The Instigator
Laticon
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
lolzors93
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

It's wrong to be gay.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
lolzors93
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 977 times Debate No: 49900
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Laticon

Pro

Before anyone comes into this debate, I would like the make it clear that i'm not anti-gay. If that's what they want to be then that's totally fine. But I disagree that it is right to be gay because of my views and the way I look at life. So I would enjoy it if someone convinced me otherwise on this topic.
lolzors93

Con

There is nothing wrong with being gay, since homosexuality is simply the desire of a person with regards to sexuality: a person who sexually desires those of the opposite sex is a heterosexual, a person who sexually desires those of the same sex is a homosexual. In fact, one could carry this thought to "abnormal" sexual desires, such as the desire for animals or children. How a person responds to the desire is what matters.

Let us suppose that I am a pedophile. I am sexually attracted to children. I desire to have sexual relations with children. The desire is not what matters, but how one responds to the desire. If one rebukes the desire, and withholds action, then everything is fine. If one acts on it, then one has done wrong. Simply being a certain way is not what matters; how one acts on it is what matters.
Debate Round No. 1
Laticon

Pro

Before I make my argument I would like to say welcome and I like your starting argument.

But first and foremost I agree with it does matter how someone responds to the desires. But does that make the desires right? In today we like to say that people are just born "gay", which hasn't even been proved in anyway. From at least what I know it hasn't been proved. That's like saying I was born to believe in God. Which clearly that was a choice of mine as I grew up.

What makes this desire for the same sex so wrong is that it helps nothing. We cant deny that we as mammals are meant to reproduce. Having sex or any other intercourse with the same sex doesn't help life move on. We move away of what we were meant to do for out own personal desires. I don't know how that's not wrong.

Now as I go into this argument explaining where it says in the Bible that its wrong, I would like to say that being gay is no more of a sin as being a murderer. But we obviously don't believe that being a murderer is right. In Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" ESV. Now you cant argue that being gay is right if you believe in Gods word and laws. Saying Gay is right as a believer is like saying murder is right.

But I would like to end it on that note.
lolzors93

Con

"But first and foremost I agree with it does matter how someone responds to the desires. But does that make the desires right? In today we like to say that people are just born "gay", which hasn't even been proved in anyway. From at least what I know it hasn't been proved. That's like saying I was born to believe in God. Which clearly that was a choice of mine as I grew up."

-----

Reformed Christian theology teaches that in fact we choose God when we are "born again." Our nature determines our actions, since good trees bear good fruit. Likewise, people who choose gay actions are born gay, or are at least born with the natural inclination towards gay actions. Does this negate the responsibility of choosing not to do gay actions? No. Simply because their nature demands them to do x, it does not negate the moral implications of it, as deterministic, metaphysical philosophers believe, myself being one of them. Moreover, how can one choose to be gay, when choice is simply the cognition of desire?

---

"What makes this desire for the same sex so wrong is that it helps nothing. We cant deny that we as mammals are meant to reproduce. Having sex or any other intercourse with the same sex doesn't help life move on. We move away of what we were meant to do for out own personal desires. I don't know how that's not wrong."

----

Desires do not help anyone. The desire for heterosexual relations help no one either. The actions are the thing that affect others, but being gay is not an action; it is what leads to action, if no competing desire cancels it out. But nevertheless, heterosexuals who cannot reproduce do not help further the animal kingdom, since they cannot reproduce. In fact, gay people who have come to a realization that gay actions are wrong, having turned to Christ, many of the times try to live out a heterosexual lifestyle, having a family and everything. Gay people can have families.

----

"Now as I go into this argument explaining where it says in the Bible that its wrong, I would like to say that being gay is no more of a sin as being a murderer. But we obviously don't believe that being a murderer is right. In Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" ESV. Now you cant argue that being gay is right if you believe in Gods word and laws. Saying Gay is right as a believer is like saying murder is right."

----

Leviticus 18:22 establishes that gay actions are the things to which condemnation should occur. This means that heterosexuals who engage in homosexual relations (e.g. porn star) are just as condemned as homosexuals who engage in homosexual relations. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns homosexuality, the desire. The only thing it condemns is the actions of it.
Debate Round No. 2
Laticon

Pro

Before we start the 3rd round, I feel as if we have strayed away from the actual topic. The topic does not say "It's wrong to desire homosexuality". It clearly says "It's wrong to be gay". So as I will ask, will we redirect our debate back to the topic at hand. Thank you.
--
"Leviticus 18:22 establishes that gay actions are the things to which condemnation should occur. This means that heterosexuals who engage in homosexual relations (e.g. porn star) are just as condemned as homosexuals who engage in homosexual relations. There is nothing in the bible that condemns homosexuality, the desire. The only thing it condemns is the actions of it."
--
Indeed it does say that it will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. And it seems that we have got in this debate about "desire". Correct me if I'm wrong but "desire" means to have a strong want for something. That means you are not there yet. The topic is about BEING gay. So if you are making homosexual actions then you will be condemned by God.
--
"Desires do not help anyone. The desire for heterosexual relations help no one either. The Actions are the thing that affect others, but being gay is not an action; it is what leads to action, if no competing desire cancels it out. But nevertheless, heterosexuals who cannot reproduce do not help further the animal kingdom, since they cannot reproduce. In fact, gay people who have come to a realization that gay actions are wrong, having turned to Christ, Many of the tines try to live out a heterosexual lifestyle, having a family and everything. Gay people can have families".
--
Your completely right that desires do not help anyone. Forgive me that I have left the topic to talk about desires last round. If I don't do Christian things and don't get baptise as an example, then am I not a Christian? No, I still love God and I still believe that Christ died and rose from the grave for me. If you are gay and don't do sexual things with man but still love a man in a sexual way is that not the same? But if you want to make the argument that its all about the "actions" then fine. You are not gay unless you have sexual intercourse with the same sex. So practice what you preach. But either way it doesn't make it right to be homosexual.
---
"Reformed Christian theology teaches that in fact we choose God when we are 'born again'. Our nature determines our actions, since good trees bear good fruit. Likewise, people who choose gay actions are born gay, or are at least born with the natural inclination towards gay actions. Does this negate the responsibility of choosing not to do gay actions? No. Simply because their nature demands them to do x, it does not negate the moral implications of it, as deterministic, metaphysical philosophers believe, myself being one of them. Moreover, now can one choose to be gay, when choice is simply the cognition of desire."
---
You are right once again, we are "born again" when we choose God and a good tree does bear good fruit. Unfortunately for humanity, none of us are good trees. Which leads to an abundance of sinful choices. Only Christ himself beard good fruit. So with the fact that were all bad trees, we all lead to making bad choices. No ones born gay. No ones born a murderer either. We are just born with the unfortunate reality that we are going to make bad choices. But does that make being homosexual good? No.
lolzors93

Con

"Before we start the 3rd round, I feel as if we have strayed away from the actual topic. The topic does not say "It's wrong to desire homosexuality". It clearly says "It's wrong to be gay". So as I will ask, will we redirect our debate back to the topic at hand. Thank you."
--
You said, "The love or lust for another man if you are a man. Or the same thing for Women." is what the debate is about. That means that actions are irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality.
--
"Indeed it does say that it will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. And it seems that we have got in this debate about "desire". Correct me if I'm wrong but "desire" means to have a strong want for something. That means you are not there yet. The topic is about BEING gay. So if you are making homosexual actions then you will be condemned by God."
--
Thats what being gay means: that one has the desire for those of the same sex. Heterosexuals who commit homosexual relations are not gay, though they have done gay actions. Actions do not make one anything; being gay is what makes one gay.
--
"Your completely right that desires do not help anyone. Forgive me that I have left the topic to talk about desires last round. If I don't do Christian things and don't get baptise as an example, then am I not a Christian? No, I still love God and I still believe that Christ died and rose from the grave for me. If you are gay and don't do sexual things with man but still love a man in a sexual way is that not the same? But if you want to make the argument that its all about the "actions" then fine. You are not gay unless you have sexual intercourse with the same sex. So practice what you preach. But either way it doesn't make it right to be homosexual."
---
People can be homosexual without acting on it. You're begging the question. Can a person be a heterosexual without acting on those desires? Of course! People are heterosexual or homosexual regardless as to whether or not they do anything based in those desires.
---
"You are right once again, we are "born again" when we choose God and a good tree does bear good fruit. Unfortunately for humanity, none of us are good trees. Which leads to an abundance of sinful choices. Only Christ himself beard good fruit. So with the fact that were all bad trees, we all lead to making bad choices. No ones born gay. No ones born a murderer either. We are just born with the unfortunate reality that we are going to make bad choices. But does that make being homosexual good? No."
---
People are born gay. But that doesn't make it right.
Debate Round No. 3
Laticon

Pro

You said, "The love or lust for another man if you are a man. Or the same thing for Women." is what the debate is about. That means that actions are irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality.
---
Is Love not an action? Is that not something we do? Indeed it has other meanings but if you are going into a debate you have to be open minded to all the meanings. So actions are relevant in this topic. As love and lust both do have verb meanings.

"Thats what being gay means" that one has the desire for those of the same sex. Heterosexuals who commit homosexual relations are not gay, though they have done gay actions. Actions do not make one anything; being gay is what makes one gay".
"People can be homosexual without action on it. You're begging the question. Can a person be a heterosexual without acting on those desires? Of course! People are heterosexual or homosexual regardless as to whether or no they do anything based in those desires".
--
You are right; being gay does mean having a desire for the same sex. And before we move to anything else, God does not look at the outer flesh of your body. God looks at you heart and what it desires. Samuel 1 16:7 it says "But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart'." ESV. Being a fellow Christian would you not know that God doesn't condemn by the actions of what you do. But what's in your heart? What you believed and desired in your soul is what God will judge on Judgement day. (This paragraph has covered two of my opponents last two points that he made against me).
--
People are born gay. But that doesn't make it right.
--
I disagree that people are "born gay". In my opinion that's just a poor excuse for people to make it okay to be homosexual. I would love for my opponent to give me a link or proof that you can actually be "born gay". "But that doesn't make it right." I totally agree with my opponent on that saying. It doesn't make it right. Unless proved otherwise, I believe my opponent has agreed with me as I have made the debate that it isn't right to be gay and he has said it himself that it isn't right to be gay.
--
As I close my last argument I would love to say Thank you to my opponent for the debate. This is my first debate and he made it a good experience for me. So thank you sir.
I would also like to conclude my final argument. Being gay is wrong and I felt like I made a strong enough case to back that up.
As my opponent finishes with last argument, I would like to say this to the voters. Don't vote because of your point of view. I ask that you vote for the sake of who had a better case in his hands. I respect all of my opponents views on life and I would hope that people would respect mine as well.
lolzors93

Con

"Is Love not an action? Is that not something we do? Indeed it has other meanings but if you are going into a debate you have to be open minded to all the meanings. So actions are relevant in this topic. As love and lust both do have verb meanings."
----
Can a person who is bed ridden, and can neither move nor speak, love someone? Of course! People can love others without doing anything; love is an emotion, which is displayed in action.
--
"You are right; being gay does mean having a desire for the same sex. And before we move to anything else, God does not look at the outer flesh of your body. God looks at you heart and what it desires. Samuel 1 16:7 it says "But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart'." ESV. Being a fellow Christian would you not know that God doesn't condemn by the actions of what you do. But what's in your heart? What you believed and desired in your soul is what God will judge on Judgement day. (This paragraph has covered two of my opponents last two points that he made against me)."
--
Of course God looks at the desires on many things. But that does not mean that the desires are intrinsically condemned. Hatred is condemned because it is equivalent to having murder. Lust is condemned because it is equivalent to sexual immorality. Homosexuality is simply a desire that is innate in a person, just as heterosexuality is. No where in the Bible does it condemn homosexuality, the desire. It only condemns the actions of it. Can a person not have the intrinsic desire for a man, but suppress that, thinking it to be wrong? Of course! People do it all the time. Even Christians, after having been born again, have desires for sin, since they live in the flesh, which tempts them constantly, but the desires themselves are not condemned. When the Bible talks about the heart, it is referring to a person exercising the desire (e.g. lusting, hating, contemplating, etc.).
--
As I close my last argument I would love to say Thank you to my opponent for the debate. This is my first debate and he made it a good experience for me. So thank you sir.
I would also like to conclude my final argument. Being gay is wrong and I felt like I made a strong enough case to back that up.
As my opponent finishes with last argument, I would like to say this to the voters. Don't vote because of your point of view. I ask that you vote for the sake of who had a better case in his hands. I respect all of my opponents views on life and I would hope that people would respect mine as well.
---
Indeed. Indubitably.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tristboi22 3 years ago
Tristboi22
As for Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

If you read the first sentence in Genesis 19, it says what that "strange flesh" or "unnatural desire" actually was; "1Now the two ANGELS came to Sodom..." The "strange flesh" were "angels", not men. Furthermore, Genesis 19:3-5, "3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom"both young and old"surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we?
Posted by Tristboi22 3 years ago
Tristboi22
+lozors93
I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. http://carm.org.........
The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak."
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Old OR New Testament.
Posted by Tristboi22 3 years ago
Tristboi22
+lozors93
I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. http://carm.org.........
The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak."
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Old OR New Testament.
Posted by lolzors93 3 years ago
lolzors93
The Bible condemns homosexual actions in 1 Corinthians 6, which is the New Testament. That being said, no verse in the Bible condemns the desire.
Posted by Tristboi22 3 years ago
Tristboi22
Temptation is NOT sin. Jesus was tempted in the desert for forty days and forty nights. He never sinned. Even if you buy the argument that the Bible condemns all homosexual acts (which it does NOT), there is no evidence to suggest that having gay desires is a sin or "wrong". Pro's only argument that being gay is "wrong" (other than stating Biblical verses), had to do with procreation. When the Bible was written, the population of the world was a lot smaller and reproduction would make sense. Did it ever occur to anyone that gay people might be nature's way of population control? There are enough people already!
Posted by Tristboi22 3 years ago
Tristboi22
Even if Leviticus DID say that homosexuality is a sin (which it does NOT), we are not under the law anymore, but under grace. In fact, Galatians 5:14 says, "The entire law is summed up in this one; love your neighbor as yourself." Where is "gay" or "homosexuality" mentioned in that verse? Furthermore, Romans 10:4 says, "For Christ is the END OF THE LAW for all those that believe."

By the way, the Hebrew translation of Lev 18:22 reads:
(Hebrew) "V'et-zachar lo tishkav mish'k' vei ishah"
Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing.
Most English translations leave the word, "bedding" or "laying" out the verse when translated.
" "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526)
The ENTIRE meaning is lost from it's original translation! The Bible was not written if English. The original manuscripts were written in Greek and Hebrew. Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible.
Posted by Laticon 3 years ago
Laticon
In a lot of places actually I will name off a few if you like?
Posted by lolzors93 3 years ago
lolzors93
Where in the Bible, Claymore, does it establish that being gay is wrong?
Posted by Claymore 3 years ago
Claymore
Iv read the debate. I, in no way see how Con has made it "right to be gay". For that reason alone i consider Pro the victor and no other justification is requeired.
Posted by Laticon 3 years ago
Laticon
It's only Blasphemy if you are for it!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Laticonlolzors93Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed Pro's bad logic by using an appeal to basic metaphysics. Pro never really responded to this point by Con effectively, and merely claimed Con had "strayed from the topic", which is a ludicrous claim. Con gets sources because he used the bible quotes on homosexuality precisely, while Pro misused quotes about homosexual action being wrong in order to argue his view that the desire itself is wrong.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
Laticonlolzors93Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a more convincing argument am proved the reasons why been a gay is wrong but con who decided to be a rebuttal agent gave no actual source of information. Pro convinced and did justice to is burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 3 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
Laticonlolzors93Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shows that under a biblical framework, gay action is immoral, but not gay desires.