The Instigator
gr33k_fr33k5
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,229 times Debate No: 10347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (14)

 

gr33k_fr33k5

Pro

My opponent must show that the Bible does not label homosexuality as a sin. . . . pretty cut and dry

given: any story of the Bible is historical fact

Contention 1: Sodom and Gomorrah

These were two cities that were utterly destroyed by God killing all within save for one man. The sin that God was punishing? Homosexuality

this alone makes it clear that the Bible outlaws homosexuality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contention 2: New Testament also labels it as a sin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, [Amplified Bible]

It is clear that the Bible does NOT allow for homosexuality, it is wrong and no church should turn a blind eye towards it.

NOTE: I made this debate because I am VERY angry about the Episcopal church and some Catholic denominations allowing homosexuals to be ordained. . . .it is a sacrilege and causes unbelievers to be confused about what Christianity really is. . . . I believe that those churches who allow such practices are not Christian churches. . . but rather merely a religion that picks and chooses what sounds good and throws out what doesn't fit into society. In essence they merely are a way to make people feel good about their sins and give them false hope. . . .

also, I was recently speaking with a Muslim who has converted to Christianity, he said that the biggest problem him and his family fad in accepting Christianity was our apparent allowance of homosexuality. . . . needless to say this made me very angry (not at him) . . .. I'm sick of people acting as Christians only in name and thinking their safe or good. . . . its just giving real Christians a bad name
johngriswald

Con

To start off I would like to thank my opponent for creating this excellent debate and clearly defining his resolution as well as his contentions.

For clarity I pose the following definitions

sin - Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
God - The holy trinity, meaning God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

To start off I would like to individually debunk, tear down, and otherwise make false my opponent's two contentions.

>>>>Sodom and Gomorrah<<<<<

My opponent's first assumption is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. In this instance my opponent as proved himself severely ignorant about Genesis.

Genesis 13: 10 Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: 12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. 13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18: 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 20: 1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

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."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 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."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

As can be seen easily through simple reasoning, God deemed Sodom and Gomorrah worthy of destruction because of their sins, not at all because of homosexuality. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were committing the sins of lust, and were attempting to rape these two angels. Furthermore they threatened Lot with violence for protecting these two men. Nowhere is it stated or even implied that God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for homosexuality. Rather he destroyed it because the citizens were evil, sinning, threatening to rape, harm, and otherwise injure newcomers.

Furthermore the old testament has no bearing anymore on what is and what is not sin. Otherwise everyone in the US would be sinning for wearing mixed fabrics:

Deuteronomy 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

>>>>Contention 2: New Testament also labels it as a sin<<<<

Clearly my opponent mistakes the words of the Apostle Paul for being he words of Jesus, as Corinthians is Paul's message to the church of Corinth itself.

The same apostle (Paul) who had those thoughts on homosexuality also had these thoughts on marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry."

1 Corinthians 7: 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

You'll notice that Peter is not God. When he does give directions from God in Corinthians 7:10 he says "not I, but the Lord" Which is different from Corinthians 7:8 when he uses the words "I say". If he would have given a command from God in Corinthians 6:9 Paul would have stated that this was a message from God and not himself, which he does not do.

Jesus himself has absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality.

To Conclude: So far in this debate I have debunked the myth that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality, but rather from rape, lust, violence,and their great sins. I have also shown that Old Testament law is not sin nor divine command. I have also shown how the Apostle Paul does not equal God nor does he claim to be God.

Only God can determine sin, as God never once denoted homosexuality as a sin.
Debate Round No. 1
gr33k_fr33k5

Pro

Excellent rebuttal on my opponents part . . .

Now for a superb second argument on my part . .. . .

I will start with my second contention . . .

-------------------------------------
Contention 2: New Testament also labels it as a sin
-------------------------------------

My opponent has misunderstood what I meant by my verse, not once did I say that Jesus said this. . . .nor did I say that God said this. (note: though I would argue that since Paul's letters to the Corinthians were divinely inspired they really are the words of Jesus himself.) My opponent falsely claims that I mistook the words of Paul as those of Jesus. . . . which I did not.

regardless of whether Paul or Jesus said it, according to the first chapter of John, which I'm sure my opponent is familiar with:

Verse 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Verse 14: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

simple syllogism:
Word of God is the Bible
Word of God is Jesus
Bible is Jesus (at least the words of Jesus)

hence, ANYTHING in the Bible is the "Word of God" . . . . .also let me remind my opponent that this debate is whether "The Bible clearly states," and the letter to Corinthians is a part of the Bible. . . ..

I would also like to bring up a new verse,

Mathew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

First it states that "man will leave his father and mother" (man and woman) and be united to his wife (again a woman) the two will become one flesh"

God never left room for "husband" to be inserted instead of wife. . . . or "father and father" to be inserted instead of mother. The very words of Jesus show that homosexuality is sin, if slightly indirectly.

--------------------------------
Contention 1: Sodom and Gamorrah
--------------------------------

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."

clearly they wanted to rape them . . . .. you admit to this

so, a mob of men wanting to "gang rape" two men is not a sign of homosexuality? The people obviously thought that the angels were mere men. So, my contention stands, the city was given to homosexuality and other sins, however homosexuality was definitely a part of it. So yes rape, lust, violence, AND homosexuality were the reasons for the destruction.

Ultimately the argument is whether the "Bible" outlaws homosexuality, Paul states that it is wrong in the new testament and Sodom and Gamorah were at least partially destroyed due to homosexuality, God doesn't punish anything but sin.
johngriswald

Con

I thank you my opponent for his timely response, and I praise him for keeping this debate civil, organized, and mannerly.

NEGATION OF CONTENTION 2

My opponent has tried to make the claim in John that the entire Bible God's current command.

Again I make the following references:
Deuteronomy 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."
Deuteronomy 25: 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts. 12. you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Clearly the entire Bible is not a current direct commandment from God. The law of Jesus is only applicable as stated in the following passages:

Romans 10: 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version)
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Ephesians 2: 15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

"Bible is Jesus (at least the words of Jesus)
hence, ANYTHING in the Bible is the "Word of God""

My opponent in this debate is attempting to make a ridiculous assertion that every word in the Bible is the word of God. This is obviously a ridiculous analogy using one obscure bible verse and applying it to suit his needs in this debate. If this is so then my opponent proposes that Jesus says we should stone those who are disobedient, not eat the pig-meat, not wear blended fabrics, etc.

I believe it was Jesus who stated: John 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

To conclude: My opponent bases his entire argument on a new, and incredibly weak analogy on a misinterpreted piece of scripture to suit his own needs in this debate. To be understood in full one cannot simply pick and choose a verse of scripture to suit his needs and vaguely misinterpret an introduction to John which plainly is meant to show that Jesus is the son of God.

SOURCE and FURTHER EXPLANATION: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com...

@Mathew 19:4-6

My opponent again misuses a prose of Matthew and misinterprets it to suit his own needs instead of showing any direct reference to it by Christ. The reason he has failed to produce such a scripture is because it doesn't exist.

CONTENTION 1 NEGATION.

"clearly they wanted to rape them . . . .. you admit to this"
Yes

"a mob of men wanting to "gang rape" two men is not a sign of homosexuality"
Obviously it isn't? How does rape constitute homosexuality? Is my opponent making a bold assertion that many men in prison are homosexual? No they clearly just want to rape and dominate. Homosexuality is a natural attraction to men and wanting a mutual interest back, not forcefully gang raping someone.

Rape is rape. Rape is a sin. Homosexuality is never shown to be a sin. It doesn't matter who they raped. If they raped women it would still be a sin, Sodom and Gomorrah would still be destroyed. Rape and violence is a sin period not homosexuality. Denoting homosexuality as a sin from the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah is gross misinterpretation and is used when someone doesn't clearly read this passage in Genesis.

"however homosexuality was definitely a part of it."
An assertion which has neither factual nor logical backing. Sodom would be destroyed whether the Angels were male or female, if they truly even have a sex. Because the city was "Sinning greatly" before the angels arrived. The threat of gang rape, violence, and lust simply confirmed that sin. Homosexuality is never not ONCE stated as any of those reasons. My opponent has no logical nor factual backing supporting this extremely weak contention.

To conclude, Paul feels in the Bible that those who are homosexual will not enter heaven. Paul is not God. He specifically mentions he is not God when he makes statements such as "I say" and he differs them when giving a commandment from God when saying "Not I, But the Lord" as referenced above. If the old testament law even applied, which it clearly doesn't (only the law of Jesus does), homosexuality still wouldn't be considered a sin. NOWHERE in Genesis does it even imply that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality. It states earlier on in Genesis that the people in that town were "wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD" before the incident with Lot. Furthermore the Lord goes onto say: "outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous". The sin of rape, lust, and violence are sufficient enough to confirm the Lord's belief. Homosexuality is NEVER stated nor even IMPLIED that it is a sin in Sodom and Gommorah. No matter the sex of the angels (no proof that angels have a sex) rape is still rape. Rape is still a sin no matter to what sex it is.

To Conclude: My opponent is basing his entire argument off a weak analogy that is based upon a misquoted line of scripture in the intro to John the Baptist's Chapter. Evidence that every word in the Bible is the word of Jesus is clearly incorrect. Furthermore he assumes without any factual or logical backing that homosexuality is a sin in the Sodom and Gomorrah incident. My opponent has accepted my definitions, and by such definitions he has clearly failed in proving that God clearly states not implies or makes a statement, but CLEARLY STATES as said in the resolution, that homosexuality is a sin or is wrong in any way.
Debate Round No. 2
gr33k_fr33k5

Pro

---------------------------------------
Contention 1: Sodom and Gomorrah
----------------------------------------

Congratulations to my opponent for his strong rebuttal . . .

To strengthen my claim, I shall move into the New Testament . . ..

Jude 1:7 :Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.

I would like to point out "strange flesh" . . . ."strange" when translated into the original Greek means "other" . . . Jude clearly states fornication AND going after "strange" flesh.

Again, homosexuality WAS a sin that was punished by God in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
(note: there are other versions of the Bible that translate "strange flesh" as homosexuality)

-------------------------------------------------
Contention 2: New Testament also labels it as a sin
---------------------------------------------------

My opponent argues that Paul is not a reliable source in the Bible for determining sin, then I would ask why is he in the Bible? If he does not speak (or write) the words of God then nothing he says should be considered worthy of living by. Regardless of his "personal" views of marriage, he was an apostle of God to the gentiles, just as Peter was one for the Jews (see Galatians . . .. the entire book argues this truth). As an apostle he was responsible for bringing God's word to those who did not know it (great commission).

I do agree with you that my syllogism was weak, however; claiming that just because Paul said things that seem go against what we currently believe is not a basis for claiming that he is unable to see what God views as sin. Also, claiming that Corinthians 6:9 is merely Paul's own beliefs about the matter is completely baseless, and an assumption based off of unrelated scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could not agree with you more that the Law has passed away and was fulfilled by Christ, however God is an unchanging God, and what is wrong in the old testament is wrong today. I would argue that the laws of the Old Testament were not ALL to tell what was a sin.
------- for example: ---------

I agree with you that eating pig is not a sin.
Also that wearing multicolored fabrics is not a sin.

However the Ten Commandments ARE still sins if they are broken.

[1 Timothy 1:8 : We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.]

----------- Another verse. . . . ------------
(I know this is Old Testament but I felt like it fit relatively well here. . . . .)
Leviticus 18: " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

cut and dry, we have and unchanging God, and he VERY clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. This IS Old Testament, however, as stated above while Jesus did fulfill the Law, the sins of the Old Testament are still wrong today.

-----------Some final verses . .. . .---------

Romans 1:24 : For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

1 Timothy 1: 9-10 realizing the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and the profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.

Both of these show that homosexuality IS viewed as a sin. . . . and a grevious one at that. It is put right next to murder and lying. Also not that Corinthians was written by Paul and Peter wrote Romans, both of these men were awesome leaders of the early Christian church and were divinely inspired by God to write these books. Therefore everything they wrote is true.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a final note . . . my opponent has failed to show any example where the Bible approves of homosexuality (mainly because there are none) . . . .My argument clearly states that the BIBLE states that homosexuality is a sin, which I have shown using multiple verses spanning multiple translations. Sodom and Gomorrah were excellent examples of God's wrath being poured out due to homosexuality. Also there are multiple times in the New Testament where homosexuality is stated as a sin. My opponent attempted to make it seem like Paul was merely stating his own opinion, however Paul was also of the same opinion as was Jude. If multiple places in the Bible support my claim and there are NONE that contradict it, it is likely true. . . ..

Thanks for an awesome debate, I learned a lot about this particular topic
johngriswald

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen of the audience I apologize for bringing up new evidence in the final round that cannot be rebutted, but I only do so because my opponent brought up entirely new evidence. Therefore the only information I bring to the table will be done to rebut my opponent's newest contentions.

===> Negation of Contention 1 <===

Next my opponent, who clearly is running out of information to support his absurd claim that Sodam and Gomorah was destroyed because of homosexuality has chosen to move to the new testament where Jude, a person who isn't even an apostle, makes judgement on Sodom and Gomorah, an event which happened thousands of years before his time.

The Jude who wrote this letter was not an apostle. In the opening address of verse 1 he did not identify himself as an apostle. In fact, in Jude 17 he distinguished himself from the apostles and clearly did not include himself among their number. The writer, then, was not the apostle who was known as ���‚��"Jude son of James���‚���� (cf. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13)

Furthermore, in the New International Version it is written: "7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." Which can easily mean incest, adultery, lust, rape, etc. It is in no way indicative of homosexuality nor even implies homosexuality.

My opponent again is taking scripture out of context to suit his own needs and purposes.

===> Negation of Contention 2 <===

"My opponent argues that Paul is not a reliable source in the Bible for determining sin, then I would ask why is he in the Bible?"
So does my opponent attempt to tell me that Saul, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, Judas, etc. Are all sources worthy of determining sin since they are in the Bible? This contention clearly does not hold water.

"then nothing he says should be considered worthy of living by."
Things that he says that are worth living by is his preaching that Jesus Christ is Lord, and his preaching which was a repeat of Jesus's two greatest commandments which are all that you need follow:

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

All of Paul's commandments that reflect Jesus's two laws are worth living by. However his personal views on marriage and homosexuality are just that, personal and not divine command because they are not from Jesus or God.

"As an apostle he was responsible for bringing God's word to those who did not know it"
Exactly, he was responsible for bringing the word of God, which he brought. Corinthians is simply a letter to the church of Corinth, not gospel.

"I do agree with you that my syllogism was weak"
My opponent has dropped his syllogism in Round two.

"Also, claiming that Corinthians 6:9 is merely Paul's own beliefs about the matter is completely baseless, and an assumption based off of unrelated scriptures."

How on earth is it baseless? Paul wrote the scripture. I have clearly shown how in the SAME LETTER which is NOT at all UNRELATED, he differentiates between commandments from HIMSELF and commandments from GOD when he writes "Not I but the lord" and "I say". My opponent is attempting to tear down my argument however he uses no logic or reasoning but simply claims that my argument is baseless in hopes that it will become baseless if he claims it to be as such. My argument is backed by RELEVANT scripture and simply LOGICAL deduction which is not at all an interpretation that hinges upon the meanings of greek words.

"I could not agree with you more that the Law has passed away"
My opponent again defeats his own contention of Sodom and Gomorrah, and also dismisses his absurd syllogism in Round 2.

"I would argue that the laws of the Old Testament were not ALL to tell what was a sin."
Ahh, but you have agreed that sin is a disobedience of God's command. Furthermore you insist that others are divinely inspired and that their words are literally God's words (such as your claim that Paul's commands are God's commands and thus are sin to disobey) Sin is either determined by God and God alone, or sin is determined by every person in the Bible's commands. As you agree that that some of these not so ("I agree with you that eating pig is not a sin."), then you agree that only the direct words of God dictate sin. You then also (and you do) have agreed that old testament law was fulfilled and is no longer applicable. Thus you agree that only the commandments of Jesus determine sin.

It cannot be half and half for you to simply choose what scripture is and isn't sin.

"However the Ten Commandments ARE still sins if they are broken."

Good question, why are the ten commandments sin?

Simple they disobey Jesus's commandment of loving God and loving your neighbors.

If you love our neighbors(everyone) you don't steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, covet, or dishonor your parents
If you love God, you don't worship other Gods, make any other idols, misuse the name of God, and keep the sabbath holy.

My opponent then proceeds to copy and paste vague scripture that again is not the word of God nor is inspired by God.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator���‚�"who is forever praised. Amen.
Clearly does not denote homosexuality, but lust, adultery, and worshiping other gods and making idols.

1 Timothy 1: 9 -10
9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers���‚�"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Never does it say homosexuality.

To Conclude: Jesus himself says that every law is based upon loving the Lord our God with all our minds, hearts, and soul, and loving each other as we love ourself. Homosexuality very clearly violates neither of these, and my opponent has based his entire argument on interpreting bible verses to his own benefit which have all been logically been defeated by me.

My opponent has essentially all but dropped his first contention on Sodom and Gomorrah, abandoned his incredibly weak syllogism that every word in the Bible is Jesus's and has failed to prove how the word of Paul equates the word of God when I have shown very clearly that it does not.

Furthermore my opponent's affirmation is that the Bible CLEARLY states that homosexuality is a sin. God not once states this. Which then disproves my opponent's affirmation. My opponent's entire argument utilizes an incorrect interpretation of a slew of scripture verses in order to prove an affirmation which has clearly been defeated.

"my opponent has failed to show any example where the Bible approves of homosexuality"

I don't have to show where it approves of homosexuality, as the debate isn't The Bible clearly approves of homosexuality, because it is The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

All of my arguments disproving affirmation have gone on unrefuted. Instead of bothering to refute them, my opponent has merely copy-and pasted any scripture that could be misinterpreted to suit his needs in order to extend his argument.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
why does it matter what the bible says?
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
It is a pity con deleted his account, I would have liked to debate him on this as although I agree with pro's premise, I don't think he argued it very well.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
For Pro if he reads this (gr33k is it?), if you don't mind I'm curious what you mean by "it is a sacrilege and causes unbelievers to be confused about what Christianity really is." What is it you think christianity really is, and by what authority do you make that claim?
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
Sure thing. It was only off by one number, no big deal, but at first I was like, wait, why can't I find that passage?? lol
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Thanks for catching that by the way
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Yes it is lol that was my bad on the typo then.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
I'm confused. Con listed Genesis 20:1-2 as follows Gen 20: 1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

Isn't that Gen 19, rather than 20?
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
LOL I freakin love the office dude.

My point was is that those words "homosexuality" are all based off an interpretation of greek words. If used in context of: You should not have sex with the same sex because that is homosexuality and it is a sin. Then there really is no argument. However if used in generality like, thou shall not steal, lie, covet, lust, commit adultery, and be a homosexual (one interpretation) (pervert another interpretation) then it's not really a whole lot of concrete proof if it relies on someone's interpretation and the context of the chapter/verse does not indicate either, or.
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 7 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
the only thing I would have done different is to specif a specific version of the Bible and make that the only one to be used.. . . .. that way I'm not quoting verses and then you quote the same verse and have no mention of homosexuality whatsoever. . . .but if only's and buts were candies and nuts then all would be aun de donkfest. . . . I think it goes something like that . ..
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Please leave some reasons for decisions.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the premise, but pro used the weakest arguments, there are much better verses to point to.
Vote Placed by Mark40511 6 years ago
Mark40511
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
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 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Jesusfreak012095 7 years ago
Jesusfreak012095
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Supernova 7 years ago
Supernova
gr33k_fr33k5johngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06