The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,479 times Debate No: 79119
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (51)
Votes (2)




Hello. Lannan and I independently have wanted to do a debate on this issue, so this should make for a good debate! Here are the rules:

1. By "The Bible," I refer to the 39 Old Testament books Genesis–Malachi (the books of the Apocrypha, for example, are excluded) and the 27 New Testament books Matthew–Revelation.
2. It will be assumed that the books mentioned above cannot contradict each other in teaching.
3. By "condemns," I mean that doers of the object of the proposition (homosexuality) are condemned by its subject (the Bible) and thus have violated the will of God.
4. By "homosexuality," I refer to sexual activity with a person of the same sex.[1] It also will refer to the marriage of those of the same sex. Also, for the purpose of this debate, if sexual activity with a person of the same sex is condemned, it will be assumed that homosexual (gay) marriage is also condemned, and vice versa.
5. Round 1 is for acceptance only.
6. Round 2 is for the opening arguments. No rebuttals are permitted.
7. Round 3 is for rebuttals.
8. Round 4 is for rebuttals and the conclusions of the debate.
9. No semantics are permitted.
10. Trolling is not permitted.
11. No kritiks are allowed.
12. The burden of proof (BOP) is shared between Con and myself. I will be attempting to demonstrate that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible; Con will attempt to show homosexuality as being permitted by the Bible.

Thank you, and may the right man win!

[1] Though unnecessary for this debate, definition taken from


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Lannan, for accepting this debate. To begin, I would like to reference an account in the Bible of Jesus with the Pharisees: The Pharisees came to Jesus and said, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:2).[1] Jesus asked, “What did Moses command you?” to which the Pharisees answered, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her” (vv. 3–4). This is when Jesus gives the answer to the question: “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (vv. 5–9). There are two points regarding marriage from this account that I would like to point out:

1. that the teachings regarding marriage from the law of Moses (the Old Testament) are not the means Christians (those following the teachings of Jesus the Christ) are under, and
2. that Jesus brought marriage back to the way it was before the law of Moses, the way it was “from the beginning of the creation.”

A question that should be asked is, “Why did Jesus say in vv. 5–6 that although Moses gave permission to divorce, ‘from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female”’? What does being made male and female have to do with divorce?” Clearly, Jesus is not just answering their question but is speaking more generally, how marriage began and how His followers are to consider it. Therefore, this is a critical passage to learn 1) what Jesus says marriage is and 2) who can and who cannot enter into marriage, according to Jesus.

The obvious reason Jesus begins by saying that people were made male and female is that sex (gender) is, in actuality, a factor in Jesus’ design for marriage. Why would He bring up the two sexes in His speech if such were unrelated to marriage? Then in vv. 7–8, further quoting Genesis, He says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This excludes polygamous (more than “the two” becoming “one flesh”), bestial (a man/woman and some animal), and yes, homosexual (a gender-neutral version of Jesus’ statement) marriages. I hear people say that Jesus never condemned homosexual marriage; He may not have explicitly condemned it—by saying what marriage is not—but He has implicitly condemned it—by saying what marriage is:

In addition, Sodom shows that homosexuality was condemned before the law of Moses. In the city of Sodom, Lot was having angels at his house, and before they went to sleep, "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally [i.e., have sex with them]'" (Gen. 19:4-5). Lot, knowing this to be wicked (v. 6-7), offered his two daughters instead (v. 8), not that this would have been good either. Some have argued that the men of Sodom simply were being inhospitable. While this clearly was the case (i.e., they clearly were being inhospitable), Jude says that it was because that they "had gone after strange flesh" (i.e., "because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities," GWV) that they were condemned (Jude 7). Therefore it is clear that homosexuality was condemned before the law of Moses.

Also, homosexuality was condemned even during the law of Moses (the Old Testament). If someone were to commit homosexuality, they were to be put to death (Lev. 20: 13). The author of The New Bible Dictionary, however, has taught that since homosexuality was performed in "idolatrous cult prostituition," that was why it was wrong during the law of Moses. In other words, it is taught that since 1) idolaters did these things, and 2) God abhors idolaters, therefore 3) the actions listed, which include homosexuality, are condemned. However, if you read down the commandments all the way to Leviticus 20:23, 10 verses later, then it will be seen that God s
ays, "And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things [i.e., the things that were just listed, including homosexuality], and therefore I abhor them." While this may at first seem to confirm what was taught in The New Bible Dictionary, it actually is teaching the converse. Instead of homosexuality being wrong because of the foreign, idolatrous nations were doing it, the foreign, idolatrous nations were abhored because they commited these sins; again, "they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them" (v. 23). However, it already has been established that Jesus' model for marraige is not based on the Old Testament anyway (though for this sin, it may still qualify, as the Old Testament shows homosexuality to be an unnatural abomination).

Finally, Jesus’ apostles also condemned homosexuality. Jesus told them that they would be guided “into all truth” (John 16:13). One of them, Peter, said that Paul, who says that he also is an apostle (1 Cor. 9:1–2), had “wisdom given to him” and confirmed his epistles to be “Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3: 15-16). In these Scriptures, homosexuality is said to be vile: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Rom. 1: 26-27). Therefore "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites ... will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

In conclusion, I will ask Con the following questions:

1. Why did Jesus begin answering the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” by bringing up how “from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’”?
2. Since Jesus placed marriage back to the way it was before the law of Moses, that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” how can we change it to being one in which “a person shall be joined to one’s partner, and the two shall become one flesh”?
3. As Sodom's homosexuality during the time before the law of Moses was condemned, how can it be justified?
4. Since Jesus's apostles condemned homosexuality, how can we say the Bible doesn't condemn it?


[1] Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The foregoing applies for all other Scriptures used in the debate (by myself) unless otherwise noted.




Now before we look at Genesis 2:21-24 and automatically condemn Gay Marriage let's take one more look at it. It states that Eve came from the rib of Adam so that the man shall leave his parents and find women. This doesn't mean that a man has to marry a women, but actually fallows Plato's theory of androgyne. ( Escentially it is that the man leaves his parents to go out and to look for their other half. Now this means that the person can look for a male or female. It matters not their sexuality as long as it they find their other half. This is a methaor throughout the Bible.

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24
The Bible verse states that Women has come from man and that once the man has come of age he is to look for the rib. This does not mean that a man should go and find another female, but it is to find a missing half of the person. This is obvious as my coming of age interpertation of the verse. Now to further explain the second part of Genesis that I assaulted.
Many people state that men and women are meant to have sex and that anything else would be against God's will, but that is simply not so. Why's that you may ask? Well let's look further in the Book of Genesis and observe Lot and his wife. In Genesis 16 Lot's wife ask's him to find another wife to impregnate as she is barren. In Genesis 25, he marries Hagar and Katurah whom of which the Bible describes her as being concubine. Now what that means is that the person is polygamous, but they have a status lesser than that of a wife. So we can see that God permitted Lot to enter a Polygamous marriage with now 3 wives. The Bible shows here that it cannot be true about what Pro is saying in terms of Furtality as Lot maintains his marriage to his first wife even if she is infertile.


Now let's observe Sodom and the acts of Sodomy.

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. Genesis 19:5

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8

Now one immidately rushes to say, "Ha, there, that condems it," but once again that is incorrect. Sodomy was orginially a sexual act of anal and/or oral sex between two people. This happens between heterosexual couples on an everday basis. it's wasn't until the Mid Evil times that the Christian and Jewish communities used this to attack homosexual couples due to the Pagan acceptance of homosexuality during this time.

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [Heb. 13:2]

The Bible actually uses Lot's story to show that one must entertain guests and treat them well. That not doing so is a violation. Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel.

"Saith the Lord GOD...Behold, this was the iniquity of ... Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good". - Ezekiel 16:48-50

Now look closely and we can see that the abomination is idol worshipping and human sacrafice, not homosexual acts. The society of Sodom was known for its materialistic and uncharitable nature. There is a story in the BIble when a starving man is coated in honey only to be stung to death by bees.


Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. ( Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.

Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. (Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press) The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve"et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to"evah hi.

Ve"ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to"evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to"evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

I have a small bit of more argumentation on Ruth and Naomi, but I am out of characters and would either have to go more indepth in it next round or will have to drop the argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Kilk1 forfeited this round.


I shall spend my time here answering my opponent's questions, but I'm afraid I will not have time to get to Naomi and Ruth and thus that argument is to be stricken from context and to become null and void.

If you excuse me, I'm going to be answering these out of order a bit.

3. As Sodom's homosexuality during the time before the law of Moses was condemned, how can it be justified?

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

I started this question by giving a Biblical verse where God tells his people to rape those who the military defeats. Now, before you come at me like an evil mob we have to observe one key thing here. In the Biblical times rape was a form of punishment that would occur after the battle. Not just to the women, but the men of the defeated military. This wasn't just to be immoral, but this, as God has permitted, allowed as a form of humiliation of the defeated nation. God was angry with Sodom not because of the fact that the two men wanted rape him, but rather to punish Sodom due to the fact that he was punished for no reason. That's like in the 1800s when blacks were lynched and they never committed a crime. It has the same corrilation. You see many times throughout the Bible that reference Sodom and Gamorrah out of the Hospitality example, NOT homosexuality and rape.

Pro brings up Leviticus, but let's look at it litterally and apply it to today's society. If women are on their periods do they have to go live elsewhere, because they are unclean? Are we forbidden from wearing polyester blends? Are we forbidden from eating shelfish? The answer is simply no. Leviticus was not meant to be take litterally. We can easily look throughout the Bible and see that at the beginning of Genesis and see that the World is not created once, but twice. How did that happen? Did God mess-up and decided to take a mallet and destroy the world to start again? The answer is no. The Torah, first five books of the Bible, was created during the Hebrew exodus to Babaylon and more likely then not we can see that it was a tribal collection. 4th Centurary Christian Bishop Origin showed that the Bible isn't meant to be taken litterally as the Bible would be confusing. He showed that the early Bible was that of an Allegory. Unless my opponent can tell me that we exile women who are ovulating and can't where polyester blends than my opponent cannot take leviticus seriously.

I also extend across my Leviticus and Kedoshim arguments.

1. Why did Jesus begin answering the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” by bringing up how “from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’”? [two is also involved]

Ironically, this was also partially answered and was one of the first things that I went over. We can see that this was actually a coming of age story of androgyne which is supported by Bishop Origin. We can see that in context Jesus is refurring to Genesis 2:21-24 where Eve came from the rib of Adam. This was a connection point showing that Eve separeated from Adam at that moment and through a [heterosexual] marriage they rejoin. After the rejoinment there should be no reason that they should separate. It has no regards to homosexuality. The answer to number two is similiar to what I had argued under my Genesis argument. There really isn't a change, but we simply have to look at Plato's theory on this. He showed that this was an allegorical story showing that the children are to leave their parents and find their better half, whether this is a man, women, transgender, hermaphordite, or whoever.

My question here is that if "homosexuality" is condemned by the Bible then what is of those who are transgender or hermaphordites (those born as XXY)?

4. Since Jesus's apostles condemned homosexuality, how can we say the Bible doesn't condemn it?

First, I would like to address 1 Cor 6:9-10. My opponent has misinterperated the Bible, again let's turn to the Hebrew language to retranslate to what it really says. The word used is malakoi which translates to soft. Meaning that Paul was saying that those who are soft will not make it into heaven. We all know that he wasn't talking about the Philsbury Dough boy, so what was he talking about. The Greeks Generally used the term to mean lazy, degenerate, or lacking courage. [1] To move on to Romans 1:26-27. We can see that this was taken out of context. Here we can see that this is a speach that Paul is reading to condemn a lifestyle of idoltry and that is when the Jews started to chant "Yes, yes, they are guilty." Then Paul sprung on them Romans 2:1, " You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Thus we have Romans 3:23, " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Meaning that if what Pro is saying is true, then all of us are homosexuals and are thus to burn in hell as such. Though we know that isn't the case.

I extend all arguments across the board and since I have ran out of characters I will now pass things off to my opponent.

Non-Biblical Sourcing
1. Dale B. Martin, Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meaning and Consequences (Source: Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley; Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, 1996), page 124. Nissinen also offers “frailty of body or character, illness, sentimentality, or moral weakness” as other possibilities for the meaning of this word in other contexts (page 117).
Debate Round No. 3


To begin, I will attempt to answer everything from Con's last two posts.

Genesis 2:21–24 refers to Plato's theory of androgyny. Con's answer to my first and second question both relied on this. This theory and Con's "coming of age interpertation," went unsupported. Neither Con's argument text nor the reference in any way gave reason to connect such a theory to the teaching of the Bible; the words Genesis, Bible, etc. were not in it. The proposition is that the Bible, not Plato, condemns homosexuality. Therefore, if an extrabiblical source is used, the source must reason from the Bible that it permits (or in my case, condemns) homosexuality. And if Con's source was just for explaining the theory as opposed to supporting it, it would still need to be supported in Con's argument text, though. Either way, the theory remains unsupported. Instead of believing this theory, letting Scripture interpret Scripture shows that the explicit conclusion of Genesis 2:21–24 is that "a man shall ... be joined to his wife" (i.e., the couple's sexes do matter, v. 24). Let us "Hold fast the pattern of sound words" contained in the Bible (2 Tim. 1:13):

The polygamy of "Lot" shows that marriage is not solely for reproduction. Lot was not mentioned in Genesis 16 or 25, and he married neither Hagar nor Katurah. You must be referring to Abraham (aka, Abram), Lot's uncle (Gen. 12:5). At the very least God's main desire for marriage is offspring that will serve Him (Mal. 2:15; Ps. 127:3–5). However, I will not use this argument against homosexuality in this debate.

Sodom's inhospitality (i.e., materialism and uncharitableness) is the reason it's condemned, not homosexuality. To support this, you said that "Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel." While the Sodomites clearly were not hospitable and considerate, it was more than just that. The Book of Ezekiel is not a book of the New Testament; it was an Old Testament book written almost 600 years before Christ.[1] And I don't believe that there is a story in the Bible about a hungry man coated in honey that was stung to death by bees; can I have a reference on that? Sodom is rementioned in the New Testament, though: As I said in my last post, the Book of Jude says that it was because Sodom had "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh," (i.e., "because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities," GW) that they were condemned (Jude 7), not just for inhospitality.

Leviticus 20:13 refers to the kedoshim, who committed homosexuality as a ritual, not homosexuality in general. Yes, there were people known as kedoshim (aka, qadesh or qedeshim). The first place where they are mentioned in the Bible is Deuteronomy 23:17. The New King James Version footnotes them as people "practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals." However, no reference of them is ever given in Leviticus. Rather, the men being discussed in Leviticus are those who "lie with a male as with a woman" (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). And, unlike you said, I did provide evidence stating that what you claim is false: I quoted 20:13, then said that "if you read down ... to Leviticus 20:23 ... God says, 'And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things [i.e., the things that were just listed, including homosexuality], and therefore I abhor them.' ... Instead of homosexuality being wrong because ... the foreign, idolatrous nations were doing it, the foreign, idolatrous nations were abhorred because they committed these sins; again, 'they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them' (v. 23)."

Leviticus is figurative and cannot be used to condemn homosexuality without the other things prohibited in Leviticus being condemned. Yes, Leviticus isn't binding. But it's not figurative; its teachings just don't apply to us today, as it's part of the obsolete, Old Testament (Heb. 8:6–13). However, it does show homosexuality to be an unnatural "abomination" (discussed in next paragraph). Isn't it strange that before the law of Moses, during it, and after, it's never been supported?

The word "to'evah" refers to wickedness in general, not homosexuality. As you showed in your literal translation of it, homosexuals "do a to"evah." So you're saying that the two homosexuals do wickedness ("an abomination," NKJV). This point actually supports my proposition.

Homosexuality cannot be condemned without those who are intersex being condemned. Intersexuality is a trait, not an action, so it can't be helped.

The "Hebrew" word Malakoi, in 1 Cor. 6:9–10, does not condemn homosexuality. It depends on the source you use. And I wasn't talking about malakoi; I was discussing the next word used, arsenokoites, "a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast."[2] Clearly, homosexuality is condemned when using reliable lexicons. (Also, the New Testament's written in Greek, not Hebrew.)

Romans cannot condemn homosexuality without everyone being homosexuals. Rom. 2:1 is talking about those who "practice the same things" they judged others for. Jesus also taught this (Matt. 7:1–5). If you meant that 1) if homosexuality is sin, and 2) all have sinned, then 3) all have committed homosexuality, then you made an illogical syllogism; just because someone's in sin doesn't mean they're in homosexuality:

Below are questions for Con:

1. What evidence from the context of the Bible is there for Plato's theory of androgyny?
2. Jesus' saying people are made "male and female" is a quote from Genesis 1:27. If one's sex isn't a factor in marriage, why did Jesus bring up the fact that people are made "male and female" without mentioning other things they are made (e.g., "in the image of God")?
3. Are there any approved examples of homosexuality in the Bible?
4. Are there any disapproved (condemned) examples of homosexuality in the Bible?
5. If sinful religions practice ritual homosexuality close to where we live, would this make it sinful today?
6. As arsenokoites (homosexuals[2]) are condemned, do any lexicons not define them as homosexuals?
7. Why does Romans consider passionate ("burned in their lust for one another") homosexuality to be "against nature" (1:2627) if "our other half" can be of the
same sex?

Now I'll explain why the judges should vote for me:

I forfeited, so...

Most convincing arguments
Con never proved his "coming of age interpertation"; I used Scripture. I used the Bible's context for what Leviticus condemned; Con did not.

Most reliable sources
Most of Con's extrabiblical sources were inaccessible from the Internet; the two that were required extra clicking.

Spelling and grammar
Con made spelling errors. Here are some examples (in no particular order):

1. a women
2. Furtality
3. methaor
4. flase
5. rediculous
6. bellow (for below)
7. Philsbury



I appologize this round as I will have to spend only 1000 character on much of my opponent's questions. I will also fix my broken links in the comments section.

Question 1
My opponent asks for evidence from Biblical context of this and thus I shall give it. There are 4 types of love shown in the Bible throgh 4 different words for love, in Greek, in the Bible.

Eros- This in a lot in the New Testiment and is that of sexual love.
Storge- Natural affection between family
Phileo- “to be a friend to…fond of an individual or object; having affection for (as denoting attachment); a matter of sentiment or feeling”. [1]
Agape- Means that the unconditional love one gives to a community or grouping despite rejection.

Here we can actually see that there are two different types of love here that are counted as androgyny in the Bible by looking at the Greek version.

Question 2

I have already answered this question, but let's further into this.

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Genesis 2:18

Here we can see from the Bible it says that he would make Adam a HELPER, not a companion. Note that this is from the NIV version firstly, we can see that by Eve being a HELPER the wife was made to HELP the husband and this seperation would be defeating the reason God made more people. Under this own justification we can see that Jesus approves of homosexuality by his own standards.

Question 3 and 4
3. There are many. Though I don't really have the character space to truely elaborate on it. There is the story of Naomi and Ruth.

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Sounds like love to me concidering that we also say many things like this at weddings.

4. No, not really anywhere. The only example I can think of is the condemnation of Kedoshim, but that is a condemnation of a Pagan/Gentile cult, not a condemnation of homosexuality but a cult. My opponent drops my Rape punishment argument of Lot. This is a key argument that shouldn't be ignored in this debate as this completely debunks the entire Sodom argument by itself. Plus here are a series of passages that are against this kind of inhospitality. (Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11)

Question 5

My opponent is committing a red herring logical fallacy. We are needing to focus on the to'evah meaning wickedness and this refers to the Pagan religion and I have shown in my opening arguments that this was done to weed out the sitting cults in the region and discredit them. Leveticus was known for doing this. My opponent has also failed to answer the key questions that I have asked one is how litteral we should take Leveticus and everyone can agree that this isn't the case. Since he has comitted his logical fallacy we can see that it should be thrown out on my opponent's side and this should be given to my side. Ironically he does this with the 1 Cor. 6:9-10 verse as well.

Question 6
As for my opponent's reference to arsenokoitēs it means that, "specifically interpreted as male sexual paedophilia,"[2] so we can actually see that with the Greek translation this is a paedophillic reference, NOT homosexual. The funny thing was that the term "homosexual" was not added to the Bible until the year 1946. It NEVER appeared in it before then. We can see that this was added in as part of the semantics game to discourage homosexual activites, but it actually referred to male paedophilia according to Matt Slick, President of the Christianity Apologetics and Research Ministry. [3] Note that this IS a Lexicon.

Question 7
Why I'm glad you raised the question on this verse as this refers to a different sexual interaction that ISN"T homosexuality. It is actually that of an orgy. [4] Let's look at key sections of the passage for this.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

If we look at the underlined sections we can see that the sections here point to that of an orgy by showing them leaving their spouses to go do something unnatural for another. Burned in their lust is a key phrase and this is to further my point here to show that this refers to the orgy. [4]

Now to over look the 'point system' since my opponent has.

My opponent forfeited.

Spelling and Grammar
Tie, now, I will admit that I have made several spelling mistakes, but my opponent is just as guilty when it comes to bad grammar.

So you're saying that the two homosexuals do wickedness ("an abomination," NKJV). (incomplete sentence)
However, it does show homosexuality to be an unnatural "abomination" (discussed in next paragraph). (Hanging Dependent Clause)

I can find you more, but I don't want to waste characters here, but you get the point.

I have refuted all of Pro's points and even his new arguments that he brought up in R4. He has dropped several of my own arguments such as my "rape as punishment" argument. My opponent has failed to meet his half of BOP and he has used several Red Herring Logical Fallacies in this debate.

I appologize for the broken links in Round 2, but I shall repost them in the comments section. I have used many Biblical sourcing as well as historical evidence and translation evidence to help my own points.

I would like to thank you for your time and I urge you to vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: 21MolonLabe// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision:CONDUCT: Pro's forfeiture of Round 3. S&G: Both made mistakes, but Con's were more noticeable than Pro's, therefore points go to Con. ARGUMENTS: Honestly, this one was the hardest debate that I've voted on because I have a strong personal bias (Pro) on this issue, nonetheless, I tried to remain as objective as I could. Pro had decent arguments, but his forfeiture resulted in less opportunities for him to refute Con's arguments and defend his own, resulting in a lack of strong rebuttals and defense. I believe Con could have presented stronger arguments but still did well and had stronger rebuttals than Pro. One example would be his refutation of Pro's use of Leviticus. Thus arguments go to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter has to do more than just state that one side's S&G was more noticeably bad than the other. Unless one of the arguments was actually difficult to read (which the voter has to explain clearly), the S&G point is not warranted. (2) The explanation for arguments is too generic. The voter doesn't examine Con's arguments at all, and only cites one argument from Pro, but doesn't explain how that argument or Con's rebuttals factored into the debate. The rest of the arguments explanation leans too heavily on the forfeit without ever examining what was actually said and where Con's successes were.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
I think that's a good idea. As long as it's front and center, I don't think there's any reason for judges to take posting of sources in the comments into account.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago

I posted the idea in the forums (titled "Sources shouldn't count against limit"). I will make sure to address the issue in any debates I start.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago

I do think it might warrant a conduct violation in certain instances, but not any other point allocations.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
To start, I agree that there should be a separate sources section. I think that would be for the benefit of the site, though if you want to go through all of the various changes that require Juggle to act that I would support, we'll be here all day. This isn't a problem that's going to be fixed that way, and as such, we're stuck dealing with a sub-optimal system.

So, what's the situation as it stands? Sources take up space. That space can be reduced using tinyurl or bit link, and I think access to those means is relatively even. For those who don't know about them, they're becoming much more common and therefore information about them is also becoming far more prevalent. So source size can be controlled. The concern is that situations like this can occur where one side uses the sources in the comments, while the other doesn't. If it's not explicitly allowed, and both sides are placing it in the debate throughout up to the final round, then suddenly the opposition does something different, they are artificially expanding on their character limit without providing an opportunity for their opponent to respond in kind. I'm not saying lannan did this to get an advantage, but I'm not assessing intent, just the outcome.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Then what you did in this situation was fine, but in no means should you penalize debaters for sources in an outside link at the same time of posting argument, as long as the sources are directed to that place from the argument.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
Honestly, there should be a separate sources section, with a means where sources and sourced material are joined together for the reader, but not count against character limit. Like end-note links. Short of creating links as an argument ( I cant think how not counting links against the limit provides an advantage. I've been in debates where I had to not source things due to running out of space.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
Debaters cannot control the length of links, so while it may be a way to "circumvent" the character limits, so what? A debate cannot consist of sources alone. Yet, with a well-sourced debate, every factual statement should be sourced. Allowing sources in comments allows for better arguments, which is what the debate is about. Also, by requiring source links in the debate, it provides an advantage to those who may know how to use tinyurl.

[That has nothing to do with when they are posted, or your vote - just addressing the overall sources-in-comments issue. ]
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
tej, I view the use of sources in the comments as a means to circumvent character limits, but if that had happened earlier in the debate, I probably would have done nothing with it. It might have been a conduct violation if Pro hadn't forfeited, but that's about it. The bigger problem is that the links were only accessible by the final round, which meant that Pro didn't get any chance to respond to them on the lead-up.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago

"They were placed there solely to fit as many arguments in as possible in the final round, I view it as circumventing the character limits, and since it wasn't explicitly allowed..." -- debate convention doesn't dictate anything that says sources shouldn't be in comments unless explicitly permitted. See, for example, 16K/JMK's debate with Roy, where there was no explicit rule saying "sources can be in an outside link," but they were still kept there. Same with my debate with Skepticalone. As long as debaters don't have objections, you can't penalize the other debater for putting sources in comments. While I understand that there's more to the sources vote than that [and it's justified], I strongly disagree that, by default, sources should only be within the debate.

If the rules simply say "First round is acceptance," and nothing else, for example, sources *can* be in the comments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I had no opinion on this subject prior to the debate, and both sides debated well. Plain reading of the Bible as commonly translated condemns homosexuality. Cons case depends upon careful parsing using substantial references beyond the plan reading. Con messed up those references, and posting links in comments violates the character limits. In this type of debate about careful parsing, con should have quoted the sources in the debate to give a better sense of why the assigned meanings were given. Con was to too great an extent appealing to arguments made outside the debate. Con's argument on Platonic meaning was not tied adequately to the Bible. With shared BOP, Con had the more difficult task of overcoming plain meaning with special interpretation and he was short of that. Con's case is plausible, but not sufficiently proved. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. S&G was not bad enough to interfere with reading the deabte.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I've given it some more thought, and decided to award the debate to Pro. As I see it, a lot of this debate is focused on the question of what certain words mean and how we should interpret them within certain contexts. This seemed relatively even to me based on the arguments given, but I'm realizing that Con had the advantage of addressing Pro's links directly throughout, whereas Pro was unable to access Con's links in time to address them. I might still be able to accept Con's sources despite being in the comments, but as they were placed there solely to fit as many arguments in as possible in the final round, I view it as circumventing the character limits, and since it wasn't explicitly allowed, I choose not to do so. The result is that Pro's links outpace Con's when it comes to the interpretations of various words, and thus his case retains much of its reasoning for how the Bible specifically condemns homosexuality. As such, I vote Pro.