The Instigator
Bitch_Goddess
Pro (for)
The Contender
Arganger
Con (against)

Being gay is NOT a sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Arganger has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 892 times Debate No: 104457
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

Bitch_Goddess

Pro

The title is self-explanatory.

The first round will be Con providing how she believes being gay is a sin.
Rounds 2-4 will persist of rebuttals and arguments.

Goodluck, Con- should you accept.
Arganger

Con

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. -Romans 1:27

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. -Leviticus 18:22

Seems simple enough, we all sin in numerous ways daily and this is just one more.

Is the act of being attracted to someone of your own gender a sin? No, yet lusting for it and acting on it are both sins. It is a twisting of love, just as Zoophilia.

Love as I know it in both the bible and in life, is not based on attraction at all, rather choosing to put the other person before yourself no matter what, and to stay with them. This remains a choice constantly chosen again throughout the relationship.
Debate Round No. 1
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate and hope to have an interesting discussion on this topic.

Quotes:
A1 - "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. -Romans 1:27"

A2 - "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. -Leviticus 18:22"

A3 - "Seems simple enough, we all sin in numerous ways daily and this is just one more."

A4 - "Is the act of being attracted to someone of your own gender a sin? No, yet lusting for it and acting on it are both sins. It is a twisting of love, just as Zoophilia."

A5 - "Love as I know it in both the bible and in life, is not based on attraction at all, rather choosing to put the other person before yourself no matter what, and to stay with them. This remains a choice constantly chosen again throughout the relationship."

--

(A1) Romans 1:27
Romans is taken from Paul's philosophy on unbridled passion. It was pagan idolatry and temple sex rituals among heterosexuals that was the focus of Paul's issue. Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people. The idea of homosexuality (exclusively being attracted to and loving the same sex) was not even a present idea to heterosexuals until late 1800 AD. It would nearly be impossible for that to even come across in the Bible. It was merely, as said before, heterosexuals committing temple sex rituals, pagan idolatry and having unbridled passion with other heterosexuals.

(A2) Leviticus 18:22
Before I get into my main argument here, I would just like to say that Christians do not follow the Old Testament. If that were the case, we would deliberately be disobeying what it says in the New Testament, as well as making completely immoral choices. So even if Leviticus 18:22 was condemning homosexuals, it would not be considered a sin today. But assuming it were moral and part of the law Christians follow today. here are a few things that would be considered "lawful" and "morally correct":
killing all women, plus their sons, who have had sex before marriage (Numbers 31:17-18), (sin) eating any seafood without fins or scales whatsoever (Leviticus 11:9-12), (sin) eating pork (Leviticus 11:7), not being allowed to shave sideburns or the sides of your beard (Leviticus 19:27), KILLING your child if they curse at you (Leviticus 20:9).
I believe you get the point. Let me know if you would like more verses, as I would be glad to give them.
Now onto my main argument: It does not talk about homosexuality. Nor does Leviticus 20:13.
"The Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for 'a man to lie with a man as with a woman' in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East, so far as ancient texts discussed it, had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the points, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much. Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of 'catcher' in such sexual activity. To lie with a man 'as with a woman' pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women. Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons. No one was safe. In the Ancient Near East, male-male sex can also have a religious meaning. Sex as religious devotion is an odd concept for most of us, but it was not so for ancients. The Ancient Near East is a dry place. Agriculture there is a critical, but precarious undertaking. Consequently, agriculture attracted a good deal of religious attention in ancient times. Fertility gods were common, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous (that is, both male and female). Devotees believed that by planting one's seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year. None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act (the 'pitcher,' so to speak) was acting in the very heterosexual role of a male. A man could dominate another man by buggering him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of the female. That was why it was permitted to rape one's enemies at the end of a battle, but not to bugger one's slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. In the second case, you're just taking advantage. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (again, the 'pitcher') is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another, in this case, a man reimagined as part female. So, was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East? Probably. But it is never discussed in the surviving literature. What meaning, then, did the sex acts referred to in Leviticus have? Theoretically, it could have been any of the three: domination, recreation, or cult sex. Most scholars think it was the last of these. This is because of the word used to condemn it: abomination, in Hebrew to'evah. This word is often used in contexts where a religious offense is involved. And this section of Leviticus, known to scholars as the Holiness Code, is all about steering clear of foreign religious and cultural practices. So the Leviticus texts probably forbid engaging in sex with foreign priests' but we cannot be sure. Those texts might forbid the sexual exploitation of male slaves. But we can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. Male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time. A famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, 'Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women' (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean 'I love you.' It means 'I own you.' Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean 'I love you.' To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment."

(A3) You're right, we all sin. However, being homosexual (and acting on such love) is not sinful.

(A4) Are you comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality? I think you might want to re-check this.

(A5) Attraction is so that we can find someone that we are, well, attracted to, and therefore fall IN love with. Hence dating. You cannot fall in love with someone you feel no attraction for.
I love my friends, both male, and female, however, that does not mean I am in love with them. Nor attracted to them.
So I agree, love is something you have for another that puts them above yourself, caring and wanting the best for them. However, that is a different love compared to that of with your partner.
Not all love is the same. If that were the case, it wouldn't be considered unusual and detestable to be in love with your mother, father, brother or sister. You love them, but you wouldn't be in love with them.
(By "in love", I mean being infatuated with a person and wanting to spend the rest of your life with said person)

I look forward to your rebuttals/arguments, Con.
Arganger

Con

For future arguments, kindly try to break up your paragraphs a little more. I can have trouble reading it compounded into one body. Thank you.

The idea of a sexual orientation (in rome for this part, as that is what paul spent most of his time addressing) was relatively unnecessary. People could have sex with anyone lower in class than them regardless of anything and it was common practice, not just in pegan rituals. Rome was in general messed up. In rome, most marriages were simply for the sake of social standing, where as sex and even love was often put apon their slaves.

Basically in Rome, there was no need for the idea of homosexuality and the Jews saw it more as an act.

The sins regarding sexual relations in general are mentioned within the new testement, sins that also still apply and are categorized similerly include; Having sexual relations with your mother, having sexual relations with animals, with your siblings, and your family's partners.

None of this is shown to only apply to religious sex, but rather is considered a defilement of creation. Notice the use of words when bibliclly such acts are refurred to, you see things such as "perversion" or "detestable". I see this as showing it more in the spirt of twisting good then worshiping idols, unlike some other old testament rules like the one against tattoos.

The relationship between David and Jonathan was of strong friendship not romantic love. Romantic love and friendship love are both different in nature, and can be just as strong.

I am comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality. The reason for this is because they are similar in nature as sins, both being considered a perversion of sex. I know many people do not like the two being compared but it fits quite well.

I see no need for attraction in a romanitic relationship, yet regardless the attraction itself does not require action. I see dating rather as a way of making sure the other person is a good fit with you before making a commitment as big as being willing to love someone.

I hope I properly addressed your points, as I may of missed much in A2 in particular, and tend to panic somewhat when the timer goes below 24 hours.
Debate Round No. 2
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

Will do. I would also suggest writing down which parts of my arguments/rebuttals you are referring to, as It would help greatly.

"The idea of a sexual orientation (in rome for this part, as that is what paul spent most of his time addressing) was relatively unnecessary. People could have sex with anyone lower in class than them regardless of anything and it was common practice, not just in pegan rituals. Rome was in general messed up. In rome, most marriages were simply for the sake of social standing, where as sex and even love was often put apon their slaves.

Basically in Rome, there was no need for the idea of homosexuality and the Jews saw it more as an act."

Paul was not focusing on sexual orientation, as that was not a thing. Like I said, his main focus was no ubridled passion. To Rome (and almost any other place), it (the ideaology of sexual orientationwas non-existent as the only male-on-male action prior to sexual intercourse was plainly for dominance, rituals or prostitution. Heterosexuality (the idea of being attracted to the opposite sex) was the only "sexual orientation" there was. Very few homosexuals most likely even existed in that time period.

I mean, only approximately 5-10% of today's population identifies as LGBT. So going back to Biblical times, the number must have been far less. And considering that might be barely 1/10th of the entire population of today, the likelihood of Paul ever even coming into contact with a homosexual man must've been incredibly low, near impossible. Especially since we are talking about only gays and lesbians, not bisexuals or transgenders. And having sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex does not mean they are gay or lesbian

So you're correct; the Jews did see it as more of an act. Which is why what we're talking about is the act of intercourse with the same sex, and not homosexuals themselves (nor the love that is shared between the two consenting people).

"The sins regarding sexual relations in general are mentioned within the new testement, sins that also still apply and are categorized similerly include; Having sexual relations with your mother, having sexual relations with animals, with your siblings, and your family's partners."

You're correct, they did list the sexual sins that are immoral in the New Testament as well. But nothing about homosexuality, yet again.

"The relationship between David and Jonathan was of strong friendship not ro
mantic love. Romantic love and friendship love are both different in nature, and can be just as strong."

The relationship between the two was clearly more than just a "friendship".
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org...
As I stated before, it even says "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women". He loved him more than he loved women. I honestly don't know how much more obvious it could be.

"I am comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality. The reason for this is because they are similar in nature as sins, both being considered a perversion of sex. I know many people do not like the two being compared but it fits quite well."
It's not a good comparison at all. You are comparing a man having intercourse with an animal; a being that cannot reciprocate the same type of love as humans do for one another, that cannot consent, that cannot live as humans do, as to that of two consenting adults, loving each-other, accepting each-other and wanting to spend the rest of their lives with each other. There is a significant difference between the two, and saying that "it fits quite well" isn't an argument. Or at least not a good one at all.

"I see no need for attraction in a romanitic relationship, yet regardless the attraction itself does not require action. I see dating rather as a way of making sure the other person is a good fit with you before making a commitment as big as being willing to love someone."
So you would date, as well as marry, someone you find unattractive? You'd fall in love with someone, who you find unattractive? I do hope Con understand "attractiveness" isn't just physical body features but is also how attractive you find their personality, their compassion, their positivity, etc.
Being attracted to someone doesn't always have to be about what they look like.

Goodluck, Con. It's your play.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 10 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
Lmfao you don't ask someone to "join the LGBTQ". You either are or aren't. And I guess you clearly didn't look at the debate if you still believe it's a sin.
Posted by NDECD1441 10 months ago
NDECD1441
To be honest, I'm okay with the lgbtq community but if you asked me to join it, I would refuse. I hate the sin, not the sinners.
Posted by Arganger 11 months ago
Arganger
It said it was over on my end when I posted the comment.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 11 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
You posted this comment before the debate was over...but okay.
Posted by Arganger 11 months ago
Arganger
Bah...

Well whatever, sorry I didn't get to it in time and I hope I can somehow get rid of the notification for arguments.
Posted by missmedic 11 months ago
missmedic
Why are so many Christians obsessed with other people's sexuality?
Why is homosexuality a sin when it is not immoral? Of all the sins in the bible, you pick one that causes no harm, perhaps it is a fixation, perhaps it is a latent tendencies...................
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
https://www.ranker.com...
https://gayhomophobe.com...
Posted by Arganger 11 months ago
Arganger
The "see me as a monster" bit was directed at missmedic.

Notice in her most recent comment she says "What is wrong with you" it shows a clear lack of respect for me or my views.

The WBC are mostly just extremists, who forget that homosexuality isn't the only freaken sin out there and forget the unending and amazing grace of God. They don't fit the definition of phobia either though, because with a phobia you are aware that your fear doesn't make sense.

I suppose you could refer to the casual definition, though many people struggling with true phobias don't like it used in the casual context, yet the irony still remains.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 11 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
Apologies for the grammatical errors I made in round 3.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 11 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
I don't see you as a monster. I just believe in a difference of definitions. Again, the hatred/dislike of something is a link to fear. It's as Andrew Sullivan said, "Homophobia: The fear that another man will treat you like you treat women".

Just look at the WBC. They clearly have huge issues with homosexuality- to the point where they can't even look at the sight of a man kissing another man. I'd say that's a pretty serious problem/issue with them if you ask me.
Posted by missmedic 11 months ago
missmedic
To compare homosexuality to zoophile or bestiality, shows a lack of understanding of human sexuality and the meaning of consensual sex. Homosexuals just want what others have, to be loved and excepted. What is wrong with you, that you don't want that for them too?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.