advantage argument. Christians are so obsessed about throwing stones at homosexuals that they should be noticing that homosexuals are turning those stones into bread, bread that they can consume for the time being.
Embracing gay sin might seem counter-intuitive AND counterproductive, but at least pretending to be the bigger person and cooperating with a homophobic Church would be turning the other cheek. Depending on where you draw the line in this war, using Christian morality against them seems to be the only thing that could make them open their minds.
As for rebutting the last points of the PRO's argument, I contend that just because it's a lifestyle, does not mean it is exempt from being classified as immoral. That implies that if a lifestyle were just perpetual sin, then Christians are justified in their supreme disgust of it. Jesus stated that lust counts as adultery; adultery counts as sin, especially now that gay marriage has gained traction. Gay lust is basically gay puberty.
I didn't start until I was 22, 23. I am capable of gay lust. I entertain it. So I do have personal authority and legitimacy to speak on this matter.
To say that "Sinner Pride" is your motto is not a very good argument. The word "sinner" encompasses a whole range of actions, not just homosexuality (which again I argue isn't a sin). You do, however, have a valid point in saying that 'Christians are ashamed to be Christians...' in the sense that, yes there are those of us who no longer like to associate ourselves with our religion anymore. But it's not because we are ashamed of our religion, it is because we are ashamed of the extremists that use our religion to fight against the most basic rights of every individual and that is the right to love whoever they choose to love (those accused being the Westborough Baptist Church and its supporters).
Using the "Sinner Pride" motto is in fact a disadvantage to the LGBT community because you are voluntarily acknowledging the fact that what you are doing is wrong. But being gay isn't wrong and why should anyone say it is? And if you tell people that you believe homosexuality is a sin and that you take pride in knowing that it is a sin, what is to stop people from thinking of what other kinds of sins you choose to commit let alone homosexuality?
I think the term "homophobia" is inappropriately used and considered to be a true term, but phobia doesn't relate to a feeling of hatred or religious beliefs. 'A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.' Hating someone who is homosexual because of your religious beliefs doesn't make you homophobic, it just makes you prejudice which isn't the same thing.
Embracing homosexuality isn't the equivalent of embracing a sin and it isn't counterproductive. If you want to prove to the Christian community that you are not a sinner, then you must act in the way you believe is right. Love one another as you love yourself. Embrace your homosexuality, but don't think of it as a sin. If you believe that what you are doing is wrong and you do it anyways, you are never going to convince anyone to approve of your lifestyle.
Your insistence on homosexuality not being a sin is like refusing to play a game on the basis that you want to rewrite the rules. Which is fine by me if you have the logical authority. If you are going to defy the Christian system of labeling immoral acts, you might as well go big or go home. To make an impact on the stubborn Christian mind, you must be willing to look wrong, which is not the same as being wrong. I do not seek approval. I seek acknowledgment that I am onto something.
I think Christians compartmentalize the genetic being gay versus gay acts, even though sin is genetic; how else would it perpetuate itself among humanity? Again, I reiterate that Jesus indirectly outed homosexuality as a sin by casting lust under the same umbrella as adultery. In order to disprove my claim, you have to sever the connection between this and gay feelings.
Homophobia may not be a legitimate phobia, but it is the strongest weapon against the Christians. Being afraid of homophobia and damage to their reputation and social respect can be essential to countering the bombardment of hate they do not hesitate to spew. Since America is changing its mind about homosexuality, Christians who think the US is a Christian nation are in for a rude awakening. If that's what Christian America is about, we're better off otherwise.
To disprove your claim I must sever the connection between adultery and homosexuality together as a sin? Wasn't the basis of my argument that homosexuality is in fact NOT a sin? So then why would homosexuality and adultery be under the same umbrella if one is a sin and the other is not?
You talk of homophobia as a weapon against the Christians, but this isn't a fight that should even exist. If your opinion differs from that of another, you don't fight them to convince them of your views you acknowledge the difference and move on your way. With the decline of Christianity as a religion (although it is still thought to be one of the largest religions), the fact that a small group of people make a ruckus about homosexuality and their beliefs on it shouldn't affect any in the LGBT community because the number of people that support the LGBT or have no opinion greatly outnumber those who are against it. Why would you lead a war that you've already won? Why do you need to fight against a small group that barely makes a ripple in the community? Because someone said they didn't like your boyfriend/girlfriend? They say that to the heterosexuals they don't like either.
Homophobia is such an insignificant argument that has been blow way out of proportion because these people feel a childish need to retaliate to nothing more than a common school bully who called you a loser. And we don't think the the U.S. as a Christian nation, we think of it as a nation FOUNDED on Christian beliefs and practices which is in fact true. It's quite obvious that since our founding fathers escaped the crown to practice their religion in peace that we have come a long way and change many of our views.
Since when is a preference not a choice? Semantics. If my personality prefers a certain orientation, it is up to my free will to flip-flop between them at a moment's notice. I choose to be gay; then I revert to being straight at will. Back and forth, back and forth. It's possible. Getting into homosexuality and free will is a different debate altogether...
If you wish to separate homosexuality from the biblical system of sin labeling, but leave out other candidates simply because they are not a priority or you only are concerned about one of them, then I do see an agenda. Either ignore the system altogether or defeat it, render it obsolete and make it dramatic. Because, the Christians won't accept anything less than a humiliating failure. As long as there are church gatherings with Christians blind to your future expectations of their dismantling, then the war is not won. Not with an army that fights with incompatible weapons.
If the war is already won, why are the Christians going on about as if they have no clue? Their faith is designed for scenarios such as the David vs. Goliath battles where they are flinging stones at the overpowered opponent but keep on missing, for the reason that they are out of practice. Christians will not give up until...well, never. They don't see logic, or trust it. They are very farsighted.
Only atheists share the homosexual denial of the sin system? I clearly stated at the beginning of the argument that I was a Christian, born and raised Lutheran. I stopped attending church because I didn't agree with how many traditional churches interpreted the Bible, but that does not mean I stopped practicing.
There is no war to be fought. A person thinks homosexuality is a sin another person chooses to be a homosexual because it is what they prefer, where is this fight? A disagreement is not a fight it is not a war and it doesn't become a war until someone makes it a war. So who started the war? The Christians because they said it was wrong? Or the LGBT because they say that what the Christians say is wrong? Continuing to preach against homosexuality is not a form of war, it is a form of teaching within the Christian community. People are allowed to preach their lifestyles at free will to their friends, family, young, but ultimately it is still each individuals decision as to whether it is right or wrong. The faith is not designed for Goliath vs David battles, the faith is designed to take the individual and show them humility, respect, love, and forgiveness. What a certain groups interpretation of all other detailed matters of the faith is entirely made up of their own human minds which means that there is room for human error.
People share their faith all the time publicly, the practice is not just limited to Christians. How many times have you had a Seventh Day Adventist come to your door? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew? Or known a friend who was religious who voice an opinion that was influenced or accepted as part of their religion? How many people do you know that are anti-pork or vegetarian or vegan or think that drinking is wrong or think that partying is wrong because of a religion? Is that not the same as telling people you think the homosexuality is a sin? What one person believes and speaks should not anger another whose beliefs are different.
Why do you subscribe to a bible with which you disagree?
It's a war because it's a moral territory dispute. Territorial disputes are the essence of warfare. Telling the Christians what to recognize as sin is as offensive to them as it is offensive that same recognition is to the homosexuals. Stalemate?
If faith is not for David vs. Goliath battles, what is the point in believing your version of an omnipotent deity?
The variety of differences between people's consciences indicate that none of us have the full picture, a perfect conscience. Yet we compete with each other anyway to see whose is the best and most refined.
If comfort is all you seek from your God, then why bother treating him like the conqueror of evil as he should be? Apparently, he left it up to his son, who left it up to humanity. And then to whom should we leave it?
Why homosexuality and religion are incompatible? Men abusing God's tolerance for all sinners despite his rules and homosexuals challenging religious traditions. Like I said, a territory dispute. Sharing is caring. But religion doesn't care.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.