The Instigator
cassideerae
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jessalyn
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Is homosexuality a sin?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Jessalyn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,597 times Debate No: 25326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

cassideerae

Con

As a gay Christian, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Believe it or not, gay Christians are everywhere. How is that, if homosexuality is a sin? Tell me what you think.
Jessalyn

Pro

I accept this debate, and would like to wish my opponent luck! I would also like to clarify that in NO way whatsoever do my arguments for this debate reflect my personal opinion on the matter. As a devout atheist and avid supporter of human rights (exclusively those of homosexuals), I am fully opposed to the notion that homosexuality is "wrong" or sinful in any way. I am, however, arguing that while homosexuality is not by any means morally flawed, it is still considered a sin in the Christian faith.

Because my opponent has thus far provided no argument to support her claim that homosexuality is not a sin, I cannot yet refute her case. I would, however, like to briefly mention several points:

1.The Bible is the religious text of Christianity. Because homosexuality is deemed sinful in the Bible, it is also considered a sin in most denominations of Christianity.
2.Homosexuality violates the sacrament of marriage (according to Christians), and anything that violates a sacrament is considered sinful.

I will gladly expound upon these points upon my opponent's request, but for the time being I would like to give her a chance to respond.
Debate Round No. 1
cassideerae

Con

I respect you as the devout atheist you are, and appreciate your understanding. I would like to begin my argument with my strongest opinions on this matter.

1. According to Leviticus, homosexuality was considered an abomination. Abomination means "unclean" and "unnatural", not sin. It was also an abomination to eat pork and shellfish, mix fabrics, eat peace offerings on the third day, come into contact with a woman on her period, and get haircuts. If these abomination are accepted today, I do not see why homosexuality isn't.

2. Speaking of Leviticus, it is considered the Law of Moses. God telling Moses to speak these laws. In the Bible, Moses led the ISRAELITES. The Levitical Law (The Law of Moses), does not apply to Christians. God is talking to the children of Israel.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them..." Lev 1:2
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying..." Lev 4:2
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying..." Lev 11:2
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying..." Lev 12:2
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them..." Lev 15:2
It's crystal clear that God was talking to the Israelites. God never intended that the Levitical Law be intended for Christians, and especially Christians in the 21st century. God intended for us to read the Bible in context, exactly as it was written, during the time it was written. In fact, Christianity wasn't even introduced until the New Testament, in Acts, some fifteen-hundred years after the Levitical Law was given. Leviticus is in the Old Testament.
Because of this, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not apply to us as Christians. Also, if read in context as intended, Leviticus 18:21-22 is talking about homosexual temple prostitution and worshipping the false god Molech. In fact, homosexuality is never even mentioned in the Bible. What is mentioned is homosexual rape, torture, and prostitution. Not once in the Bible does God condemn loving, Christ-centered homosexual relationships.

3. The Old Testament went out of force when Jesus died on the cross. The New Testament never instructs us that Christians must live under Jewish Law or that Christians must observe Jewish rituals practiced by Old Testament Jews.
Hebrews 9:16-17 "For Where testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead."
The Law was in effect from the time God gave it to Moses on Mt. Sinai, around 1450 BC until Jesus died on the Cross, around AD 30, then the New Covenant (Testament) came into force.

4. God affirmed gay people. Matthew 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Eunuchs were often gay men or lesbian women. The word eunuch, in the New Testament, is from the Greek word eunouchos, eun, for bed, and echein, to keep. A eunuch is literally ‘a keeper of the bed.'.
The word eunuch has 4 definitions.
1. A person is incapable of heterosexual marriage because the eunuch is same sex attracted and thus, not interested in heterosexual marriage.
2. A person is asexual, not feeling sexual attraction toward either sex.
3. In rare cases, eunuch could refer to one born with genital defects which make siring children impossible, although this condition is not mentioned in scripture.
4. A eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is a person who is capable of marriage but voluntarily abstains from marriage in order to better serve God.
Matthew 19:12 clearly states that people are born gay, and to accept it as it is.

5. David and Jonathan's relationship was affirmed. The Bible tells us Jonathan loved David. The same Hebrew words used to describe opposite-sex love are used to descripb David and Jonathan's love. Jonathan loved David with an everlasting love, which caused them to form a lifelong covenant and partnership. The Hebrew words God uses to describe Jonathan and David's relationship indicate romantic, lifelong, committed love.
The Hebrew word "ahab" or "ahabah", used to descibe how Jonathan loved David, is translated "love" over 100 times and occurs in Jonathan and David's story, in II Samuel. Ahab is used in Genesis 29:20 to describe Jacob's love for his wife, Rachel. It's also used in Song of Solomon 3:1-4 to describe the love of the Shulamite girl for Solomon. The love of the shulamite girl for Solomon is described coming from her "nephesh-soul", just as Jonathan's love for David. Scripture uses ahabah to descibe sexual love in the context of opposite-sex marriage in Proverbs 5:19.
God did not use these Hebrew words by accident. Jonathan loved David as fully, and as intimately, as any man ever loved a woman. In fact, David told Jonathan that his love for him is better than the love of women.

II Samuel 1:26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."

The fact that God used Hebrew words like ahab and ahabah to describe Jonathan and David's relationship is a subtle clue indicating that homosexual relationships are affirmed, blessed, and sanctified by God. He has a strong, affirming message for gays and lesbians and for the church about the sanctity of gay relationships which are within the Biblical moral framework- committed, faithful, and non-cultic.

6. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used to attack gays for years. Most Christians believe that God detroyed these cities because of homosexuality. That isn't true. The issue in this story is inhospitality, not homosexuality. Sodom is mention 48 times in the Bible and never in those 48 passages is homosexuality given as the cause of God's judgement. The Sodom story is irrelevant to homosexuality. There is nothing in the passage pertinent to a judgement about the morality of consensual homosexual intercourse. The sin in Genisis 19 has to do with using sexual cruelty and violence (attempted gang rape) to demean outsiders. Genesis 19 never mentions homosexuals in Sodom. Genesis 19 never mentions a homosexual act being committed in Sodom. Scripture never mention a same-sex relationship in Sodom, never tells us that the inhabitants of Sodom were homosexuals, never tells us that God destroyed the cities because of homosexuality, and never refers the word Sodomite as homosexuals. Every time Sodomite is used in scipture, ir refers to cult, shrine, and temple prostitutes who worshipped the Canaanite fertility goddess.

7. Ruth's love for Naomi was celebrated by God, not condemned. Ruth 1:16-17, which is often read out during either opposite-sex or same-sex marriage and union ceremonies, says

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth cleave unto her." The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in 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."

The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to descibe how Adam felt about Eve (and hwo spouses are supposed to feel about each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Ruth 1:14 says "Ruth clung to Naomi." The hebrew word for clung is "dabaq". This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve.

The Church is simply teaching what they themselves were taught. They are not reading it in context or taking the time to study it for themselves.
Jessalyn

Pro

First of all, thank you to my opponent for your argument in this interesting debate. Secondly, I'd like to point out that all of my opponent's claims are based on the Bible. The only organized religions that are known to follow the Bible are Judaism and Christianity--so even in the event that she is correct as far as these two religions go, she is still not disproving homosexuality as a sin in all other religions. For this reason, no arguments concerning the Bible hold up her point, because there are various other religions that consider homosexuality sinful, such as Islam (1). Because my opponent has put so much thought into her arguments, I will still attempt to respond to some of them individually despite the fact that they do not prove her point.

Argument 1:

Just because other Old Testament "sins" are accepted today doesn't mean they are any less sinful. Times on Earth change, yes--but a theoretical god would not be likely to. God's "morals," so to speak, would remain constant due to the fact that the Christian God does not live by the constraints of "time" as we humans do. In the Christian God's eyes, what was sinful years ago is still sinful in today's society.

Argument 2:

We are debating the controversy as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin. You did not specify that we were dealing exclusively with Christianity, therefore any religion/moral that holds the concept of homosexuality as a sin disproves your resolution. As for this argument: if God "intended" for homosexuality to be sinful for the Isrealites, you have just disproven your own point.

I also find it slightly odd that you're basing an argument on what God "intended."

Argument 3:

Some Christians still abide, in part, by the morals of the Old Testament. Since the book is up for interpretation, many of these Christians believe the Old Testament condemns homosexuality and, for that reason, believe it is a sin.

Argument 4: While Yahweh may affirm homosexuals, Allah may not. If Allah does, my imaginary unicorns may not. (I definitely do not mean for this to come off as rude by any means--I'm just making an example!)

Argument 5-7: Dismissed by previous points.

Sin is a philosophical idea, existing solely in the minds of believers. Because there is no concrete establishment of what is and is not sinful, its existence is precisely at the will of the mind. It's completely subjective, depending on one's morals. For example, beauty is another subjective establishment; what one believes is unattractive, another believes is breathtakingly beautiful. It doesn't mean either is correct or incorrect, true or untrue. Just that everyone views the concept differently.

I could even disprove your resolution by saying I believe homosexuality is a sin (which is exactly the opposite of my true belief, obviously). I could be the only one in the universe who believes this, but in some shape, form, existence or context, it is considered a sin. Because sin is a completely subjective idea, it IS whatever it is considered. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin.

Thank you, again, to my opponent! I look forward to reading your next argument.

(1) http://www.missionislam.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cassideerae

Con

cassideerae forfeited this round.
Jessalyn

Pro

It seems that my opponent has, unfortunately, forfeited this debate. Regardless, I'd like to thank her for her input and reiterate the fact that my stance on this debate does not reflect my personal opinion on homosexuality.

Because my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments, my position stands untouched: homosexuality is a sin because the concept of "sin" is subjective. None of my arguments for this claim have been nullified, and none of my opponent's arguments still stand.

Thanks again to my opponent for this interesting and entertaining debate!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
It really bothers when people use the Bible texts as their arguments........
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
cassideeraeJessalynTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by con
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
cassideeraeJessalynTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments left conceded and forfeited last round. Obvious win to PRO
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
cassideeraeJessalynTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
cassideeraeJessalynTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's forfeiture results in a win for Pro.