The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

the bible may not be against 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 82153
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




The bible isn't really against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.


I accept and will get right down to work. This topic is very sesitve to me as my own aunt is lesbian. But I beleive it is a choice unless someone has a mental disability. I would like to find your sources for that "bad" translation because if you research more you will find every other translation that I can find show that you should not lie with a man in the way you would lie with a women, it is an abomination. So unless you can prove that your text is valid I will keep believing the 100s of scholars who translated my bible. First leviticus 18:22 GWT "Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a women." that seems pretty clear to me. Next you say

1st corinthians 1:9-11 is a bad translation. Uh mine seems good to me. Here let's see what it reads, "God faithfully keeps his promises, He called you to be partners with his son Jesus Christ our Lord. Brothers and sisters, I encourage all of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to agree with each other and not to split into opposing groups. I want you to be united in your understandings and opinions. Brothers and sisters some people from Chloe's family have made it clear to me that you are quarreling among yourselves. Nice text but nothing to do with homosexuality.

Next Romans 1 verse 26 GWT " for this reason God allowed their shameful passions to control them, their women have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Likewise their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for one another. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion. By the way GWT has been translated from the actual script as have many other translations so I find it very hard to believe that thousands of scholars can get it wrong but you can get it right. Prove to me that what you're saying is correct give me the exact information you put in and then will debate on that.

Next Leviticus 20 verse 13 when a man has sexual intercourse with a man and with a woman both are doing something disgusting must be put to death. Ouch that's harsh. Luckily Jesus Christ died for our sins and no longer the death penalty in the Bible mandatory. Besides Leviticus is regarding Levites although it never hurts to abide by these rules in fact it may be beneficial you don't have to. But it is in the Bible and the debate topic is the Bible may not be against homosexuality I'm saying it is.

You say Timothy 1 verse 10 is a bad translation. Let's check it out, " laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings." Well I don't know about this is not accurate. I was saying most of the stuff you're presenting is supporting me and my argument. Again if you say its a bad translation I want proof. Just like if you had a math test them without showing your work you only get half marks, well the same goes here!

Next you say Jude 1 verse 7. " what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us in the punishment of eternal fire. The people of the city suffered the same faith that God's people and angels days because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homo sexual activities."

Now in regards to Jonathan and David. I find no mention of the two having a homosexual relation, Jonathan love David as much as he loves himself. You know I have 5 brothers and four sisters two brothers live away from home and are in their thirties they are my half brothers. 1 brothers adopted I am too and two are foster brothers. Three sisters are adopted and one is Foster. No pretty much all of us including me are special needs kids. Danny my closest adopted brother we been together since I was 3. He's a dwarf that had seizures as a baby and the doctors thought he had no hope of living. My mom and dad who adopted me are the best I could have hoped for they have molded me, disciplined me and essentially made me who I am today. They gave us all most of all Danny I love and care he needed and he stopped having seizures. But with permanent brain damage. He 17 but developmentally his brain is only 8 years old. I love Danny as much as I love myself which means I would give my life for him. He's my brother. Jonathan and David were best friends. But a homosexual relationship is not the same as loving someone as you love yourself.

Next, Naomi and Ruth. Naomi was Ruth's mother in law. There is also no mention of them having sex relations. Naomi was simply Ruth's mother figure. Lastly you state that your most compelling evidence is that between Daniel and King Nebuchadnezzar's chief of staff. Let's read Daniel 1 verse 9, "God made the chief of staff kind and compassionate toward Daniel." For I stated that GWT is translated from hundreds of scholars and have actually studied the languages in the Bible it's not just translated from King James version which did not have a very accurate equivalent, but Kings James Version States instead of goodwill or compassionate it says tender love the equivalent today is compassionate. So I say this doesn't mean he was homosexual in any way.

Now I guess it's my turn I guess your texts are actually in my favor that the Bible is against homosexuality. Matthew 19 verse 1 to 8 in Galatians 5 verse 19 you should also look up. The word for homosexual in the Bible in some instances is catamite look up that word too. That should make things clear on what the Bible is saying. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 1


The actual text of Lev 18:22 transliterated says "and you (male) shall not lie down with a male, in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean" This has been consistently mistranslated for 2000 years, (e.g. the septuagint) why do you imagine that should change unless challenged. The translation reflects the preconceptions of the translators and their political agendas, not the actual text. Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so your argument can be dismissed.

Find any use of arsenkoitai in an ancient text which indicates it references homosexuality and you might have a case. There is none, the most reasonable translation is rapist.

Regurgitating a poor translation of Romans 1 doesn't help you. The possession of the 'physis' (nature) is specific to the actors, "Their natural sexuality relations" so the actors are acting against their own nature. Hence the passage endorses homosexuality.

Leviticus 20: 13 again doesn't prohibit men lying together, simply lying together in the beds of a woman.

Tim rests on the translation of arsenkoitai, without an ancient text which translates as homozexual in context you have no case.

Jude is more complex as it's not clear it references Genesis 19, it may reference another tradition regarding female angels, from Hebrew folklaw. However in either case it has nothing to do with homosexuality, since genesis 19 concerns rape.

Saul describes David and Jonathan as married twice. Jonathon strips naked in front of Ravid. They roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds' the whole book is a homosexual love affair between the two.

Niome and Ruth: the problem you have is that the text describes them as 'cleveing together' if this is not a reference to sexual relations its the only time the word is used in a non-sexual context in the bible.

Your appeal to authority re Daniel is also invalid. The Hebrew words describing Daniel and Ashpenaz's relationship are chesed v'rachamim chesed translates as is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It can mean: "mercy" or "physical love". It would be odd if it read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." Therefore the most reasonable translation would be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and physical love" to Daniel. A279;

Matt 19 1: 8 just references divorce.A279;

Catamite is just offers as an alternative translation of Arsenkoitai. Unless you have a specific reference.A279;


Thank you for your quick response I will first give you a translation from Greek of arsenokoites.
" "O36;`1;`3;^9;_7;_9;_4;_9;^3;`4;_1;`2; arsenoko"t""s, gen. arsenoko"tou, masc. noun, from "rs""n (730), a male, and ko"t"" (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:27]). Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers."
therefore suggesting that arsenkoites is in fact a meaning of homosexual. So all your arguments about the meaning are in vain.
Next your argument about Romans 1. You simply dismiss this verse saying it pertains to ones nature. That is not a sound argument. Lets take a closer look. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural (phusikan) function (xrasin) for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire (orexis) towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.(Rom.1:26-27)

If the text only said natural and not natural function then your argument may be worth while. however natural function in this means desire for them of the same sex. Men and women both are gender specific words. A mans natural function with women? Obviously to multiply!
Next lets look at the obvious. God made two of every animal, male and female. Man and women. Noahs ark the men and women went aboard. Two of every species (except for sacrificial animals) male and female. Obviously there is no reason then for homosexuals to feel inclined towards each other. It is a choice. A choice I have made A choice my aunt has made. A choice everybody has to make. I don't hate gay people. Even if the bible told me too, I still love my aunt. The choices though I believe will affect us forever. As for me. I'll go with the bible.
Debate Round No. 2


Your dictionary citation doesn't address the argument, and represents little more than a strawman. And as a dictionary definition has only been around for 60 years or so.

Find the ancient text where the meaning is clearly 'homosexual'? John the Faster patriarch of Constantinople at the end of the 6th century chided men for committing the sin of arsenkoitai with their wives. So by definition it cannot mean homosexuality. A Sybaline Oracle text from the second century ce talks of the Arsenkoitai stealing children. The acts of John is no clearer than Saulus the Liar, but could refer to a temple prostitute. Aristides Apology 13 references the rape of Ganymede. Origen, Exposition on Proverbs 7.74. Condemns men and women for engaging in arsenkoitai with each other. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, claims the serpent raped both Eve and Adam. Eusebius indicates rape. Pseudo-Macarius rape again. Whatever the word means it is not homosexual.

'Physikan' (Physiken In some texts) specifically gives ownership of the nature to the actor. (Their nature)As opposed to generalised nature 'Physis', which has a vague meaning, anything from custom (e.g. 1 cor 11: 14) to physical law. 'Xrasin' actually translates as 'using' meaning the phrase translates as 'their natural using'. Nothing about hard and fast rule of nature. And therefore literally interpreted endoses homosexuality.

N.B. 'Degrading passions' is incorrect, the correct translation is 'feelings of unvalue' and appears in other texts referencing ingestion of narcotics, or inhelation of volcanic fumes to induce religious delerium.

Whatever the bible says, there are not 2 of every animal, less than half the animal Kingdom fits the binary sex model, eusocial insects have 3 sexes, some species of fish 5, etc, some species can change sex.


Homosexuality is obviously condemned in the Bible. It doesn't coincide God's created order when He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out His command to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that order. Also, homosexuality undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. I can't find anything on what you said about Jonathon and David, Naomi and Ruth, or Daniel and Ashphenaz having a homosexual relationship therefor the bible does not condone homosexuality. But it is against it.

Natural function is the word that "natural using" means therefore what is against natural using is against what God who created nature to be which is to be split by male and female. The species you say can change sex weren't created that way in the beginning by God in the same way homosexuality wasn't created in the beginning by God as the bible makes clear.
here is a site that both condemns and condones the use of the word ARSENOKOITAI meaning homosexual. It is the readers choice ultimately. I stand by my belief that homosexuality is against what God created in the bible therefore the bible is against homosexuality.

I want to here more about the characters you say committed acts of homosexuality in the bible. Since circular reasoning isn't getting us anywhere lets talk about if the bible condones homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 3


No: since homosexuality provides an evolutionary advantage, propogation is supported. There is no evidence homosexuality undermines any particular notion of family, rather it supports and enhances the notion of pair bonding.

David 'exceeds' in Jonathan arms, 1 Sam 20: 41. Ruth 1: 14 cleves (u-dbq)to Naiome same word as in Genesis 2: 24. Daniel 1: 9 the phrase 'chesed v'rachamim' is translated in the KJV as 'favour and tender love'. Chesed actually translates as "mercy". V'rachamim is plural emphasizing it, and means either "mercy" or "physical love". It is unreasonable that it reads 'mercy and mercy.' So 'mercy and physical love' is the viable translation.

Romans, the suffix 'ken' given to 'Physis' gives ownership of the nature to the actors, it is not universal nature. 'Their natural using' is the actual phrase, though given the fluid meaning of 'physis', 'their customary using', is just as legitimate a translation.

Whatever the site claims, if it doesn't provide an example from ancient history, say within 1000 years of when Saulus the liar was using the term, then it doesn't address the argument put to you.

Please identify what you imagine is circular reasoning.


Briannj17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


icetiger200 forfeited this round.


Well to sum this all up I still hold firm my belief that the bible is against homosexuality simply because In the beginning as stated in genesis God made two of every animals male and female to multiply the earth. For man he made a female as well also the multiple verses talking about homosexuals. My name is Brian N. Johnson and that's all for now!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
God created Adam and Eve.

Not Adam and Steve.

Good job Con!
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Posted by icetiger200 1 year ago
Nvm. My computer was able to open up the link now
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
I always have an argument I just have to put the words together. My Internet is bad.
Posted by icetiger200 1 year ago
Are you going to post an argument?
No votes have been placed for this debate.