The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

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 6 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 92647
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (6)

 

harrytruman

Pro

I wanted to challenge you to this debate because I think I can do better than the guy, he kind of soured the debate.
lannan13

Con

My opponent has neglected to define any terms or create any rules for this debate, with him forfeiting that right I shall do so this round and he will be unable to go and refute or have any feud with the rules, stipulations, or definitions that I will be providing in this round.

Rules
2nd round, Opening arguments by each side, no rebuttals,.
3rd Round Rebuttals
4th Round Rebuttals
5th Round Rebuttals and conclusions.
No Google docs usage, all arguments must be within the debate.
Sources may be placed in the comments section if necessary.
No source spamming.
Semantics permitted to an extent as long as they are following the topicality of the definitions provided.
No Counter-plans
No K's.
Deviation from these rules shall result in a forfeiture.

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 homosexuality due to it being okay/not condemned in that instance. The Burden of Proof is thus on Pro.

Bible- the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising theOld and New Testaments. [2]

Homosexuality- sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one'sown sex. [3]

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

No, you have to prove that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, yopu aren't going to win by finding anm instance where it isn't condemned, just like me finding a place where murder isn't explicitly condemned means that murder isn't condemned by the Torah.
lannan13

Con

My opponent has attempted to argue the rules which he is unable to do so due to the terms and definitions that I have provided. My opponent has also neglected to post any opening arguments, also meaning, by definition, that I win the debate due to his failure to do so, but I shall continue this debate for my own argumentation.

Genesis

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.


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://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

No, I challenged you to the debate, so I get to chose the terms, I cannot do that now as it is round 3, but you do not get to propose terms then say I have to abide by them because you say so. I don't get to shove my terms down your throat and say if you don't accept them you still have to, that's not how a debate works. With that out of the way I will now post my opening arguments.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 calls homosexuality "chazaq," which means a disgusting thing or an abomination; go read the Torah.


Genesis:
I couldn't find anywhere in Genesis 2:21-24 that says it doesn't matter what gender your "other half" is, I did however find these halves specified as male and female, something very specific, if it didn't matter what gender it was it would just say 'adam (human) and 'adam (human), not 'iysh (man)and 'ishshah(woman).

I don't see what polygamy has to do with this debate, if you were "proving" that polygamy is tolerated in the Tanakh then you might be in the wrong debate, this debate is about homosexuality. Either way every single man which was recorded as righteous and who did what is right in the sight of the lord was monagamous, Noah, Moses,Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. The only "great man" who was polygamous was Avram, and according to the Tanakh this was a mistake of his and a sin against G-d.


Samuel and David:
I don't see what you are talking about, Avram stuck his neck out for Lot and this didn't mean that he loved him, well he did but not romantically. Men CAN love other men in non-romantic ways and have genuine non-romantic love you know? If you found a verse where someone tells his dad "I love you," youwould say that incest is OK. This is clearly not true.

And another thing, even if David was gay, the Tanakh only records it, it doesn't say it was OK, a lot of this is just historic records. David also killed a man and owned over 700 wives!

Ruth:
I again cannot see what you are refering to, nowhere do we find that Ruth loved Naomi in any romantic way, they did have some kind of love, but not romantic love, me loving my dad/brothers does not make me gay, because it is not romantic love. They were not gay in any way.

lannan13

Con

My opponent attempts to contest the terms of the debate terms and definitions that I have provided, yet it wasn't until round 3 that he provided definitions. He has forfeited this in the debate and we have to see only my rules and definitions are to be accepted in this debate. My opponent has even stated that he would give his opening arguments, but has defaulted into rebuttals automatically resulting in my win in this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

I didn't forfeit this debate, you made that up, you don't get to propose terms then when I declinew say I can't negate them, that's not how a debate works. Your terms give you an unfair adantage because you could find an instance where homosexuality is recorded but not condemned, this could be used in a debate to say that the bible doesn't condemn murder.

Moses killed an Egyptian, yet he is recorded as a great prophet, does that mean that the bibvle doesn't condemn murder? Obcourse not! Because it clearly states "thou shalt not kill," just like it also states "if a man lies with another man it is an abomination," which in Hebrew is called Chazaq.

Anyway, my opponents arguments were deleted so I will have him send them to me, I will post them on this google document:
https://docs.google.com...
And respond to his argument here:
https://docs.google.com...

lannan13

Con

You would have to pardon me for my last round as it had appeared for whatever reason that the site had decided to glitch out my entire argument, but my opening paragraph. I shall just post it here, since the rules had stated that Google Docs where prohibitted. My opponent continues to conplain about the rules, but had neglected to define them and the terms in the 1st round which left them to me, so you have no choice, but to take my definitions and terms especially since my opponent hasn't challenged them.

Contention 1: Genesis

My opponent completely drops my adnro argument, so please extend it across the board as it helps shows the tollerance of homosexuality in the Bible. I had sited this in my Opening arguments and it remains unchallenged.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.- 1 Timothy 2

In the book of Timothy, we can see that one of St. Paul's disciples had helped explain this verse. We cannot condemn homosexuality in this verse as it shows that Man came before woman and that the woman has caused the fall of man. We can see there is no condemnation here and when you combine this with Plato we can see that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, but actually embraces and accepts it.

He [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines,and his wives led him astray- 1 Kings 11:3

Here we can see that King Solomon, one of the Bible's most well known kings next to David, had committed the action of pologamy. My opponent claims that this is untopical, but this shows that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage and if this is the case then there is no way that homosexuality can be condemned if there is no other alternative solution to an acceptable marriage.

Contention 2: Samuel and David

It doesn't matter if it was a record or not. He had stated that he loved David more than men, not to mention that they pratically performed sodomy in the Bible and God did not smite them for it. For this you have to extend my argument across the board.

Contention 3: Ruth

My opponent has dropped this argument, so I'll have to extend this across the board. The verse that I cited was the perfect example as it was the very creation of the verse used at weddings to show the intamacy of the two couples involved, showing obvious homosexual ties from this.
Debate Round No. 4
lannan13

Con

My opponent has used Google Docs, violating the rules in this debate resulting in his forfeiture.

With that, I thank you and please vote Con,
Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
No!
You dropped EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT in round 3 yet you won- wtf!
Posted by lannan13 7 months ago
lannan13
Can we just stop with all the reports?
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments (6 days ago)

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter explains their decision to award conduct on the basis of a perceived lack thereof with regards to the usage of Google Docs, and it's explained why that usage should result in a conduct violation.
************************************************************************
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
After reading Whiteflames comment, I now agree that my position is not in conflict with his position. With this in mind, I shall vote. My apologies in advance to tejretics.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
With regards to the previous vote non-removals:

These votes have been reported repeatedly, and while it's understandable why the reporter wishes for these to be removed, the reasoning that has so far been presented to me has not been enough to warrant removal. If any of these votes solely predicated their decision on the view that use of Google Docs is automatically a conduct violation, without any need for explanation, then they would be removed. None of them do this. They either explain their decision based on the rules given in the debate, or establish why the use of Google Docs should be considered a rule violation. It's not up to moderation to decide whether either of these explanations sufficiently establishes a reason to award conduct.

If the reporter wishes to discuss this, I'm open to PMs, but until then, further reports of these votes will no longer be addressed.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
Tej, for the record, I think you should get the award for "most thorough rfds" (if such an award existed).
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
Okay

For the record, I do think you're a great voter, and respect you for that.
Posted by kasmic 7 months ago
kasmic
I'm honestly surprised that your are worried about the ethic of my votes considering the hypocrisy that entails.
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
I'm sure it had nothing to do with "laziness," but it is a "lazy vote" in the sense that you didn't take the time to explain arguments. It doesn't matter to *whom* the argument points are awarded, or if they're tied... what matters is there's explanation for that.

I'm honestly surprised you're defending one-point votes--and am, I admit, saddened.
Posted by kasmic 7 months ago
kasmic
Aside from that, I don't think any of the voters, myself included had your respect as voters anyways.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
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: Rfd in comments (6 days ago)
Vote Placed by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This wasn't the best debate I've read. Pro says Leviticus calls homosexuality "chazaq" or "disgusting," which is Pro's only offense and which Con drops. Con, meanwhile, provides one example of the Bible being okay with homosexuality, which Pro doesn't address either. I don't buy Pro's argument on Leviticus because Pro doesn't actually source Leviticus saying this, which is a problem with the warrant. I'm torn on how to vote on this debate since what Pro is saying is possibly a factual error and unsourced, but Con's argument doesn't actually show that the Bible does *not* condemn homosexuality in any instance. I'm left with voting a tie despite Pro carrying the burden of proof, because Pro actually provides an offensive argument, just one that I'm forced to ponder the credibility of. I can reasonably see voters giving this debate to Pro or even Con, though. Perhaps the debaters should ask a stronger voter, e.g. YYW, to vote on this.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 7 months ago
fire_wings
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
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: I will give conduct point to Con. Con makes definitions in round 1, and if Pro disagrees, he needs to actually say this in round 2, but sadly he did it in the middle of the debate, so it doesn't count. Pro violates the google doc. rule, and violating the rules makes a forfeiture, and pro violates them, so Con wins.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by famousdebater 7 months ago
famousdebater
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
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: I agree with Pro that Con cannot just state all the rules and expect Con to abide by it. But Pro used google docs which is a conduct violation - regardless if it was in the rules or not. The usage of google docs allowed him to get past the character limit and edit his round after it was posted. Whether or not he committed the latter potential rule violation is not known to me however since he did do this, giving him the ability to do this I award conduct to Pro since he stayed within the debate which prevented him from exceeding the character limit and editing his round. Therefore, I award conduct to Con. (NOTE: I do agree with Kasmic that what lannan did is wrong however since Pro used google docs and I would have considered that a conduct violation anyway, I find this factor to be irrelevant in my conclusion of awarding the conduct point).
Vote Placed by kasmic 7 months ago
kasmic
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I was asked by con to vote on this. He asked me stating "Could I get you to vote here? Short debate and opponent breaks the rules resulting in a forfeiture." What a waste of a debate. Lannan, your better than this. I agree with pro that con cant just list rules and then demand that pro (who instigated the debate) must adhere to them or he forfiets. TBH, I just lost a ton of respect for con due to this gross misconduct. Ergo, I vote conduct to pro. I award no argument, source, or spelling points.