The Instigator
alitar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dbox
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality is not bad

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  
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: 9/12/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 676 times Debate No: 118158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

alitar

Pro

Homosexuality hurts no one and personal liberty protects an individual's right to their own sexuality.
dbox

Con

Good day Pro,

I will concede that personal liberty protects an individual's right to their own sexuality, But I will argue that homosexuality does hurt every single practitioner.

As a sin, It destroys the person's relationship with their Creator, God, And is evidence of a heart that hates God. People who hate God are separated from His love, And as a result, Will be subjected to His wrath for eternity.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 1
alitar

Pro

Hello dbox,

Thank you for responding. I would say that because there is no scientific proof of god that any argument that requires his existence depends completely on faith. For example I personally am an atheist and think that god is unnecessary and ask what gives a being that supposedly omnipotent abilities but that no one can prove that they have ever seen the right to declare morality. Even if a god existed, If he stopped loving people for their sexual orientation I wouldn't want to worship him. If it doesn't hurt anybody else, Why is it bad. If saying that sends me to hell then thats okay with me because a homophobic god (if he exists) is not someone I would want to spend eternity with.

Thank you
Alitar
dbox

Con

Pro,

Thank you, But I would argue that your requiring a scientific qualitative or quantitative measurement of a Being who is unquantifiable and qualitatively separate from the universe is unreasonable and a moot point. That is like asking me, "Did you stop beating your dog? Answer yes or no". Likewise, You ask, "Have you found some scientific evidence to prove God exists? Yes or no". You have asked an irrelevant question due to false assumptions and essentially presented me with a false dichotomy of "yes or no". You also assume that no one can prove that they have ever seen the power of this God on display, But the Bible is replete with examples. Of course, You reject that as a source due to unrealistic requirements regarding how you think it should have been transmitted, But that is another topic altogether.

As regards your idea that "it doesn't hurt anybody else", You are misrepresenting the relationship between human sexuality and human duty to God. First, God ordered male-female relationships as the only proper form of sexual relationship, And for that aspect to be solely a part of marriage. That is how we are to function in the way we were made. If we function as He designed, It is only good for us. However, Disobedience has death as the natural consequence. Do you ever get mad that we are made to breathe air and not water? To sin is like rebelling against this natural law and as a final act of defiance, Diving underwater to take a deep breath of water, Just to stick it to the man. God is not afraid of homosexuals, He is commanding them as their creator to stop rebelling and submit to His authority. He is life, He does not tolerate rebellion, So to rebel is to choose death over life.

As to the focus of the debate, Homosexuality flows from a heart that is in rebellion against God. To continue this act is to spit in God's face and embrace death with a kiss.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 2
alitar

Pro

Hello con,

Thank you so responding in a civil manner,

I would respond to your second point by saying that the Bible passage that says homosexuality is bad also forbids wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish. Have you ever eaten shellfish or worn mixed fabrics? If you have then you are no better than the homosexual you say are fighting against the natural order. Https://testeverythingblog. Com/shellfish-and-straw-men-90bbe7c1d8ad.

The second thing is that you said they are just trying to stick it to the man? They don't choose to be gay, It is a part of you not something they do to be difficult.

My last point is that god has no right to define morality (This being of supposedly infinite power didn't stop the holocaust. According to the Bible god gave us free will. Does this not give them the right to be gay? Please, Do you have any other arguments that don't take the existence of god for granted. Why should I trust in a god that I have no proof of. Your argument is founded on a book that people CLAIM to be written by a god who they CLAIM is real. Until we have proof of the existence of a god all arguments basing themselves on him are unfounded. Sin, Natural order, And god are all human constructs. Sin is meaningless if you don't believe in the religion. I can't defy a being that I don't think is real. God and sin is not a good enough argument to justify discriminating against real people. Sin is just something people made up to justify their own sense of morality. God doesn't justify things people do.
dbox

Con

Pro,

My pleasure, Likewise.

The argument popularized by the TV show West Wing was answered 2 millennia before the show. The ceremonial laws (diet/ clothing, Temple laws, Etc. ) were specific to National Israel, But no longer apply in the New Covenant enacted by Christ. Universal laws like sexual purity, Which are binding to all men everywhere (not just Israel) still apply (i. E. No adultery, No bestiality, No homosexuality, No murder, No stealing, Etc. Ad nauseam).

I see that it could have come off as insensitive, But that was not my intention. I was responding to this portion of your previous comment, Though I could have made that a lot more clear;

"Even if a god existed If he stopped loving people for their sexual orientation I wouldn't want to worship him. If it doesn't hurt anybody else, Why is it bad. If saying that sends me to hell then that's okay with me because a homophobic god (if he exists) is not someone I would want to spend eternity with".

The anger of God, And the hatred of sinners by God is unarguably justified. He gives people life, Holds them together by His power, Provides a planet of resources, And we respond by rejecting Him and destroying each other, The one portion of His creation made in His image. We take marriage and sex (the act of marriage) and turn it into a matter of personal preference.

Also, You stated that God did not stop the Holocaust so He has no right to define morality. Two things are wrong with this statement. First, Morality is a byproduct of God's Character. It is wrong to murder because people are made in God's image. It is wrong to covet because god is the one who apportions to each what is good for their soul. It is right to love your wife because God is a God of love. It is right to punish evildoers because God is a God of justice etc. Morality is morality because of who God is. Second, If people want the world free of evil, That leaves two options; either God kills everyone, Or everyone submits to God and repents of their sin. Our will should be used to will to serve God, Not rebel against Him. We do not have that right, As you seem to mean it, Namely that our actions have no consequences.

Lastly, Gods existence and Gods Law do not require your belief in them to exist, So whether or not you admit the facts, You are still sinning and still defying Him. And I would not have made up God's Laws as when I was still living in rebellion against God I loved what I was doing. I did what I wanted when I wanted with whomever I wanted. I was enjoying myself quite nicely until I learned about the God who made me, And Christ who died to save me from my just punishment and give me true life. It was an earth-shattering and violent paradigm shift, But like after a mother gives birth, After the pain I had a joy that I did not know was possible, Rooted in the God who gave life to someone who deserved death, And endured the most grotesque rebellion on my part until He had mercy on me. I was not planning any of that, Nor did I invent anything to justify my own morality. It was the exact opposite of my morality.

I know the topic strayed, But everything really tied together inseparably.

Lastly, You left my first critique of your position virtually untouched. If you could, Please evaluate this and maybe we can do a follow up debate once we work out some of the cobwebs. Here is the critique reposted:

"Thank you, But I would argue that your requiring a scientific qualitative or quantitative measurement of a Being who is unquantifiable and qualitatively separate from the universe is unreasonable and a moot point. That is like asking me, "Did you stop beating your dog? Answer yes or no". Likewise, You ask, "Have you found some scientific evidence to prove God exists? Yes or no". You have asked an irrelevant question due to false assumptions and essentially presented me with a false dichotomy of "yes or no". You also assume that no one can prove that they have ever seen the power of this God on display, But the Bible is replete with examples. Of course, You reject that as a source due to unrealistic requirements regarding how you think it should have been transmitted, But that is another topic altogether. "

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 3
alitar

Pro

Hello, Con

For the last time. You have no proof of god being real and their for the Bible being real. I am getting really sick of having to explain that to you. Prove god is real, Until you do that any argument depending on the existence of god is expecting me to take something on faith. Prove you base argument that god is real them you can use him in this debate.

Asking you if you have proof of god isn't a false dichotomy. You do know what that means right? False dichotomy, "A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), Or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), Or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, Since the test and the program could both be wrong. " google search. God is real or he isn't. That is mutual exclusive.

PS using the Bible to claim that god is real is like proving a conspiracy theory about aliens with one about chem trails. As in Nether of them has any proof. You can't use an unproven document like the Bible to prove an unproven being like god. Start from square on and tell me why I should believe in god.

From
pro

Sorry if I sound on edge
dbox

Con

Hello Pro,

I imagine you are and you really do not have to keep explaining. I understand your perspective quite well but it is just a mistaken perspective. I do in fact have proof, You simply reject it because it is not scientific. Just out of curiosity though, What scientific data would you accept as proof (I guess you can post in the comments, Or have another debate if you're interested)?

Also thank you for the good definition, But what you think I presented as the dichotomy is incorrect. Also, You did not ask for "proof", You asked for "scientific proof " initially. It is not about whether or not God exists, It is about whether or not there is scientific evidence (That was clear from the context). You seem to be suggesting that I can only prove that God exists if there is scientific evidence, The dichotomy then being, 'if there is scientific evidence then He exists, If there is not scientific evidence then He does not exist'. There is the third option which you precluded in your request for scientific proof, The historical reportage of the Biblical authors, The reliable and collaborative testimony of over 40 authors who witnessed His supernatural works, Recorded all His prophecies (which were all fulfilled) and walked with Christ who rose from the dead. These writings spanned a period of 1500 years meaning they did not all sit down and get their story straight first. I presume you did not realize that as you stated the Bible was a "document". It is actually a compilation of over a few dozen documents.

Lastly, Proving the Bible to claim God is real is using the means which God provided for us to come to know Him personally. I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible is "unproven", Though if I were to guess, I imagine you mean scientifically (joking). As to why you should believe in God (I assume you mean simply His existence versus His specific commands etc. ), It most fundamentally is because His existence is self-evident to every human being.

Respectfully,
dbox

Apology accepted.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
"Even at its most benign level, Beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding. "

Does this apply to you as well?
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
Ms Medic

"LOL. . . You don't need same sex to be enlightened about the failings of belief, One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, Observe and enjoy nature, Or live a productive, Moral, And useful life. Even at its most benign level, Beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding. "

---Establishing the structure of physical reality does not give a person the means by which to establish how to live morally in that reality. In other words, You can not determine Moral "ought" from physical "is". (i. E. Scientifically establishing that humans share the same foundational genetic code does not establish or even hint at how we are to treat each other). Morals cannot be extrapolated from science.

"Addressing your comments on gods morality. The only way by which god can be a morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, And the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself. By your gods own actions he contradicts his own morality. "

The second premise too ambiguous to understand and the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If I am reading what you wrote correctly, I think you were saying:

P1) God is morally perfect if His morality is the axiomatic standard for what is morally perfect.
P2) A moral code is only Objective if it is subject to the One who established the code (? Clarify? )

C) Gods actions contradict His moral code (Gods actions were never mentioned in the premises, This is a non-sequitur)
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
dbox
Addressing your comments on gods morality. The only way by which god can be a morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, And the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself. By your gods own actions he contradicts his own morality.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
LOL. . . You don't need same sex to be enlightened about the failings of belief, One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, Observe and enjoy nature, Or live a productive, Moral, And useful life. Even at its most benign level, Beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
Ms Medic

It separates that person from God, Callusing their conscience against God.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
How?
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
Miss Medic,

Desiring sexual relations with the same sex is harmful to the person before they act on the desire.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
Your sexuality is not harmful, Your behaviour is.
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
Mr Goblin,
Axioms do not have to be proven.

Miss Medic,
I did not discriminate, I conceded the right for them to own their sexuality. I'm merely stating it is harmful.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
https://www. Scientificamerican. Com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/
No votes have been placed for this debate.