The Instigator
RightIAm
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
128 Points

Homosexuality is disgusting

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,737 times Debate No: 14172
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (79)
Votes (28)

 

RightIAm

Pro

Homosexuality denotes the phenomenon whereby members of the same sex engage in sexual relationships with one another. For purposes of clarity it is necessary to draw a distinction between this and the homosexual inclination, which is the attraction of members of the same sex to one another.

I will be arguing that homosexuality is disgusting, both morally and physically - and that it is condemned by our Lord and Father (whose existence is not up for debate here).

God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve.

30 minute response time.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent is wishing to argue the actual act of homosexuality, meaning sex, and not the desire of the sex or the attraction to other individuals. I accept this definition of homosexuality.

I will, however, propose a definition for Disgusting, from the Princeton Dictonary, "highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust" [1]

There are two types of homosexual sex, both man on man, and woman on woman. I will look at these two separately.

Woman on woman. At this point, there is no physical difference in lesbian sex, then straight sex. Both use the game body parts on the women, their vaginas. So from a physical standpoint, we cannot call it any more disgusting then standard sex between a man and a women. The sex is typically done, between two that are wishing to express their love (probably just as often as straight sex is used to express love). And I personally find that the expression of love is not all that disgusting (unless it is those overly obnoxious kids, enjoying their puppy love at too high of a volume to where I can here them at the store). This breaks it down to that we can only call the attraction between the two that is causing that love, disgusting, which my opponent has already ruled out.

Man on man. This does use a different body part then traditional man on woman (however, it should be noted that many man and woman enjoy a similar style of sex). Namely, use of the anus in sex. The anus is covered in nerves, and so, it is highly sensitive to both paid and pleasure (much like the penis).[2] This means that it is only natural to be used for these features. Why would God place those enjoyable nerves in us if they were to be condemned? Remember, that God alone created us according to the bible, the Devil had no hand in it at the time.

I will pass for now, awaiting for the scientific evidence and biblical support that homosexuality is "disgusting."

Thank you,

[1] http://www.google.com...=
[2] http://www.intestinaldisorders.net...
Debate Round No. 1
RightIAm

Pro

At no point did I say that anal sex, oral sex, or contraception was acceptable between a man and a woman. Natural Law, God's revealed will, tells us that sexual intercourse is designed for its reproductive purpose only. To quote God, speaking in Leviticus: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable" - that is God's word. Given that we are not debating the existence of God, and that that is God's word - then certainly the immorality of male-on-male intercourse is confirmed.

When I say that homosexual sex is disgusting, I also mean that it causes me to become disgusted - and my vomit whenever I see a gay couple expressing affection for each other - effectively therefore expressing affection for the devil - is living proof of this - I vomit on the street.

Furthermore, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden to test human ability to resist temptation - in response to your point about the pleasurable nature of homo-intercourse - perhaps this is God testing man.

I note that you are opposed to gay marriage, at this point. I would like to know why you do not think this is okay, given your ungodly and wicked arguments.
Ore_Ele

Con

"To quote God, speaking in Leviticus: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable" - that is God's word. Given that we are not debating the existence of God, and that that is God's word - then certainly the immorality of male-on-male intercourse is confirmed."

Gay men do not have sexual relations as a man does with a women. Gay men do not place their penises in the other person's vagina, as such they are have sexual relations NOT as a man does with a woman. Therefore not going against the bible.

"I also mean that it causes me to become disgusted - and my vomit whenever I see a gay couple expressing affection for each other - effectively therefore expressing affection for the devil - is living proof of this - I vomit on the street."

Are you seeing gay sex on the street?

"Furthermore, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden to test human ability to resist temptation - in response to your point about the pleasurable nature of homo-intercourse - perhaps this is God testing man."

At no point in the bible does God say that homosexuality is a test. Even though God does say to run from temptation, I don't think that you can really run from homosexuality.[1]

We should also note that salvation can only be achieved through believing in Jesus Christ, not by following all of the Old Testament's laws.[2] Jesus also provide the New Commandment at the last supper, "Love one another as I have loved you." [3]

[1] see youtube link
[2] http://jesus-messiah.com...
[3] http://www.believers.org...
Debate Round No. 2
RightIAm

Pro

There is no God, d*ckhead. Your opposition to gay marriage is also quite at odds with your nonsensical interpretations of the Bible. This book, however, this work of fiction - is quite clear on homosexuality - it absolutely condemns it. Your interpretation of the Leviticus quote is quite absurd. It is clearly not a statement of an impossibility, but it is an ethical statement - it is not the equivalent of saying "One must not sprout wings and fly" ... but rather a blatant moral condemnation, with no regard for consequential ethics.

As Peter Tatchell has said: "The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust."

You seem to attempt to argue as something of a Biblical literalist, without accepting the homophobia that must necessarily accompany Biblical literalism - that said, you oppose gay marriage. Mainstream Christianity and homophobia are inseparable. Why ... to quote the current Pope (Jesus Christ's representative on Earth, sayeth the Catholics!): "homosexuality is a tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil".
Ore_Ele

Con

If you only look at individual passages, then yes it does condemn homosexuality, however, if you read through the entire bible, both the old testament and the new testament, you'll see that the bible changes, and the rules of God changes. Easy things to see are the sacrifices (which became no longer needed as Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice) and working on the sabbath.

The bible does not require a fear or hatred of homosexuality, and hatred in and of itself is against the bible and the very spirit of christianity. John 4:8,9 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." Those that preach hate are not true followers of God nor Jesus.

As for my opposition to gay marriage, that is an opposition to gay MARRIAGE, not to homosexuality in general and doesn't really have any purpose in this debate.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Right I am has been banned because of his actions.
Posted by unidentified.corpse 6 years ago
unidentified.corpse
There really is more but I won't post it unless someone brings up something that I... consider worth refuting. After all, you cannot take a piece of literature - as the Bible is - and read it without considering its context.
Posted by unidentified.corpse 6 years ago
unidentified.corpse
Correcting an error in the post prior to the previous one:

*homosexuality

...It was cut off.
Posted by unidentified.corpse 6 years ago
unidentified.corpse
Yes, there was more to that interpretation:

"First, they usually point to the Sodom and Gomorrah debacle. But, if one were to look at the original Aramaic text translated (not the biased King James or other modern translations that are from already-mistranslated Greek or Roman), they would find that the people of those cities were just plain corrupt and evil in general. At no point were they outright condemned specifically for homosexual acts.

Another mistranslation: The whole "It's a sin for a man to be effeminate" thing... Aramaic worded that to mean pretty much "weak-willed." Which would be the foundation for just about any type of sin. So femmen are fine, and so of course would be any other different gender identities and mannerisms. God made you who you are, you should embrace it and enjoy the gift of life He gave you. After all, if murder and suicide are mortal sins because they take away the precious gift of life that only He can give... then it'd be a sin to guilt others into wasting the life that He intended for them!"
Posted by unidentified.corpse 6 years ago
unidentified.corpse
A quote from someone I know; an interpretation of the Bible:

"But for historical context... back then, the Greeks and Romans had different relationships than we do now. Most of the time, men had wives in order to have property and babies. But they mostly valued relationships with teenage boys. Not all of these relationships were sexual, but a great deal were, and to varying degrees. It was a NORM for boys to be given to "mentors" by their fathers, if the older man involved gave proper gifts and seemed like he would treat the boy well.

The older man would then have the boy live with him, and teach him various things about being a man. But sometimes, this would corrupt and become sexual. Sometimes with the boy as willing as his age could allow, sometimes giving in after being manipulated in his naivete, but sometimes against his will. Pottery images have shown some boys running away crying after their mentor was shown touching their crotches.

Most of the time, anal penetration did not happen, but rather the mentor would have the boy squeeze his aroused penis between his (the boy's) thighs. It was considered demeaning and disgraceful to anally penetrate.

But sometimes this happened. And sometimes even the minor sexual acts were still traumatizing to the boys because they were innocent and it just wasn't in their nature.

And THAT is mostly what the Bible was trying to warn against. Not necessarily the relationships between grown men, but the whole systematic pederasty that was an ugly part of society. It was forward-thinking, an attempt to allow children to keep their innocence and wait until they chose on their own to begin sexual activities. Greeks/Romans had casual flings with friends of either gender, yes, but it was only with these teen boys that they truly lay with them "as if married", because of the wedding-gift type offers and courtship rituals beforehand.

So, if anything, it was an appeal against pederasty/pedophilia, and not against homosex
Posted by unidentified.corpse 6 years ago
unidentified.corpse
This is almost amusing. "D*ckhead"? Really? I thought that sort of language was not permitted in a formal debate, or was I mistaken? That aside, whether something is "disgusting" or not is... purely subjective. Some people may not find brutal murder disgusting, others may. Does that make it disgusting? Yes for those who do, no for those who do not. Also, if you do not believe in there being a God and the Bible, you shouldn't use it to support your argument - or, as the case may be, take away from your argument. If you don't agree with it, why are you saying it supports your argument? If you believe it to be fiction, that would be the equivalent of my using Tolkien's writing to argue that Hobbits existed.
Posted by marg2003 6 years ago
marg2003
this is to the Pro about you saying god made adam and eve. It clearly states in the bibel, christian bible and catholic bible that god made adam and even not because that is what he thought should be a marriage, but rather because, "man should not be alone."

I how ever do agree that same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

I am 100% gay.
Posted by ReptiDeath 6 years ago
ReptiDeath
meh true but he did source the bible in text and i consider that a reliable source... which is why debates like these can never be fairly won or lost
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pro "used the most reliable sources" when he didn't source anything?
Posted by ReptiDeath 6 years ago
ReptiDeath
why do you say so? Pro automatically gets 2 points given that i agree and have agreed with him before and after the debate. Conduct and grammar are toss ups and for me pro wins the last 2 because, taking the perspective of a skeptic, i would probably find pros side more convincing. And the convincing arguments aren't exactly easy to define in this debate given that Disgusting is so subjective
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Homosexuality IS disgusting.
Vote Placed by RedDawnJensen 6 years ago
RedDawnJensen
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: He quoted Family guy XD What an idiot.
Vote Placed by Justin-L 6 years ago
Justin-L
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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 nhq 6 years ago
nhq
RightIAmOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Dyllon 6 years ago
Dyllon
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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 Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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 pokemonboy102 6 years ago
pokemonboy102
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by EllieP 6 years ago
EllieP
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
RightIAmOre_EleTied
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