The Instigator
swalker
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

should homosexuals be allow to be a pastor?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,370 times Debate No: 16273
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

swalker

Con

I don't agree with homosexuals should be allowed to be a pastor because the bible says that laying with another man as it a women it a abomination to the lord .
Marauder

Pro

Quick disclaimer, ultimately I agree with the con on this issue. But this issue keeps coming up in my church and I would like to here other debaters responses to some of the arguments and cases I hear often.

Contention #1
To open with I bring up the contention often brought up that though the bible calls it an abomination, it never calls it a sin.

Contention #2
The verse in the bible in question is in Leviticus, and if we went by everything said in leviticus we would have to utterly destroy building with mold on them, and give all our land back to previous owners every Jubillee year (seventh sabboth year) and not plow our fields every seventh year to give the land a rest (sabath year). not even the jews of the time followed all of these cause that sabboth year and jubillee year stuff is just crazy. why should there be so much trouble to make sure our decendants get land one day we decided to give up? and how can one go a year without getting harvest from the land? I know we use up every hay bail on my farm in the winter by the time grass finally starts growing again for the cattle.

fact is, there is a lot of crazy stuff in leviticus, and though they may have been important to follow to the letter at the time for time specific context reasons, most of those laws no longer apply to us. Leviticus has individual specific laws, community specific, and everyone everywhere laws (the 10 commandmants). Basically the only ones that general and basic enough that they apply to us as much as they did the Isrealites back then are the 10 cammandments, and not one of those speaks of homosexuality.

Contention #3
DNA studies is begginning to suggest Gays are born the way they are, and why would god create something he thought an abomination? pehaps it can be assumed that since God told the Isralites not to lie with man as he would a woman and vise versa it can be deduced that he created no gays amoung them, so there only reasons for homosexual practice was not a natural kind that God gave them. But as for today, Jesus does not talk about the abomination of homosexual sin in the Gosples, so perhaps that era is over where God does not create gays.

Contention #4
I have copy of the United Methodist Book of Disciplen (2008) and under Local Church, Layspeaking Ministries (paragraph 271) http://www.holston.org... It gives the churches rules and policey concerning Lay Minister's (a.k.a. Local Pastures)
Local Pastures are like regular pastures except they are not ordained, they have not gone through extensive training of seminary school.
Why does a church even need to make such provisions to make it easier to get new pastures? shouldnt all pastures go through the training of seminary and become ordained? well the reason comes from the need in lack in pastors obviously. Men out there are just not answering the call to pastorial ministry and not commiting to getting ordained like they used to. and throughout the bible when men do not pick up the call that god intended for them to have he gives it to someone else. he intended for barak to obey and attack another army, Barack would not without Debrah so he gave the honor of killing the enemy general to a woman. He intended for the jews to be his people, they rejected him so he made the gentiles his people also.
Perhaps at one time it would have been prefable to just have straite men preaching in churches but without such men answering the call but the need still being there we are left to employ others we have not before such as women. and even with wemon pastors we have now there is still need for the Local pasturs outlined in the Book of Disciplen. We cannot continue on without makeing the qualifications for pastorialship less exclusive.

Contention #5
even if you can call homosexuality a sin, what difference does it make? are we not all sinners? is there any straite pastor who is blameless of all the other sins besides homosexual practice? I do not think there are any that dare claim that but only men humble enough to admit they need saved by the Lord our God. What unique circumstance warrents different treatment of this sin a potential pastor may be guilty of than others? Jeus said we are to be forgiving to the point of 7 * 70 (meaning infinitly).

Contention #6
Sin is usally accapted to mean going against the will of god, making the cognitive choice to act the opposite of what the spirit of God tells you is right in our conciouses, and do what those conciouses tell us is wrong. C.S. Lewis once wrote in his book 'the abolition of Man' that if a person wires are crossed in there brains so that they are handicapped from percieving that something is an immoral choice but rather recognize the wrong as right, they they are not making immoral 'choice' since there wires have been crossed from phycological damage as a child perhaps that makes them think backwords from what god intended for them.

Contention #7
In any case how can we judge homosexuals as commiters of a sin that we are not tempted to. the bible says in 2 corinthians that there is no trail or temptaition that is not common to all man and none that we cannot rise above. if homosexual acts are a sin then it should follow that in some way we all are tempted to it for all temptations are common to all mankind. But I cannot testify that I am tempted to it in anyway, so how can I speak to others about beating a temptation I know nothing about? I ask my opponent has she ever been tempted to call herself a homosexual or tempted to the smallest degree of the 'sin', lustfull acts or thoughts toward the same-gender as herself? If you have describe this some for me so that I might know what I could be overlooking that happens to me in some small degree that catogorizes as the kind of temptation homosexuals go through, but go through in a larger degree and fail to rise above of course.

Those are all my contentions. some of them you could look up from my previous debates and see I put no honest stock in them whatsoever but I'd like to here other responses to it then my own like contention #3, some of them are borrowed a little from a debate on allowing wemon pastors that I felt applied here so long as I am applying contention 5 also, and some of them are honest causes for doubts that I myself have on this issue like #7.

I put them all up there though because I would love to here my opponents responses to all of them and hope for a good fun, healthy debate!

I await my opponents response.

Debate Round No. 1
swalker

Con

swalker forfeited this round.
Marauder

Pro

.....same contentions.
Debate Round No. 2
swalker

Con

swalker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
Alright maybe the airplane was a bad example. I stray away from using this, so I'm not "typecast" if you will, but I have a decent amount of tattoos. I don't know why but I feel much more comfortable with them than I did when I did not have them. I know some people can not see themselves with tattoos, they wouldn't feel comfortable with them, it's not their thing and that's cool. A lot of my friends have no tattoos at all. But, that doesn't change the fact that there are people out there that can and will and feel more comfortable with themselves. Anyway, I understand about the sarcasm and the inability to comprehend it whilst typing. But, I know you at least understand partially where I'm coming from. As I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours back. There could be more closet Pastors out there but, that's just the point no one is shoving their beliefs in your face, they got caught proving that everyone sins so who's to say that a pedophile vs. a homosexual would provide a better message especially if people didn't know in the first place. Homosexuals aren't trying to get anyone else to become homosexual at all. And again I have to stress, as I do know a thing or 2 about christianity being confirmed at one point and time, any pastor preaching to a congregation is in charge of that congregation. You don't have to believe in what they stand for, you have your own beliefs as does your god. And he will be the one doing the judging. Therefore I don't see what the point of taking a cadence to arms outside of a debate has to do with anything, as you mentioned this comes up in your church and other commentators are voicing their opinion as well. This is where it becomes an extreme and even your god wouldn't approve of these thoughts and actions. If you wan't feel free to message me for further more in depth conversation it's proved interesting.
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
character thing that keeps you from jumping off the plane right? you lack the wimsy to think its worth taking a shot, you lack the faith in the parachute you have every reason to rely on, or you simply submit yourself to fear so much that you could never make the jump. character is kind of the whole issue in morality discussions.
On that last one, fear, if that's your reason, I sympathies cause I do not discipline myself well enough to keep it from ruling much of my life too. I hope to someday, I do not accept that its just part of my being that I can never be anything more than a coward when it comes to the fears I give into frequently and predictably. to just accept that submission to fear as part of me that cant change though, that would be unchrist-like and it would also be stupid in general

sorry if I came off as disdanefull, wasn't shooting for that. sarcastic maybe, but not disdanefull. I find an awful lot on this site the communication we rely on tone of voice most in personal conversation does not translate as well as we ever want it when typing.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
I believe since you did use it in your argument it is an issue. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, it is true. This reminds me of the scene in Inglourious Basterds when Christopher Waltz(Col. Landa) is talking about the hostility the Nazi people hold towards Jews. I'll break down other prime examples however. Some people are willing to jump out of an airplane, and they love doing it. I could not jump out of an airplane it freaks me out. But, that's just me I'm not able to do it they are there's easily something different about them than there is about me. Everyone is also born with different fears for no reason whatsoever but they still are present and exist. Your argumentation presented towards me, along with your disdain just exemplifies why your actions are in parallel to fascist regimes.
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
sorry about the masters of evil link, copied that for a mafia game and something went wrong with the link to what I meant to give, a previous debate of mine http://www.debate.org... DNA is not relevant to this issue, though I use it in this debate with swalker cause I'm playing devils advocate, I think its the dumbest case made out of all of them.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
I like the masters of evil list I'll admit. I was quite confused about the 2nd statement but I'll do the best to cover all bases. I like the idea of age of consent I think it plays out quite well with society. Now as a whole it does have flaws as there are numerous people over the age of consent not mature enough for the ramifications of sexual activity. That being said I also don't think it takes a religious figure to determine the proper age it deems itself appropriate for such acts without legal consequences, hence why we have separation of church and state. Laws work without the direct influence of religion, and whether there is any connection at all is left to skepticism. But when it comes to my beliefs and Anarchy I do believe in order. I like that you included "submitting to drunkenness" I think everyone is held accountable for their actions sober or intoxicated. Obviously it's not into the hands of the unknowingly intoxicated who have been taken advantage of, that's gross misconduct and manipulation. The whole world is one of differences of opinion and belief. This is where religions get way too hairy. Every one of them thinks they have the one true answer. You should realize that your stance puts you in a position that would advocate a war over words, or in this case scripture. We all see how peaceful the Middle East is living each day with their 1000+ year war still raging. That's not the society we should be living in hence why a lot of people have walked away from that life. Let your god judge, if there's someone out there that wants to take charge who is gay so what they obviously don't believe in what you believe, that's why there's so many denominations of christianity within itself. Civil liberties aren't for a church to decide that's why we have a government, as flawed as it is. I don't disagree that many politicians are crooked. However, it's our duty to do our own research and vote for the ones we see fit, or attempt at making changes.
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
first off, the born that way quality is a meaningless factor http://en.wikipedia.org...

second off, are you suggesting that by your religious beliefs that minors cant give consint that laws should be based on it making pedofilia bad?

what you suggest connects to anarchy because you simply advocate letting people do whatever they want all in the name of 'acceptance of there differences' even bad acts like submitting to drunkaness are distinguishable as 'differences' for those that commit them.
I sense some emotion to you post and am guessing you equate this acceptance (to the point of ignoring it) of another's behavior as love. this is not the case, that's just being tolerant. love is sometimes quite restrictive, and for a professing homosexual who wants to be a pastor, and shepard gods flock, leading them against the battle against sin, they will have to square off with the log in there own eye first before they could ever qualify to help others with the specks in there's.

I'd argue more about that last part if I wasn't still holding just a little hope my opponent will come back at some point in time and actually finish the debate. if she does I don't want to give here ideas.

anyway, dirtbags can influence society a lot too, we call them politicians. but that doesn't make their dirtbagyness a quality that doesn't come with disciplinary action when it comes the light. if homosex is a sin, then professing to treat it as not a sin is a problem, saved or not, for a Shepard of gods people.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
Well I'm glad sarcasm isn't lost on your people. However, you need to take into consideration that we are further proving, proving being the key word, people are born homosexual and can't change that about them. I think you are overlooking the idea that being a homosexual and taking actions requires 2 consenting parties otherwise they would be classified with the other minority we know as rapists, tossing you a little tongue in cheek there. I don't know how my logic is consistent at all with advocating bestiality, that would be advocating cruelty to animals, or in any way anarchic. Am I to believe you're suggesting that "laws and rules" are based upon religious principles alone? Whether you want to admit it or not, homosexuals are a supporting social minority. I use the term supporting because they commit no crimes, live day to day, pay their taxes, and love friends and families just as you do. To where as you so sarcastically put it, they are the equivalent to a law breaking destructive society of rape and animal cruelty. You sir are so correct to give equal rights to people working to get by to see their loved ones in a hospital, have equal tax breaks in a steady healthy marriage, and be able to have any job they are willing and able to do, would be pure anarchy. Really I see no damage done at all. Don't worry if a homosexual is preaching at a church...don't go there. And if homosexuals were to be married one day, it's fine just because the law says it's ok doesn't mean your god will let them live in the afterlife with you. I believe it is your logic that is truly limiting and ultimately destructive. There is a thing called philanthropy I'm sure Jesus is quite the fan. I don't know why you would limit your opinion on people based on differences. There is help from all walks of life most of the time when you don't expect it. I'm just suggesting that if you accept everyone more are likely to return the favor, you never know what curve balls you'll be thrown in life
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
Did you know that pedophiles are a minority too, there completely persecuted and kept at the bottom totem pole of society. and sex offender in general, they have there personal information distributed out to public awareness, often have warrants keeping them away from other people, sometimes keeping them from leaving the state.

cant you just accept that its okay for a man to have sex with his boy? and how about those that practice bestiality there a minority too, cant we just accept there behavior to and have them lead us in our political and or spiritual lives as well? did not many union soldiers die so that we would no longer discriminate against other minority and encourage people to do whatever they want?

did my tong in cheek tone come out clearly enough to let you know I'm not seriously suggesting these things, but showing you just cause you attach the word 'minority' to describe them that does not attach there case to the history civil rights movements.

by the way if your consistent with your logic and do support the minority rights of bestiality, can I say what your suggesting comes of as something I would expect to find in an anarchist society. I hope I'm not the only one who see's that.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
Well let's take a look at the topic at hand homosexuals, homosexuals are humans and a minority group so obviously they are held down by the majority and their personal beliefs. Now lets go back in american by not even 100 years. Women, at the time a minority, and African Americans were minorities with limited freedom and rights at best. I recall learning that segregation was in effect during that period. If we take a look at the debate presented, yes we are talking about a religious sanction sure, but we are denying or believing to deny rights of faith and expression of that faith just because someone is different. You are basically saying you believe Homosexuals deserve to drink out of a different water fountain and their belief holds less weight than yours does. So you meant to tell me you haven't learned that through history discrimination, in any form, is nonetheless evil. And, your god would commend your actions in keeping your fellow humankind at a lower position on the totem pole of society? I also present the given history of the past preachers of the Catholic church who were sodomizing young boys. Up until the time they were discovered they were honored role models. Or the Evangelist preachers who were having prostituted homosexual affairs. A homosexual can have faith and a positive message. What difference does it make of whose voice it's coming out of? As long as the message is there and it's a good one I see no contention for there to be any discrimination against Homosexuals at all. As history will show that they are a minority, struggling for rights, and constantly being denied them from all walks of life and faith. And if we want to point out regimes the obvious is the Nazis, the KKK, etc., all have targets of hatred whether it be: Homosexuals, Mentally Challenged, Racial, it is all based on the difference of opinion. Yet people wonder why, when there are debates both sides look at the other side as ignorant, or more or less wrong.
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
could you explain further Ryan, you post sounds interesting. what did I I or other commenters say that go with a fascist Regime? and shifted my views from what to a universal sense of phlanthropy?

and whatever you meant by wondering if my views had shifted, I cant see how you should know they shift at all with knowing what they are to start with or now for the most part. I only posted a few of my actual views in the debate, the rest is me just playing devils advocate hoping to learn more methods of dealing with this issue others take so I can arm myself next time it comes up in my church.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jimloyd 4 years ago
jimloyd
swalkerMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: heck no
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
swalkerMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
swalkerMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfiet