The Instigator
charles15
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

If one is a Christian, Same Sex Marriage or Being a Homosexual is Sinful

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
charles15
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,509 times Debate No: 7579
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (10)

 

charles15

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent in taking up this challenge, which is to debate me on a heated topic within the modern day Church. The reason why this is a heated issue; I don't know, for the Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is in fact sinful. But none the less here we are.

To begin with, if one is a Christian, then they must abide by and have no quarrel with the Bible, for it is the ultimate truth and inspired Word of God. Hence, the following verses are what Christians are obligated to abide by and by not doing so is condemned sinful.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

LEVITICUS 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

LEVITICUS 20:13
"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."

Good Luck,
charles15
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this topic. To start, some definitions:

===DEFINITIONS:===

Homosexual:

1. Sexually attracted to members of your own sex
2. Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

===PRO:===

>>The reason why this is a heated issue; I don't know, for the Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is in fact sinful. But none the less here we are.

To begin with, if one is a Christian, then they must abide by and have no quarrel with the Bible, for it is the ultimate truth and inspired Word of God. Hence, the following verses are what Christians are obligated to abide by and by not doing so is condemned sinful.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

From reading your argument, and your bible quotes, I find it quite clear it is wrongful to engage in acts of homosexuality, in particular, sexual ones. I will concede, this is a sin under the bible, however, being a homosexual, and not engaging in acts of homosexuality is not wrongfully and fully allowed under the bible.

Therefore we can conclude that:

- Being Homosexual is okay under the bible.
- Engaging in Sexual acts with someone of the same sex is not okay.

As the resolution states being homosexual and not being homosexual and doing homosexual acts, it is therefore justified under the bible to be homosexual.

===SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:===

The same principle applies here, as long as the two people involved don't engage in sexual practices with each other, it is 100% justified with the bible.

This will be my argument for now. I would like to thank member and voters for reading.
Debate Round No. 1
charles15

Pro

Thank you I-am-a-panda for your response.

I do not accept your definitions of homosexuality. Yes, homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex and do for the most part practice the physical aspects of homosexuality, but your definitions are missing a key component. The following definitions are from Dictionary.com. The actual web addresses are posted at the bottom of my argument.

Homosexuality: sexual DESIRE or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
Lust:intense sexual DESIRE or appetite.

Since homosexuality is a "sexual desire" toward the same sex, and lust is also a "sexual desire" then the only difference in meaning between the two words is this: homosexuality is defined by a sexual desire towards a specific gender 'depending' on whether the homosexual is a male or female. Lust on the other hand is a sexual desire, but the word can be used in much broader contexts. For instance lust could pertain to a wide verity of sexual orientations.

So, since homosexuality is lusting after another of the same sex, then homosexuality, is a sin, EVEN WITHOUT actually engaging in sexual activity. For lusting has nothing to do with undergoing physical sex.

One may ask, well who says lusting is a sin?

To begin with, Jesus says in Matthew 5:28 (NIV), "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." This verse can also be used in a homosexual's case, for instance, if a man lusts after another man then it is condemned sinful. So one does not need to necessarily have sexual relations as a homosexual for homosexuality to be sinful like you said. One only needs to lust in order to sin.

Even in your first definition of homosexuality can be proven as sinful according to the Bible. If a homosexual, in their 'heart,' are >>"Sexually attracted to members of their own sex,"<< then homosexuality is still sinful. If one is attracted to his or her own sex, in their heart, then evil thoughts will come about. The Bible says, For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Matthew 15:19 (NIV). In this case thoughts of sexual immorality would spur from homosexual attraction. This is now lust, once one is encompassed in his or her own sexual immoral thoughts, furthermore, this can lead to sexual fantasies that involve masturbation. Furthermore, homosexual attraction alone, is the same as lustful thoughts.

Also another look at homosexuality is how unnatural it is. Romans 1:26-27 (NIV) says, "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. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Also, according to, http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com......, medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality.

Now one can conclude that homosexuality is sinful, 'even without,' actually engaging in sexual activity with one of the same sex.

Sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com...

Thank you and good luck,
charles15
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his response.

I will basically conclude my opponents argument is this:

Homosexuality is a desire for the opposite sex ---> Desire = sin ---> Homosexuality is sinful.

However, if this is true of homosexuality, then it is true of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the desire for the opposite sex. Then, everyone is a sinner because sexual orientation permits a desire, which is sinful, and therefore wrong fro Christians. However, this is illogical. This example is to show how ludicrous my opponents reasoning for being homosexual is wrong. I also disagree that my opponents definition applies to all homosexuals.

It is possible to practise sexuality without having thoughts of the other sex. This is called abstinence. Throughout history, monks and priests have abstained. This is proof one can practise sexuality without engaging in sexual acts.

Homosexuality is a desire for the opposite sex ---> Desire =/= sin ---> Homosexuality is sinful.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference of the same sex ---> No desire = No sin ---> Homosexuality is not sinful.

In response to this, CON may claim God allows heterosexuality, and disallows Homosexuality. However, the 9th commandment states "You shall not covet your neighbour's wife" [Source: http://www.allabouttruth.org...] (This varies from denominations of Christianity, however, it is mentioned in all).
God disallows lust in all sexualities. Therefore, the idea that sexuality requires you to lust is untrue.

In regards to your source >>http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com...<<, I have noticed several things about it:

- It condemns lesbian same sex union for the reason of fatherless children. I never advocated allowing sperm to be donated to lesbians to raise a child.

- It also condemns it on the basis of the need for a father and mother for a child. Again, I never advocated they should be allowed adopt children.

- It also mentions sexual practices which I never again, advocated.

I await my opponents response and wish him good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
charles15

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

I am sorry if I did not make my last argument clear, so let me go over it once more. My opponent said, in his first argument, that homosexuality was not sinful unless homosexuals actually had intercourse. I found that reasoning completely false and sought to prove so. So lets break this down...

1)Practicing homosexuality is wrong, my opponent and I both agree on this.
2)Homosexual lust and heterosexual lust are both wrong, me an my opponent both agree on this.

So, where me and my opponent disagree is here: my opponent sees no difference between a homosexual and heterosexual, in terms of sin, as long as the homosexual does not lust or have sexual relations with another homosexual. This is not what the Bible teaches, so lets take a look at scripture...
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV) says, "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. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now what this verse is telling us is that homosexuality, at its core, is UNNATURAL in God's eyes, so in other words sinful, "even if" a homosexual does not partake in homosexual acts or lust, it does not excuse homosexuality. If one is sexually attracted to their own sex, then it would be impossible for one not to 'meditate' on the person that one is inclined to. For instance, lets say George becomes a homosexual, therefore he begins to find Bill sexually attractive. Now the moment George found Bill attractive, George was committing a sin. Why? Because now George is twisting and perverting the way in which God made humans: which is a man to find a woman sexually attractive and vice versa. So in doing this George's thoughts are unnatural and totally opposite to God's design. Therefore sinful.

Now lets make an analyses...
1) Did George have sexual relations with Bill? [No]
2) Did George lust over Bill? No, not necessarily, just because a man is sexually attracted to a woman, and finds her extremely beautiful doesn't mean that man is lusting for that woman, because in order to lust the man must take that woman into his mind, and then have sexually fantasize over that woman. The man, simply finding a woman sexually attractive is not lust, therefor not sinful.
3) Was George sexually attracted to Bill. [Yes]
4) Did George undergo UNNATURAL, twisted and perverted sexual attraction to his own sex, in God's eyes? [Yes] Therefore homosexuality is sinful, even without, having actual sex or lust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perverted: to cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
Twisted: to alter the normal aspect of; contort
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you, and good luck to my opponent
charles15
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this well fought debate.

===PRO:===

>> "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. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Now what this verse is telling us is that homosexuality, at its core, is UNNATURAL in God's eyes, so in other words sinful, "even if" a homosexual does not partake in homosexual acts or lust, it does not excuse homosexuality. If one is sexually attracted to their own sex, then it would be impossible for one not to 'meditate' on the person that one is inclined to <<

===REBUTTAL:===

The bible quote above again only condemns homosexuals when:

1) They lust for the opposite sex " were inflamed with lust for one another. "
2) They engage in sexual relations with the same sex. "Men committed indecent acts with other men"

It, however, does not condemn people for being homosexual. No sentence supports my opponents argument that God sees homosexuality as wrongful without engaging in lust or sexual relations.

===PRO:===

>>For instance, lets say George becomes a homosexual, therefore he begins to find Bill sexually attractive. Now the moment George found Bill attractive, George was committing a sin. Why? Because now George is twisting and perverting the way in which God made humans: which is a man to find a woman sexually attractive and vice versa. So in doing this George's thoughts are unnatural and totally opposite to God's design. Therefore sinful.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

As aforementioned, lusting for another person is sinful, even if you are heterosexual or homosexual. In the above comment by my opponent he does not mention lust. If this was true in life, then all people would be sinners, as it is then lusting if you find someone attractive.

However, as aforementioned, God does not condemn homosexuals for simply being without lusting or engaging in sexual acts.

===CONCLUSION:===

1) Engaging in sexual relations homosexually is sinful, if one is a christian.
2) Lusting for another person is sinful, if one is a christian.
3) Finding someone attractive as homosexual is not sinful, if one is a christian.
4) Simply being homosexual is not sinful, if one is a christian.

The above conclusions support the case that it is not sinful to be homosexual, nor is same-sex marriage. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by euphorio 7 years ago
euphorio
It's not sinful to love. He quotes Corinthians, but that was the word of Paul, mortal man and not God. In Leviticus, it is not clear or explicit on what it means by "as one lies with a woman". Furthermore, the Old Testament was repealed by Jesus's death on the cross for mankind.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Sorry, panda, I guess I'm the only one who thought you had a clever argument haha.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
No, homosexual acts are an abomination. Marriage is unethical because of that. However, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Great debate, guys.

conduct - tie
s & g - tie
arguments - Con; based on the scripture provided, Pro failed to show that non-sexual homosexual relationships are sinful.
sources - tie; I would normally consider Pro's Christian sources valid to this topic, but the highlighted information was irrelevant to the resolution.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Now that our debate has ended, charles15, I can go back to enjoying this one.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I'd respond but let's not debate about the same issue on two fronts lol.
Posted by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
I THOUGHT I MADE THIS POINT CLEAR...

>>>Homosexuals are sinful if they want to have sex with one another, "EVEN OUTSIDE OF LUSTFUL INTENTIONS," because it is unnatural to the way that God made us.<<<
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Charles, you've acknowledged that it is possible to experience sexual desires and not commit the sin of lust. Therefore, a definition of heterosexuality as "sexual desire toward the opposite gender" would not mean that heterosexuality is sinful. This means a definition of homosexuality as "sexual desire toward one's own gender" would not mean homosexuality is sinful either.

The passages you quoted condemn homosexual acts, not desires. You cannot assume that God would condone the desires of one group and not those of another, at least not from the information you've presented.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"...medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy."

From a credible source? *looks at the title - Biblical Family Advocates*
From an unbiased source? *looks at the Bible part of the title*
From a credited scientist or researcher? *looks at the name Pastor Phil Magnan*
Posted by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
I see your point Maikuru, but let me explain. Wanting to have sexual relations by heterosexual means is one thing, but wanting to have sexual relations with by homosexual means is different.

Heterosexuals are aloud to want to have sex with another human, outside of lustful intentions, because this is how God made us. God made us to have a heterosexual mind set, thus this is deemed natural.

Homosexuals are sinful if they want to have sex with one another, "even outside of lustful attentions," because it is unnatural to the way that God made us.

But, if either sexual orientation is to lust after another human then they are both sinful. I hope that cleared things up for the voters.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Colucci 7 years ago
Colucci
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Hylion 7 years ago
Hylion
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by euphorio 7 years ago
euphorio
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 7 years ago
cooljpk
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
charles15I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03