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

Is Homosexuality Against the Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,469 times Debate No: 87370
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)




The bible clearly states in both verses Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 that the practice of homosexual relations and relationships are considerd detestable acts and an abominaion. Anyone who apposes my claim can debate over this controversial point of view.


I thank my opponent for the debate and wish him good luck in this debate.


Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. [3] Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.

Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. [4] The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve"et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to"evah hi.

Ve"ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to"evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to"evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

Samuel and David

Here I will prove that David loved Jonathan so much to the point to where if Jonathan then it would be the greatest love story in the Bible according to Theologians.

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Here we can see that Jonathan loved David more than his own soul. This is something that is extremely important especially since many Christians beleive that the soul is the most important thing that a person owns that is what goes to Heaven or Hell. So the fact that he loved David as much as his own Soul is key here to so an important relationship between the two with this amount of love.

David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

Here we can see just how intament the relationship got between these two men. Here they kiss and they indeed knew that this would be the last time that they would see each other as Jonathan would later die in combat. The key part here is that they show that their decendents shall be together showing almost that of a gay marriage, and even sex, between the two.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27)

Here we can continue the furthering of the homosexual relationship as it shows the love between the two men surpassed that then a man and a women. Proving that of a homosexual relation.

This is yet another approved example of homosexuality in the Bible any attempt to argue otherwise would be that of arguing that God looked down upon David which was false since God had blessed him and with God being omnipotent we can see that God would've known about the homosexual relationship and would not have gifted David as much as he has.


A key part of this debate is to go through the Bible and if I can find any instances where homosexuality is not condemned then I can win the debate on that ground.

Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Sounds like love to me concidering that we also say many things like this at weddings. We can see that when put into the context of the story we can see that when a man died a woman was unable to inheret the land. A woman without a man had no social standing in that time peroid. Ruth felt a great amount of feeling for Naomi where the Bible says, "Ruth Clung to Naomi" (Ruth 1:14). The Hebrew word for Clung is Dabaq. Though this word is also used for other loving instances, but the one place that it actually appears in the Bible outside of Ruth is that of Genesis 2 when Adam met Eve.

2. (
3. Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press
4. ibid
Debate Round No. 1


I appreciate my contender for putting such deep work into the production of this debate and I look forward to the remaining rounds. I also reccomend not just skimming the text for viewers but actually reading it all the way down to the sources.

My first point is that the brotherly love between two men is not and cannot be considered homosexual. John 15:13 states that Greater love has no one than this: To lay down ones life for ones friends. Jonathan warned David and intervened on his behalf so often that he put his own life in danger, one time narrowly escaping death at the hand of his father King Saul. This shows the kind of love that was spoken of. In the middle east, it was common to kiss one's cheek as sign of friendship. My opponent has no evidence of anything but a cheek kiss. If anyone would continue into the life of David beyond their own selfish needs to bend the bible to their will, they would see that King David had several wives. No husbands. He had enough lust for Bathsheba that he ordered her husband killed so that he could marry her.

I would also like to mention the palastine theory in which the contender stated has no evidence beyond the contenders own interpretation that proves the authenticity of the statement. I would also lke to state how the pssage you are basing the theory on is actually written to the Jews and is talking of the sins by these people.

I have come to realize that the modern world attempts to twist bible stories to their own use for opinions. The world cannot understand the kind of love between two friends in which Johnathan is told by God to betray his own father to protect David who has been picked by god to be the next king. King Saul wanted to kill David and Johnathan protected him.
Why would god, who breathed the scripture into the minds of the writers, anoint a king who disobeyed his own teachings.

Your statement about the relationship between Ruth and Naomi in particular defiles the name of god in the fact that they were relatives by marriage. Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. In Ruth 1, as a summary: Ruth's HUSBAND (husband not wife) died and both of her SONS had married WOMEN and one of them was RUTH. (Ruth had a husband not a wife). The sons then died and they were in great need so they descided to go to Moab where they would be helped. Naomi tells her two daughter-in-laws (Ruth included) to go back to their mothers. She said to them " may the Lord show kindness to you, as you have shown your dead and to me." ( the dead were the HUSBANDS and they showed kindness so its not like being straight was against what they did). She then says " may the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another HUSBAND." They wept when she kissed them good bye saying they wanted to go back with Naomi to her people. Naomi tells them to go anyway. She then says: "Why would you come with me? Am I going to have anymore sons, ( last time i checked, it has to have a girl and a guy to have kids, just saying) who will become your HUSBANDS." She then says: "I am too old to have anymore HUSBANDS."

I'm going to pause for a moment to declare, she did not say im too old to have anymore wives. She said HUSBAND so any statement of her being homosexual is an abomination in its self. Anyways:

She says " even if I thought there was still hope for me ( she is saying if she didnt have a husband, she wouldnt have hope, not that she would just have a wife)-even if I had a HUSBAND tonight and then gave birth to sons- would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them?"

Then Ruth and Orpath wept and Naomi kissed Orpath (the other daughter-in-law) good-bye but Ruth clung to her.

If you are saying that as Naomi was trying to tell Ruth and Orpath to leave that Ruth on the spot tred to have sexual relations with her, than you are dead wrong. Like all those who try to use the bible as explaination for sins, you have left out parts.

Ruth 15:1 says: "Look" says Naomi," your siser-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her."

The scriptures go on to say: "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die " there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!
Tis demonstrates Ruth's fierce devotion to her mother-in-law, not a homosexual relationship. Naomi then stops asking her to leave and allows Ruth to accompany her to Moab.

In the next chapter, Ruth 2, the scriptures say that Ruth says she will pick up the left-over grains from behind anyone she finds favor in. She then goes to find herself working in the field belonging to Boaz (who is a MAN). Ruth 2:13 says: May I continue to find favor in your eyes my lord," she said." You have given me comfort and have spoken kindly to your servant- though I do not have the standings of one of your servant girls." This is Ruth sayng to Boaz that she loves him. Boaz then goes on to order his servants to drop extra grains for her to pick up when she is behind them trying to get food.

Ruth Chapter 4 then goes to talk of their marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:9 says: Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
This debate is aboout if homosexuality is unbiblical. Your examples of Johnathan and David and Ruth and Naomi never actually flat out say of homosexuality. Several verses however, support my opinion that the practice of homosexuality and homosexual intercourse is a sin.

"1 Corinthians 6:9 Or Do You Not Know That Wrongdoers Will Not Inherit the Kingdom of God? Do Not Be Deceived: Neither the Sexually Immoral nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Men Who Have Sex with Men." 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or Do You Not Know That Wrongdoers Will Not Inherit the Kingdom of God? Do Not Be Deceived: Neither the Sexually Immoral nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Men Who Have Sex with Men. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

"Citation Machine: MLA Format Citation Generator for Journals." Citation Machine: MLA Format Citation Generator for Journals. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

"John 15:13 Greater Love Has No One than This: To Lay down One's Life for One's Friends." John 15:13 Greater Love Has No One than This: To Lay down One's Life for One's Friends. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

"Jonathan and David " A True and Lasting Friendship." Jonathan and David. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

I also used the bible but the citation for that source is difficult as it is not just a source, but it is the source.
I also cited the source I used to cite these in case my contender wishes to make her sources professional and reliable.
I also recommend using the actual bible instead of just websites and Googling: How is homosexuality biblical.
Debate Round No. 2


Not knowing the reason for my contenders pass on the previous round, I will continue the debate. I believe that the participation and practice of homosexuality is, indeed, against the bible. I would like to state also that we are discussing whether homosexuality is biblical and not if the bible is good or bad. The context of this debate is based off of us currently using the bible, God's word as a source.

First off, I will reiterate my previous statement of the fact that the bible has several verses that directly state the sinful nature of homosexuality. It even goes as far as to say homosexuals are deserving of death.

Furthermore, your explanations and sources taken from the bible are misinterpretations. No where in the bible does it state in black and white that homosexuality is not a sin.

Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural
Debate Round No. 3


I now know the reasons for my contenders passes on previous rounds as an outside influence is causing them to not be able to debate. I will post this final round but then I will wrap up and ask to vote when this is done.

This is an example of how, not only is homosexuality against the Bible, but it is wrong.

Say you are a teenager who just got their drivers license. You are now enjoying the freedom and responsibility of no one in charge of you. Your parents and instructors are not telling you when to use your blinkers or when to stop.
Suppose you decide that, contrary to everything you've been told up to now, you want to drive on the left side of the road, assuming this is in America not England. Youmwill quickly encounter serious opposition to your choice of driving style (like a head on collision). You can either learn from your observations and expieriences, or you can insist on driving whichever way you wish, and whatever happens, happens.

Homosexuality is not just a sin according to the Bible, but a problem to humanity. It will cause several "collisions" yet people still insist on their ways.

Romans 1:26-27 says this: That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust towards each other. Men did shameful things with other men and as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thank my Contender for providing a satisfactory argument. Unfortunately it was cut short by a power outside of my Contender's control and a similar reason is preventing me from being able to pause this debate. As my final statement for this debate, I would like to ask the voters to base their votes not on their opinion, but take into consideration the content of the debate.
My final statement, as I've said several times, is that we are discussing if homosexuality is against the Bible, not if it is right or wrong. If you believe the authenticity of the Bible, you (voters) will agree with my opinion on how homosexuality is indeed against the Bible because not only does the Bible specifically state several times that homosexuality is a sin, but it also states punishments for the sinners who participate.

Every example my Contender uses are misinterpretations where it never clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.
My point is supported directly by the source we are discussing.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Caleby6226 2 years ago
Voting has begun
Posted by Caleby6226 2 years ago
I will not be able to redo this debate for reasons I cannot explain. I will say my final statement and then I will pass and voting will begin
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Matt, you misunderstand completely. It was never right to kill anyone for there sins, because we all sin. However when Jesus died, it "pardoned" us all from the punishment of eternal death. Its like this. Before or after Jesus died, it was never right to kill one another (Unless defense of another or yourself, or for some selfless reason with good cause....) and to this day it isnt right to kill others for their sin because we are all guilty of it. Ya know? We all do bad crap at times, thats why we cant kill each other for their sins.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Yes, I have midterms. I would like to request that we cancel this debate and resume once they have concluded.
Posted by Caleby6226 2 years ago
I agree with Stonehe4rt, what does con need?
Posted by matt8800 2 years ago
stonehe4rt, so in other words, it was only good to kill homosexuals right up to Jesus' death? Got it.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Currently trying to get Pro to contact me.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
As stated by Caleby, that isnt the question here. However Matt. It also says, Adulteries, Liars, ect... Must all be killed. This is because every sin is equal. However it also states that sinners are not to judge sinners, Hence should not kill each other. The law of being stoned for sinning, Jesus showed the reasoning behind it when he said, He without sin, cast the first stone. None of the people could. Reason being is, we are all equally guilty and could be punished with death. But then again Jesus died on the cross for the very sake of allowing us not to have to be eternally damned for sinning. Of course, Jesus dying on this cross doesnt mean everything before is okay to do and isnt a sin. What it means is that, even if we sin, we can be forgiven and must forgive each other, but God also has a firm side, and will judge fairly after death.
Posted by Caleby6226 2 years ago
We are not discussing the essence of good or bad about the bible, we are discussing whether homosexuality is unbiblical. So contrary to what you say mat8800, we can forget what you said regardless of our opinions on that statement because it is not relative to the debate. Thanks for the input though.
Posted by Fracking 2 years ago
the bible is only wicked too those that are wicked such as homosexuals
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I find it unfair to vote down Con considering this was out of his control and he didn't just forfeit the rounds, he actually typed pass which is respectful, as oppose to just leaving it and forfeiting. For those reasons I will not be voting for either side.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Well as Pro could not agree to redoing the debate and could not pass for reasons. It ultimately comes down to Pro winning due to the abundance of information not being debunked and her arguement standing strong. While Con had to pass for reasons. I surely bet it would have been a good debate if Con had not needed to pass. However what happened happened hence Pro wins.