The Instigator
SavedByChrist94
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
74 Points

Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+21
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 19 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,418 times Debate No: 32007
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (74)
Votes (19)

 

SavedByChrist94

Pro

I will allow the opponent to give arguments against this, and then I will offer my rebuttal.
Pennington

Con

I would like to thank Pro for challenging me to this debate. It seems my opponent is new here and has not designed this debate properly, so I will do so.

We should properly define the resolution which is: (Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible)


1) Homosexuality is defined as: 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


A 'Sin' is defined as: 1 a : an offense against religious or moral law. b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible . c : an often serious shortcoming : fault. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


The Bible is defined as: 1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament.


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


2) In this debate I will suggest that either, 'the King James Version' is used or the original 'O.T. Hebrew & N.T. Greek.' By doing this, it will cut down on many translation out there and focus on the original meanings.


3) My opponent never told us who has the burden of proof in this debate. It is usually on the Instigator or the one making the claim to supply the BOP. I will suggest in this debate that both have the BOP. Pro must show that homosexuality is not a sin by the Bible. Con must show that homosexuality it is a sin by the Bible.


4) Pro did not give any round structure or rules in this debate. I will offer a few rules and give us round structure.


Round 1 is for acceptance(Con can give Biblical references as suggested by Pro)


Rounds 2-4 are for rebuttals and new arguments.


Round 5 is for closing rebuttals.


a) We should establish that semantics is not allowed. One can not find just any definition and use it but must use ordinary english definitions or original Hebrew & Greek definitions.


b) Be polite.


c) Post all resources and references.


5) Voters are to vote on who makes the best argument & facts.


I will now offer Biblical verses that will be used to show that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. I will use only the KJV in this round. My opponent is allowed to use Hebrew & Greek also.


1. Leviticus 18:22


King James Version (KJV)

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

2. 1 Corinthians 6:9


King James Version (KJV)


9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

3. 1 Timothy 1:10


King James Version (KJV)


10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

4. Romans 1:26-27


King James Version (KJV)


26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


5. Deuteronomy 22:5


King James Version (KJV)


5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.


6. Leviticus 20:13


King James Version (KJV)


13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


7. Genesis 2:21-25


King James Version (KJV)


21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


These verses should suffice for now. I am given the ability to introduce new verses when need be and also my opponent has right offer new evidence until the 4th round.


I await my opponents Round 2.

Debate Round No. 1
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"2) In this debate I will suggest that either, 'the King James Version' is used or the original 'O.T. Hebrew & N.T. Greek.' By doing this, it will cut down on many translation out there and focus on the original meanings."

Amen, 100% agree no translations except KJV and Original Hebrew and Original Greek.

"3) My opponent never told us who has the burden of proof in this debate. It is usually on the Instigator or the one making the claim to supply the BOP. I will suggest in this debate that both have the BOP. Pro must show that homosexuality is not a sin by the Bible. Con must show that homosexuality it is a sin by the Bible."

I need you to provide the verses first, then when I refute them it proves that Homosexuality isn't a sin in The Bible.

"1. Leviticus 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in Hebrew say,

Lets cut to the knife,

Leviticus 18:22 in Hebrew ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא

Transliteration - V"et-zachar lo tishkav mishk"vei ishah to"evah hu.

Leviticus 20:13 Hebrew - ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם

Transliteration - V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam

Breakdown,

lets use 20:13 as it has the extra stuff,

V'ish - And male
asher - Who
yishkav - lie down
et - with
zachar - male
mishk'vei (mishk'av)- Beds/lyings
ishah - woman/wife
to'evah - abomination/abhorrent/ritually unclean
asu - Do
shneihem - both of them
mot - dying
yumatu - they will die
d'meihem - their blood (or blood of them)
bam - on them (or them)

And that equates to, "and male who lie down with male bed/lyings woman/wife abomination do both of them dying they will die their blood on them

and then, "and a male who lies down with a male the beds of a woman (or wife), both of them do an abomination; Dying they will die, their blood is upon them'."

now watch this,

Yes Numbers 31:18 - But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.(A verse often misunderstood by perverts, which Moses commands to kill all those who worship the false god and particpate in evil cultic rituals and to save for themselves(or bring into Israel) the ones who didn't do wicked things, called Virgins)(remember this just says keep them alive and keep them in tribe, in other words bring them to Israel, why? because they weren't evil and didn't participate in evil child sacrifices, violence, and all other lunatic "atheistic" false religious cultic pagan things, if you see the word virgin and think sex of it as meaning to have sex with, then I suggest seeking help)

which says, in Hebrew, וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם

Which is transliterated,

w'khol ha"af BaN"shiym "sher lo-y"d'ű mish'Kav z"kh"r hach"yű l"khem

what a wha wha what?(Eric Matthews style, fa fa fa Feenay!, Feeeeeny!, Feeny!)

Yes mish'Kav z"kh"r means Lyings of man, while in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we have, mishk"vei ishah which is Lyings of woman.

Why is this significant? Lets go talmud here for a sec,

sanhedrin 54A as a reference to anal sex,

and then this proves it all,

[quote] The task was especially difficult because there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The only difficult phrase is mishkeve isha (usually parsed as "the lyings of a woman"), because the phrase appears nowhere else in the Bible. A similar phrase, the lying of a male (mishkav zachar), appears in Numbers 31:18 and is understood to mean what women experience in intercourse, i.e. penile penetration. Consequently, mishkeve isha is what men experience in intercourse, that is, penile engulfment. If so, then the verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. And where is a man penetrable? Here the rabbis make use of the fact that the word lyings is in the plural form. The lyings of a woman are plural because she may be penetrated vaginally or anally. A man, missing the vagina, is singly penetrable anally. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning.

By far the most intriguing element of the puzzle is the fact that lesbian relations are totally unaddressed in the Torah. The only explanation of this lacuna is that the Torah is utterly uninterested in "homosexuality" per se. The sameness of the sex (homo=same) that so dominates contemporary thought in regard to homosexuality is missing here. Instead, there is something about anal sex between men that is at the center of the biblical concern. Of course the obvious question is just this: Why does the Torah consider anal sex between men to be such a problem?{/QUOTE]

1, So the verse condemns Penetration, aka Anal sex. if it condemned Homosexuality it would say SEXUAL RELATIONS as did the previous verses against Incest and Bestiality, Leviticus 18:22/20:13 and the verse against sex during menstration though are Specific with detail, for example Menstration verse doesn't say "don't have sex with women", it says don't have sex during menstration, likewise this verse says don't have anal sex with another man.

YHWH would've either said sexual relations, have mentioned lesbianism(as in the condemnation of bestiality YHWH told women Also not to do it), and

Anal sex is is detrimental to Anyone(not just Homosexuals, look up women who did porn and have to sadly wear a diaper), it's no good so either this reason is why it's condemned or it was condemned for cultural reasons and is no longer sin(For example Leviticus isn't all Universal Moral laws, it does contain Dietry and Sacrifice laws for Israel Only(Don't eat pork, etc which were for Israelites only), contrary to False Doctrine, we ARE under Law, we aren't under Israel laws like circumision, look up New Perspective on Paul, this is what was argued, Old Testament God even tells us He'd rather have MERCY than Sacrifice in Isaiah 1 and Hosea 6:6)

All Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn is Anal Sex, AT MOST, if not then Temple Prostitution.

That's why KJV(Don't like this translation by the way) renders it,

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

As with womankind/as he lieth with a woman as proven means Anal sex, which is cool as this probably means YHWH either assumes one is ALREADY gay or doesn't care, He just says, no anal sex.

Leviticus 18:22 doesn't mean Homosexuality or Homosexual behavior in General, it was a condemnation of Anal sex, in order for my opponent to be valid he must refute every single point given.

Next,

The Word translated to Homosexuality/Homosexual in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 is, Arensokoitai,

Arensokoitai, is a word from The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,

Which read, Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

Arenos is male, and koiten means lye,

As Proven Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 condemn Anal sex and not Homosexuality, therefore since 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 use the same word, the meaning is as well, Anal Sex.

"Deuteronomy 22:5" Condemns Transgenderism at best.

Genesis 2:21-25, Argument of design fails as YHWH didn't design for example dwarfism, by that logic anyone who is a dwarf commits sin, Homosexuality may be a defect, but it is no sin.

my opponent must refute every single fact written
Pennington

Con

Thank You Pro for your second round.

I am glad my opponent agrees to use the KJV, Hebrew & Greek. But, if he thinks that because he says he refuted the scriptures I provided makes it true but it doesn't. I assume from my opponents last round he accepts his burden of proof in this debate. I would ask my opponent to properly structure his rounds and his points.

I think the best bet for me in this debate is to show the Jewish and Hebrew traditional understandings of homosexuality compared to the passages I supplied. I then will give a full argument from my point of view and then address my opponent.

ORTHODOX/TRADITIONAL

Traditional Judaism considers homosexual acts as a violation of Jewish law (halakha). According to the Bible, homosexual acts are "to'evah," an abomination. According to Boteach, a Orthodox Rabbi and the author of Kosher Sex: A Recipe for Passion and Intimacy, "homosexual acts are wrong simply because the Torah says they are wrong, and not because they are an aberration or sickness. Judaism does not prohibit or in any way look down upon homosexual love. In the eyes of Judaism the love between two men or two women can be as natural as the love between a man and a woman. What it does prohibit is homosexual intercourse."

http://judaism.about.com...

In Leviticus 18:22 it states that: "[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to'eva."

The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination". However, because the word is used twice in regards to homosexuality, its second use has been understood by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh hu va, meaning "He is deviating from what is natural." (literally "He is wandering with it [from the natural way of the world]" since the Hebrew word to'e means "He is wandering", va "with it.") "Homosexuality," Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions

In Leviticus 20:13 it states: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

These short verses above are part of a lengthy portion in Leviticus, chapters 17-26, which scholars have long designated as the "Holiness Code." They are the classic texts that clearly address same-sex intercourse, and appear, prima facie, to unconditionally condemn such behavior. It is beyond dispute that these proscriptions are against some kind of sexual relations between males. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu...

The meaning of these texts hinges upon the words mishkav zakur or "lie with a male."This phrase is also found in Numbers 31:17-18 and Judges 21:11-12 where it is used to distinguish women who are virgins from those who are not. The distinguishing factor is that virgins have not mishkav zakur, that is, they have not experienced a man as a male, or one who pierces or penetrates.

In Romans 1:26-27, I don't see how one can get around the fact that it states that the women exchanged normal relations for those contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν). Similarly men exchanged the customary relationship with women for that with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν), condemning them.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, It is clear that Paul, like Judaism before him, identifies homo eroticism as another instance of sexual immorality.

1 Timothy 1:10 talks about whore mongers. For them that defile themselves with mankind - Sodomites. See the evidence that this crime abounded in ancient times, it was forbidden by the law of Moses, and was punishable with death.

"Scobie and Campbell argue against the restriction of the word Arensokoitai to pederasty. Hays, Scobie, and Malick point out that the meaning is identified by its derivation from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the component words refer to homosexual conduct. Wright identifies other compound verbs ending in –koitēs and referring to sexual activity. Via agrees arsenokoitēs refers to homosexual activity. <http://christianstudies.wordpress.com... \l "_ftn23">

Deuteronomy 22:5 talks about Moses speaking about the identity of the two genders. Paul also reiterated Moses in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15. They were saying that God made the gender differences for reason and they are very important in our lives not just physical but spiritual. This nature of man and woman was established in Genesis all the way to Revelations.

Speaking of Genesis, in Genesis 2:21-25 we see that God creates woman from man. God ordains that a man shall marry a woman. My opponents interpretation is lacking. God made man and woman before the fall, woman was created for man(not another man), homosexuality is a result of the fall of man and therefore is a sin. There is every reason to believe God created man and woman for procreation and to be helpmates. This is verified and described in Genesis.

I think I have established that the Bible does make homosexuality a sin. Even if you dislike it or not, you can not get over the wording used and the intentions implied. I rest my opening case and will move on to my opponents round 2. I would first like to say that my opponent really only addressed six of my seven verses, he should address them all in round 3.

REBUTTAL

My opponent wants me to refute every single point given but he refuted his whole case and therefore submitting the debate. I will explain, my opponent made some very interesting comments or quotes in his second round. I quote, "there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning." This quote totally shows that the Bible considers male and male intercourse(which is homosexuality) a sin. This refutes the resolution alone, therefore giving me the win.

My opponent seems concerned about just female homosexuality. That can remain his concern but all I must do is show that the Bible considers homosexuality as defined in round one, a sin, for male or females. But that was the reason my opponent ignored Romans 1:26-27, which specifically identifies women having relations with other women. This being the primary verse describing homosexual behavior in the N.T. and my opponent ignores it.

"Instead, there is something about anal sex between men that is at the center of the biblical concern. Of course the obvious question is just this: Why does the Torah consider anal sex between men to be such a problem?" Because it is a sin and considered a abomination to God and addressed further in Romans 1:26-27. My opponent further says, "Anal sex is is detrimental to Anyone." There are two kinds of homosexuals, male and female, and the Bible clearly in the O.T. & N.T. condemns male homosexuality as admitted by my opponent.

Pro is under the assumption that, while the Bible condemns gay sex between men, it nowhere condemns being a lesbian/lesbianism. Romans 1:26-27 puts this assumption to rest: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent fatally wounded himself by agreeing that the Bible condemns male and male anal sex, which is homosexuality defined by our terms. My opponent ignored some critical verses in Romans. My opponent should clarify himself more in round 3. Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"My opponent wants me to refute every single point given but he refuted his whole case and therefore submitting the debate. I will explain, my opponent made some very interesting comments or quotes in his second round. I quote, "there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning." This quote totally shows that the Bible considers male and male intercourse(which is homosexuality) a sin. This refutes the resolution alone, therefore giving me the win."

This is faulty logic, notice my opponent's trick, watch this, he quotes my argument with this ""And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning."

Which I totally agree with, Anal sex is prohibited in The Bible, but then my opponent uses either trickery or faulty logic when he says, "This quote totally shows that the Bible considers male and male intercourse(which is homosexuality) a sin. This refutes the resolution alone, therefore giving me the win.""

It's faulty as The Bible never condemns Homosexual Orientation or any other type of sexual acts(Oral sex, kissing, relationships, etc), my opponent clearly agrees that Male-Male Anal sex is prohibited but then adds either due to trickery or faulty logic that it is a condemnation of Homosexuality, Anal sex is not a homosexual thing, anyone Heterosexual or Homosexual can have anal sex, if YHWH wanted to condemn Homosexuality He would have clearly, however He was very specific with Lyings of woman as demonstrated.

His logic is analogous to one saying that ALL Heterosexual sex is condemned because sex during menstration(Leviticus 18) is condemned, no only sex during menstration is condemned, if YHWH wanted to condemn all Heterosexual behavior He'd clearly do it(like He condemned incest, Leviticus 18), likewise YHWH only condemned Anal sex regardless of orientation, if He wanted to condemn Homosexual He would clear do so.

So due to 1 The Opponent cowardly refusing to refute every point
2, using either ignorant, faulty or deceiving logic

The opponent loses on The Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 passage, unless he can throughly with no excuse refute point by point with no logic such as, "Anal sex is condemned, therefore Homosexuality is condemned", same logic I can use is, "Sex during menstration is condemned, therefore Heterosexuality is condemned", no only a certain activity.

"My opponent seems concerned about just female homosexuality. That can remain his concern but all I must do is show that the Bible considers homosexuality as defined in round one, a sin, for male or females. But that was the reason my opponent ignored Romans 1:26-27"

I didn't ignore it at all, if anyone reads my previous argument they will see that I reached the character limit(8000)

On Romans 1:26-27, This video proves the point https://www.youtube.com...

The Whole context of Romans 1 is needed, 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

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 a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 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 about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen.

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

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God"s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

1, as we see, Romans 1:21-27 that people committed Idolatry, and they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.(Romans 1:23)

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 about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen."

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

Townsley notes that other early writers, possibly including Chrysostom, reject the 'lesbian' hypothesis, specifically, Ambrosiaster, Didymus the Blind and Clement of Alexandria.[16] - Wikipedia

'My opponent fatally wounded himself by agreeing that the Bible condemns male and male anal sex, which is homosexuality defined by our terms. "

This is a cheap shot as if I were fatally wounded my opponent opponent would be capable of refuting every point made and not use illogical says as, " the Bible condemns male and male anal sex, which is homosexuality defined by our terms. "

Anal sex is certainly not Homosexuality, it's a Specific sexual activity that even Heterosexuals could commit! If we use his logic we can say that since the Specific act of sex during menstration is condemned(Leviticus 18), all Heterosexual is condemned, obviously that isn't the case.

Also if he contends that Homosexual Anal sex is condemned then he contends that it isn't a sin for Heterosexuals to have anal sex, however if my opponent contends that Both Heterosexual male to male and Homosexual male to male anal sex are condemned, then himself has fatally wounded himself and admits that this doesn't condemn Homosexuality but just anal sex is general, Romans 1:26-28 was explain and my opponent will need to try again.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round. I would mention that this debate is not personnel or provoking but instead two minds exchanging thought.


NOTE: My opponent does not address most of my argument from round 2.


HOMOSEXUAL IDENTIFICATION


What makes the distinction for a homosexual to be a homosexual? Well we established that in Round 1 with the definitions:


"Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire(lust) toward another of the same sex. 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex."


I have met this characterization for males by showing(& my opponent agreeing) that male men could not have anal sexual intercourse because it was a abomination. This was not satisfactory for my opponent, he wants God to direct us about oral sex, kissing, and loving relationships between same sexes. He claims it is faulty by me to suggest that male anal sex is homosexuality. This is a negative, what I have given specifically describes the definitions we agreed on in round 1. Anyone should agree that male anal sex is deemed homosexual behavior. This behavior is clearly forbidden in the Bible.


As for kissing and just loving relationships by same sex individuals, they are not part of the definition nor do they specifically describe homosexuality. Anyone can love someone of the same-sex, anyone can kiss someone of the same-sex(mouth or not), there are over 30 verses that talk about men kissing. Anyone can have affection for someone of the same sex, and this does not make them homosexual.


HOMOSEXUAL LUST


Romantic feelings and sexual feelings are inherently intertwined. Therefore homosexuality in a romantic relationship involves lust, as do heterosexual relationships. Though after marriage one is not lusting for their partner but in love with them. Since we have no determination of the Bible on homosexual marriage then lust by any individual unmarried would be a sin.


James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."


ANAL SEX


It is true that anal sex is not solely a homosexual trait. We see that it is sin for two males to have anal sex and for a man and woman to have anal sex. Anal sex is determined a sin.


LESBIANISM


Romans 1:26, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."


The next verse describes that which is against nature, Romans 1:27, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." We see that before the men are described, it first says the women are going against nature and then it describes what that unnatural act is in the description of the men.


My opponent gave us a video from YouTube and I will address that here. God did not give them their desires, it is clear that this was their own desires. God simply allowed this with no recourse, as punishment for their idolatry. Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." We see here that they had these desires in their own hearts, not from God. We also notice the phrases used to describe these acts, "lust, unseemly, error, vile and against nature." These descriptions do not sound like they are good in the sight of God. For God to give them up means that He held it from them because it was not as He wanted. God considered Lesbianism the same as male homosexuality and He has given us what He thinks about it. Why would God not allow male same-sex intercourse and condone female same-sex intercourse? He wouldn't.


MARRIAGE


But we can clear this up real quick by saying that my opponent must show that homosexuals are actually condoned to marry in the Bible. If he doesn't then he will fail because the Bible clearly states that any sexual act outside of marriage is immoral and a sin. So, my opponent must show that same-sex couples were permitted to marry in the Bible or Israel. The Bible presents marriage as an estate instituted by God, pointing to the Marriage of the Lamb. It is the ultimate union, of the Bridegroom, Christ, to His Bride, the Church.


1 Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."


We see that God has commanded that every male should have a female. If my opponent could show that homosexual marriage is suggested to be valid by the Bible then we could engage in the actual debate he desires. But that is not what we see, we see that God ordains men and women to be married and any sexual relationship outside of marriage is a sin. In the seventh of God's Ten Commandments, he instructs us not to have sex with anyone other than our spouse. It is clear that God forbids sex outside of marriage.


1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."


1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."


ORAL SEX


Oral sex and fondling are also included in male or female homosexual acts. I have shown that only homosexual marriage could condone oral sex or fondling. The Bible never thoroughly addresses this point.


REBUTTAL


My opponent made it clear that he wishes me to address all his points. Well most of his points are assertions that were not backed by any source. As well his debate structure was difficult to understand. I understand he is new and that should not be a excuse for me, so I will do as best as I can.


"Throughout the ages, Hebrew prohibition of homosexuality was perceived as easily understood. Basing themselves on T.B. Nedarim 51a, commentators explained the act as unnatural, a perversion of the human sexual drive." http://www.nishma.org...


If I understand my opponent correctly he is saying that because Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 never says anything about kissing, love, or oral sex it is not describing homosexuality as a whole nor describing all sexual acts that homosexuals can do. Well I will bring up that both verses say,"Shalt not lie", which are also in verses Leviticus 18:20 & Deuteronomy 28:30, and they say:


"Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."


"Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her."


By my opponent's conclusion we can have oral sex and kiss our neighbors wife or another man ours. If 'shalt not lie' only means penetration then the Bible tells us as long as we do not penetrate another man's wife we can have oral sex and kiss them. Furthermore the passages in Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 also describe any act a man would do with a man in the bedroom. If one can consider that women would give a man oral sex then that is also forbidden in these verses.


I do not reject my opponents rendeering of the verses in Hebrew or their wording. I do conflict with his interpretation of them. I think I have just shown that God made it clear that any act that a man would commit in the bedroom with a woman is deemed a sin for same-sex individuals.


CONCLUSION


I will not deny that the Bible suggest people to love one another, both male and female. I will not deny that the Bible says nothing on kissing people(kissing on the cheek was a tradition back then.) The Bible has made it clear that men should not be with men nor women be with women, it is unnatural. The Bible as shown refers to homosexuality as lust, unnatural, vile, and a error. We are left to determine that Bible refers homosexuality as a sin. Back to Pro!

Debate Round No. 3
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"he claims it is faulty by me to suggest that male anal sex is homosexuality. This is a negative, what I have given specifically describes the definitions we agreed on in round 1. Anyone should agree that male anal sex is deemed homosexual behavior. This behavior is clearly forbidden in the Bible."

This is the point, it's 1 specific sexual act, for example we can take your words and switch them up, watch this,

" Anyone should agree that male-female sex during period in Levitcus 18:19 is deemed heterosexual behavior. This behavior is clearly forbidden in the Bible."

Are we to assume ALL heterosexual behavior is condemned? By no means, only heterosexual sex during menstration. likewise only anal sex is condemned, if YHWH wanted to condemn all Heterosexual behavior He'd do it, not just forbid sex during menstration, likewise if He wanted to condemn Homosexual behavior, He'd do it.

We have no basis other than assumption of other Homosexual Behavior being sin from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, as those passages only condemn Anal sex, likewise Leviticus 18:19 prohibits sex during mentration we cannot assume from that passage, that all Heterosexual behavior is sin.


Next

" Though after marriage one is not lusting for their partner but in love with them."

This takes the assumption of lust being a sin, this is not up for debate today and lust as proven is not a sin,( http://www.godrules.net...;)

" Since we have no determination of the Bible on homosexual marriage then lust by any individual unmarried would be a sin."

This takes the assumption that pre-marital sex is a sin, which has been refuted by Scholars in Judism and Masters in Greek,

"James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

This is not in reference to sex, the word for "lust" in greek is epithumia, which Strongs Lexicon has several definitions for, which are: desire, eagerness for, inordinate desire, lust

When we take it in Context(as a text without a context is a pretext):

James 1

12
Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.



Evident by the text, the proper definition of epithumia is inordinate desire, as James is talking about doing evil in general, do not make that mistake again.

"It is true that anal sex is not solely a homosexual trait. We see that it is sin for two males to have anal sex and for a man and woman to have anal sex. Anal sex is determined a sin."

Which refutes your entire argument. My opponent admits it isn't Homosexuality-Excusive, thus my opponent can no longer use Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as proof texts for his argument.

Again my opponent fails and makes a Pre-text, he again doesn't(for some reason) include the entire context.

Romans 1:21-27 say that due to Adultery, YHWH made them gay as punishment for Idolatry.

I warn my opponent to not deceive again like he does here,

"We see here that they had these desires in their own hearts, not from God. We also notice the phrases used to describe these acts, "lust, unseemly, error, vile and against nature." These descriptions do not sound like they are good in the sight of God. ."

Was shameful in the culture, that's the reason why YHWH uses it as the penalty for their idolatry, for example Ugliness is shameful to us, but what about to YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit)?

No, 1 Samuel 16:7 "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Also contrary to nature can mean contrary to culture, so either way what you said has no basis.

BECAUSE of what is said in Romans 1:24. so because of Idolatry YHWH gave them up to sin

"The Bible clearly states that any sexual act outside of marriage is immoral and a sin."

Where? Provide a verse so I can refute it,

Actually contrary, http://www.unc.edu... Sex is not a sin.

1 Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."


1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."


1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.""

My opponent seriously lowers his credibility here, as he takes verses out of context... again.

Watch this,

1 Corinthians 6:

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.


Put the whole context next time, Prostitution is condemned here, not "premarital" sex, Paul advises men to get a wife so they can avoid prostitution, not to avoid premarital sex for it is better to marry than to burn and all this if you read 1 Corinthians 6 is prostitution or Sexual immorality, not to avoid "premarital sex"

So he's refuted there,

"
If I understand my opponent correctly he is saying that because Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 never says anything about kissing, love, or oral sex it is not describing homosexuality as a whole nor describing all sexual acts that homosexuals can do. Well I will bring up that both verses say,"Shalt not lie", which are also in verses Leviticus 18:20 & Deuteronomy 28:30, and they say:

"Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."


"Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her.""

Thot shalt not lie, means thou shall not have sex in general with which is a general sexual condemnation not mentioning any specific sexual act,whereas Lyings of Woman is specific sexual act, automaticaly refuted, my opponent is going at desperate lengths.

"By my opponent's conclusion we can have oral sex and kiss our neighbors wife or another man ours."

Nope as the text doesn't say that, it says do not lie, do not lie with means do not have sex with, or sexual relations in general, whereas Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 say Lyings of Woman, a Specific Sexual act, not sex with. when YHWH says do not have sexual with or lie with this person etc, it means do not lie with the person, when YHWH says do not lie with... in this way(for example do not lie with a woman during Menstration or Anal Sex) then it is just a condemnation to a specific sexual act.


Overall my opponent has been using faulty logic and taking verses out of context, he still has yet to refute anything.
Pennington

Con

Thank You Pro for your last round.

ADDRESSING THE ISSUE

Homosexuality is not one specific act, it combines a variety of traits. But, the most critical trait of homosexuality(no matter how you word it), is sexual relations between same sex individuals. I should not have to repeat that the definitions agreed upon describes desire and intercourse between same sex individuals. My opponent made no specific periminators in his opening round and therefore can not make demands or suggest a debate guideline. No language gymnastics can change the meaning and intent described in the Bible.

My opponent makes assumptions that anal sex is all that's referred to in Leviticus. The Bible never refers to anal intercourse but this is mutually implied. Though I have extended it to include that a man should not take a man to bed as he would a woman. I also contend that by taking a woman to bed, could possibly intel anything to oral sex, anal sex, and any other thing deemed sexual. Leviticus has already been determined by myself and my opponent as sinful. So, this point is mute.

He is right that this is only one sample of homosexuality. That is why I have attacked homosexuality as a whole. My opponent never addressed Lesbianism after I went over the short video he posted about Romans 1:26-27. He never addressed marriage and the Bible never condoning or referring to homosexual marriage. The Bible only ever refers to marriage as a man and woman. He never addresses that God seen fit to make opposite sex beings and not same sex beings. My opponent has directed his argument to specific verses and a specific topic but this subject goes much deeper then my opponent is fully recognizing.

MAN & WOMAN

God created man and woman and not two men or two women. He did this because humans needed to procreate and they were both suitable help mates. This point shows intent by God on what should be.

MARRIAGE

I have went over that the Bible says that unmarried sex is considered a sin. I will offer more testimony of the Bible on this topic and address my opponent.

1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." I offered this passage last round and my opponent never addressed it.

1 Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." My opponent never addresses this.

1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." My opponent was right that this passage refers to prostitution but it also addresses pre-marital sex. He himself said that Paul advised the men to marry so they would not buy prostitutes therefore showing they were having pre-marital sex. Almost any act of sex that is described as immoral would be pre-marital. My point here was pre-marital fornication being sinful.

Genesis 2:24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles."

1 Corinthians 7:1-5, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

It is clear that the Bible prefers one to deprive oneself of sexual relations. If you can not deprive yourself then you should get married because it is a sin and immoral otherwise. My opponent needs to show that homosexuals marriages were allowed and are condoned inside the Bible.

ROMAN 1:26-27

My opponent is right that God punished the Romans for their idolatry. It is clear that was the case and we both have went over that but my opponent missed my section and never properly addresses it. I made it clear that these Romans had the desire to commit homosexual acts and the wording used to describe such acts are deemed to be sinful. My opponent never addressed the wording itself and the loss of restraint from God. If God held homosexuality back from them then that would show God disapproved of homosexuality. My opponent even further suggest that God used homosexuality as a punishment and therefore showing that homosexuality is a sin. He also does not refute that these verses are talking about homosexuality.

In Colossians we see that sexual immorality, passion, and desire are all forms of idolatry. Therefore showing that in their idolatry they were committing homosexual acts against Gods desire.

Colossians 3:5, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."

REBUTTAL

My opponent makes the careless mistake in assuming that because God said that male anal sex is not allowed that doesn't mean all of homosexual acts between males. I disagree of course. The wording used is 'as he lieth with a woman' and this phrase has many meanings and not one as my opponent suggest. I never really addressed this because it is weak and not a concern in my course of debate. This phrase can mean any sexual action that a man would do with a woman. An if it does mean that then this kills all homosexual activity for males. I can suggest this and maintain it because I have shown the traditional view on these verses by Rabbi's and my opponent never offers nothing but his own interpretation.

The link my opponent offered showing that lust was not a sin, failed. My opponent never addresses my verse on the subject. He further tells us that scholars have shown that Bible says pre-marital sex is not a sin but gives us no link or quote.

James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Romans, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

As we see lust is just a form of coveting something and not to covet is a Commandment from God. Lust has many forms and not just sexual. My opponents link to nature and culture is not valid. My opponent kills himself by the statement, "BECAUSE of what is said in Romans 1:24. so because of Idolatry YHWH gave them up to sin." My opponent admits that homosexuality is a sin.

My opponents link showing sex is not a sin has also, failed. But I am not suggesting sex is a sin but on the contrary, sex is good, God created sex. What I am showing is that there is sexual immorality and God describes it and homosexuality fits that bill.

My opponent said that 'shalt not lie' is sex in general and 'Lyings with a woman' is specific and I agree and am glad he agrees. It is specific and is showing that a man should not conduct acts with another man as he would a woman. The acts are not given description. In the verse I provided about 'shall not lie' are already pertained to a woman but in Leviticus we are giving specifically that man should do with a man as he would a woman.

Debate Round No. 4
SavedByChrist94

Pro

Final Round so I'll try to not reach limit,

Lets start with this fact, 1, My opponent agrees only Anal sex is condemned in Leviticus, no lesbianism, as proven later Lyings of Woman is a Specific Sexual act, not simple and general sexual relations,

2, Where there is no law, there is no transgression,

"Because the law worketh wrath:
for where no law is, there is no transgression." -Romans 4:15

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law." -Romans 5:13
"If God held homosexuality back from them then that would show God disapproved of homosexuality."

He didn't hold back Homosexuality, He used it as punishment to them, Romans 1:27:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

"The wording used is 'as he lieth with a woman' and this phrase has many meanings and not one as my opponent suggest. "

Lyings of woman in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 do not refer to sex in general but a specific act, that being, lyings of woman, which is Penetration. Anal penetration only is condemned, my opponent even agreed with me in Round 3, and I quote,

"I do not reject my opponents rendeering of the verses in Hebrew or their wording. I do conflict with his interpretation of them."

So if my opponent agrees that Anal sex(lyings of woman) is condemned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 so he has no basis for Homosexuality being a sin in Leviticus, only a condemnation of a specific sex act, like the specific sex act of sex during menstration with a woman.

We can agree that if all homosexual behavior is condemned because 1 specific homosexual act is condemned, then all heterosexual behavior is condemned because several specific heterosexual acts, we don't use that logic in reality.

"This phrase can mean any sexual action that a man would do with a woman. "

Actually it cannot, Lyings of woman is a Specific sexual act, it's penetration even Hebrews agree,

http://www.jewishmosaic.org...

". And where is a man penetrable? Here the rabbis make use of the fact that the word lyings is in the plural form. The lyings of a woman are plural because she may be penetrated vaginally or anally. A man, missing the vagina, is singly penetrable anally. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning."

So if it's not in the law, it is never condemned. Lesbianism is never condemned in law, therefore it's no transgression, likewise Male Homosexuality.

so he reduces his argument to dust there as he has 2 ways,

1, Refute
As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul. The author writes:
"As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (KJV)

KJV,

"God created man and woman and not two men or two women. He did this because humans needed to procreate and they were both suitable help mates. This point shows intent by God on what should be."

Which is true, did I argue that Homosexuality was the intent? No, I'm arguing Homosexuality isn't a sin. YHWH didn't intend for example people to be blind, have leprosy , or cancer, should we say that since that's not how YHWH intended it, that it's a sin to be blind, have leprosy, or cancer? No. likewise with Homosexuality, YHWH didn't intend it, but it still isn't a sin.

My Opponent AGAIN uses 1 Corinthians 7 as his case for his "atheistic" doctrine against pre-marital sex, which has been refuted,

"My opponent was right that this passage refers to prostitution but it also addresses pre-marital sex."

No it doesn't, you just admitted it "My opponent was right that this passage refers to prostitution"

Watch this, my opponent uses 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, yet doesn't include verse 6!,

3 It is God"s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b]

Watch this, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." This a quotation that Paul is addressing,

Paul refutes this by saying, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

What's Paul telling a husband and wife? to "come together again(Have sex again) so you do not get tempted to commiit Premarital sex? No no, this was to a married person, so that they do not get tempted to Sexual Immorality/Prostitution, you can't have premarital sex if you're already married, my opponent makes himself look silly here.

The passage as proven speaks of practicing self control so yoi do not commit evil like the pagans, nothing speaks of Pre-marital sex you present a false doctrine.

"It is clear that the Bible prefers one to deprive oneself of sexual relations."

Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

My opponent proves himself to be someone who rejects YHWH's creation, which is blasphemy.

And even Paul recommends to have sex in order to avoid immoral sex such as pagan prostitution, " each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2

ROMAN 1:26-27
My opponent is right that God punished the Romans for their idolatry."

Amen, my opponent continously mentions that I am correct, why should we take his argument serious?

"He further tells us that scholars have shown that Bible says pre-marital sex is not a sin but gives us no link or quote."

I reached character limit last round, here's the Source, http://www.unc.edu...

http://www.gaychristian101.com... Modern day interpretation of Romans 1 has been different in earilest times, then people ascribed it to lesbianism as,

Watch, *** One early Christian writer, Anastasios, clearly dismisses the view that Paul was referring to lesbianism in his comments on Romans 1:26:

Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n)

*** Augustine continues this line of thought (fairly explicitly):

But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." quoting Romans 1:26 (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)"

and this makes sense because as proven no law in The Bible prohibits Homosexuality, as proven Leviticus's Lyings of woman from Jew Sources means Specific Anal sex only, so it makes sense for Romans to not be about lesbianism or even Homosexuality

My Opponent continues to insist that "lyings of woman" means general sex, this has been refuted by the fact that Sanhedrin and Jew Sources say Lyings of Woman is specificlaly plural because it's only penetration.

We have no reason to vote con. he uses unreasonable logic and faulty assumptions, Vote Pro not because you like me or because you agreed with me before hand, or even because of how I debated, but on the facts alone which I have provided. YHWH Bless.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round. I think Pro saved us his strongest round for last. For that I will commend him but there are still too many holes and contradictions in his case.

Me and opponent can agree that Leviticus says anal sex is forbidden. Were we have not agreed is that these passages only speak of anal sex as clearly stated by myself when I said, "I do not agree with Pros interpretation."

I have shown you that God created and ordained a man and woman to marry and are helpmates in numerous passages. If my opponent is right then these passages inspired for marriage by God lose their meaning.

"did I argue that Homosexuality was the intent?"

If homosexuality was not the intent as my opponent admits, then what was the intention? No homosexuality? If homosexuality was not intended then that makes it seem unwanted in the eyes of God. To be considered unwanted or unintended is to mean shameful. This comment alone by my opponent makes homosexuality appear as a sin.

He continues, "YHWH didn't intend for example people to be blind, have leprosy , or cancer, should we say that since that's not how YHWH intended it, that it's a sin to be blind, have leprosy, or cancer?" No, these conditions are the result of sin as is homosexuality. Are we to think that sin bears righteousness? By this logic it is not sinful to blind people, give people leprosy(if you can), and cancer, since homosexuality is not a sin. No, that would be a sin, and the same so, homosexuality is still a sin. My opponent virtually connected homosexuality with diseases and impurity. The Bible says to stay pure.

Then my opponent says that God used homosexuality as a punishment. This again is a very odd statement. God would punish people with homosexuality and we should think homosexuality is good after that? Like my dad used to say from that show tool time, "I don't think so Tim!"

In Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 my opponent continues to try and add more than is there. There is no specific reference to any sexual act but only a reference that men should not lie down with other men was they would a woman. Lyings of a woman, no where, has a reference to penetration and if it did then that includes oral. http://www.religioustolerance.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...

If my opponent wants to interpret this as penetration then that is fine but this includes any oral activity(including kissing romantically or with tongue), it also includes fingers and toys. My opponents source on this subject is shown as a homosexual Jew(no bias) but nevertheless he is a source. He is just a few out of many that disagree with his assessment.

http://mahrabu.blogspot.com... This link offers a few other Jewish Rabbi's that disagree and also links Lesbianism to Leviticus. Either way for thousands of years these verse were interpreted as homosexuality and only now has the meanings of the language been questioned. The meaning can not be questioned as it no doubt condemns men that act with men as they would women, clear as day. This leaves us to think of any sexual act with a woman and not just anal or penetration. My opponent mentions plurality of the term, well, this could mean the plural terms on all the homosexual acts. Then he says it is only plural for one meaning 'anal'.

My opponent then goes on to say that the passages in 1 Corinthians 7are only for prostitution, again, after already admitting that it spoke of unmarried men last round. These verses are obviously referring to unmarried men who use prostitutes. Again Pro post alot of verses and does gymnastics with them. He states Paul is only talking to married men then why all the language of getting married? I end with this verse which is the last verse posted in 1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Clearly referring to unmarried people. I am not arguing that married people were not also referred here but I am saying that unmarried were as well.

My opponent accuses me of not following doctrine and then he rejects the very scriptures that shows one should not have relations outside of marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

He then tries to suggest that Paul is trying to suggest sex, when his verse shows that Paul says get married if you are having sex. This shows that marriage is required for sexual acts.

In Exodus we are given the instruction on what to do if a man has consensual sex with an unmarried, unengaged woman: "If a man seduces (implies consent) a virgin (or a woman of marriageable age) who is not pledged to be married, and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price (or marriage present) and she shall be his wife" (emphasis mine). Most scholars believe the same prohibition is found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered ... he must marry the girl...." Most scholars believe that "rape" is not being addressed here, but consensual pre-marital sex (albeit the man's strong initiation), especially given the phrase "and they are discovered."http://www.boundless.org...

In Romans my opponent is getting desperate. Both of my opponents quotes on Romans are the same quote and person quoting.

Let's get greek:

The Greek for "natural function" are φυσικP52;ν χρQ34;σιν, phusikan krasis.

"natural" - phusikan, 1) produced by nature, inborn, 2) agreeable to nature, 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature

"function" - Only two instances in N.T.

Rom. 1:26,27. χρQ34;σις, εως, O69; use made of anything, usage; more specifically of sexual intercourse function, sexual use (RO 1.26, 27)

"The issue is not one’s natural orientation or one’s natural preference, but of natural function. Preference is internal. Function, in this context, is biological and is related to design; which is why Paul tells us that the men gave up the natural function ("use" KJV) of the woman and burned for other men. There is nothing here about sexual orientation. It is about sexual function where the norm is male and female, not male and male, or female and female."

http://carm.org...

"The fact that homosexual conduct is described in this regard makes sense when one realizes that homosexual temple prostitution was a common phenomenon of cultic idolatry rituals in the geographic location and time in which Paul was writing. Taking this interpretation of Romans 1:26b-27 preserves the symmetry inherent within the text."

http://www.jeramyt.org...

We read the views of the same Saint my opponent supposedly quoted: Saint Augustine is categorical in the combat against sodomy and similar vices. The great Bishop of Hippo writes: "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust." http://www.tldm.org... Obviously Saint Augustine considered homosexuality and female anal relations immoral.

To conclude my opponent never addresses the point that there is no homosexual reference to marriage in the entire Bible. Not in the entire Bible is there one positive reference to homosexuality and the only reference is negative. My has no proved his case and that is his job not mine. My job was to show his case weak and unBiblical.

Debate Round No. 5
74 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by leeray68 11 months ago
leeray68
This Post suggests- (this is a post from another and NOT OF MY OPINION OR APPROVAL) {"Though I respect your opinions, I believe that homosexuality is not a sin, and gay marriage should be legalized nationwide. However multiple bible verses state that homosexuality is detestable and wrong, 1 John 4:7-8 says 'Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.' }{ I want to be very clear that as a Minister of the Gospel, It is with the understanding that we are all held as other TRUE BELIEVERS as well are HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE WORD AND RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH 2 Timothy 2:15. The Scripture quoted here by this person indicates a LOVE to one another. The fact is and rightly dividing the WORD here is speaking of "Agapeo" Love (Greek Word translation simply meaning- UNCONDITIONAL LOVE! This is a type of Love that is NOT SEXUAL; however, it is the Love type that Jesus Christ did for us on the Cross in that "he loved while we were yet sinners" (Romans 5:8) This type of Love requires ACTION OF DOING WITH NO EXPECTATIONS OR FAVORS RETURNED BACK TO THE PERSON THAT DID THIS. Human Love ("Phileo") is Sexually Motivated expecting self fullfillment of passion and desire. That is phileo LOVE! The biggest mistake that people make is that they assume that scripture 1 John 4:7-8 that God is Love (Phileo) and no HE IS NOT Phileo Love. His love is Agape (ETERNAL) NO CONDITIONS REQUIRED. He loves us (AGAPE) all the same even if we sin. His love remains true. REPENTANCE REQUIRED!

The traditional phrase "God loves all his children" is somehow forgotten.

People should be able to marry and love who they please. If it IS a 'sin according to the Bible', God will still love them, as Jesus died to forgive all of our sins. God loves each and every one of us, despite our beliefs and imperfections. Your argument is invalid.

No matter your opinion, God bless
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
What is vote bombing? Having another account to vote for yourself? I don't think so. I think it's people having bad votes. Please tell me what it really means.
Posted by SitaraForGod 3 years ago
SitaraForGod
I do not think that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. It is not a sin to be tempted, but it is a sin to act on it though. If it was a sin to be tempted, Jesus would be in trouble. Please check out the following link for a reference. http://www.biblegateway.com...
Posted by Naysayer 3 years ago
Naysayer
fazilkhan: The biggest issue with inbreeding is the genetic defects that occur. Assuming the purity of a newly formed race, that shouldn't really be an issue. Do we consider it disgusting to breed dogs from the same parent to create a genetic line? Royalty has inbreed for centuries and no one holds their nose in disgust. There's also all the jokes about hillbillies inbreeding that aren't really jokes. I would know. My great-grandparents were first cousins. It's a natural outcome when there is a lack of options.

It's also interesting to note that when you get to the mosaic law, it was no longer permissable for brothers to marry sisters, assuming it ever was truly 'allowed' and not just done. The Hebrews were for all intents and purpose a breeding experiment to bring about the Christ child. Even the restrictions on a woman's cycle were perfectly situated to make a couple completely randy and the woman to be at peak fertility when they were allowed to legally have intercourse. It's almost as if someone knew what they were doing.
Posted by fazilkhan123 3 years ago
fazilkhan123
I just wanted to put this out there because alot of people don't realize this until they explain it to them and that it when Adam and eve was put on earth they had slept with each other and reproduced and made children... now to keep reproducing since there was the only people on the planet they would have kept sleeping with which other for example Adam would have slept with his daughter or eve would have slept with her son or even their own children had probably slept with each other to reproduce.... now in modern times if that was to happen to a family it would be frown upon... Now which is more NASTY in a way a woman sleeping with another woman and a man sleeping with another man or a brother sleeping with a sister or the other way around????? Just something to think about
Posted by thisusernameisironic 3 years ago
thisusernameisironic
Though I respect your opinions, I believe that homosexuality is not a sin, and gay marriage should be legalized nationwide. However multiple bible verses state that homosexuality is detestable and wrong, 1 John 4:7-8 says 'Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.'

The traditional phrase "God loves all his children" is somehow forgotten.

People should be able to marry and love who they please. If it IS a 'sin according to the Bible', God will still love them, as Jesus died to forgive all of our sins. God loves each and every one of us, despite our beliefs and imperfections. Your argument is invalid.

No matter your opinion, God bless you.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
So you guys think you should follow the bible and put homosexuals to death because its gods will, your a bunch of immoral fuks, I hope you all burn in your fictitious hell
Posted by masterdebater6969 3 years ago
masterdebater6969
If you sag your pants like that, somebodys gonna be up in your butt.
Posted by TheBeatlesBro 3 years ago
TheBeatlesBro
I automatically went for Con, because I believe that Homosexuality is wrong. God loves the person, but he hates the sin(s) which they commit. Homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. God even says it in Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."'
Posted by lumm0x 3 years ago
lumm0x
To say homosexuality does not 100% include anal sex between males is in complete ignorance of the sub-culture. Logically, sexual acts that causes simultaneous pleasure would be the predominant form, right? The resolve during sex is orgasm right? Then why are we skirting logical thought to justify an outlier hypothesis that the Bible is only condemning sodomy, not homosexuals. Wasn't Lot confronted by his community to bring out the three visitors so they can have sexual relations with them despite the offer of his daughters? Then again one can twist this scenario and say that the reason the three visitors struck them blind was not because of homosexuality, but because of their lack of respect for guests?... again skirting logic to fit the square in the round hole and this is pre-deuteronomy stuff.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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: Con followed the evidence where it led, regardless of whether some people might me offended.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Enough with the counter counter counter counter votebombs... Effectively here's an estimate on VBs: nreed2 is balanced by TheVoiceOfReason. Rollbearandtide is countered by Sui_generis. qopel is countered by Subutai (whatever happened here was understandable, as the guy was just going to every debate he could find any typing "CBV"). davidtaylorjr countered by Ragnar "I do not feel his vote reflected issues other than sources." This just leaves effimero89, who accidentally has an unbalanced CVB... Plus I am only rating votebombs, not biased votes.
Vote Placed by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Sui_generis who Countered Subutai Countering qopel, who himself was countering nreed2
Vote Placed by Sui_Generis 3 years ago
Sui_Generis
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Subutai Countering qopel, who himself was countering nreed2.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Stop it qopel.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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: CVB
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 3 years ago
davidtaylorjr
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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: Con was clearly the best debate here. His sources were solid and well documented, Pro didn't seem to have his act together on this one.
Vote Placed by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Chase200mph
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted more heavily on pro because of this "if you cannot make the bible claim anything your heart desires, then you don't know your bible?. For this reason, I voted for PRO?.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Com had better spelling and grammar and had much better conduct.
Vote Placed by TheVoiceOfReason67 3 years ago
TheVoiceOfReason67
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
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: sup