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

The Bible is Against Homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 921 times Debate No: 33205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I don't want to argue, I want a sensible debate. You say on your profile that the Bible and Homosexuality can be resolved. I want to contest that in a non-hate manner by showing you some scriptures (christian to christian). :)
Debate Round No. 1


essa.grace forfeited this round.


He forfeited
Debate Round No. 2


Sorry about that, I didn't forfeit, I simply went on vacation. :) Below are several scriptures against homosexuality. I hope you take it to heart. Homosexuality was invented by humans who had feelings that were NOT natural. There ae lots more, but these were the ones that came to me first. Thanks!

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

1 Kings 14:24
And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. (ESV)

1 Kings 15:12
He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. (ESV)

2 Kings 23:7
He also tore down the living quarters of the male and female shrine prostitutes that were inside the Temple of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah pole. (NLT)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)

1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)

Jude 7
And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. (NIV)


The Levitical Law

The verses are reffering to Pagan rituals. Not anyone in general. The levitical laws are wackey and were only to those people at that time.

These laws require that you can’t go anywhere on the Sabbath so that would rule out going to church, shopping at the mall or going to a ball game. If your kids cursed or disobeyed you, you would be under obligation to put them to death. Same penalty for those who read their horoscopes – yep – death. Know of anybody who had committed adultery? You’ve got it! Death.

While such harsh punishments should reduce our overpopulation problems and traffic jams on the way to work. I’m not sure this is what God has in mind for us today! At least its a little easier for those of us in our menstrual period. Instead of death we would only be sent out beyond the city limits to wait out our "humiliation". Jewelry, beauty parlors (i.e. hair styles) or tattoos – forget it! No pork or shellfish and touching anything “unclean” is out. At least that one sounds ok – I don’t like unclean things. Of course the rub in this case is that anything with a cloven hoof is considered “unclean” so that means pigskin and the like is out! No bacon in the morning, leather purses, wallets, jackets and the like are out. Footballs and basketballs would have to convert over to synthetics or those sports would be out as well.

Divorces would get pretty interesting too. You see, men were permitted to ‘put away’ their wives just about anytime they wanted to. Not to mention they were allowed to have as many wives as they wanted! Women, on the other hand, were forbidden to initiate the divorce and would be stoned to death if they were caught cheating. I could go on and on, but why - especially since these Laws are no longer applicable to us today?

(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

(d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?

(g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

(h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

(i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

(j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

1 and 2 Kings are about male cult prostitute. Not Homosexuals in genral. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were raping men not because they were having consentual homo sex.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 1 Timothy 1:8-10

the debate around each centers pretty much around the proper definition of one word - arsenokoitais (Strongs #733). The Greek word arsenokoitais has posed a problem for scholars throughout the years, as it appears to be a ‘slang’ word not commonly used. In fact it only appears twice in Scripture once in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and again in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Because of these translation problems we see these passages interpreted various ways. For instance the King James translates arsenokoitais in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 as “abusers of themselves with mankind”, Worrell translates it as “sodomites” while the NIV, NAS and others translate it as “homosexuals”.

Arsenokoitais has the same translation problems in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. With the King James writing “them that defile themselves with mankind”, ASV is “abusers of themselves with mankind, New King James and Worrell say “sodomites”, NIV has “perverts” while the NAS and New Living write “homosexuals”. So who is right?

One thing is clear. That being that this interpretation debate is a relatively new one. For years these passages were always translated as ‘abuser of self” or “sodomite” (e.g. KVJ and Worrell). Because of the ambiguity of the literal meaning behind arsenokoitais the earlier Bible scholars felt an equally ambiguous ‘catch all’ word such as “sodomite” seemed appropriate enough. They and others since then have pointed out that if Paul wanted to specifically say “a homosexual man” there were certainly words in the Greek language to do so as homosexuality was a rather common practice in both the Greek and Roman cultures (Paul wrote his letters in the Greek language). Paul elected NOT to use these words and instead used the more ambiguous word arsenokoitais. So what DOES arsenokoitais mean?

"The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy."

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Anti-atheist 5 years ago
"abomination" is a word reffering to pagan rituals. Morals are objective but some of the bible was to those group of people. Come on do you shave?
Posted by StevenDixon 5 years ago
If morals are objective and god refers to homosexuality as detestable and an abomination, this is a clear indication that it's wrong, unless morals are subjective relative to time period and culture(which they are in reality).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 5 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pretty much made assumptions and claimed them as fact without sources. However, Pro used the Bible. Con also got off-topic a lot and decide to go all "Confused Christian Rambo" and destroy the OT using ignorance. Pro wins everything but conduct, which is... a... awa... awar.... given to Con because Pro forfeited a round. No awards for Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: One round of debating is really not enough for me to judge such a contested issue. Conduct for missed round.