Instigator / Pro

The bible condemns homosexuality


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Homosexuality: the act of a person of the same gender being sexually or romantically attracted to people of the same gender
the bible: the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.

Round 1
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. this condemns homosexuality

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s[b] territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
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
this one is by far the one that so explicitly condemns homosexuality

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.

my evidence is irrifutable

Round 2
TW: Discussion of stories containing rape and violence

While my opponents forfeit in the 2nd round cancels out my forfeit in the 1st, I do still want to sincerely apologize to my opponent for failing to show up. Time got away from me and I completely forgot.

1. Introduction

People have, throughout history, used the bible as a tool of oppression; as a weapon from which their bigotry can be justified, In my speech, I will be tearing down the constructive arguments presented by my opponent and presenting constructive arguments of my own. While my opponent may think his evidence to be irrefeutable, I will be showing how that is clearly not the case.

2. Rebuttals

My opponent presents a few main things.
  1. Tale of Sodom and Gomorrah
  2. Ham, his brothers, and Noah
  3. Sexual Depravity in Romans 1
  4. Corinthians and Timothy

Q: May a vote ever consider things from outside the arguments?
A: Generally no, but if a voter properly justifies it there are exceptions; such as if a spectator identifies plagiarism.

My opponent quite literally links certain things and, instead of analyzing it or even saying what is said within the link, just says "this is the strongest condemnation." This is, at best, abuse of the character limit, and at worst completely dismisses these points. It's not any debaters responsibility to refute arguments that are beyond the debate speech entirely for the same reason you can't just link an argument from Wikipedia and say "this is my argument" with nothing else at all.

Their analysis of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, literally extends no further than saying "This condemns homosexuality." You don't just get to make a claim and have it magically be true.

1. Sodom and Gomorrah

“...all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them...

...Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.” -Genesis 19:9, NIV Bible

These two quotes show one thing very clearly: the city of Sodom surrounded the house, attempted to force their way in to the house where two angels are, seem to be fully aware of the bad nature of their actions (hence the “We’ll treat you worse than them”), and specifically mentioned wanting to have sex with the men.

This story contains many sins that are much more prevalent, obvious, and serious in this story. Such as:
  •     Attempted rape
  •     Breaking-and-Entering
  •     Attempted assault against angels
  •     Lack of faith in the Christian deity
  •     Refusing to acknowledge the Christian deity as the ultimate ‘judge’
To look at this and deduce that this is not a condemnation of violence against angels or of a lack of trust in them to be ‘judges’, but rather of homosexuality, is absurd. You can look through the entirety of Genesis 19, and you will find no part of it that specifically finds issue with the fact  the attempted rapists were men and the angels were men.

2. Noah, Ham, and his brothers

Pro hasn't explained why this story condemns homosexuality at all. There are no homosexual or homoromantic acts mentioned here, there is no mention of the fact these were sons with their father, there's no mention of what actually is wrong at all. How does this condemn homosexuality at all? Pro sure as hell isn't telling us, and so it's hardly worthy a rebuttal.

3. Romans 1

"As I have proven, one cannot claim Paul understood the modern notions of “orientation”when writing Romans 1:18–27, since the understanding of sexual orientation is a contemporary development. This text does not deal with sexuality but with idolatry; which I have shown and further contextualized within a twenty-first-century American setting. When one analyzes this text with those factors in mind, it becomes clear that there is no justification for using this text to condemn consensual same-sex relationships. Paul understood that sexual interactions should fulfill the gospel message of love, so he condemned the Roman mentality of sex, which was equivalent to patriarchal domination, as having no place in a post-resurrection society."
 -ENGAGING ROMANS: AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ROMANS 1:26-27 pg#33-34, Micheal Younes, John Carroll University

The verse, as a whole, refers to engaging in acts that equate to elevating humans or beings other than god to the glory and level that should be reserved only for god. So then how does this verse relate to that? Well, I, along with other scholars, would argue that it relates to moments in which the Romans would get so drunk on not only alcohol, but also power, that they would defy their own sexuality. Not a homosexual having same-sex relations, but a heterosexual having same-sex relations.

This interpretation makes sense in large part, alongside the context the verse is written in, the lack of a focus on gay orientations when it was written and the prevalence of same-sex abuse when it was written, because Paul is using this verse as a way to condemn large-scale cult practices.

Paul is condemning people who are acting 'against their nature', but it is in homosexuals nature to be homosexually attracted (as we have seen by scientific findings in genetics that show homosexuality is not a choice and the complete and utter failure of conversion therapy). It is heterosexuals committing homosexual acts that is against their nature.

4. Corinthians and Timothy

Both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy allegedly refer to homosexuality because of two main words: Malakoi and Arsenokoitai. In footnote a of 1 Corinthians,, they admit that the condemnation of homosexuality rests on the definition of these words. What do these two words mean?

Malakoi referring to same-sex relationships is a case of a word taking on a connotation and translators treating that connotation as the definition. Malakoi quite literally means "soft", and was used to refer to weak and cowardly men or men in the submissive/passive role in a same-sex relationship. The word began to take on a connotation as referring to 'effeminate' men.

Arsenokoitai is like a portmanteau of the words 'Arsen', meaning 'male', and 'Koites' meaning 'bed'. However, it is a word that almost exclusively is shown in lists of vices, and the context of which they appear show they refer to sexual and economic exploitation. These words combined are not used in ancient literature to describe a homosexual pair, but they are used in ancient writing/the bible and in history to show exploitative relationships or 'effeminate' men. Them being used in tandem doesn't appear throughout ancient writings as a way to refer to same-sex couples either.

Keep in mind that relationships between men in the time the bible was written included relationships between young boys and much older men or prostitution of young boys. Remember the quote from the previous sub-section

3. Constructive Arguments/Analyses

1. David and Jonathan

David and Jonathan were said to love each other more than they loved any other woman, and the book of 2 Samuel clearly describes them kissing one another. One may recall that Hebrew has multiple words for love, each referring to a different kind of love (storge, philia, eros, and agape meaning empathetic love, a bond between friends, romantic love, and unconditional, deity-like love). If we look at the Hebrew, we can see which kind of love is meant by the word used and how it's used in other verses.

What we see is their love is described with ‘ahabah’. The word ahabah is also used to describe the love of one’s wife specifically in a sexual context in Proverbs 5:19. Throughout 1 Samuel 16-23, it is consistently mentioned that the Christian deity protects David from the murder attempts of Saul is ‘with’ David, showing clearly that he is not only far from a condemned person, but a blessed person.

What we can conclude from this is, not only is there good evidence to believe there’s a story of two men who loved each other both romantically and sexually in the bible, but as well that it was not a sin in the slightest.

Round 3
Round 4