The Instigator
avaness
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Is Homosexuality Okay?

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 7 votes the winner is...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,201 times Debate No: 36627
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

avaness

Con

Hello, this debate is for Christians that think that Homosexuality is okay, therefore since we are both Christians I will use biblical reference. This is my first so I don't know really the understand how everything works so please understand my beginners errors.

Round 1) Introduction/Acceptance
Round 2) Argument
Round 3) Response to Argument
Round 4) Closing Statements
Duncan

Pro

I accept your debate, but wish to clarify that you have made the title "Is homosexuality okay?", not does Christianity teach homosexuality is okay? I can agree to this, but don't try to twist the motion halfway through. Let's hear your arguments then.

Awaiting your response, Duncan.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
avaness

Con

God's plan for natural sexual relationships is his ideal for his creation. Unfortunately, sin distorts the natural use of God's gifts. Sin often means not only denying God, but also denying the way we are made. When people say that any act of sex act is acceptable as long as nobody gets hurt, they are fooling themselves. In the long run (and often the short run), sin hurts people - individuals, families, whole societies. Because sex is such a powerful and essential part of what means to be human, it must be treated with great respect. Sexual desires are of such importance that the Bible gives them special attention and counsels more careful restraint a d self-control than any other desire. One of the clearest indicators of a society or person in rebellion against God is the rejection of God's guidelines for the use of sex.

Homosexuality was as widespread in Paul's day as it is in ours. Many pagan practices encouraged it. God is willing to receive anyone who comes to him in faith, and Christians should love and accept others no matter what their background. Yet, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Scripture (Leviticus 18:22). Homosexuality is considered an acceptable practice by many in our world today - even by some churches. But society does not set the standard for God's law. Many homosexuals believe that their desires are normal and that they have a right to express them, but God does not obligate nor encourage us to fulfill all our desires (even normal ones). Those desires that violate his laws must be controlled.

Male prostitutes refer to those who practice homosexuality. The temple of Apollo employed men whose job it was to fulfill the sexual desires of male and female worshipers. Some attempt to legitimize homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Even some Christians say that people have a right to choose their sexual preference. But the Bible specifically calls homosexual behavior sin (again see Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:9-11).

In a permissive society it is easy for Christians to overlook or tolerate some immoral behaviors while remaining outraged at others. We must not participate in sin or condone it in any way, nor we may we be selective about what we condemn or excuse. Staying away from more "acceptable" forms of sin is difficult, but it is no harder for us than it was for the Corinthians. God experts his followers in any age to have high standards.
Duncan

Pro

Who says Christianity is right? If you use the bible as source, then you're going to have to explain why murder so long as its not a fellow tribe member, or how inbreeding is perfectly okay. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, and its existence is permissible as it has no negative effects and like most religions today, is a way of life that involves love and tolerance. The intolerance of those who blindly attack homosexuality using a book which denies evolution or any science at all is a direct contradiction of the reason and logic expected on this site. I even wonder if you are just a troll, so please explain yourself. I apologise for the somewhat hostile greeting I haven given you after only one day on the site, but your perspective seems so ignorant and old fashioned.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
avaness

Con

Well this particular debate is for Christians as specified above, so if you are a Christian then you would believe that Christianity is the right religion. If you are not Christian, this debate isn't for you.
Duncan

Pro

I am a Christian. I was raised in Ireland where I was baptized under the Catholic Church. i had my communion and confimation, both willingly, and won the religion award in my school. But I am of a different denomination to you. Catholicism is not as extreme as it used to be, I and I could never be part of a religion that preaches intolerance or hatred. I may not believe on god any longer, but that just makes me a bad christian. You want to argue biblewise? I read it cover to cover. I attend a Franciscan school. I am merely a bad christian. But God forgives, doesn't he?. Regardless, I shouldn't have to be defending my right to be in this debate. If you want a religious argument, remember that traditional marriage has never existed. Solomon had hundreds of wives AND concubines. He was considered wise and pious too. If you're from 800 BC and you want to argue from the Old Testament perspective, be my guest, but just make sure your clothes aren't made from two fabrics, or we'll have to stone you to death.

Old Testament done, onto the new one. Jesus, or Yeshua of Nazareth, never spoke of homosexuality either way. In fact, he even disobeyed the Old Testament himself on several occasions by entering churches or eating rain on the wrong day. i would look the proper entry up for you, but mine's a bit dusty and I'd rather not have to flick through it. I myself questioned his teachings on the subject of homosexuality before I knew what it was. I asked about the phrase "Love thy neighbor" since my neighbor was a boy, but Jesus did teach to love everyone equally. If he ever said anything on the topic, it was pro-homosexuality, and he did have twelve sailors following him on a daily basis, so I'm sure he wasn't into women. A joke yes, but the point holds. New Testament is pro homosexuality.

Teachings outside of scripture! Well, the Pope may be a representative for God, but he's still going to have to deal with Protestants, Anglicans, Presbyterians and all the other Christian denominations before Francis can be God's agent. There you go. A Christian argument. See you next round.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
avaness

Con

Hebrews 13:4 - "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."

If anything the New Testament is against sexual immortality.



God never encouraged the marriage of many wives. Also laws like Leviticus 19:27 - "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip of the edges of your beard" were meant for society at the time, for instance we are no longer required to make sacrifices because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice meaning no more sacrifices had to be made. And I will need biblical reference on what you said about Jesus sinning because if that were true that would have been found questioned a long time ago, when you say my Bible is old and is dusty... it sounds like your making it up.

1 Peter 1:16 - "... for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy.""

Holy - not sinning.

P.S. the pope is has no power what-so-ever in any other denomination but Catholicism.

You want to argue me, you also argue God's word.
Duncan

Pro

Honoring marriage and keeping the bed pure, especially with reference to adultery, seems to reference the idea of only having sex after marriage, not homosexuality. Sexual purity meant virginity at the time.

Next, true, my bible isn't that dusty, but I figured you'd be offended if I told the truth that I use it to kill insects, so it's unpleasant to touch. But fine, I'll use the internet. Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.""

There. On further notice, God rarely ever suggested marriage between anyone, and on one of the times, it was adultery (Joseph wasn't the father). Jesus emphasised that he was both man and son of god, the link between mortal and divine. He set examples for people to follow, and challenged the teachings of God himself, disregarding the Sabbath.

On a final, possibly unrelated note, you say you represent God's word. Fine, but if heaven is going to be full of people like you, then I'll settle for hell.

See you next debate,

Duncan
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sadhguru 3 years ago
sadhguru
Let me blow your mind real quick. This term that your are using is an insult to animals. See, animals are normal you people just decided to one day jump on each other, yet you are so deceived by this life, yet your desires over power you always. Imagine what God will do to you on that day, you return back to him.....Indeed those types of actions are filthy. Remember, God created us in pairs, don't try to change that, you have no right. Remember, once you get rid of your desires, there will be no more suffering.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
no gays in heaven
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
no gays in heaven
Posted by ben2974 3 years ago
ben2974
The pro guy is such a blunt asscrack daaamn
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
Age is not a factor. Peoplke nowadays are radically different to those of the Old Testament. We have education, gender equality until the feminists find this debate, religious tolerances, overall, we are a lot less bloodthirsty than our ancestors, and we require less effort to survive, so luxuries are a more available asset. The bible's age only serves to show how it cannot be used in modern times because of the interpretation necessary being so huge, and the various interpretations so numerous.
Posted by Goodlife 3 years ago
Goodlife
Well, for one thing, people are essentially the same now as they have ever been. Regardless of the time period when they lived, men have had the same basic physical and emotional needs. Logically, if the Bible is the Word of God by which men should direct their lives, is it not understandable that it would have a long history? Certainly. Thus the Bible"s age is a factor in its favor and lends weight to what it says on homosexuality.
For instance, we read at Romans 1:26, 27,
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
avanessDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The motion contained nothing about Christianity, Duncan's arguments even after knowing this showed he debated better.
Vote Placed by thg 3 years ago
thg
avanessDuncanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was disappointing. I believe neither side held up well. PRO's diatribe about judgmental Cns and his "understanding" of the Bible was cliche and dismissive. CON was obviously the more sincere and polite debater. PRO's case would have been much stronger if he hadn't been so "hateful" in his condemnation of PRO's "hatefulness".
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 3 years ago
Like_a_Boss
avanessDuncanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: God loves kind atheists more than hateful Christians
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
avanessDuncanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering D.Wolf
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
avanessDuncanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Con for Pro breaking basic rules set forth in round 1.
Vote Placed by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
avanessDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con, but he didn't put much effort into it. He could have talked about gender roles, the ability to change orientation, and the problems of LGBT (promiscuity, STDs, mental health problems, and obscure sexual practices). Unfortunately, we in the modern Western world are drifting away from God into Liberalism.
Vote Placed by D.Wolf 3 years ago
D.Wolf
avanessDuncanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Good work Pro.