The Instigator
Death23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The bible condemns gay sex

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 1 vote the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 939 times Debate No: 81082
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)

 

Death23

Pro

Resolution: The bible condemns gay sex

As used in this debate, "gay" refers only to homosexual males. It is not inclusive of lesbians.

Voters: ELO minimum of 2,000

Rebuttals only in the final round. No new arguments.
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Death23

Pro

The bible condemns gay sex twice in the book of Leviticus at 18:22 and 20:13.


Leviticus 18:22 - http://biblehub.com...



"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."



Leviticus 20:13 - http://biblehub.com...



"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."



There are, of course, many different translated versions of the passages. Clicking the biblehub.com links will open a page that shows many of the different translations, which aren't substantially different in meaning from the ones I put forth here. I chose the New International Version translation simply because it was at the top of the web pages.


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.


Sources
1. (http://dictionary.reference.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. 2
Death23

Pro


Re: Sources in the comments section / voting issues -



Con can post whatever he wishes in the comments section, but what's posted in the comments section doesn't count. Voters should only consider what is said in the debate when deciding their votes. This is a general rule on voting that isn't waived by mere silence.



Once I voted on a debate and I considered what was in the comments section when casting my vote. One of the debaters protested. So, I spoke with a moderator (F16) about this issue long ago, and his response was this:



"You can't use anything outside the debate when casting your vote. In fact, ideally you shouldn't be reading the comments at all before you make your decision. Nothing besides what's in the debate should count."



http://i.imgur.com...



I subsequently modified my vote to be in compliance with that rule.



Re: Specificity



Con keeps referring to homosexuality and gay marriage. This debate is not about homosexuality or gay marriage. Rather, this debate about gay sex specifically.



Re: Biblical approval of a homosexual romance



Con asserts that if he can show a single instance where the bible approves of a gay relationship, then Con has shown that the bible does not condemn gay sex.



Con is in error. Even if we accept as true Con's contention that the bible approved of a gay relationship, that doesn't mean that the bible didn't condemn gay sex. It would only mean that the bible is inconsistent.



Re: Biblical condemnation of pagans



Con asserts that, in the quoted passages from Leviticus, the bible was condemning the rites of pagan priests. Therefore, Con reasons, the bible did not condemn gay sex.



Con is in error. Even if we accept as true Con's contention that the bible was condemning the rites of pagan priests in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, that doesn't mean that the bible did not condemn gay sex. The bible could easily have been condemning both the pagan rites and gay sex at the same time. In fact, there is no indication from Leviticus that the bible intended to condemn gay sex only as it relates to pagan rites.



Re: Translation from Hebrew



There is no indication that Con is a qualified expert on Hebrew translations of biblical passages. Additionally, there is an obvious conflict of interest here - If we allow Con to translate the passages then he will likely translate them in a manner which would benefit him. So, I urge the voters to disregard Con's translation and stick to the biblehub.com links I provided in the prior round for alternative translations that have been adopted by other versions of the bible.


lannan13

Con

That's a lot irrelivency in this previous round by my opponent, so I'll spend this round addressing it.

Comments Contraversy

I really don't care what F16 says. The Mods have come to a conclusion that if it is placed in the rules of the debate then it may be permitted. [1] Which of course I did so.

Specificity
I appologize for this "semtantics" issue that is occuring, but I can easily play the same game to show that it is within the 5 Degrees of seperation and thus must still be concidered that in this debate and that it is still relivent.

David and Jonathan

My opponent completely dropps this argument here and simply reverts back to it's just the Bible being inconsistent. This is still a key part of the debate as I outlined in my wincon if I show that there's places where it is not condemned then I can win via that. Secondly, my opponent's part in this debate is to prove that the Bible outright condemns gay sex and I have shown in this one instant where not only does the Bible shows it, but he actually approves of it as it shows that if God disapproved of it, due to him being all knowing he wouldn't have gifted David. Hold this against my opponent as it is a key part in this debate.

Leviticus

My opponent is incorrect here when we look to condemning both of these actions as it was targetting Kedoshim. We can see that the actual case in the translation is that it focuses on this Pagen religion and the actions of Kedoshim not Gay sex. [2] My opponent then uses an Ad Hom attack on me to throw out my argument on the basis that I'm not a reliable source, but of course I can the same thing about him. The issue with the Ad Hom Logical Falacy is that it doesn't refute the argument, but resorts to attacking the one who made the argument. This should not only be concidered a dropped argument, but a conduct deduction based on teh personal attack. Though, in order to refute the claim made by my opponent I would like to redirect your attention to my second source of where I found the translation. Mine should be prefered over most of which you'll find on the internet as the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Old Testiment, was orignially written in Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then to English (King James Version). This translation should be prefered as instead of going through all of those translations it goes straight from Hebrew to English.





Sources
1. (http://www.debate.org...)
2. Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible: Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Debate Round No. 3
Death23

Pro

the comments issue is off topic and moot as con is yet to use the comments section to post sources. there is no apparent need to debate this.

con says that showing a spot where the bible approves of gay sex proves that the bible doesn't condemn gay sex. this is not true. suppose the bible was only three vereses -

1. gay sex is condemned
2. gay sex is approved
3. bananas are yellow

the bible would still have condemned gay sex, even though it approved of it one verse later. whether or not the bible approves of gay sex at some point is immaterial to whether or not the bible condemns gay sex. as I said before, even if we accept as true cons contention that the bible approves of a gay relationship, this doesn't mean that the bible didn't condemn gay sex. this would only show an inconsistency.

con says that I have to show that the bible "outright" condemns gay sex. this isn't true either. all I have to show is that the bible condemns gay sex.

con cites no source in his argument regarding the translation. so, con has either translated the words himself or has plagiarized. if the former, then there is no reason to accept cons translation over the dozens of ones provided in the biblehub.com links. those translations are more credible than cons because many Christian denominations use them and they were done professionally. if con plagiarized, then his argument shouldn't even be considered.

con says that this argument is an ad hominem fallacy. it isn't. since con cites no source, the working assumption is that he did the work. his own expertise is relevant when determining whether or not to accept his translation as accurate. he is effectively a witness, and it's not fallacious to determine the credibility of a witness.
lannan13

Con

Alright time to finish this debate up, but my opponent has broken the structure of it making it a bit hard to flow, so I will do my best to attempt to refute it how he did it point by point.

My opponent states that what I have shown is not true, however this is a dropped argument as he has yet to refute it and since it is a dropped argument showing that it is approved in the Bible then I automatically win the debate on that ground alone.

My opponent has yet to show and actually been able to defend holding the argument that another verse condemns homosexuality. I have refuted everything he has stated and due to that no verse would then condemn homosexuality which then again flows the debate into my favor as it shows that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.

My opponent states that I have yet to show a source for this, but that is false since I gave it in my last two rounds. If you missed it here it is again. " Though, in order to refute the claim made by my opponent I would like to redirect your attention to my second source of where I found the translation. Mine should be prefered over most of which you'll find on the internet as the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Old Testiment, was orignially written in Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then to English (King James Version). This translation should be prefered as instead of going through all of those translations it goes straight from Hebrew to English." This was refering to source two. In case you missed that I'll post it in the bottom of this debate. [1]

With that I have shown that the Bible doesn't condemn gay sex, but approves of it. This was dropped and conceded by my opponent.

With that I thank you and please vote Con!



Sources
1. Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible: Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
I'm fishing
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
The debate's over and has been for almost a month, relax.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
In your RFD you write this -

"am I supposed to vote based on if it mentions it at all or if there is an on-balance weighing mechanism? I am inclined to believe on balance because the pro mentions that the last round is only for rebuttals, no new arguments, meaning that the con has some sort of BoP which is only possible with on balance, so that's how I'll vote."

It is very favorable to Con to vote "on balance" as opposed to the "if it mentions it at all", and your reasons for voting this way aren't justified. There's no reason to believe that saying that the last round is only for rebuttals would mean that Con has a BoP, nor is there any reason that Con having a BoP would be only possible with an "on balance" approach. You ignored major rebuttals based on your decision to vote on balance.

Had the debate title used the word "condemned" instead of "condemns", then it would have been very clear. The present tense was used because it would be grammatically inappropriate to use the past tense, which implies a single occurrence at one point in time as if a person had spoken it. The bible is a book and its words have a continuous effect.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Evolution condemns gay sex.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
The use of quotation marks makes the claim that I said something that I didn't say.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
lol? You're saying maybe they did both but that's not really a response, I just put "mebbe" since it was basically the response itself when you consider its weight.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Putting words in my mouth:

"we don't know that they didn't do both"
"mebbe"

If you want to characterize my arguments that way, that's fine, but the use of quotation marks makes the claim that I said something that I didn't say.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Also, I ignored the sources debate because con provided sources within the debate round, so it doesn't even matter.

Con successfully refuted pro's sole contention, and pro did nothing to attack con's constructive one. This means that pro doesn't have a case intact, whereas con does; I must vote con for arguments.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
These refutations are incredibly weak and don't actually attack the substance - saying that maybe we should stick to the sources that benefit his side, because the con has something that benefits his own. Con responds correctly by saying that this is an ad hom. so we shouldn't really consider it because it doesn't attack the substance. Pro doesn't respond meaningfully at all int he next rounds, meaning this is dropped. | Con argues from Jonathan and David, saying that there was kissing between the two and that's indicitive of gay sex because they were so in love. Pro doesn't even attack the argument at all! They just say that we shouldn't consider it because the bible condemns gay sex according to their own argument, thus we should not consider this argument. But because there is no framework, I am judging on on balance, and this argument is totally valid. Con points out this is invalid and that their argument is dropped. Pro still doesn't respond in a meaningful way - dropping.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Right off the bat, I am given no framework to judge the debate; am I supposed to vote based on if it mentions it at all or if there is an on-balance weighing mechanism? I am inclined to believe on balance because the pro mentions that the last round is only for rebuttals, no new arguments, meaning that the con has some sort of BoP which is only possible with on balance, so that's how I'll vote. | Pro cites Leviticus for why they think that the Bible condemns gay sex, and that seems pretty clear cut. Con attacks saying that the verse is really attacking the Canaanites and that it doesn't even talk about gay sex. They give a translation saying that it's "wicked-man" NOT homosexuality. Pro responds with saying "we don't know that they didn't do both", but that's really weak because it doesn't meet their BoP at all, just saying "mebbe"; and they say that con isn't a valid author on translation. Okay, but that's not attacking what the con said, just that con said it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Death23lannan13Tied
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: Comments