The Instigator
panasyuk123
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
KuriouserNKuriouser
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

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 6 votes the winner is...
KuriouserNKuriouser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,710 times Debate No: 25714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

panasyuk123

Pro

How can it be possible that a Christian can be gay if in the bible, Leviticus 18:22, it says "Thou shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination". According to the bible, its obviously wrong to be a homosexual.

NOTE: I don't want people commenting hate comments or people who are just going to diss the religion of Christianity.

THANKS! :)
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

Pro has the burden of proof and I can refute his arguments to win.

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus (1).


Homosexual (person):adj.Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex (2).

Pro supplies a verse from Leviticus to show that homosexuality is an abomination. However, Leviticus 11:10-12 states that eating shellfish is an abomination. Does this mean that people who eat oysters or mussels can not be Christians? To be consistent Pro would have to say "yes", but this is obviously absurd so the argument must be invalid.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 1
panasyuk123

Pro

Sorry, I am new to this, but let me rephrase myself.
How can someone be homosexual and a believe in Jesus as Christ?
Do they simply just ignore the bible? Or do they just not believe parts of the bible?
There is no such thing as a gay Christian...if it can found in scripture...then please enlighten me.
Living a homosexual lifestyle is sin. I think that you can be a Christian living in sin. But You cant possibly not feel guilty about being a homosexual and a Christian at the same time, Then there's no way Homo's can go to church, because preachers usually talk about how wrong homosexuality is wrong.
All Christians struggle with sin, but God always takes them back.
I do not believe that you can be a gay Christian. It's an oxymoron!
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

Since Pro's arguments that homosexuality is a sin in R2 are still based on Leviticus and I showed that eating oysters is equally abominable let me simply switch them out in Pro's R2 arguments.

How can someone eat oysters and believe in Jesus as Christ?
Do they simply just ignore the bible? Or do they just not believe parts of the bible?
There is no such thing as an oyster-eating Christian...if it can be found in scripture...then please enlighten me. Eating oysters is sin. I think that you can be a Christian living in sin. But You can't possibly not feel guilty about eating oysters and be a Christian at the same time…

The absurdity of Pro's argument as given is obvious. Besides you will not find Jesus condemn homosexuality one single time.

Debate Round No. 2
panasyuk123

Pro

Eating shellfish it is NOT a SIN, it is FORBIDDIN.They are not neccesarily the same thing.
A lot of Semitic cultures and religions prohibit eating animals that eat the flesh or the waste of other animals. And by following the verse about Oysters, you are protecting yourself. If you want scientific reasoning that backs it up, there's diseases like red tide that can infect some species of shellfish, and be entirely untraceable. Also, all of the verses forbidding homosexuality are probably for our safety. One of my friend's uncles was gay and died from AIDS.
For your information, the Bible is not the only book that forbids homosexuality, so does the Quran (Islamic) and the Tanakh (Jewish).
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con


Pro fails to give any argument in R3 why one is a sin and the other is forbidden. He just claims it to be so without warrant. He states that oysters and homosexuality are forbidden in Leviticus for our protection, but fails to state why such health risks would prevent someone from being a Christian. His entire argument rests on a verse in Leviticus forbidding it, but I have shown the exact same statement made about eating shellfish. Pro failed to give any reason why homosexuality is different from eating shellfish. It's absurd to believe that you can't be Christian and eat oysters (especially with Saltine crackers, yum), therefore, there is no reason given by Pro why you can not be Christian and a homosexual. Pro failed his BOP. Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ronnie21 4 years ago
Ronnie21
The bible is nothing more than an interpretation, when the word say "Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God." -Corinthians, some believe marking your body is tattoos others believe it is the spirit of Jezebel, some say it's homosexuality, then how can one religion have so many different senses of morality, simply because the bible is nothing more than an interpretation.
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Oh, wait. He referenced Leviticus once. So did I.
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Jacob_Apologist gives the argument to Pro and justifies it with arguments that never entered the debate. He gives sources to Pro even though Pro never used a single source.

One couldn't be more obvious in voting based on his own prejudice. Regards, Jacob. Way to represent =)
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Jacob, just because the argument used is not sound does not mean that Con loses; Pro did not provide a reason for why it wasn't sound, and so the argument was not defeated. Furthermore, even if it was, by your own logic, one could bring up external arguments against Pro's statements and simply make Con the winner, and vice-versa.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
I havent read more poor and stupid debate than this!
Posted by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
When the word "abomination" is used when referring to a ritual practice.

"1. Leviticus is not where we go for our moral instruction. It is a central thesis of Paul that Jesus has freed us from the Law.

2. Leviticus is that book of the Law which has specifically to do with cult--sacrifice, priesthood, ritual purity. It is in this regard that it touches on homosexuality.

3. The Hebrew word "toevah" (translated "abomination" and "detestable act") is a cultic, not a moral, term. The English "abomination" means abhorrent, loathsome, unspeakably bad. Toevah means ritually unclean. Eating pork is toevah; having sex with a menstruating woman is toevah. You cannot come to worship after doing these things until you have been purified.

4. Nor does the naming of the death penalty mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Also punishable by death in the Law is disobedience to parents (no age specified), picking up sticks on the Sabbath, adultery, and many other actions."

More info here
http://www.str.org...
http://www.tektonics.org...
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Since the word count is so low I'll post my greetings and thanks for proposing this subject to my opponent here in the comment section. As you said, there will be no need to insult Christianity as I simply intend an objective discussion of the subject at hand.

All the best to my opponent. Cheers.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
@Zaradi

It would appear not...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Pro, ever heard of celibacy?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
panasyuk123KuriouserNKuriouserTied
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: CON wins on all counts... I think there is some validity to the Premise, but PRO did not do it justice (as there are remarks in the New Testament regarding homosexuality Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-10) but Pro doesn't even attempt to use them.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
panasyuk123KuriouserNKuriouserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Jacob's votebomb. You can disagree with Con's reasoning all you like, but Pro never provided that reasoning, which means he didn't defeat the argument. Therefore, you vote-bombed. Not to mention that neither group had sources, so that was just an unjustified choice.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
panasyuk123KuriouserNKuriouserTied
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: Pro mostly talks past con. And he never showed how one sin disallows you from heaven. Most of it was junk stuff.
Vote Placed by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
panasyuk123KuriouserNKuriouserTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Diettttttttttery law was only for Jews until the coming of MMesiah. The OT Diet law is abiding after the law is fulfilled. iit was ritual ceremonial law. homosexlty come in moral sins which are for all as also mentioned in New testament. The argu of Con was absurd.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
panasyuk123KuriouserNKuriouserTied
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: argumentum ad oysterum
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
panasyuk123KuriouserNKuriouserTied
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: Pro's argument is flawed. More detail in Comments