The Instigator
charles15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Homosexuality is a Sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,603 times Debate No: 10199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

charles15

Pro

Homosexuality is a sin whether one believes in the Bible or not.

Romans 1: 24-28
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

I think this makes it very clear, that homosexuality is a sin.
Danielle

Con

Homosexuality is not a sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin. Both are innate orientations as intrinsic to human beings as hair color and right or left handedness. Today's science unveils that one's sexuality is NOT chosen, and many factions such as the Catholic denomination agrees, as outlined in their Catechism. Even Focus on the Family leader (a Christian group vocally opposed to homosexuality) declares, "We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions" [1]. In other words, God makes everyone in His likeness and image; because people can't choose their orientation, than they are perfect just as God made them.

Additionally, it is important to note the ways in which the Christian Church's attitude toward human sexuality was very negative for awhile, but has since changed. For instance, the Church used to view sex as only for procreation, not for pleasure; women and slaves were considered property to be owned by males; and many expressions of heterosexuality, like homosexuality, were considered sinful [2]. That is simply not the case today. Just as the Church has changed its views on things like whites being superior to blacks, etc., it's changed its close-minded views based on prejudice in other areas as well.

Sins can be described as being offenses to God. Christians derive their concept of sin from what the Bible says. Because the Bible never condemns committed, faithful, non- cultic same sex relationships, Bible believing Christians should not label homosexuality as sin. What many presume to be homosexuality in the Bible is not homosexuality at all. Instead, what the Bible describes in the "clobber passages" is actually cultic pagan worship of the fertility goddess. Because the Bible in context does not support their presuppositions, those who oppose gays and lesbians habitually take verses out of context to "prove" their argument [3].

Moreover, let's take a look at what some theologians have to say about further analysis of Bible interpretation [2]:

"The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background."
-- Robin Scroggs, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior."
-- Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament, Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

"A close reading of Paul's discussion of homosexual acts in Romans 1 does not support the common modern interpretation of the passage. Paul did not deny the existence of a distinction between clean and unclean and even assumed that Jewish Christians would continue to observe the purity code. He refrained. However, from identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code."
-- William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of Pacific, Berkeley.

"The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this has been 'against nature.' Two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasure. The second possibility is that physis refers to the 'nature' of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to have homosexual relations."
-- John J. McNeill, Adjunct Professor of Psychology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

"The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters."
-- John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University, New Haven.

As you can see, the word of the Bible can not and should not be taken at face value; there is a lot of new research being done exposing the invalidity of the idea that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible. Further, perhaps most frustratingly of all, most people overlook the reality that the Bible quotes - even the ones that my opponent have cited - never blatantly criticize homosexuality. Instead, they they condemn LYING WITH A MAN i.e. engaging in homosexual activity -- not being homosexual. This fact alone entirely negates the resolution and my opponent's case. Rev. Dan Johnson of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church in Edina, MN said it best: "The half-dozen biblical references to homosexuality do not reflect what we understand today about loving relationships. This is an identity, not a sin."

There are some progressive theists like American Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach who note, "Homosexuality and sodomy are not ethical sins. No one is being hurt, no one is being cheated, nobody's rights are being infringed upon. Homosexuality is a religious sin, analogous to other Biblical prohibitions, like not eating the carcass of a dead animal, or not sleeping with a woman during her menstrual cycle." In other words, a lot of what the Bible says is outdated. People tend to pick and choose what they adhere to in the Bible and consider sins, and what they don't. William Sloane Coffin, former chaplain of Yale University notes, ""In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia" [4].

One should also note that many cite the book of Leviticus detailing the Bible's condemnation of homosexual behavior, which reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination" (18:22, KJV). However, the book of Leviticus says all kinds of things. For instance, such as "I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that wastes the eyes...Then if you walk contrary to me and will not hearken me, I will bring more plagues upon you... I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children... You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. And I will... cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols..." (Leviticus 26:14-30).

Now Christians have made all kinds of excuses and tried to reconcile or even dismiss horrible Bible passages such as this. However, why can't we try to interpret or excuse other passages condemning Homosexuality from the same book? You can't pick and choose what to accept from the Bible and what not to accept, or what is open for interpretation and what isn't. However, facts are facts: the Bible never condemns homosexuality, only homosexual behavior. Now, I could go on and and on and on arguing my opponent's point, but since I have already negated the resolution, I'll just send this debate back to Pro for now.

[1] http://www2.focusonthefamily.com...
[2] http://www.uis.edu...
[3] http://www.opposingviews.com...
[4] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Debate Round No. 1
charles15

Pro

charles15 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

In the last round, I proved that:

(1) Homosexuality can't be a sin, because to sin is to choose to go against God. The church acknowledges that one does not choose their sexuality. While they may choose their sexual endeavors (i.e. to have gay sex), they do not choose to be inherently homosexual. So, because it's not a choice even by the church's standards, homosexuality can't be a sin.

(2) The church's stance on many issues regarding sexuality in general have changed over the years. The idea that homosexuality is sinful is considered outdated in many denominations.

(3) "What many presume to be homosexuality in the Bible is not homosexuality at all. Instead, what the Bible describes in the "clobber passages" is actually cultic pagan worship of the fertility goddess. Because the Bible in context does not support their presuppositions, those who oppose gays and lesbians habitually take verses out of context to "prove" their argument."

(4) Oh, again what I said before - homosexual BEHAVIOR is sinful and not homosexuality itself.

(5) A slew of theologians have offered alternative interpretations of what is usually considered slander of gays.

Of course I went into more explicit detail in the last round, but those are the main themes of what my opponent has one more opportunity to try and refute. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
charles15

Pro

charles15 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

This guy's a punk. He's been online, and just chose not to post an argument. Due to my opponent's forfeited rounds, he hasn't refuted any of my arguments whereas I've acknowledged all of his points. Maybe I'll get a chance to debate this with him again sometime (or Zetsabou since he's expressed interest). Oh well, thanks anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Sorry, it's Danielle.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
I just read this:

"I bet theLwerd's got a much more prosperous career coming ahead in comparison to yours; she's much hotter, too ;) Anyway, I think I have done enough ranting."

lol wut? I don't have anything against Lwerd. Honestly, I couldn't care less about sin anymore, not my merkis in live.

As for career, possibly. Lwerd (Michelle) is quite smart woman so she is likely to have a great future career she has my graces. As for me, what do you know about my education?
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
-I tryed not to laugh when I read your post.-

Liberal Christians? Your Methodist, thats quite a Liberal Sect.
I'll point out your errors in debate.

Anyway, continue on my wall.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I am a liberal by no means. I am moderate, with a tendency to lean to the Right. If you are referencing a "liberal" stance on my interpretation of the Bible, that is just silly. I am not a Catholic or a fundamentalist. The Bible was inspired by God to teach morality through metaphors and parables. I would love to debate a Catholic, as I find many things wrong with the way your "group" learns, teaches, and instructs the teachings of the Bible. I wouldn't be getting too cocky if I were you. If you support fundamentalism, I can easily debate you. If you hold strong Catholic morals/teachings, I can easily debate you. Why don't you stop the chitter chatter and challenge me, Z?
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Pro: Fail.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Ewwww, if only I had time. I could negate every liberal christian statment in your post. Wait soon, I'll change how you see our religion.

For now answer me this, many liberals say we (Others) misinterpret the bible. Tell me how many variations of the bible have you read? Please, answer and read, it's antonishing, the book is so...
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Ok wanna debate that?
Catholic to reformist
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Who cares if some people think homosexuality is a sin? People sin every day of their lives. Stop trying to make homosexuals feel inferior just because of something as miniscule as sexual orientation. Christianity does not 'hate' anything. Christians have skewed the Bible so badly nowadays that they interpret almost all of the parables / verses terribly incorrectly. If you hadn't noticed, human nature and culture transforms itself over time. The days of the Bible are much different in comparison to modern days. God does not approve of the death penalty. Although there may be cases where God condemned people, that still does not represent what God or Christianity is about. So many Christians nowadays are hateful to Jews, gays, lesbians, blacks, etc. I am sick of it. I'd say about a quarter of the general population who call themselves 'Christians' are not even remotely close to accepting God's ways. The remaining half of the population does not understand the Bible and its meaning. I'm turning more liberal every day in reference to politics and religion, and I am content with it. I used to despise liberals and non-Christians, but have grown an open-mind. I just don't appreciate the condemnation of homosexuality and others of the sorts. I get so much crap from all the kids at my Catholic school for supporting gay rights and the like. They have no idea what it's like to be gay (nor do I), and they just go around judging others. Hey charles, does it make you feel proud to make others feel bad for their sexual orientation? I bet theLwerd's got a much more prosperous career coming ahead in comparison to yours; she's much hotter, too ;) Anyway, I think I have done enough ranting.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
You can't possibly belive this argument. Can you?

After reading myself: I'm probably the most messed up Christian Alive.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
What? By error of interpretation. Errors of Interpretation are Errors of Linguistics, The topic of Linguistics of meaning is open to anything speak able. If something open to anything it is largely invalid.*

*If not a rule of Metaphysics and wacko Philosophies ;)

You know it, I know it, Christianity hates you. Don't like it don't defend it? Lwerd do you actually believe this argument (Christianity is Nice).

I really hope Charles poses a good attack.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
charles15DanielleTied
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 Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
charles15DanielleTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
charles15DanielleTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
charles15DanielleTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
charles15DanielleTied
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