The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

It isn't wrong for a person to be gay.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 11/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 82536
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (0)




It isn't wrong for a person to be gay. It isn't immoral either.

This is my first debate on this site so go easy lol.


I accept the debate. I will be arguing that being gay is wrong.

Saying that, being gay is not immoral is quite a huge fallacy statement you"re making. To whose viewpoint are you talking through? To Muslims, being gay is punishable by death through be-headings. For a time in England, you could be sent to jail for 2 to 5 years. Through a Christian view (which is the view I am going to communicate through the most) homosexuality is a sin. It is not what the body is designed for. When God created both man and woman, he specifically designed that relationship for reproduction. For two people of the same gender to engage in sexual activities, they usual retract diseases that can only be obtained through sexual processes. So if you are a person who believes nature, obviously something is telling us that this activity is not meant to be.

Now a relationship with two people of the same gender is not wrong, to an extent. We can have best friends that involve hugs, laughs, and intrusions of personal space, but not on a level of sexual activities. You may ask for what this median relationship that we have is? I can tell you, personally as a guy and a football player, we would go outside, workout for hours, get rolled in the dirt, and be bruised bleeding and in pain at the end of it; but at the end, we would come together at the end of each practice and game, hugging each other"s sweaty smelly bodies, telling each other that we love them, and congratulate them on their hard work. Having this aura of a love that is not sexual in any way. A lot of us like to call it a "Brotherhood". This is actually called, "brotherly affection". If you have a brother, you hug him, kiss him, mess around with him, annoy him and all of that good stuff, but that is not gay.

Gay relationships mostly go on the levels of marriage and sexual behavior. Which is not the right relationship. It"s wrong because, as a Christian, God instructed us to not engage in such "strange" activities. Marriage and sex is meant for the relationship of a married male and female. Not a male and male, or a female, and female. The immorality goes even deeper. Not just in spiritual relationships, but social relationships too. Society in general. Porn plays a big part of this. The idea is not, sex is bad. The idea is, what I want should be right. And that is impossible. Not everyone can have their way. If it was, then the whole world would have been in perfect unity already. Gayness pushes through the boundaries of what is right. If we get the idea that it"s about what I want, then who cares about what other people want, or even what is right.

I would continue, because this continues to a whole network of issues in society and life in general, but I will stop here. I do want to ask you another question. If you requested to be taken easy on, then why would you pick such a controversial topic? I will assure you that I will not argue in a mean and dirty way at all, but I want to express my full concern for this topic.

Thank you, now your turn. (wink)
Debate Round No. 1


So from the Christian viewpoint homosexuality is a sin. I don't see a reason not to sin. A world without sin defeats the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross. In a world without sin Jesus would have died for nothing.

The Christian and Muslim view is that morality comes from the teachings of their God. First you have to assume that your God exists. If a person says that something is wrong because it is against the teachings and the moral code of their God, they are claiming to know the mind of a God. In a world of religious pluralism how can a person abide by every god's moral standard. If a person agrees with divine command theory, are they making decisions based on whether they will be rewarded or punished after death? Wouldn't that be a bias? Is it reasonable to have a moral code based on coercion, under the threat of a being that may not even exist? Then there is the rebuttal, that god's commands are not imposed, it is a person's choice as to whether or not they want to reject God. The problem is that if you reject his teachings, in some interpretations the punishment is eternal hellfire and torture, and the reward for following his teachings is a pleasant afterlife. In this system people are making "moral" decisions for the wrong reasons, they have impure motivations.

Morality is subjective. Nothing is inherently good or evil, or right or wrong. When people claim that there are objective moral principles, those principles usually agree with what those people subjectively feel to be true. To your statement that "if you are a person that believes nature , obviously something is telling us that this activity is not meant to be", morality isn't present in nature. The universe has no opinion on whether or not something is right or not. There are no moral absolutes. Homosexuality isn't wrong or right.

I agree that one group saying that "what I want should be right". Is an incredibly weird thing to say. Nothing inherently is moral or immoral. Morality is man-made. Saying that being gay is wrong is to say an opinion and not the truth. All statements that something is absolutely wrong or right hold no credibility, but they would if the God was proved to exist, and that no other gods exist. For divine command theory to work there must only be one God and no others, and if there are others they must all agree on every decision concerning morality. Otherwise gods just hold different feeling and opinions about morality just as we do.

I want to do a hard topic because otherwise I think I would be wasting my time. I'm learning whether I win or lose. :)


Well, you just turned this argument to a new topic!

So there is no right or wrong? So you would not have a problem with me driving to your home, knocking on your door, and when you answer, I will stab you 20 times in the chest until you are dead, and I will simply walk away as if nothing serious happened. Do you know why, because it is not wrong. Why should anyone judge me for killing you for any reason when there is nothing wrong about it? You"re just simply viewing life as a bag of chemicals. Why should it be wrong for a bag of chemicals to do something to another bag of chemicals?

If there is no right or wrong, if there is no morality, then there will be chaos. Because simply put with your statement, we do not need a police force, or an army. We do not need to take action against terrorist attacks. I can go about rapeing any girl I like, I can kill whoever I want, I can do anything I please, because there is no right or wrong. I should not go to jail for what I have done.

Another issue is there would be no centralization for organization. Infact, if we did not have rules for right and wrong, we would have no countries. There would be no one to rally behind. We would all be single minded in our motives and opinions.

Man can make their own morality, but the idea of morality was not created by man. God gave us rules, we did not create them. I also want to put out a thought provoking statement. All these nations have been formed, but so far the U.S., in it"s first 200 years of life, has been the most successful nation in the world, and it is one of the only few nations, that have been founded on Biblical principles. Just think about it.

My response to some of the comments:

Geho89, when animals do something, does that mean humans should do it too? Just because animals exert strange sexual behavior, does not mean that humans should mimic it. Like we would not lick our selves clean like a cat, or shed our hair on our bodies, do to changes in temperature. That"s what animals do. We got showers and clothes to take care of use for that. How is it that when God is brought up, it is biased? I will go out on an assumption that Pro is atheist. So he is basing his argument on that, "Man chooses what is right and wrong." To your statement, pro too, is being biased. He just did not bring up any religious beliefs in league with his ideal. Being a young man of the faith (you and I) I would hope that this would become clear. If we argue anything, on a topic on life, without the guidance of God"s teachings, then we have already lost the argument. There is no middle ground to debating. You are either arguing on their view or the view you posses. Plus, this debate is listed in religion"

Breakingamber 1, your statement brings up an entirely new debate. You are basing your argument in favor of pro. If I were to fight on that idea, then there would be no reason for me to be in this debate, because pro would be right. There has to be to opposing ideas in order for there to be an argument. If you wish, you could go set up your own debate on that statement, and see the outcome.

TheDeAndreOglesby, can you give me "undisputable evidence" on the origin of life? Religion is faith on ideas that cannot be proven by science. You cannot believe Evolution without faith either, for no man posses the knowledge at the time of creation. No one was there. No one can recreate the event. No one cannot go back and observe it. Science cannot prove it"s origin. Christianity cannot prove its origin either. All we have are 6,000 year old documents, and the interpretation of today"s conditions. Religion is necessary to bring up. Without it, we have nothing to start our philosophy with. We would be better off trying to explain on how the existence of everything is just simply one big potato through the logical findings of cosmology.
Debate Round No. 2


The universe has no stance on death or rape or abortion, there is no evidence that the universe has an opinion on what is right or wrong. I'm not saying that it can't, because nobody can really know, but why pretend that something exists if there is no evidence for it? Even if there is historical evidence that agrees with the events that happen in the bible(little to none), there is still uncertainty without supernatural evidence.

You propose that the universe does have an opinion, and that opinion is declared by a celestial being. I would love to see evidence for that claim. Without evidence for this being you are basically saying that all morality comes from an imaginary friend. My friend Steven came up with morality, and Steven is always correct, what Steven says is wrong is wrong.

Then you said this, which was interesting.

"TheDeAndreOglesby, can you give me "undisputable evidence" on the origin of life? Religion is faith on ideas that cannot be proven by science. You cannot believe Evolution without faith either, for no man posses the knowledge at the time of creation. No one was there. No one can recreate the event. No one cannot go back and observe it. Science cannot prove it"s origin. Christianity cannot prove its origin either. All we have are 6,000 year old documents, and the interpretation of today"s conditions. Religion is necessary to bring up. Without it, we have nothing to start our philosophy with. We would be better off trying to explain on how the existence of everything is just simply one big potato through the logical findings of cosmology."

To say that something has to be taken on faith because "no one was there" is a very odd claim. Even if a scientific theory is debunked, it is replaced with a more accurate theory. We have observed evolution in bacteria.

When you say -
"Science cannot prove it"s origin. Christianity cannot prove its origin either."

At least science is trying to figure out how abiogenesis happened, and is trying to prove things, for example evolution has pretty much become a scientific fact. Yes there is a theory, but it is using the scientific definition of the word "theory". The bible isn't even attempt to prove or discover something new, it's job is to tell the reader that "this is how things are, end of conversation".

Then there was this comment

"But you should also know that all languages evolve. Having new words implemented into their speech every year, to accommodate missing translations. Plus, English (so far) is one of the most complicated languages in the world. If we find a word in another language we don't have, well you can expect a new word to pop up in our dictionary in the next few months."

I'm confused how a person can reject the idea of evolution, and then later go on to say that something can undergo small changes over relatively long periods of time.

Anyways back to the actual debate.

As social beings humans tend to prefer the loss of another species over a loss of someone who is a human, we have empathy for each other, compared to other animals humans used to very weak, and we still would be without the tools we have today. People organized out of self-interest. Why not kill other people? Why not rape and steal? Most people have been drilled and conditioned from the time they were born to follow the laws of their society. Societies adopted these laws in the first place for the well being of the tribe. Don't kill because you are killing your security and the people who help you hunt for food. For a society to work there must be a moral standard set up to avoid chaos and to ensure order. This standard is usually set by an authority figure or group of leaders. The idea that something is right or wrong because a God says so seems like an appeal to authority. How can anyone tell if a god's views on certain topics are just his/her opinions?

Why should the ideas of one religion be favored over another. Is something wrong because one group says it's wrong? I agree with you when you say that religion is the start of philosophy, but now we have science, we have philosophy. We have a method for finding out what likely happened to cause the universe to form. Religion is not needed anymore. Groups can say that it's wrong to be gay, and people can set up moral codes for their societies. Morality is man made, and made only for man. Disagree? Point me out to where God lays down the rules that animals have to follow. Like you suggest we have to look at religion, it is our earliest attempt at philosophy before logic and empiricism. Most religions claim that their objective moral values are the right ones, and that the others are incorrect. Without evidence that proves without a doubt that your claim is correct, I see no reason to accept that claim as true. People usually do not do horrible things because over time, people have figured out that allowing some things and criminalizing others leads to a more healthy and prosperous community. It is easier to teach the youth of a society that all morality is objective and unquestionable. When people start to question practices and traditions, culture begins to change. When entire countries in the past have established a national religion, and claimed that their religion's moral values are the correct ones, they are making a false claim. It is a way to control and a way to prevent instability. The modern world has no need for this, we are more democratic. People can question their beliefs without being persecuted. Societies can claim that something is moral or immoral depending on whether or not it harms or benefits the community, but this claim is completely out of self interest. What I want to be true should be true. God says it's bad, I think it's bad, my friends think it's bad. These are all opinions, they are feelings. It may be true that in their eyes they view it as immoral, but this means nothing when we are talking about whether there are moral right or wrongs that are true regardless of anyone's beliefs. Prove your God exists and he is the only God and maybe divine command theory will be plausible. Otherwise I see no reason why homosexuality is absolutely right or wrong. It is neither moral or immoral.


The Universe has no stance on death, rape or abortion? Whatever do you mean? The Universe itself has no self-consciousness. The Universe has no opinion. It is only a vessel (speaking in relational terms). The universe does not decides what happens. It is only a place for which these things can happen in. Say like, "There is a box of water, then someone drops a rock in the water, causing splashes and movement. The box is the universe, it had nothing to do with the rock being dropped except host the event. The water is all the things in life. The movement in the water is the activity that happens in life. The rock is the external influence that puts everything in motion. We intend to look upon things that is only in the box, and we forget to look on what"s happening outside the box. As the box is everything we can observe, to where outside is the supernatural influence. Not supernatural as in paranormal, supernatural as in spiritual. This example is best explained by Dr. Del Tackett from the Video Series, "The Truth Project"

To explain God"s existence to my best at the moment is to give you a paragraph from a research paper I did a year back. Here: "Science is, basically, what we use to prove something real through testing, and observations. So how can we use tested observations to prove God. Manly we will use the environment. [One] simple thing right? Let"s look at our home, Earth. Just see how perfect our living space is. The whole place is just right. The size is the right amount for gravity, and atmosphere. Our world is at a perfectly calculated distance from the sun for temperature. The moon is also at the right distance for pressure against the Earth. Without the moon, we would have almost no ocean waves and no natural light for the night. The atmosphere is so precise with its layers to keep the right substances inside, like: Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, moisture, and heat. If there was even a slight change in the make-up of our atmosphere, we would all die. Life would be impossible. If there were any slight changes to any of these placements, there could be no life. Random chance cannot produce such exact conditions. It is just impossible. It"s like they are designed. Is there a solution? Yes, there is God. He created the conditions for us. Just right for human beings to live, and not for any other intellectual species. Earth was specifically made for us. So our environment shows it cannot even exist without a creator" ("This principle of causation is so fundamental that if I said that the chair you are sitting on, which must have had a beginning, just popped into existence without any cause, you might justifiably think I need a psychiatric assessment!" -Don Batten)"
To see my entire paper (The topic, if God created the Universe, then Who Created God) you can go to the provided link to read the document on google drive yourself:

The opinion I think your trying to point out is that the evidence we see in our surroundings points to a creator. True, but let me clarify, the perspective you are viewing this is in a way that the Universe put it there. But it did not. If it did, you would be right and we can stop debating. God put it there: The plants, animals, insects, and laws of nature, all of it! God created the Universe. The Universe did not create itself.

Should I remind you that the "Theories" you have are still speculative. It"s not odd at all. We see the world around us, and then we interpret it. We can only use what we have today to find out what happened back then. We interpret the world through the Bible, you interpret the world through the Origin of Species. We all have the same evidence, but different interpretations. The question is, "Which story fits best with the world?" So far, your "Big Bang Theory" is still a theory, because it has not been scientifically proven. In fact, the last I checked, it still defies the laws of thermodynamics. That"s why you can"t call it The Law of the Big Bang.

Religion and science cannot, together or alone, discover our origin. They both strive to find out, but still, we can only use our best interpretation. It"s all left up to conviction. Plus, Christianity and science do coexist with each other. Just that it does no coexist with Darwin"s interpretation of science.

Evolution is real. Now, don"t be so shock at my statement. The evolution of species, as interpreted by Evolutionary scientists, is false (to our claim). But the evolution of the Cell Phone is true. Man can evolve his tools. Making them better, to improve their performance when in use. The evolution of Video Games is real. The Evolution of computers is real. The Evolution of Transportation is real. See, it"s not so confusing; and notice how all of it is influenced by a creator. A human creator, changes his tools to best suite his needs.

You address that society rallies behind leaders to form tribes, which will eventually become nations. They set a moral standard. So right there, you just said that there is right and wrong. The issue we are not Seeing Eye to eye is that there is a Universal Moral Standard. This is where Truth has to prevail. The moral Standard has to be set be the sovereign authority. The one who rules all. No there are other leaders, who are human, who come up with their own moral code, and to him it is right. But in Truth, is it really? Moral Codes do have to be established to avoid chaos, and the whole point of this debate is whether or not being Gay, violates that moral code. If there is no universal moral code, then people would not follow leader"s moral standards unless it met their personal interest. That means if the standard no longer met that personal requirement, then the moral standard no longer applies.

Why should the ideas of one religion be favored over another? Because not all religions speak Truth. Truth belongs to one. Truth does not change. Wherever you go, no matter what you have heard or seen, Truth has no mixed opinions. It is one, universal view. Some other religions may poses some moral codes that identifies itself with the Truth, but in all honesty, it is not perfect. To be a True Religion, it has to be 100%.

Saying science replaces religion is like saying the Legislative Branch no replaces the Executive Branch. No, Religion is the study of the Truth, Philosophy is the study of our moral codes, and Science is the study of our environment. We need all of it.
Man can make Morals, but Man did not make the idea of morality. Morality is an idea that was implemented into creation. Our wisdom and knowledge can only go as far as what is in creation. Try something for me. Can you imagine a new thing? A new something that does currently exist that has anything relational to what has already been created? We cannot. We cannot imagine ourselves a new color on the visible spectrum. We cannot imagine a creature that has no body parts or purposes in relation to body parts or purposes of creature we have today, etc"

Since when has criminalizing has ever benefited humanity. Perhaps, a criminal act may better a society, but what about the individual who is victimized in the process. You see, the view you just placed in that we should do our best to benefit the bigger side of society, whether or not the lesser of the society get hurt or not. This is where you again are introducing right and wrong. I do not believe in bettering just one select group. All should be benefited. Though I do see the point where only one can be benefited, or in some cases, saved. But at the perspective that there is a right and wrong to it.

Yes, there are also countries that change their culture and claim that their morals are right, all for the purpose of stability. The issue is that there is a universal code for us to follow. Also, who do you think made the establishment of a democratic people? CHRISTIANITY! Christians established the United States of America"s governmental establishment. Saying we need to be able to agree and disagree with other"s beliefs is agreeing with the view of Christianity. It is the way we use to make sure people are not stepping out of place. Making sure that the moral code is being upheld in the right way. It is also the way so that others can hear the Word of God, so that they may be ministered to. It is also that we may hear other"s views so that the claim that Christianity is so closed minded, is invalid. We hear you, and would like to talk about it. That"s basically why we have this debate system.

Why do animals not have morals? It is because they were not set on the earth to rule. Man was placed in creation to rule the plants, animals, and land that God provided. Animals are supplies to our needs. Whether it is for pets, for using equipment, or for food. Animals do not have a place to be elevated over man. They will never evolve into intelligent beings. They will never build buildings on their own. They will never change their form enough into that of intelligent design; and they will never form a society advanced enough to be able to form complex communication so that the can build phones and send each other emotes and selfies.

And this is why it is wrong for a person to be gay.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OnlineMissionary197 8 months ago
Thanks Harry!
Posted by harrytruman 8 months ago
Vote: Con
This is a debate on morality, hence the moral side wins out instantaneously as the burden of proof has been filled, because morality is self evident. Pro hasn't offered any proof to suggest otherwise, and went off subject too many times, AND because Con offered physical proof but Pro didn't, I will have to decide Con, sorry Pro.
Posted by LearnLiveLove 10 months ago
Seriously?! No votes? That's absurd. If I would have know about this debate I would have definitely voted.
Posted by arc9 10 months ago
Aww man
Posted by OnlineMissionary197 10 months ago
No Votes? A shame... I thought this was a really great debate.
Posted by arc9 11 months ago
Posted by OnlineMissionary197 11 months ago
Posted by arc9 11 months ago
Well yah he's a secular Christian.
Posted by OnlineMissionary197 11 months ago
True, in the first years of our nation not only there were Christians, but other secularists. But I want you to also take note of one secularist. One who signed the declaration of Independence. For a man who did not believe himself to be a man of God said this:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth " that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest."

At the time he was considered a liberal, but he knew without God, there would be no successful nation. And as we today turn away from Him, we can be assured the only sign we will receive from God, is the sign of Jonah. Translation, our destruction.
Posted by arc9 11 months ago
Yah I don't know if saying "it's just impossible" for the universe to be created by random chance was very intelligent, because after all how would you know? It seems like it's just very improbable. And also the part about Christians making the US government yes many of them were Christians, but they were incredibly secular, and some were deists and even anti-theists(very few).
No votes have been placed for this debate.