The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Homosexuality is a sin and if one continues in the sin, then it will sadly lead that person to hell.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 21658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Many people in our world do not understand the concept of "love." One would have to do an enriching studying in the Bible on the word "love" because the nature of God is that He is love (1 Jn. 4:8): "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." Love is doing what is best in that person's interest. Look closely how Paul describes the nature of love in 1 Cor. 13:4-7:"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." 2 Pet. 3:9 states: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." God has gone "out of His way" to express His everlasting love in the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross of Calvary. He loves human beings so much, so much, that we cannot ever comprehend it! Hell was originally prepared for Satan and his minions. Matt. 25:41 states: " "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Sadly, Satan has deceived all of us into going our own way and leading us away from God. Rom. 3:9-12: "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands;There is none who seeks after God.They have all turned aside;They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." God truly wants to show true purpose and meaning in our lives if we are willing to come to Him in faith and obedience (which is expressed much fuller what God wants us to do in order to be saved) as I have already stated in my other debate: "Is Immersion Essential For Salvation From Sin Under the Christian Age?" Sin should be shameful to each and every one of us. Jer. 6:15 states: "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush." I am not picking on one particular sin. If I need to, I will do other debates concerning that: "adultery is a sin..." (Gal. 5:19-21), "lying is a sin" (Rev. 21:8), etc. as I have stated in this proposition. I am not attacking the person. I am attacking the sin. This sin can cause so much damage to ourselves, among others, and among society. Let me point out what the Scriptures state on homosexuality. Rom. 1:24-28 states: "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting"
Gal. 5:19: " Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness"
1 Cor. 6:9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
Jude 7: "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is a sin that transgresses the eternal law of God. God's justice will be rendered out on such perversity. But God also is kind, loving, merciful, and is willing to show long-suffering, if homosexuals will realize what they have done and are willing to repent of their sin and turn to a life of true repentance. That what happened to some of those who lived in Corinth who became Christians. Their sins were washed away through immersion because they were willing to surrender to God their lives from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Isn't that wonderful "good news"? You bet it is! I pray that every homosexual will begin to realize the life they are living in that they will turn to God. It is not just homosexuals, but also adulterers, thieves, etc. What a wonderful world this would be if people would change their lives to living as God would want them to live.


My opponent starts by saying that many people in our world do not understand the concept of "love". I agree. If you choose to condemn another human being on the basis of the gender of the person they love, then you do not understand love. If you think that a loving god would condemn someone to eternal torture because of their sexuality (or indeed for any other reason), then you do not understand love. And if you profess that to get around this dilemma, that loving god killed himself, to appease himself, so that all may be forgiven as long as they become his willing emotional slaves on earth, then you do not understand love.

My opponent has much work ahead of him in this debate. To win it, I submit that the burden of proof is clearly on him to show that homosexuality is a sin, and that 'if continued in' (whatever that means) that person will be sent to hell.

Now sin is a word that only has meaning in a religious context, and my opponent makes it perfectly clear that he is arguing from a Christian context. I am not however prepared to concede unchallenged that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If my opponent wishes to argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and therefore that homosexuality is a sin, then he must first demonstrate that God exists and that the Bible is an accurate reflection of his message to humanity. Only then will the argument he articulated above begin to have any weight.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is also on my opponent to prove that hell exists and that all homosexuals will be sent there if they 'continue in the sin.' Furthermore, he must also clearly define what he actually means by this phrase.

My stance on this matter is very simple. A significant minority of the human population feel romantic and/or sexual attraction towards those of the same sex. The reasons for this attraction are unknown. [1] No single 'gay gene' has been found, but current evidence suggests that this state of affairs is largely determined by genetics and random environmental factors. [2] Whatever the exact truth, there is no evidence to suggest that in the general population one's sexuality is a simple choice, in the same way that one can choose which clothes to wear or what music to listen to.

Some members of the population also claim that homosexual behaviour is immoral. They claim, as my opponent does, that it is a sin, and against the law of god. However, not only can they not demonstrate with any reasonable degree of certainty that this god even exists - their best (and by and large only) evidence for this is an ancient collection of confused and contradictory writings by scientifically illiterate men, which cannot be taken seriously as a truthful message by anyone today - but they can't even come up with a rational explanation as to why that god would outlaw homosexuality. The simple fact is that if god exists, if he is good and if he says that homosexuality is a sin - all things claimed by my opponent in his first statement - then there will be a good, rational reason as to why he would do so. So I ask my opponent: what is that reason?

I will now turn the floor back over to my opponent, and I look forward to his response.

[1] =
[2] =
Debate Round No. 1


I am glad to see Telanian have this discussion with me. I trust that we all will seek to come to know the truth. Obviously, Telanian is an atheist. If I were to put my argument in a form, then it would go something like this: If God exists, and the Bible is God's word, and the Bible teaches X, then X is true. X would stand for homosexuality is a sin. I know that for my argument to stand, then I must prove God exists and the Bible is God's Word, and we can debate on those two subjects in the near future. I am going to go ahead and do so since I must prove my proposition. Obviously, my opponent realizes that the Bible does clearly teach that it is a sin and if it not repented of, but rather continued in, then it will tragically lead that person to hell. My proposition stands true if I can prove the first two things. The cosmological argument states:
"If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked: Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).
Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist's argument, then, is this:
Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
Either matter or mind is eternal.
Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
That eternal mind is God. (

The teleological argument states:
1. If the Universe shows evidence of design,it must have had a designer.
2. The Universe does show evidence of design.
3. Thus, the Universe must have had a designer. (
The universe, animals, human beings, etc. all show design, therefore pointing to a Designer - God.

The moral argument states:
"Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God exists.
Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed manner in his debates with atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace Matson (p. 285).
If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong).
Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.

Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why do people generally think that some actions are "right" and some actions are "wrong," regardless of people's subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is "evil" or "wicked" (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are "a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses" ("Metaphysical," 2011)—and "rely on moral values." The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist."
I can guarantee you that my opponent believes that some activities are intrinsically and objectively moral or immoral, good or evil. If this does prove the case, then my opponent will be surrendering and testifying indirectly that the moral argument is stronger and is coherent and correspondent with Ultimate Reality - God. He states about the Bible: " an ancient collection of confused and contradictory writings by scientifically illiterate men, which cannot be taken seriously as a truthful message by anyone today." (1) My opponent has the burden of proof placed on him to show where the Bible contradicts itself and is not compatible with science. (2) He states that the Bible cannot be taken as a "truthful message". Implicitly, my opponent believes then that there is such a concept as a lie. He must believe that lying is immoral. Else why would he debate me on this proposition unless he believed that he was doing the moral (right) thing - tell the truth. Obviously, he believes that I am teaching a false proposition - a lie. He has further given stronger allegiance to the moral argument that God exists.

"Here is a strong argument for the Bible being the word of God:

"If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . . property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production), then the Bible is the word of God.

It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . . property Z.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the word of God.

By "property A, property B,...," etc., Warren meant "affirmative propositions regarding some fact regarding the Bible" ("God's Word" 18). It is clear that the argument is valid in form. It is a hypothetical syllogism in which the antecedent of the major premise (1) is affirmed. The only way the argument could be shown to be unsound (i.e. the truth of the conclusion does not follow from the premises) would be to show at least one of the premises is false."

You could put in the Property A = the fulfillment of hundreds of OT prophecies, Property B = eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Christ, Property C = Eyewitnesses of the miracles of Jesus, Property D = scientific foreknowledge, etc. I would be glad to go into this a little deeper in the next round.

My opponent states: "they can't even come up with a rational explanation as to why that god would outlaw homosexuality. The simple fact is that if god exists, if he is good and if he says that homosexuality is a sin - all things claimed by my opponent in his first statement - then there will be a good, rational reason as to why he would do so. So I ask my opponent: what is that reason?" It is obvious that my opponent believes in logic and reasoning. Where does logic and reasoning derive from? The naturalistic worldview cannot account for logic and reasoning because how could the blind, random chance forces of matter (which somehow created itself - "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist") change or convert over into mind?" It can't! Only the Christian worldview can account for logic and reasoning in that it derives from an Ultimate Mind - God.

My opponent asked me about, "continuing in sin"? I summarize by stating that there are former homosexuals who have given up their sin by changing their lives to God in living a righteous life. They are still tempted though and have strong tendencies or desires to commit the sin, yet overcome those temptations through submission to God who are striving to walk in the light, thus have the promise of eternal life.


I thank my opponent for the valiant attempt he has made to counter the points I made. Nevertheless, despite his efforts, I do not think that he comes remotely close, either to demonstrating that god exists, or that the Bible is his message to mankind, and I shall be explaining why in just a moment.

Let me start however by saying that while my opponent is perfectly correct in his assumption that I am an atheist, he is not correct in his assumption that I have actually conceded that the Bible itself teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is debatable as to whether or not the Bible teaches this - hence why many Christians disagree about it [1] - and I could, if I chose, make an argument attacking my opponent's resolution on those lines. I choose not to do so however, because I think it far simpler to show that the Bible cannot be considered to be the inspired work of a divine being - and once that is shown, who cares what it says!

So let's start with the issue of whether or not a god actually exists. The cosmological argument that my opponent presents is little more than an argument from ignorance. It is not a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing; at the quantum level, particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, with no discernible cause or reason at all. [2] My opponent quotes the Christian theologian Robert Sproul to support his case, and I have to ask him what scientific knowledge the said theologian has that makes his opinions on the origin of the universe remotely authoritative. How does he know that nothing could exist without a self-existent being, and what evidence does he have to support this assertion? I submit that this whole argument is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion that seeks to insert god as an explanation for things that we simply do not understand yet - something that human beings have been doing all throughout history.

Moving on, the teleological argument is countered very easily by the scientific Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, which provides a convincing and credible explanation for all the apparent design that we see in the universe today - namely (putting it very simply) that it arises out of genetic variation within a population [3], with the result that those creatures whose genes give them an advantage over others (slightly better hearing/eyesight etc) are more likely to reproduce and pass on those genes to the next generation. [4] And so, gradually and slowly over time, due to this process of Natural Selection, living creatures become more adapted to life in their respective environments [5]. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and although scientists do disagree over relatively minor details, the basic facts of evolution are no longer in scientific dispute. [6] Most crucially, nowhere is god needed as an explanation to make this process work.

Moving on to the moral argument, it is now accepted as self-evident truth by most people today that slavery is a terrible evil, and one that is rightly outlawed. If the moral argument is valid therefore, it surely follows that it is objectively true that slavery is evil, and (if the Bible is the work of the god who exists by the moral argument) that the Bible should therefore condemn it. However, far from condemning it, the Bible explicitly endorses it. Leviticus 25:44-46, which grants the Israelites the right to purchase male and female slaves from the foreigners in their midst is just one example amongst many. For this reason, many religious Americans as late as the 19th century considered slavery to be morally approved by god. [7]

And so, I regard the moral argument as an example of what I informally call 'an argument from wishful thinking.' Yes, it would be nice in many ways if objective truth did exist. It would make settling issues a lot easier if we could simply appeal to some unquestionable 'objective truth.' Sadly however, there is no evidence that such a thing even exists, and religious organisations themselves give us absolutely no reason to believe that it does.

Incidentally, given that slavery is clearly endorsed by the Bible, yet we now consider it to be wrong, one could just as easily argue that we have no good reason to consider homosexuality wrong, despite the fact that you can find verses in the Bible condemning it. However, I have already explained why I see no need to explicitly construct an argument along these lines. The fundamental point that I do wish to make is that given that we see no evidence of an 'objective morality' within religious institutions, there is no reason to believe that they have any kind of access to any source of 'objective morality.'

My opponent goes on to list various properties which he claims demonstrate that the Bible is of divine origin. Property D - scientific foreknowledge - has already been effectively demolished and destroyed by the Theory of Evolution, whose implications flatly contradict the creation story in Genesis. To give one further example, science makes a complete mockery of the story of Noah's ark, since (to give one of many arguments) the ark specified in the Bible would not have been large enough to carry all the animals and food required to repopulate the earth. [8]

I can take B and C - the so called eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and his miracles - together. We have no idea who wrote the four gospels and why. We therefore have no idea where the writers got their information or whether or not they were even eyewitnesses to the events they describe. [9] Furthermore, the different gospels can't even agree on fundamental details concerning important events such as Jesus' death - did he die confused and despairing, wondering why God had forsaken him, as told by Mark 15:33-34, or did he die knowing that he was fulfilling god's plan and that he was going to paradise, as told by Luke 23:43 - 46. Surely, if the Bible were the inspired work of god, he would have made sure that its message on this vitally important matter was clear and consistent.

Finally, I would ask my opponent to provide an example of an Old Testament prophecy which he thinks has been fulfilled.

And so, my opponent still has much work to do. He has, I submit, so far completely failed to show that god exists or that the Bible is his message to mankind. He tellingly provides no rational reason whatsoever as to why that god, if he exists, would wish to outlaw homosexuality, relying instead on another argument from ignorance, using god to explain logic in the same way that people used to use god to explain rain, wind and thunder. We as yet have no reason to believe therefore that god even exists, let alone that homosexuality is against his law, and I look forward to my opponent's final response.

[1] =
[2] =
[3] =
[4] =
[5] =
[6] =
[7] =
[8] =
[9] =
Debate Round No. 2


fishing_007 forfeited this round.


As you will see from the comments, my opponent no longer seems to be on this site. I offered him the opportunity to make his final statement via the comments page anyway, but he has not done so.

That said, I have no interest in winning debates by default. I would therefore request that when voting, people base their votes on the two completed rounds and not simply award me the victory just because my opponent forfeited his final round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Telanian 6 years ago
Well I am certainly very sorry to hear that fishing_007 is no longer on this site. I was very much enjoying this debate, and he certainly didn't behave inappropriately in this debate, although I can't speak for his conduct elsewhere. I would have thought that if he had been kicked off the site, he would at least have been given an explanation. If not, it shouldn't be too difficult to contact the site and request one. But that's for him to do, not me.

For the sake of completing the debate, I am perfectly happy for fishing_007 to post his final statement here in the comments section via your account, and I would be happy to direct people to it in my own final statement.
Posted by pasnthru22 6 years ago
I regret to tell you that my friend, fishing_007, told me to tell you that he got kicked off the website. He has not been told why yet. So sadly he may not be able to finish the debate. Care to find out why he got deleted? I appreciate it.
Posted by kyro90 6 years ago
I take it your a serious religious person putting into consideration that you always involve sins or the bible etc when you make debates. Though im sorry but I cannot do this debate even though I would love to Homosexuals...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RandomName 6 years ago
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: I never truely thought the Bible told the "truth" and I have always been in favor of treating homosexuals equally. Goes to Telanian.