The Instigator
Theguy1789
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

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 2 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 91806
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Theguy1789

Pro

You said you wanted to debate this subject.
lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent for the challenge. Since there was no terms provided I reserve the right to post my sources in the comments section. Another term that my opponent must go by via the definition of condemns. This is also due to the fact that my opponent has failed to provide terms and definitions in previous round permitting me to do so now.

Condemn- express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure [1]

This means that in order for me to win the debate I have to either refute all of my opponent's arguments and/or find an instance in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned and thus the Bible cannot condemn gay sex due to it being okay in that instance.

Leviticus

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. [3] 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. [4] 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.

Samuel and David


Here I will prove that David loved Jonathan so much to the point to where if Jonathan then it would be the greatest love story in the Bible according to Theologians.

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Here we can see that Jonathan loved David more than his own soul. This is something that is extremely important especially since many Christians beleive that the soul is the most important thing that a person owns that is what goes to Heaven or Hell. So the fact that he loved David as much as his own Soul is key here to so an important relationship between the two with this amount of love.

David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

Here we can see just how intament the relationship got between these two men. Here they kiss and they indeed knew that this would be the last time that they would see each other as Jonathan would later die in combat. The key part here is that they show that their decendents shall be together showing almost that of a gay marriage, and even sex, between the two.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27)

Here we can continue the furthering of the homosexual relationship as it shows the love between the two men surpassed that then a man and a women. Proving that of a homosexual relation.

This is yet another approved example of homosexuality in the Bible any attempt to argue otherwise would be that of arguing that God looked down upon David which was false since God had blessed him and with God being omnipotent we can see that God would've known about the homosexual relationship and would not have gifted David as much as he has.

Ruth

A key part of this debate is to go through the Bible and if I can find any instances where homosexuality is not condemned then I can win the debate on that ground.

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. We can see that when put into the context of the story we can see that when a man died a woman was unable to inheret the land. A woman without a man had no social standing in that time peroid. Ruth felt a great amount of feeling for Naomi where the Bible says, "Ruth Clung to Naomi" (Ruth 1:14). The Hebrew word for Clung is Dabaq. Though this word is also used for other loving instances, but the one place that it actually appears in the Bible outside of Ruth is that of Genesis 2 when Adam met Eve.



With that, I'll pass things back to my opponent.


Sources
1. (http://www.dictionary.com...)
2. (http://www.hebcal.com...)
3. Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press
Debate Round No. 1
Theguy1789

Pro


Leviticus:


Your claims in regards to the Pagan ritual of castration have no scriptural backing or sources so I will dismiss them like that, in regards to your translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, these two passages actually read like this:


Leviticus 18:22:


Shakab zakar mishkab ‘ishshah tow’ebah


This translates to “to lie with men as you would with a woman is a disgusting thing.”


Leviticus 20:13:


‘Iysh shakab zakar mishkab ‘ishshah shenayim ‘asah tow’ebah muwth muwth dam


This translates to “if a man lies with men as he would with a woman both of them have done a disgusting thing and they shall be put to death.” [1]



David and Jonathan:


This is completely false, the word used for love in 1st Samuel 18:1-4 is ‘ahab, which could be translated to sexual, but also could be translated to that of a friend. Either way, David was also a man who murdered someone to steal his wife, and gave this wife STD’s so that the baby died, probably had something to do with bisexuality.



In regards to Ruth, your verse doesn’t in the slightest indicate they loved each other, and neither of the verses on the picture you posted do either, Genesis 2:24 doesn’t say that Ruth was gay; in fact that verse could be and is used against homosexuality and Ruth 1:14 doesn’t say she was gay either, please drop this point.



[1]. https://www.blueletterbible.org...


lannan13

Con

Leviticus

Sure you may not accept it, but the fact is you have to understand the history at the time to understand what is occuring there in the Bible. My opponent ignores this argument, but it is huge in this history as well as completely logical. I extend this argument across as if you factor in the Kedoshim religion, then you have the answer of what the Bible is condemning, not homosexuality.

David and Johnathan

My opponent concedes here that David was bisexual, which meant there were actions of homosexuality as well as heteralsexuality. Thus my opponent concedes to this argument here and I'll extend it across.

Ruth

My opponent completely misreads my argument here as I talk about how the love was only used in one other section in the Bible and that was in Genesis 2, but if my opponent insists on debating about that verse, then I shall refute it for the sake of the debate.

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 [1]. 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.

Sources
1. (http://www.reconnections.net...)
Debate Round No. 2
Theguy1789

Pro

You should really read the bible sometime because it was Abram who married Hagar, not Lot, Lot was the guy who committed incest with his daughters and was a sodomite who offered them to a roaring mob. Abra was the father of nations and all that, a very different character.

Also, you never provided any sources for your claims about the pagan ritual of castration you talked about, and you never responded to my argument about the translations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13,and another thing, though I admitted that King David was mos likely bisexual, this doesn't count as conceding an argument. Keep in mind, David did a lot of things which God condemned him for, multiple wives, murder, etc.

You completely dropped Ruth I see, since you cannot find any verse implying that Ruth was a lesbian, you dropped this point and instead decided to argue against Genesis 2:21-24. Either way, "other half" was defined as someone of the opposite gender in that verse so yes, it does mean it has to be a specific gender. Also, God never permitted Abram to enter int a polygamous marriage with 3 women, because #1 he was married to 2 women, #2 this was actually against Gods will, and caused Ishmael to have to be sent out.
lannan13

Con

I actualy did site a source for Kedoshim so, once again, I'll extend that argument across the board. I didn't have to refute your translations as they are still referring to the actions of Kedoshim making these verses not actually about homosexuality, but a Gentile religion of the Canaanites. If you do not understand the context of which the Torah was written then you cannot expect to understand what the verses are about.

As for the David argument, it doesn't matter what else he did. He was still a major character in the Bible who performed homosexual acts and in doing so, God did not specifically condemn him for it. Pro conceded that he was bisexual and his actions with Johnathan shows that there was a homosexual relationship occuring here.

My opponent is being ludicrious here. The statement in the verse in Ruth had a love that was only used between Adam and Eve in the Bible. When a word describing love here that is only used to describe the love between Adam in Eve in the only other case in the Bible, it shows that there is a strong homosexual relationship between these two. This point was dropped originally dropped by my opponent as he only provided the attack on the Genesis portion which I pointed to the Adam and Eve reference. First off, my opponent drops the Androgyne argument, which can show another half. Regardless of male or female, it still shows the possiblity of a homosexual relationship, so I'll extend that argument across. We can still see that many of the famous people in the Bible had several wives and this was accepted. King Solomon had over 700 wives and 300 prostitues.

He had seven hundredwives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 1 Kings 11:3.
Debate Round No. 3
Theguy1789

Pro

Actually you didn't provide any sources for your claims. And Leviticus 18 instructed the Israelites not to act as the Egyptians/Canaanites do, that means no incest, no homosexuality, and no bestiality, according your form of interpretation, I could say that Leviticus 18:23 is only telling you not to fornicate with hairy people. We all know this to be false and I shew you the actuaal hebrew words.

And you are ignoring my point in regards to David and Johnathan, the point was just because David did it doesn't mean it's OK, and I could also claim that because God didn't criticize Lot for offering his daughters to a roaring mob that this means that God doesn't have a probllem with men offering their daughters to be raped to death, because it happened in the bible right?

Also, your claims that Naomi loved Ruth just as Adam loved Eve - it's ridiculous, you never provided any verse that says this, only two irrelevant verse, one which could be used against homosexuality and another which isn't relevant at all. Also, you will never find any verse saying that Solomon as right by marrying 700 people, it wasn't accepted it was tolerated. Infact Abram cheating on his wife Sarah with his other wife Hagar was as God told him a terible decision.
lannan13

Con

Yes I did provide a source as it was source three Round 1. This argument has been dropped several times as my opponent has failed to acknowledge it.

On David and Johnathan, it doesn't matter. Unless it's condemned, which it does not appear to be so, we have to realize that under that circumstance, it is not condemned and hence I win under the semantics of the debate.

I have provided this verse and series. This was, once again, in Round 1, it seems as though my opponent hasn't been the one reading as he seems to accuse me of. He only claims two irrelevant verses, but this is still relevant due to its relation. Ignoring it is a farse mistake by my opponent. As for the verse, I provided the verse for it last round and I'll post it again.

He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 1 Kings 11:3.

My opponent drops my arguments in regards to Adam and Eve which is important as that confirms an acceptance of homosexuality in this debate meaning that I win do to that concession.
Debate Round No. 4
Theguy1789

Pro

Get this I'm not going to read a whole book to fid your source, you have to rferance a specific part of that book for me. And like I said before, only have to provide one pace in the bible where homosexuality is condemned, it ist enough for my opponent to provide a single place where it is not. Also, your verse is still irrelevant, Solomon practicing polygamy doesn't mean that homosexuality is OK, it's like if I got arrested for drug use and my defese was "but Joseph Stalin tortured people to death," no one is going to care.
lannan13

Con

To conclude this debate, my opponent has originally conceded in my definition of condemn by showing that all I had to do is provide one instance where the Bible does not condemn homosexuality to win this debate. This was only refuted in R5, but should be thrown out of the debate since he originally dropped it. My opponent has also dropped arguments that homosexuality occured with Ruth, David and Johnathan, and that traditional marriage, by my opponent's standards does not condemn it. We can also see that my opponent has also dropped the Plato argument that shows relationships can be with the other half, which can be of the same sex. These things can show that the Bible supports, not condemns, homosexuality. Thus, you have to negate the resolution due to the several dropped arguments by my opponent.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Theguy1789 1 year ago
Theguy1789
but David wasn't in love with Samuel.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
1: Summary of Arguments.

Con interprets the resolution to require of him either refute all of pro"s arguments and/or find an instance in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned. He goes about this by referencing 3 instances in scripture. First con provides a comprehensive context for and interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 in which he indicates that the verse was condemning a pagan religion as opposed to homosexuality. The second story referenced was that of Johnathan and David in which Con provides insight to the relationship and indicates that it seems to imply homosexuality in the Bible. The last example given was of Ruth and Naomi where he shows that Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve.

Pro rejects these examples though does little to give reasoning to his objections. Perhaps the worst of which was the dismissal of David and Johnathan. First, he rejects that it was that kind of relationship but then implies David"s issues must have been due to that kind of relationship.
2: Analysis/vote

Pro does little to provide his own case and simply attacks con"s examples. Though, I don"t think he does enough to dispute the points made, rather he just dismisses them. Because of this, I vote pro as his arguments remain intact.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
This vote was unfortunately removed in error. I'll post the reason for non-removal, and Udel will be able to re-post the vote as is whenever he desires.

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Udel// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con says Leviticus was condemning the pagan religion and not homosexuality. He says Sam and Dave were approved homosexulity in the bible. Pro drops Con's point on translation regarding pagans and simply presents the Levitcus quote as written, dropping Con's explanation. Even if Con is wrong Pro did not contest it so Con's point stands. Pro says Sam and Jon weren't in GAY love but concedes Sam's bisexuality. Pro says God doesn't endorse everything in the bible but Con notes God did not condemn homosexuality in the Bible so he wins.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While it's not particularly deep, the voter does assess specific arguments made by both sides and comes to a decision based on those arguments.

Note: In response to the content of this report, on cursory glance, "Sam and Dave" most likely refer to "Samuel and David", a point made by Con in the opening round.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Udel// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con says Leviticus was condemning the pagan religion and not homosexuality. He says Sam and Dave were approved homosexulity in the bible. Pro drops Con's point on translation regarding pagans and simply presents the Levitcus quote as written, dropping Con's explanation. Even if Con is wrong Pro did not contest it so Con's point stands. Pro says Sam and Jon weren't in GAY love but concedes Sam's bisexuality. Pro says God doesn't endorse everything in the bible but Con notes God did not condemn homosexuality in the Bible so he wins.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does assess specific arguments made by both sides and comes to a decision based on those arguments, and thus this RFD is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: harrytruman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Comments.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does sufficiently address points made in the debate, the voter is required to produce a clear decision as well. As it appears that the voter is finding that each side is winning at least one argument, no matter how weakly, the voter is required to compare those individual wins to determine the outcome of the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
#3- Ruth and Naomi:
Con claimed that Ruth loved Naomi in a romantic way, he provided no proof for this except 2 verses which don't even imply this. Con dropped this point and so it goes to pro.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
So while pro proved that it isn't viable grounds to claim that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, he failed to prove that it is condemned in this verse, however he wouldn't be able to do this anyway and he did disprove con, so I will give this point to pro.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
#2- David:
This was kind of a tie since neither one of these could prove that what king David did was immoral or moral. Con claimed that he only has to provide an instance where the bible does not condemn homosexuality, but this is not true, the resolution was that the bible condemns homosexuality, thus con must argue that it doesn't, not that it in some scenarios doesn't openly advocate against it.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
#1- Leviticus:
In round 2 con claims that Leviticus is only referring to pagans castrating themselves. Though he provides a source, his source was a book, which we cannot read in entirety just to validate a single point, he should have cited a specific chapter.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
This debate has 3 basic point set up in round 2, these are:
#1- Leviticus
#2- King David
#3- Ruth and Naomi.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 1 year ago
Udel
Theguy1789lannan13Tied
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: My original vote got deleted. Pro quoted the bible saying homosexuality was bad, which ignored all of Con's arguments about how the Bible is being misinterpreted or misapplied. Also Con gave examples of homosexual relationships in the bible. Pro said that just because those relationships exists, doesn't mean God supported them. Con argued that God also did not CONDEMN them, even thoguh God condemns a lot of other things, so Pro's burden is unfulfilled.
Vote Placed by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Theguy1789lannan13Tied
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: RFD in comments.