The Instigator
Mr.Muffin
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

What are your views on 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...
Mr.Muffin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 87808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Mr.Muffin

Pro

I personally agree with homosexuality or Same Sex marriage on the grounds that everyone should be able to follow what they believe in as long as it is legal. For some people, homosexuality or gay marriage is seen as something that contests the bible. And it contests with the Old Testament. Often. But in the New Testament, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. However, he did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:
"What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you." (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)
Some people think that it's disgusting, or "Sexual immoral" that two people of the same sex can be physically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to each other, and that is their opinion. I personally feel that everyone, no matter race, sexual orientation, creed, age, gender, or religion should be able to follow their own path and strive for happiness. However, using those things above to get attention or to bully people is not okay. Using Christianity and The Bible to make people feel bad or to hurt people is not okay and should not happen. Using the fact that you're black or a women to get attention or to bully people is absolutely not okay. But using homosexuality, or faking homosexuality to get peoples attention or to hang out with groups of the opposite sex is, in my opinion, "sexually immoral", and therefore, unacceptable. Just to restate, I agree with homosexuality and Same Sex marriage on the terms listed above.
ViceRegent

Con

Murdering Jews was legal in Nazi Germany. Glad you are cool with it.

No, I prefer God's morality which says sodomites are to face mandatory capital punishment.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Muffin

Pro

No, murdering Jews was not "legal" in Nazi Germany, and I'm not okay with it. Hitler used propaganda and manipulation to make Jews seem much less than people, which is why he got away with it. He also had total power in Germany and was very politically based. And people who disagreed with Hitler were usually murdered or taken prisoner, which is why no one stood up to him. That argument is off topic and isn't related to the debate.

I would appreciate it if you explained why, with facts or opinions, why you think homosexuals should be given capital punishment. Your lack of facts and/or opinions makes it hard to make this a debate. Thank you.
ViceRegent

Con

Ahhh, yes, the Final Solution was very much legal in Germany, so you must be ok with it given your "its ok if it is legal nonsense". You must also be ok with racial slavery in America prior to 1863, since it was also legal.

I made my explanation clear: The fact that God says so. I can think of no better reason for any moral position. The fact that you deny this fact makes you delusional.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Muffin

Pro

And that brings us to the fact that slavery was very wrong, but it wasn't one persons dream or right whatsoever. And the fact that slavery is still a thing, and not just for black people. And just because God says no doesn't make it not okay. Jesus doesn't state anything about it. God didn't say slavery was bad, so let's all go enslave people. If you find homosexuality immoral that's fine, but you can't go around killing all these gay people. Oh, and while we're doing that, let's kill everyone who has brown eyes. They can't help having brown eyes, it's programmed into them. Homosexuality isn't a disease or a choice, it's something that is part of the person. And your earlier quote states that God says sodomy is wrong. Straight people engage in sodomy. So I guess you want to punish all those straight people as well for doing something that doesn't hurt anyone. You can't use Christianity to hurt people. That's immoral.
ViceRegent

Con

Ohhh, so you are rejecting your own argument to sodomy being ok because it is legal. I am glad we agree that is nonsense.

But no, if God says something is moral and another thing immoral, it is. Period. God says sodomites are to be executed because their act is so vile. He is right.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: didorus// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Homosexuality is naturally immoral. It just doesn't biologically work.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's views on the subject matter.
************************************************************************
Posted by klaralein 1 year ago
klaralein
At least he PROVIDED an argument, VR.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Just because some fool on the internet says "God say so" is not a reasonable position does not make it so. And he accuses others of bad argument style.

Good grief.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
I have to wonder if either debater has ever read the bible. The bible clearly condones slavery and condemns homosexuality. Jesus specifically said he had not come to change the law, so the "that's old testament" argument is unsound. Both debaters argued using the kind of ideas you get in the Sunday school version of the bible, not the actual text.

Also, the "Because god says so" position is not a reasonable position. Look up the Euthyphro dilemma.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
How do you know your god is real goodrin?
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Things are no so because God says so, God says So because things are so. God's judgement is perfect in nature. they can be evaluated scientifically.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
it is essential for negating, depression, suicide, murder, rape, criminal behaviour, corrupt agendas, social injustice, public harassment, corruption of people (children womanizers, etc..).

God is merciful. If they deserve it They really fawked up.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I vote Con. Con wins. Mandatory capital punishment.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
you did nothing vice except hold onto one sentence of his. not a single argument of your own
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
Mr.MuffinViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con did not really have an argument nor did he respect his opponents arguments.
Vote Placed by klaralein 1 year ago
klaralein
Mr.MuffinViceRegentTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used an insulting and condescending attitude throughout the entire debate, so I gave conduct to Pro. I gave arguments to Pro because Con's only argument was that of an opinion on an interpretation of an uncited Bible passage, so his argument may or may not even be in his source. So I gave arguments to Pro. I gave sources to Pro because Con never specified his source in the Bible, while Pro gave directly marked Bible entries to back up his arguments.