The Instigator
Spiral
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
JBpixie
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points

Huckabee and Homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,671 times Debate No: 3626
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (25)

 

Spiral

Con

Originally I put this as a challenge to a Huckabee supporter who commented I did not know the bible. Not surprisingly the debate was declined.

In his book "Kids Who Kill," Huckabee linked homosexuality with sadomasochism, paedophilia and necrophilia.

How does he justify this? "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

Baptist conservative belief at its unenlightened finest. I claim that this "broad brush" hardline approach against homosexuality is out of context from the biblical sources it claims, and additionally, the view held by writers of the time was not from some divine directive but merely based upon the philosophical teachings of the era.

I will leave it up to my opponent to make the first stab at proving the basis for the conservative Baptists.
JBpixie

Pro

I will start by stating the topic of this debate which is: "The homophobia exhibited by Christian's is based on a misinterpretation of the bible"

There are two parts of the Bible which are used to condemn homosexuality.
-The first being Leviticus 20:13 which states "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
- And the second Corinthians 6:9-10 which states: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
These verses are not ambiguous. They clearly show that the god of the Bible (or at least his surrogates who wrote it) despises homosexuality, and using them to justify homophobia is perfectly acceptable in the context of the religion.

Though the bible can be used to justify homophobia it isn't the root cause of it. The real root cause the basic human need to find something or someone to hate or fear. And it's usually that which is different. And today since racism is not longer acceptable to most people they've chosen the next best thing.

You've stated that Huckabee linked homosexuality with sadomasochism, pedophilia and necrophilia. This doesn't come from the Bible it comes mainly from social stigma, stupidity and highly publicized things like the Catholic priest scandal where most of the victims were male…therefore as their logic goes the priest were male the victims were male therefore the priest were gay and all gays are evil. When in reality most of the priest were likely heterosexuals who had taken a vow of chastity and thought they'd found a way around it. This kind of thinking comes from irrational logic and not from anything in the Bible.

Essentially the basis for homophobia comes from sexual insecurity, social views, irrational fear, and the need to have an enemy though which the "ills of the world" can be explained. The Bible is just the book which is used to justify it all not the source.
Debate Round No. 1
Spiral

Con

Thanks to, JBpixie, for picking this up :)

Baptist faith is the source is the bible itself (divine directive), and as such it stands as the basis of their belief system. Social ignorance may be a factor but it is an environmental cue, the religion and the text are the main activists in Baptist homophobia; the divine commands as taken from the bible and the inherent misinterpretation of such still stand. Baptists believe it is the word of god, therefore it must be followed.

For now I will just tackle the New Testament.

1. The largest misinterpretation is that the bible has a divine source.

The writings of the New Testament do not explicitly tackle the subject of homosexuality. There are references to it, but these are all limited to the Pauline Epistles. The most logical explanation for this fact lies not in a permissive attitude towards the matter, but in the fact that homosexuality had already been condemned by Jewish tradition, to which all the early Christian writers are basically indebted, and that similarly in the Greek world it was censured by the principal Stoic philosophy as opposite to nature. Thus, in the context of the first century, Philo of Alexandria, who is the leading exponent of Hellenistic Judaism, in his treatises repeatedly criticizes sodomy and pederasty as "illicit relations" (On Abraham 135) and those that practice them as "enemies of nature" (Special Laws 3:36); in the same way the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus defines homosexuality as "against nature" (Diatribe 12), while the Roman historian Tacitus speaks openly of the "degeneration of youth" with reference to its practice during the time of Nero (Annals 14, 20, 4). The New Testament therefore has no particular battle to fight in this regard, needing only to support itself with the positions current in the cultural clime of the first century. New testament writers were essentially just following tradition.

2. Homosexuality is highly specific in biblical texts.

I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 reads:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. I placed two words in brackets. The first one, "malakoi", "literally means 'soft' and is no technical term for a homosexual." It apparently refers to young boys who would take the "recipient" position in anal sex, often for money. It's also translated in some Bibles as "morally weak". "Aresenokoitai", on the other hand, is clearly a sexual term but, according to Scroggs "Since... the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy for us to be sure what it means. It refers not to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients." At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. Effeminate" is a poor translation of the Greek word, "malakos" which means "soft". The word is not translated as "effeminate" anywhere else in the Bible. It is the same word that is translated as "soft" in Matthew 11:8 ("But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses"; similarly Luke 7:25). In a moral sense, "malakos" just means "licentious"; Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics_ (7.4.4) says specifically that "malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. The translation as "effeminate" seems awfully gratuitous. "Abuser of himself with mankind" is a translation of the Greek word "arsenokoites"; this word has changed meaning several times over the centuries, so it's perhaps understandable how it got translated as it did; but in Paul's time, and in fact until well into the fourth century, it seems to have simply meant a temple prostitute.

These words are the words used both in Corinthians and in I Timothy 1:10 which are commonly translated into modern bibles as "homosexual", "effeminate," and "self-indulgent." In these progressive times, however, there is no indication that such terms are in any way connected to homosexuality in itself. In fact, according to Is the Homosexual my Neighbor by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott: The idea of a lifelong homosexual orientation or "condition" is never mentioned in the Bible. Bible writers assumed that everyone was heterosexual and that in times of moral decay, some heterosexual people did some strange and unnatural things with each other. Since the Bible is silent about the homosexual condition, those who want to understand it must rely on the findings of modern behavioural science research. (p. 71)

Despite common interpretations of the words "malakoi" and "aresenokoitai" in modern times, there is no clear evidence which links them unquestionably to homosexuality in itself. Instead, in every case in which they are used, there is an implied connection with either prostitution or child molestation. Modern research shows us, however, that such connections are fallacious. There is no research which clearly demonstrates that there is any correlation between homosexuality and the "sins" referenced alongside it in Corinthians and Timothy.

John Boswell Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, confirmed by Hall in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Rom 1:26-27). "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." One of the very rare texts in ancient times in which male homosexuality and female homosexuality are condemned together as practices against nature: two other cases occur: Plato (Laws I, 636c) and from the poetic composition circa first century attributed to a Pseudo-Phocilides (Sentences 191-192). But the Pauline passage has certain originality, because of its context. The Apostle is in fact discussing the moral disorder resulting from the lack of knowledge of God in the pagan world, so that homosexuality together with a series of other vices. Idolatry here is the religious aberration: it is this that he sees as the pagans' real problem, and homosexuality is only one possible indication together along with many others.

The one claim I will argue for now against Leviticus is that it is a book of the Bible mainly concerned with Jewish Law for that time. To use something from Leviticus one must also accept other Laws from that book, such wonderful items as:

No contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness(Lev.15:19-24).
(Lev. 25:44) states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
Eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10).
(Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight, (sorry no one with glasses can go to church).
(Lev.19:27) states males should not cut their hair.
And so on it goes...discarding one law as irrelevant or out dated makes all of them that.

I will leave it at that for now, and to my opponent, to argue the case for the biblical basis of homophobia.

Regards, Spiral.
JBpixie

Pro

The first thing in the context of the religion and history the old and new testaments are inseparable, since they are both accepted to be the infallible word of the God, by Christians.

Now to address the parts of the Bible which are considered out-dated.
You said: "The one claim I will argue for now against Leviticus is that it is a book of the Bible mainly concerned with Jewish Law for that time. To use something from Leviticus one must also accept other Laws from that book, such wonderful items as:

No contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness(Lev.15:19-24).
(Lev. 25:44) states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
Eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10).
(Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight, (sorry no one with glasses can go to church).
(Lev.19:27) states males should not cut their hair.
And so on it goes...discarding one law as irrelevant or out dated makes all of them that."

The items listed do not prove that the Bible isn't homophobic. They only show that people select the parts of it which are convenient for their argument and ignore the parts that are no longer acceptable to the wide public. The Bible can be used to justify many things from slavery to murder, but for some reason today it is no longer acceptable to kill someone for not observing the Sabbath, but its sill acceptable to persecute people who are different.

The parts of the Bible used to justify homosexuality as a sin are:
- "And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.'" Genesis 19:5
- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22
- "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." Leviticus 20:13
- "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Romans 1:26-27
- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." I Corinthians 6:9-10
- "Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." I Timothy 1:9-10

All of these can be used to in some way or the other to show that homosexuality goes against the "will of God". Though the meaning of words such as "arsenokoitai" can be debated, but Leviticus 18:22 is rather clear on what it means and it alone can be used to sow that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible, and therefore saying "the bible says so is justification for homophobia…of course the Bible also justifies slavery as clearly stated in Leviticus 25:44 but most people would agree that it's not acceptable even though the "infallible word of God" says it is. This isn't about whether or not the Bible says homosexuality is a sin it clearly says it is in at least one verse (Leviticus 18:22 ).
Debate Round No. 2
Spiral

Con

Once again, thanks to my opponent for picking this debate up, it has probably been done to death in various forms.

"The first thing in the context of the religion and history the old and new testaments are inseparable, since they are both accepted to be the infallible word of the God, by Christians."

That is accepted; it does however go further to show, any misinterpretations of what that word means are worse for the ignorant basis of their interpretation.

The OT and NT verses:

Deuteronomy 23:17-18

These verses have been applied to homosexual behaviour because of mistranslation of the root words. The King James Version reads "whore" and "sodomite". Hebrew uses the same noun in its masculine and feminine forms, the words are best translated "temple (or cult) prostitute". These verses have nothing directly to do with homosexual behaviour.
Cult prostitution flourished throughout the ancient world and this fact sheds important light on other verses. Fertility cult worship concerned sexual activity in the temple, habitually with a sacred prostitute who was like a priest or priestess. This sacred sexual activity was believed to encourage the god (so to bestow fertility on the earth and its creatures).

Genesis 19:4-11

The sin of Sodom is clearly explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50. It was not homosexual behaviour, but for its deep and common sinfulness, the men in the story may have planned sexual abuse of the divine visitors (the translations of the verb "know" here is not clear). The problem is not that the objects may have been homosexual but that it was to be abuse. This was in character with the whole of their uncaring, greedy and godless lives (as an aside, casting ones virgin daughters to a mob, is seen as the morally proper response).

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13-14

These verses are found in the "Holiness Code" which emphasised to the Israelites that they were to be set apart for god. The context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech. "Abomination" is a translation of the Hebrew word which specifically means idolatrous practices (not necessarily sexual). The condemnation here is a reference to the fertility worship which the Israelites were to shun. The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that "to lie with a man as with a woman" violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of god. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of god. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

At issue are two words: malakoi (found only in 1 Corinthians) and arsenokoites, which is in both verses. Tradition assumes a homosexual meaning of the words. Actual study reveals that in its use there, malakoi means "soft". Arsenokoites means to refer directly to cult prostitution, again. Such practices were common both in Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy was). It plainly refers, in this use and later uses in other writings, to prostitutes who engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual cult practice. Neither of these words can possibly be translated to mean "homosexual" or any similar distortion of their meaning.

Romans 1:26-27

This is the only passage in Scripture which, apparently, talks about homosexual behaviour among women as well as men. The dangerous, conventional interpretation comes from failure to relate it to the whole chapter. Paul talks about idolatrous people who put things or concerns before their devotion to god. As an example, he refers to fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome. The homosexual activity to which he refers is idolatrous. He implies that all of the cult worshipers engaged in it. (The interpretation that he is writing about homosexual behaviour in general would force this to say that all idolatrous people become homosexual, an obviously spurious interpretation.) The final sentence is in reference to their just reward; the venereal disease which was epidemic among such cults. This specific reference to fertility cult worship cannot be construed to condemn homosexual behaviour in general.

All instances are contextual; none can be directly related to a pure anti homosexual stance. The religious foundation of homophobia is based upon a tradition of poor translation and a horribly institutionalised tradition of blind acceptance over the rational study of the text it draws from. My opponent concedes there is only one pure instance of homophobic rhetoric "Leviticus 18:22 is rather clear on what it means and it alone can be used to sow that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible, and therefore saying "the bible says so is justification for homophobia". I have shown this to be an erroneous assumption, just like all other instances. It is a highly specific Jewish moral code, and does not refer to homosexuality but to the dishonour of god. There is no biblical basis for homophobia.

Regards, Spiral.
JBpixie

Pro

Let us suspend reality and assume that everything in the Bible is the absolute word of some divine spirit, to justify homophobia one would have to do nothing more than show a single instance in which the Bible's god or one of his anointed surrogates expresses condemnation for homosexuality.

Back to reality: the idea of homosexuality is quite recent and the authors of the Bible would have had no way of explicitly expressing condemnation for homosexuality since they had no real concept of it. Assuming that the authors did have an understanding of homosexuality as it is understood today there view would be likely one of condemnation because they condemned everything that was foreign.

For reasons stated before I will only address one verse (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13-14) You stated :
-"These verses are found in the "Holiness Code" which emphasised to the Israelites that they were to be set apart for god. The context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech. "Abomination" is a translation of the Hebrew word which specifically means idolatrous practices (not necessarily sexual). The condemnation here is a reference to the fertility worship which the Israelites were to shun. The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that "to lie with a man as with a woman" violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of god. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of god. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation "
-The most important part of this is ""to lie with a man as with a woman" violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of god. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of god. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation" This statement shows that homosexuality (as it is related to men) was not acceptable because it would reduce a man to the position of a woman which as you've stated would be considered idolatrous, and therefore not inline with God's will. In essence Leviticus (the Bible) does denote homosexuality as being an act against God, either by using a completely literal reading of it, or by using the explanation provided by my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Are they serious!?
Oh well, this further proves the debate.org curruption.
You should consider Korezaan's and my plan.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
*laughs* and again .....magical....
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Good job Spiral...

Guys, please read the debate BEFORE you vote...You'd think that's self.explanatory :*
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
*laughs again* 3 votes in one day, in a debate a month old, nothing wrong there at all.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
*laughs* Everytime I get a vote it mysteriously gets tied again. I should stop annoying people in the comments sections.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Of course not :P neither exist.

character limits...............
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
God does not or never will hate anyone. The Bible, Jesus Christ, neither hate anyone no matter what.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Not a problem. Thanks.........
Posted by JBpixie 8 years ago
JBpixie
Okay I'm willing to accept the challenge so long as it's only about whether or not the homophobia of Baptists is based on a misinterpretation of the bible.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
That I am...................... (character limits :P)
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by lisaamey 8 years ago
lisaamey
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by ajborn2act10 8 years ago
ajborn2act10
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Vodyanoi 8 years ago
Vodyanoi
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by flatwhite 8 years ago
flatwhite
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
SpiralJBpixieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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