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

Homosexuality is immoral

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,484 times Debate No: 24465
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (3)




I have seen far too much debate over homosexuality on this site and believe it's time for me to lay down my opinions and have a proper debate about the issue.

1st round is for acceptance and Pro has the burden of proof. No trolling or anything like that.

Let the debate begin!


Yes Homosexuality is immoral
We were made by God as Man and Woman as Said Genesis
in Genesis 1: 24 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. Pls don't disgrace God
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank joch43 for accepting the debate but sincerely hope that his points will go along the lines of, 'It's in the bible therefore it's true.' That is not an acceptable point as it is generally accepted that a) not every single word of the old testament is true (even most Christians believe that the old testament is there to be interpreted and not taken literally), and b) if we based our ideas on society on the old testament we would live in an awful world where women are treated as unequal. We have moved on as a society and our ideas of morality are more advanced than they were in the old testament. For example, in the old testament:
Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without permission.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband, without permission.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes.

Just because it says it in the bible, does not mean we should agree with it.

I will happily give more examples.

Now unless my opponent is a hard-line Christian who follows every single law in the bible, I think it likely that he may have broken a few rules.

"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19

Has he ever worn linen or wool? I think it very likely.

"Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place...." -- Ephesians 5:4

I bet that he has sworn once or twice. Everyone has at some point in there lives, used language which would not be deemed, 'appropriate,' by the old testament.

I could go on but I will not bore you and think it that is time to bring this back to the topic of the debate. My point is that it is virtually impossible that my opponent has followed all of the laws in the old testament, and therefore think that his probable point that it's immoral due to the bible is defeated as he can't choose to ignore the laws he doesn't like and then back up his point on the ones that he doesn't. If he concedes that some of the old testament is not true than there is a possibility that large chunks of it are not true and then his case falls apart.

There is not much more I can say until my opponent makes his case which I hope is not like his others and fails to exceed 5 lines.



Well If your Read the whole Bible
God's thinking changed
Like this Example at Genesis 17: 10-14: 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

But in these texts is says thats circumcision is not required anymore :Acts 15, Galatians 2:1-3; 5:1-11; 6:11-16;
1 Corinthians 7:17-20; Colossians 2:8-12; Philippians 3:1-3.

But if the bible about Homosexuality there is no texts in the bible that contradicts Genesis 1:24
and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Debate Round No. 2


Alas. I hoped for too much. My opponent has fallen into the trap of using the bible to back up his answers. I had hoped that he would have read my previous entry a little more thoroughly and realised why he cannot do that. I gave what a sound analysis and that stands as he has not rebutted it at all. What a pity.

His entry actually helps him more than me...

He gave some lovely examples of God changing his mind and that proves my point that if God changes his mind about things, then not everything he said can be absolutely binding and how we should live as a society. The very fact that he changes his mind, undermines the point that everything he says is law.

I have little else to say apart from could my opponent please present some material which hasn't been proved wrong already by my 2nd round rebuttal...


I follow the Bible because God's says so.

Many homosexuals' claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said …

"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states "that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity."7 The report affirms that "the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin."7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth." This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms "that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation."7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

"For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…" (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means "men who sleep with men." It is the same Greek word used for "homosexual offender" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

As a Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

I know you are an atheist ,so I understand why you would not follow the bible. But if you read the bible more,everything is true.
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank Ahmed. M for pointing out the shocking plagiarism that joch43 used in his entry. I think that it has no place in this debate or indeed anywhere on this site. The people who debate on this website (mostly) are people who are genuinely interested in having proper debate on important issues that divide society. It is almost proof that the person who's views are based on unfounded prejudices has to resort to plagiarism in order to try and compete in this debate, proves that there are next to no coherent arguments to be made for that point of view and that it has no place in modern culture.

I have not made many arguments in this debate due to the fact that Pro has offered next to nothing which can be viewed as legitimate material and all of this I have successfully proved false. Ladies and Gentlemen, there would be no justice in the world if this debate ends as a draw or if joch43 wins. When you cast your vote, show that plagiarism has no merit or reward, and more importantly, that unfounded prejudices are not justified.

I await my 'opponent's' response with curiousness...

Vote Con.


Don't vote con
My personal opinion is that you are gay?

If you are you should change because the bible say the truth
and it says here Daniel 4:3

3 How great are his signs,
how mighty his wonders!
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and his dominion endures from generation to generation.
and here in
1 Chronicles 29:10-12

10 Therefore David blessed the Lord in the presence of all the assembly. And David said: "Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever. 11 Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all. 12 Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DebateBehemoth 6 years ago
Joch is actually my classmate in school who started debating because of me he needed my help in this one but When I looked into it I forgot to tell him not to choose only one part of his copy paste technique and he should copy paste all of them but I forgot its my fault
Posted by DouggyFresh 6 years ago
PS What the hell are you talking about 16k?
Posted by DouggyFresh 6 years ago
Throughout the entire debate, I don't believe I saw a single thing about morality, which is really funny considering the resolution proposed... any who, I thought this debate was a total waste of time (even more so for those engaged in it) and I sincerely hope that Pro decides to reevaluate their methods of reasoning and concrete logical judgement (or is that up to god to do as well?) After the first round the winner was clear. After the second round my mind was reduced to a state of feces-like jelly due to the absurdities I forced it to contemplate. After the last rounds I... hold on a second someone is knocking at my door.................... never mind, it is just the incredibly obnoxious sound of a bible being pounded.
If he is supposed to be omniscient, how can God's thinking change? People change their minds for two reasons. 1)They learn new information. However, God is omniscient, which means all knowing. 2)They make decisions rashly and based on emotion, and later surmise their error. Unless you are going to admit that god makes mistakes (not bloody likely) let's assume this is also out of the question.
Am I missing something?
Posted by Ahmed.M 6 years ago
Pro plagiarized in R3.
Posted by DetectableNinja 6 years ago
I see Pro is running the classic "Because God" case.
Posted by royalpaladin 6 years ago
Well, considering that pleasure is an end of sex in other species as well as in our species, using sex for pleasure is natural. Plus, you also have to show a link between not using something for its proper function and immorality. If I use my arms to swim, am I committing an immoral action since my arms exist to grasp things? If I use my legs to climb a rock wall, am I being immoral because my legs are supposed to help me run and not climb rock walls? Your argument not only is false, but is based on a non sequitor.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 6 years ago
RP, I do believe there's a difference between naturalism and natural law theory.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
No, proper function (a natural proper function) is what I am arguing.
Posted by royalpaladin 6 years ago
Again, read that pdf article I posted in the comments. If you don't know about naturalism, don't use it.
Posted by royalpaladin 6 years ago
16kadams, naturalism claims that everything we have in common with other animals is natural and what we do differently is artificial. You should know the basic tenets of the ethical theories you are advocating.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 6 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really fall into the plagiarism argument with consideration that while PRO provided an argument in verbatim, he provided the sources or some reference at which he received this quote. Every other argument when to CON, however. His opponent only seemed to emphasize on the Bible, the thing that CON kept proving invalid.
Vote Placed by DouggyFresh 6 years ago
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: Comments
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Scripture does not work for solid framework, pro. Pro also plagiarized his arguments. Thanks for the head up ahmed