The Instigator
Skywalker900
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MikeTheGOd
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is gay marriage okay? Why?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 85440
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

Skywalker900

Pro

I know that many people will come in and say it's against the bible, but it actually isn't. Many things that supposedly are against homosexuality in the bible are actually just grossly mistranslated due to hundreds of years of changing each word to be easier to read. In the original manuscript in Leviticus, it said that it was offensive, or Tovah. If it were a sin it would have said Tovah Yahweh, or offensive to God. It said it was offensive because during the time it was considered a disgrace to waste male or female... Let's just say reproductive fluids. This was because during that time they needed their nation to grow larger. Also throughout the bible a word, pornea, was mistranslated to homosexuality or sometimes fornification. That word actually means sexual immorality, which usually was used in reference to temple prostitutes, and worshiping idols with sex.
Another major reason why homosexuality is okay, is because science proves it is natural and that it is not controllable. Many animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behaviors, and scientists have found out that it is about 20 percent genetic and 80 percent psychological. Even though it has some psychological factors in it, they have also proven that it cannot be suppressed, changed, and in trying that, you risk damage to not just your self esteem, but it will damage your love life. Trying to change yourself will result in you going down a path of unsuccessful relationships, and down a path of self destruction.
MikeTheGOd

Con

Intro: Some would claim it was dangerous to support gay marriage so Jesus didn't do it, of course just spreading the message he delivered to society was risky since he died for it. I mean Jesus was a dedicated son of God who didn't fear death, if he wanted to support gay marriage he would have done so. HE probably would have selected a gay individual to be a disciple as well. Let alone there isn't a single Gay person in the bible who spread the word. I will show the Adam and Eve event and how this makes it clear God didn't want same sex marriage and then I will show how God is actually against it and how despite what my opponent claims it is shown in the bible where he is against it. Next I will attack some of his statements with some common sense.
1. Gay marriage wasn't met to be.
In many cultures, both ancient and modern, polygamy has been quite common, which describes the relationship of one husband with multiple wives. This was, in fact, the predominant pattern of human family in ancient Israelite and other near-Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. https://signposts02.wordpress.com......
Explanation: Even back then marriage wasn't man to man based or woman to woman based.

Sub point A: Adam and Eve
Genesis 2:12 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of ground, and breathed into his nostrils he breath of life; and the ma became a living soul.
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
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.

Explanation: When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve"not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal way of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically).

Explnation2: If God had intended for homosexual and heterosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to reproduce through both means. I men this is common sense come on if everyone was gay we would all day. Just because there is a Preponderance of people performing homosexual intercourse or believing in it doesn't mean its right. Also Jesus didn't "sponsor" gay marriage.


Sub point B: Gay marriage is considered a sin by god
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 them-selves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do these things which are not convenient:

Translation: In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion.

Translation/explanation of Romans 1:28 Furthermore, because they did not think it worthwhile to keep knowing God fully, God delivered them to degraded minds to perform acts that should not be done.

But to support this claim even further look at the next verses
Romans 1:29-32 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder debate, deceit, malignity; whispers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors o evil things, disobedient to parents Without understanding covenant-breakers without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
HE then states this
Another major reason why homosexuality is okay, is because science proves it is natural and that it is not controllable
Response *face palm* No but in all seriousness science says allot of stuff. IN fact some major scientist and philosophers claim there is free will. But one huge philosopher who's one of the 4 horsemen or philosophers against the belief of god simply states, "I can choose to pick up a spoon right? so I have free will." I have a similar response to the claim that people are born gay. "A baby doesn't pop out the wound hungry for a guy." This doesn't naturally happen and the evidence science uses to defend this theory is the same evidence utilized to defend free will not existing. IN free will they claim because of other factors free will isn't' real, such as the fact that 98% of the brains actions are done unconsciously and that external factors can influence decisions. Basically so mimes there isn't a bad apple simple the apple is in a bad barrel. The holocaust is a major example used to support this. This is shown in a book called the self beyond itself. But there is one thing true about this statement, external factors really shape an individual. External factors can turn a person into a gay human being. External factors determine if a person believes in God or not. External factors determine what you wear. Experience and what you are exposed too determines stuff, no one is just born gay and God clearly as I demonstrated in Romans makes no excuse if you say gay. If you are Gay and don't change you can go to hell.
He also brings up how animals are proves to be gay but I need the article and evidence for This. I compete in debate and in debate there are sometimes major holes in arguments especially one as crazy as animals participating in homosexual acts. Also look to Genesis 3, animals are below us in nature. Also in Genesis we had a part of God's spirit placed in side us while not a single animal did. Just because an animal does something doesn't justify the action. That's like saying because a baby sucks his thumb it's ok for me or you to suck our thumbs all the time. Now a baby is by no means lesser in importance like an animal is, but a baby is lesser in understanding and lacks the knowledge and intelligence that me and you have. You don't justify doing something because something lesser or someone who doesn't know better like a baby does it. That's taking a step backwards in life which is never good to do.
Next however there is a way to go to heaven and there is a way to change. I show this already but I am showing a holy method that my religion apostolic utilizes that was provided by Jesus.
Repentance:
God has offered a way for us to repent. WE now can say we are sorry for our sins and turn our life over to God.
Baptism
Baptism is not an option; there is no such thing in the Bible as a Christian who was not baptized.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Sub point A: You must be immersed in water
Because Jesus was baptized by immersion
Because every baptism in the Bible is by immersion
Because that's precisely what the word baptism means
Because it is the best portrayal of a burial and resurrection

Sub point B: You must be baptized in Jesus name
Every baptism in acts was performed in Jesus' name.

THE DAY OF PENTECOST: Acts 2:38- be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

THE SAMARITANS: Acts 8:16- they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

THE HOUSE OF CORNELIUS: Acts 10:48- he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord

THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN: Acts 19:5- they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Conclusion: All of this was provided because of Jesus
Then the holy ghost

Romans 8:14-16 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.




    • You know you have received the Holy Ghost by speaking in tongues.


    • Scriptures for this= Isaiah 28-with stammering lips and another tongues


    • Joel 2- I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh


    • Acts 2- Jewish disciples on the Day of Pentecost


    • Acts 10


    • Acts 19- disciples of John the Baptist


    • Mark 16-17


    • John 7:38-39



Everyone can change. Just because you were exposed to sex and became a sex addict doesn't mean you can't change. Just because you are addicted to drugs doesn't mean you can't change. There is a bible way and even a natural way of changing despite what my opponent claims.

There is a book called Habits why we do what we do in life and business. They show something called the habit loop.

The Cue is what makes you do something, the routine is what you do and then there's the reward. The book shows an example of how people take drugs because it may make you feel happy or relive you from stress or etc. There is an organization that came out during the 1990s that helps people resolve this issue basically by replacing the routine. Instead of taking drugs you can go to the organization and make friends with people who were in your situation. You can hang out with them and work with them to get a feeling of happiness or hope. This replaces the routine of doing drugs. They also introduce you to a higher power. Since religion tends to require discipline and develops good characters you end up living a different life. Science was wondering how this method worked but then they realized it simply replaces the routine.
You can combat anything nothing is permanent you simply just need to find something else that gives you the same reward. Having sex with woman can give you the same reward as a man and actually better since you are able to manifest a child you can care for and help develop. Anyone can change.
Debate Round No. 1
Skywalker900

Pro

Okay first off I want to say that I have articles to prove, by many credible sources that being gay isn't a choice, and I have an article showing animals that exhibit homosexual behaviors. Here are the links if you want to check them out.
http://listverse.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
And these are just a few of the websites you can find that support my claim. In your argument, you mentioned that science says a lot of things, but you want to know who else said a lot of things, The Church. The Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition was actually the people that set science back a couple hundred years by destroying documents, and killing anyone that said that they were wrong. The claimed this in Jesus' name. Of course, now we know that this was all complete bull crap. The church also was the ones that said that the earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Another thing to add on, you read Genesis completely wrong. Most all is Genesis was preached by the original Jews as a poem, and Biblical literalism is actually a very modern thing. You also mention a hell, that doesn't exist, for proof of that read this article.
http://www.thehypertexts.com...
Now I'm going to address your reasons why gay marriage wasn't meant to be. Your first reason why gay marriage wasn't meant to be is nonsense. The reason why polygamy was practiced in the bible, and why they didn't marry men to men or women to women was because they needed to reproduce to grow their nation. Your second point about Adam and Eve is based on Biblical literalism. The reason why men are the way men are, and women are the way women are is because we have to breed to grow our species. It the main purpose of evolution, to survive and repopulate. There is actually a gene connected to the X chromosome that makes it much more likely for a person, typically men because they only have one X chromosome, to be homosexual. This gene actually makes the female holders seem more physically attractive to their male counterparts, and increases their chance of reproducing by doing that. Most times when this gene is passed on to a man, he becomes homosexual. Since women have two X chromosomes, they have one to override that other one. I also see that you keep in mentioning how Jesus never mentioned gays, so he didn't sponsor them. Well, he never spoke out against it either, so that statement is completely irrelevant. When you mentioned Romans, you must not have dine your research, because you are reading it wrong, like you did with Genesis. You always have to read the Bible in its cultural context. In Romans, when it mentions then burning with unnatural desires, back when it was being written, meant that it was just not often seen. It didn't mean that it was evil, or that it was an awful thing. Also, the Romans 1:29-32 probably had a mistranslation where it says fortification. As I mentioned in my previous argument, the Greek word pornea was often mistranslated into English as fortification. I have already addressed that science proves that it's natural, but now to address the free will thing. Okay so you believe that it is a choice to be gay. Well since it is 20 percent genetic and the rest is uncontrollable, and irreversible when it comes to the 80 percent of the psychological part of it, I'm pretty sure it isn't of free will to be gay. I seriously don't believe that people would choose to be hated either, or threatened and disowned by their families. Why would someone choose to live through that kind of scarring moments. I agree on the fact that a baby doesn't come out of the womb hungry for a guy, but that is because your sexual desires, which are already engrained in your brain, are activated during puberty. Even before that though, when children start to develop crushes, they know which gender they like. You also talk about how God never put souls into animals, but I want proof for that. You also state how animals are less than us, but we were once as primitive as they were, then we evolved, and evolved, and we eventually evolved into what we know humans as today. Evolution is a scientific fact. Here's a link for some proof.
http://www.actionbioscience.org...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
You mention habits, but like I previously mentioned, being homosexual isn't a choice, nor is it a habit. Then you compare it to drugs. There is nothing harmful to homosexual behavior. I will be looking forward to your next argument.
MikeTheGOd

Con

Clarification: In the comments my opponent wants to know what I mean by a small argument. Most of his arguments were real good but what I mean is arguments like this one "Well, he never spoke out against it either, so that statement is completely irrelevant." But as you pointed out in your response to the Adam and Eve example gay marriage wasn't a popular thing, it wasn't a big issue thus he didn't speak against it because he never encountered that issue. For example weed and such is a big issue today but it wasn't a thing back then. But as I stated in Romans God ended up pointing out the wrong in that sexual practice.
But let's take a look at his argument against Romans (look at last round)
My Response: I would have you know I have "dine" my research. He goes on about this cultural context nonsense that isn't applicable at all. I looked at the translations and even other bibles and every single one stated a similar explanation. That in this scripture God was upset and allowed them to get punished for performing sinful acts. You see yourself as a biblical scholar but people who are actual biblical scholars plus my own pastor (he used this in a bible study and I talked to him about it) all confirm that these set of scriptures are against certain acts including same sexual activities.
Now lets move on to the other piece of biblical evidence I present and what it means
Adam and Eve
Genesis 2:12 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of ground, and breathed into his nostrils he breath of life; and the ma became a living soul.
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
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.

Explanation: When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve"not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal way of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically).
His response: The reason why men are the way men are, and women are the way women are is because we have to breed to grow our species. It the main purpose of evolution, to survive and repopulate. There is actually a gene connected to the X chromosome that makes it much more likely for a person, typically men because they only have one X chromosome, to be homosexual. This gene actually makes the female holders seem more physically attractive to their male counterparts, and increases their chance of reproducing by doing that. Most times when this gene is passed on to a man, he becomes homosexual.
My response: *face palm* That has been what I have been telling you through the scripture itself. God met for a man to be with a woman in order to reproduce. HE states the scripture with his statement. You tried to attack a statement using the statement itself or you tried to say 0-0= something else when it still equals 0. God wants a man to be with a woman in order for us to reproduce. He made Adam and Eve and not Bob and Jack so we can continue to have vessels for his use. You also missed my statement where I say that if we were all gay we would die. What I mean is same sex marriage clearly isn't the right form of companionship since we can't reproduce with this activity. Just because a preponderance of people support the activity or don't care much about it doesn't mean it's right. Even if you don't believe in God you can conclude that some higher power or whatever you believe in didn't have same sex in mind. We are only able to reproduce ONE way because ONE way is the right way. Next he brings up how when a gene is passed to a man in the chromosome they become homosexual but that is not true.
IN fact according to this article http://www.pinknews.co.uk... there isn't a gene found that is a cause of homosexuality. Sure some guys tend to develop feminine traits as a result of this. My cousin had this issue and he's not gay. He is more on the feminine side but he is dating a girl. That's why in my last round I present the free will not being real argument, I also stated something you ignored which is that the no free will argument is similar to this argument in structure. Both arguments are supported by certain things that can direct you towards homosexuality or certain thing that can limit free will. There is a claim that because 98% of the mind is unconscious thinking and because society and environments can impact choices people don't have free will. Both arguments assume that just because there are a ton of factors influencing someone to be gay because of the chromosome or because there are a ton of factors or governmental pushes or whatever limiting free will that people don't' have free will. These are scientific theories nothing more. One popular argument to support no free will is the holocaust and how people were forced to kill Jews or join the platoon police force but that's not true. Italy has alt of religious folks who kept 80% of there Jews from being captured. They took crazy risk despite the limits imposed on them because of the control by Germany. The problem with scientific theories like same sex and no free will is that both assume because the odds are against you that you will ultimately be gay or not have freedom of choice. Thus since it's an assumption and not fully prove concept it's a theory.
But lets also look at my suggestion, the habit loop. He points out that homosexuality isn't a habit, I agree I was talking about sexual attraction/sex itself. Having sex becomes a habit and so does checking out other men or women etc. What I stated was that by having a homosexual man have a close relationship with a female he can change. If you have sex with the opposite sex that will replace the routine of having sex with another male or whatever. But next I point out that hell is the destination for homosexuality and he claims its not real. He presents a source that he claims disproves hell but the source when you click it doesn't lead to a page. My opponent has to present the proper source for this assuming its real.
Hell is mentioned in the bible and is real

Mathews 25 he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Revelation 20: 14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Hell is a temporary location btw after the 1,000 year reign of the approved souls on Earth the people who were sent to hell will be transported with the beast and the false prophet to the lake of fire.

revelations 21:8 states this But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Conclusion: The thing however to consider s that spiritual things cannot be seen. We can't see demons and angles and such because we are physical entities at the moment. Hell cannot be detected on radar and neither can heaven because they are spiritual based locations not geographical ones.
Animals: My opponent proves animals are gay in some cases. I wasn't aware of this but he doesn't prove they are equal to humans or have souls. Funny enough he suggest I look for proof of this with this statement, "You also talk about how God never put souls into animals, but I want proof for that." No man you don't understand the reason why us in the Apostolic religion and even some of the false religions like the Catholic religion can assume animals don't have souls is because God never gave them souls. There are tons of scriptures where the God within us is mention and I showed in Genesis 2:12 where God gave us a part of him as well. It's your job to find proof that God did put souls in animals basically. Also why would I find evidence to support your side even if it did exist?

Observation: My opponent says every scripture I bring up in the bible is wrong and that the bible has been changed. First of all I use the KJV bible which is only translated into the English language thus your Greek nonsense isn't applicable. The main issue is that my opponent continues to claim he knows more on the bible but doesn't use the bible at all, he doesn't actually correct me and explain what the scripture means or uses a single scripture to combat what I present. Well he sort of supported the Adam and Eve scripture which helped me out but his intention was to prove the scripture wrong. He only uses science, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he fails to find a scripture on animals having souls and being equal and decides to use a scientific explanation he pulls up from some random database. Next consider the fact that he thought I was Catholic which is another downfall to his "biblical scholar status." Even non believers know the catholic church doesn't believe in baptism by immersion. I on the other hand am apostolic and I go to bible study on Thursday and church on Sunday. We can conclude who knows what he's talking about as far as the bible goes. There's a difference between just reading and actually living and going by what you read. I know what the scriptures mean because I apply them to my life. I just want you to really decide if you want to go with a guy who only believes in the nice parts of the bible. Or a guy who believes in the whole thing including hell and sin and participates in biblical activities.
In conclusion I have correctly utilized the bible today to disseminate information.
Debate Round No. 2
Skywalker900

Pro

First off, I want you to prove to me how being homosexual is a choice, without using the Bible. The Bible was written by people, not God. I mentioned men being the way they are and women the way they are because it is important when it comes to evolution. The evolutionary purpose of all animals is to survive and repopulate. Even though that is true, there is a thing called genetic diversity. This means that everyone, and everything is different. We all came from a common ancestor, but since we branched off, surviving at different places, and other things, we are different. If you try to disprove this, think of this one thing. How come we share some similar genetic makeup with bananas? Also, I was not aware o your religious upbringings, but even though that is true, I did not bring up the Catholic church because I was saying you were a Catholic, I brought it up, because it was an example of the Church v. Science. Another note onto your first response, I did not realize that it said dine, and I agree that that made me seem stupid, but using that does not further your argument. Okay, so you say that the cultural context thing is complete nonsense right. Why don't we stone people then? Why do many Christians eat pork, eat shellfish, and wear multiple kinds of clothing at the same time, even though that is explicitly stated to be wrong in the Bible. This is in Leviticus if you want to read it for yourself. Also, just because your pastor say something, doesn't mean it's true. You could choose to blindly follow what he says, and not think for yourself like most people, or you could find the flaws in it, dissect it, and find out what you believe. One thing about the article you cited, are you sure you read that correctly? When it said, "Lead scientist Alan Sanders said that the work "erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice" " but said the study also did not identify a single gene which was the direct cause of homosexuality," that meant that he didn't find only one gene. That means he either found more than one gene, or that it was a mix of genetics and other things. Another thing said in the article was, "Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else"s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with." This statement was explicitly against your argument. One more thing to add on to this, scientists have been saying that it wasn't a choice for a long time. So have psychologists. One very well known psychologist was Sigmund Freud. He believed that sexual orientation was not a choice. It is no longer a theory on whether or not it's a choice. Saying that being gay is a choice is like saying depression that has been furthered by someones genetics is a choice. Using how people chose not to harm the Jews, and how they helped them despite the odds of getting caught and hurt, is not a good example. They had the free will to do that. One argument you never seemed to address that I made was, why would homosexuals choose to be persecuted, sometimes to the point of psychological harm. Your cousin is either terrified of a hell that your family is saying he'll go to, he is just feminine, or he is bi-sexual. Any of these are possible. Not all feminine men are gay, and not all gays are feminine.
On to your paragraph on animals. You fail to present that animals are not equal to humans, and don't have souls, but i will now prove my point.

Luke: 3:6 All flesh shall see God. All the living things in Creation shall see God.
Psalm 36:6 Your righteousness saves humans and animals alike, O Lord.
Psalm 145:15-16 The eyes of all Creation wait upon Thee oh Lord, Thou openest Thy hand and satisfieth the desire of every living thing.

There you go.
So you said that I said every scripture you brought up was wrong, when that is mostly the truth. Just because you use the King James version, doesn't discredit what the original manuscripts say. The King James version was a translation from Greek to English, but it had its faults. This is mainly because we don't understand some of the slang that they had when they wrote the original manuscripts. This has led to many different kinds of mis-translations that skew our vision on the Bible. The original version of the Bible was written completely in ancient Greek, translated into Hebrew, and then translated into all the other versions of the Bible that you know today. So therefore the King James version had origins in the Greek words I bring up, which discredit your argument that since you use the King James version that everything I mention about the Greek words, are null. One more thing to add on is that I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, nor did I claim to have more knowledge on the Bible than you. However, I do happen to understand certain key points when it comes to homosexuality, the topic of hell, and premarital sex. I do not believe that God did anything vengeful in the Bible, but I do believe that God showed love and compassion. In the times of passing on those stories, it was not uncommon for them to give credit to God for many things including Genocide, destroying cities, looting them, and even taking the virgins for their own. One thing you said that struck me as odd was the fact that you said that since you apply the things from the Bible to your life, that you understand all of the Bible. Many atheists could take from the lessons Jesus taught, and by your definition, say that they understand the Bible verses. I take from the lessons that Jesus taught himself, and apply that to my life, and I understand the cultural context of many things, and what many verses meant to those people. One thing you seem unable to comprehend is that they had many different cultural norms in their society and that not all the same things apply. Now it is your turn to try to disprove hard cold scientific facts. Why would God create these scientific facts to disprove him. Eventually this subject matter will fade away like the matter of blacks and whites marrying did. It was the same group of people against that as it was gay marriage.
MikeTheGOd

Con

First off, I want you to prove to me how being homosexual is a choice, without using the Bible. The Bible was written by people, not God.
Response: The people who wrote the bible were influenced by God and were major godly figures thus it's still Gods bible. Also I already provided a source showing there is no proof that being gay isn't a choice. The gene that scientist claim causes this hasn't been discovered. Also if the bible says don't be gay or has a set guideline on the structure of marriage I don't see why it's not correct. I used science at your request last round. However I will post a more recent source against this at your request.
Explanation of source. This source states the same thing as the last source I provided, "No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay." The article just like the rest can't prove that being gay is a choice, they can only prove that there are allot of components that make it to where you will have a high chance of being gay. No scientific study so far has proved that being gay isn't a choice or that we don't' have free will. These are theories. Now judging off the way your demand for proof is worded you are confident that there is more support in science for homosexuality not being a choice then for it being a choice. My response? More philosophers believe in free will then philosophers who don't believe in free will. More people supported the war in Iraq then people who didn't and they were wrong in supporting that war. Just because a preponderance of people support something doesn't mean its right appeases if there is only one sect or specific genre of study going crazy for it. Thus this is as I stated r a theory that has yet to spread and accepted. This theory maybe one day will be like evolution where the whole nation will know about it and some will believe in it and some will not. This concept isn't even at the stage of the big-bang theory and the big bang theory is a theory.
Conclusion: IN the end this concept is getting support from scientist but still has a considerably way to go before it's proved, this idea blew up recently and thus still has along way to go proved, assuming it will at all be proved but right now it's simply backed by inductive argumentation, or in other words because this person has this he will most likely become this.
Going back to the new article it also shows that typically the people that have a high chance of being gay are families who are gay and some times rarely twins. But this is of course logical not only do you have a high chance of developing the same traits as your gay parents, but also you are influenced to be gay by the parents themselves. There is no proof that in every or even most instances that that being gay for any individual isn't a choice.
I mentioned men being the way they are and women the way they are because it is important when it comes to evolution. The evolutionary purpose of all animals is to survive and repopulate. Even though that is true, there is a thing called genetic diversity. This means that everyone, and everything is different. We all came from a common ancestor, but since we branched off, surviving at different places, and other things, we are different. If you try to disprove this, think of this one thing. How come we share some similar genetic makeup with bananas?
Response: I will not try to disprove evolution, it is a more supported theory and it isn't topical to the round. Now maybe this is support for animal equality but the reason for this argument isn't established and directed at something I stated. Also since God made everything it can be implied that sure maybe we have some similar genetic to bananas somewhere. All things have cells and such.
What he states: many Christians eat pork, eat shellfish, and wear multiple kinds of clothing at the same time, even though that is explicitly stated to be wrong in the Bible. Also, just because your pastor say something, doesn't mean it's true. You could choose to blindly follow what he says, and not think for yourself like most people, or you could find the flaws in it, and find out what believe.
Response: Without a scripture being presented for this I can't argue against it or read it myself. I don't recall the bible going against what you claim and you don't prove it thus this can't be counted for in the round. Also I could argue you blindly follow convincing scientific theories as well. You seem to believe anything is true as long as allot of scientist support it, I don't see where that gets you ground since you have only used science evidence and I have only really used biblical. We are both bias which is an observation I am sure the viewer has made by this round. Also I competed in debate for 4 years, I probably think and contemplate issues on corporations and such more then you do, obviously I was able to research and of course question certain things, so far nothing has convinced me the Apostolic doctrine isn't true. Debate forces you to be open minded, I was open minded during this debate as well I accepted the homosexual animal concept. However I don't accept how an animal is equal to a human in anyway. Even if evolution lets say was 100% true we obviously came out on the better end, animals aren't able to have things like morality. Heck we are on a whole new level when compared to animals. You can't compare a bird to an apple just because they lived on the same branch. The bird is the more advanced organism.
Response: He claims I fail to present animals don't' have souls but again that was his job, I am not going to help him form his arguments, we are not a team. Next I admit sure the article is mostly bias towards being gay but I already addressed that by pointing out scientist overall believe in this concept thus all I can find are bias articles. Also when the article states not a single gene the article of course as you demonstrated means they have found a location where the gay traits could stem from. That's my point, they don't know for sure what gene or how many genes contribute to gay activity let alone if there is a gene of such nature at all. It's a theory not a national accepted idea. Evolution is taught and presented in textbooks and it is still considered nothing more then a theory, or at least the part where we evolve from apes.
Luke: 3:6 All flesh shall see God. All the living things in Creation shall see God.
Psalm 36:6 Your righteousness saves humans and animals alike, O Lord.
Psalm 145:15-16
wow 3 vague scriptures that don't clearly point to animals having a soul at all.
Response:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 - And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 10:28- And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

James 2:26 - For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Galatians 5:16-17- [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Matthew 16:26 - For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 - What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Romans 12:1-21 - I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 - But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1 Corinthians 15:35-58 - But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Genesis 35-18 - And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

Luke 1:46-47- And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord
Acts 2:38- Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Also you failed to show that when god created life that he gave animals a soul. I demonstrated that with the scripture I provided earlier in Genesis. Also you don't prove animals have the ability to serve God. You then claim that God created or manifested scientific facts, God manifested man and man manifested science. God knew this would happen of course since he knows all however God didn't force anyone to manifest science. We chose to make science and math and such. Also I haven't attempted to dispute scientific facts, rather scientific theories. Next I get what you mean by cultural concepts, society changes, but most of the bible is still applicable, we can still love, we can not steal, we still need to develop morality. The bible isn't only a instruction manual on how to get to heaven but also a book on how to live a good life. The constitution is super old but still applicable and so is the bible regardless of the culture.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
I was not intending for there to be any sense of hostility in my argument. If that's what you got out of it, then sorry for the confusion. I did have multiple rebuttals as wells, so I'm not sure where you got that from. Anyways, thanks for taking a look at this debate.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Who did you agree with before the debate? Con
Who did you agree with after the debate?Con

Obvious reasons.

Who had better conduct? Con

Pro shows some hostility to Con and shows a contempt for Cons religious views, by simply insulting them but never addresses any real facts to show his contempt as reasonable, hence it is merely a biased and a disrespect for the views of others.

Who had better spelling and grammar? Con

I can count 5 grammar mistakes on Pro's side, but only 3 with Con.

Who made more convincing arguments? Con

Con addressed all of Pro's arguments, but Pro never really made a rebuttal, and instead avoided all of Cons points..

Who used the most reliable sources? Pro

Pro was the only one to cite ANY sources.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Who did you agree with before the debate? Con
Who did you agree with after the debate?Con

Obvious reasons.

Who had better conduct? Con

Pro shows some hostility to Con and shows a contempt for Cons religious views, by simply insulting them but never addresses any real facts to show his contempt as reasonable, hence it is merely a biased and a disrespect for the views of others.

Who had better spelling and grammar? Con

I can count 5 grammar mistakes on Pro's side, but only 3 with Con.

Who made more convincing arguments? Con

Con addressed all of Pro's arguments, but Pro never really made a rebuttal, and instead avoided all of Cons points..

Who used the most reliable sources? Pro

Pro was the only one to cite ANY sources.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Who did you agree with before the debate? Con
Who did you agree with after the debate?Con

Obvious reasons.

Who had better conduct? Con

Pro shows some hostility to Con and shows a contempt for Cons religious views, by simply insulting them but never addresses any real facts to show his contempt as reasonable, hence it is merely a biased and a disrespect for the views of others.

Who had better spelling and grammar? Con

I can count 5 grammar mistakes on Pro's side, but only 3 with Con.

Who made more convincing arguments? Con

Con addressed all of Pro's arguments, but Pro never really made a rebuttal, and instead avoided all of Cons points..

Who used the most reliable sources? Pro

Pro was the only one to cite ANY sources.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Who did you agree with before the debate? Con
Who did you agree with after the debate?Con

Obvious reasons.

Who had better conduct? Con

Pro shows some hostility to Con and shows a contempt for Cons religious views, by simply insulting them but never addresses any real facts to show his contempt as reasonable, hence it is merely a biased and a disrespect for the views of others.

Who had better spelling and grammar? Con

I can count 5 grammar mistakes on Pro's side, but only 3 with Con.

Who made more convincing arguments? Con

Con addressed all of Pro's arguments, but Pro never really made a rebuttal, and instead avoided all of Cons points..

Who used the most reliable sources? Pro

Pro was the only one to cite ANY sources.
Posted by Linkstart 1 year ago
Linkstart
I do not see why I have to hide what I like because people back then wrote a book to cope with what was going on around them.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
I'm no evolution or science expert obviously. I am 17 in highschool and from what we learned on evolution it's simply some diagram and they claimed we stem from apes. Also yeah animals evolved and changed over time and such. That's how it was described to me in highschool. I've never been interested in the theory so of course I never kept up with it
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
One last thing. I do not blindly follow science, I merely believe things that scientists say, when they are credible, when they have a large amount of data, and when many other scientists believe that. You never brought up Sigmjnd Frued who was a huge Psychologist. He was a believer that you couldn't change a person's sexual orientation, and many psychologists after him researched and found the same thing. He also found that the so called "cures" for homosexuality that the church made up was just fear mongering and psychologically scarring wrapped up in a bundle. If you're going to argue with what many psychologists have said for a really long time now, then that is, no offense, ridiculous.
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
Also, we didn't evolve from apes. Yet again if you google searched that you would find that that isn't true. That's not anti evolution, that's just anti misconceptions.
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
If you did a Google search for verses that say you can't eat shellfish, pork, and other things I said, you would find it so fast. You didn't even look.
No votes have been placed for this debate.