Debate on homosexuality (for a friend)

[Blade_and_Blood]

A friend of mine is going to be debating in my AP Psych class. (Believe it or not, our schedule had time for a “fun” activity, and this was it. ) This is completely open-- it can get personal, it can get political, it can get religious!

Now, this is one on one, extra credit, and my friend was qualified for it. She is assigned to argue against it, but here’s the problem.

I wanted to help her out because God knows she needed the credit, so we went to a bunch of religious sites that would, of course help her out (no matter how embarrassed I was as a Catholic to read such hate). We found a site called sacred-text.com. Here’s what we found on the LGBT section (which I was pleasantly surprised to find):

Did you know?

• Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
• The Qur’an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
• Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
• The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
• The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
• The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
• The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
• ‘Traditional marriage’ in the Bible includes polygamy.
• No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
• Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
• Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
• Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

This poses a threat to her extra credit because her opponent is God-awesome at debates. How can we compete with this, assuming that these points may be addressed?

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[StevenFrancis]

Useful passage from the Catechism:

Also - The Pope makes some compelling arguments against homosexual marriage here: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDfhomun.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Useful passage from the Catechism:

Also - The Pope makes some compelling arguments against homosexual marriage here: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDfhomun.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Nice try, but a quote or two from my original post can debunk all of that. :sad_yes:

 

[Kevin42]

These are not even arguements…

“It’s only mentioned five times in the Bible, so God probably doesn’t care that much about it anyways”

“No known text in specifically says ‘same-sex’ marriage isn’t ok, so it’s ok”
Well know it doesn’t say that exactly, but the Bible clearly shows marriage is between a man and a woman, and says that men should not have sex with other men.

Plus, their claim about Sodom is silly.

This stuff isn’t even worth the time.

 

[thistle]

A friend of mine is going to be debating in my AP Psych class. (Believe it or not, our schedule had time for a “fun” activity, and this was it. ) This is completely open-- it can get personal, it can get political, it can get religious!

Now, this is one on one, extra credit, and my friend was qualified for it. She is assigned to argue against it, but here’s the problem.

I wanted to help her out because God knows she needed the credit, so we went to a bunch of religious sites that would, of course help her out (no matter how embarrassed I was as a Catholic to read such hate). We found a site called sacred-text.com. Here’s what we found on the LGBT section (which I was pleasantly surprised to find):

Did you know?

• Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
• The Qur’an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
• Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
• The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
• The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
• The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
• The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
• ‘Traditional marriage’ in the Bible includes polygamy.
• No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
• Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
• Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
• Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

This poses a threat to her extra credit because her opponent is God-awesome at debates. How can we compete with this, assuming that these points may be addressed?

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

That list is ridiculous plus it is irrelevant how many times something is mentioned in Scripture.

 

[Exalt]

A friend of mine is going to be debating in my AP Psych class. (Believe it or not, our schedule had time for a “fun” activity, and this was it. ) This is completely open-- it can get personal, it can get political, it can get religious!

Now, this is one on one, extra credit, and my friend was qualified for it. She is assigned to argue against it, but here’s the problem.

I wanted to help her out because God knows she needed the credit, so we went to a bunch of religious sites that would, of course help her out (no matter how embarrassed I was as a Catholic to read such hate). We found a site called sacred-text.com. Here’s what we found on the LGBT section (which I was pleasantly surprised to find):

Did you know?

• Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
• The Qur’an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
• Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
• The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
• The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
• The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
• The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
• ‘Traditional marriage’ in the Bible includes polygamy.
• No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
• Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
• Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
• Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

This poses a threat to her extra credit because her opponent is God-awesome at debates. How can we compete with this, assuming that these points may be addressed?

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Really?

That’s all you can come up with for arguments against the homosexuality-is-immoral position?

Here are some points I think you should consider if you want to win:

#1: It’s pointless to debate the stories from the Bible when speaking about homosexuality. Even if they condemn homosexuality (and they do) - it doesn’t matter. The Bible can be demonstrated to be a terrible basis for morality. If you try and argue from the Bible, your opponent - if he or she is good - will tear the Bible apart. He or she will be able to pick from hundreds of stories that praise actions that modern human beings find reprehensible. If you try and defend the Bible as a source of morality, (and therefore prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality,) you will lose.

#2: Don’t try and argue that it’s unnatural. When Catholic theologians say that homosexuality is unnatural, they use that term in a very different way than most people mean. Here’s a run-down of what they don’t mean: (a) They *don’t *mean it’s “icky.” They *don’t *mean that when you think of homosexuality, it *feels *uncomfortable and *feels *“wrong” or “unnatural.” This is prejudice or just plain not preferring something, and doesn’t make up an actual logical argument. (b) They *don’t *mean that homosexuality doesn’t exist in the “natural” animal world. Clearly, it does. Clearly, in some animal societies, it actually appears to perform a vital role (e.g., bottlenose dolphins). (c) They don’t mean that the penis and the vagina appear to fit very well, and the penis and the penis don’t fit very well at all. (Believe it or not, many ex-gay ministries have argued this.)

So what *do *they mean? They mean something very complicated. They reference a rather complex theology called Natural Law, of which there have been written volumes. I’ll try and phrase it as bluntly as I can, and keep in mind that this defintion is very flawed and many here will disagree with me: Basically, “Natural Law” is how God designed everything to be a certian way. In particular, God designed human beings to act in a certian way (his “nature”). Certian actions that human beings take go against this divine design: e.g., nonproductive sexual contact, including homosexuality. To Catholics, God designed the human sexual organs to reproduce (among other things) - and human beings should only use those organs when they actually want to reproduce.

Why shouldn’t you go down the road of arguing that Homosexuality is unnatural? (1) Because people will think you mean (a), (b), or (c), above, even if you clarify it. (2) People won’t understand what Catholics *actually *mean by Natural Law. And (3) you won’t be able to prove or demonstrate that the Catholic Natural Law theory is actually true, because it primarily rests on articles of faith. Now, you could try proving those articles of faith, but that’s pretty convoluted for a simple debate. So in short: Argue that it’s unnatural and you’ll lose.

So what legs do you have to stand on?

Hmm…

That’s a good question.

You don’t have any legs to stand on, actually. You’re probably going to lose because your position is very week, unless your debate opponent is a complete fool. It’s sort of like arguing for racism or sexism, I suppose.

shrug

Good luck, anyway.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Immorality and mental illness
Both lead to unhappiness

So

Since it’s a psych class
I would take the position that
Homosexuality is a mental illness

Homosexuality is irrational
Attempted to be justified
By emotion

For example:

1. Why are you having sex if you have no intention of having a baby?
2. How can it be right for you, if your parts don’t fit?
3. Female and Male reproductive systems individually don’t make sense without the other.
4. “I’m going to love everything about you
   except your fertility
   that part of who you are
   I’m going to reject
   Don’t get me wrong
   I love you
   But in regard to your fertility
   Forget it!
   I’ll leave that for someone else.”
   (can also be used against the use of contraception)

Since Cognitive Therapy
stresses that irrationality
is an essential symptom of mental illness

Then

Consider using cognitive theory
to demonstrate that
homosexuality is a mental illness

By the way,
“Homophobia” is a political term
Dressed up to look like a diagnosis
It’s glorified name-calling
And an argumentum ad hominem

 

[StevenFrancis]

Nice try, but a quote or two from my original post can debunk all of that. :sad_yes:

It’s not a “nice try”. It’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is nothing to debunk. It is what it is. It is the truth.

Peace,

Steven

 

[siamesecat]

Religion is not a good argument unless you’re only debating other Christians. The one thing that I feel wrecks the Church’s position on homosexuality is the whole punishable by death along with adultery etc. I don’t see the Pope calling for homosexuals to be put to death, or for adultery to be illegal or punishable by death. I believe the Catholic response is that that is from the Old Testament, but unless I’m wrong, isn’t homosexuality not even mentioned in the New Testament? Plus, Catholics use Old Testament teachings all the time, and if they did not, how can they justify that God is loving if before the New Testament he had homosexuals put to death etc? So much of the Bible is completely ridiculous and would not be defended by most Catholics, so how can we pick and choose what is God’s unwavering will and what is just “metaphorical” or “meant for the Jews.”

Also, why are you having sex if not to reproduce as a question trying to prove irrationality is completely stupid . Everyone knows there are other benefits to sex that are not irrational, whether you approve of them or not.

 

[fix]

Did you know?

• Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
• The Qur’an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
• Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
• The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
• The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
• The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
• The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
• ‘Traditional marriage’ in the Bible includes polygamy.
• No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
• Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
• Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
• Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

The problem is the items mentioned are a facile way to understand Scripture and moral reasoning. It seems the anti religion crowd think believers are as shallow in their reasoning as they are. It is simply untrue.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

You guys are giving my friend and I generally good advice. That’s a given, so thanks, so far.

I definitely know she’s in the toilet because going against homosexuality is a tough job. I’m not against gays and neither is she. She was randomly assigned the position.

Position debating against homosexuality is a weak position. That’s also a given. Our AP Psych books readily admit that it is not a mental illness, so there goes that. If we were to use the Bible (which I’m sure she will), the only valid piece of information would be the idea that sexual intercourse between two men physically unhealthy… without protection, that is.

This is gonna be a challenge. Keep it coming, you guys.

Ironically Yours.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

By the way,
“Homophobia” is a political term
Dressed up to look like a diagnosis
It’s glorified name-calling
And an argumentum ad hominem

I should qualify my statement:

It is based on the practical definition of homophobia:
“Anyone who questions or discourages
the gay lifestyle
is acting out of fear.”
Perhaps the theoretical definition is different.

I have a friend for years who is gay
but he doesn’t think I’m homophobic
he just thinks I’m ignorant regarding the issue

Position debating against homosexuality is a weak position. That’s also a given. Our AP Psych books readily admit that it is not a mental illness, so there goes that. If we were to use the Bible (which I’m sure she will), the only valid piece of information would be the idea that sexual intercourse between two men physically unhealthy… without protection, that is.

And

This is completely open-- it can get personal, it can get political, it can get religious!

It seems to be slowly closing.

This is gonna be a challenge. Keep it coming, you guys.

Is there more specific information you can tell us?
I don’t know if we can help if you don’t.

 

[Frost]

A friend of mine is going to be debating in my AP Psych class. (Believe it or not, our schedule had time for a “fun” activity, and this was it. ) This is completely open-- it can get personal, it can get political, it can get religious!

Now, this is one on one, extra credit, and my friend was qualified for it. She is assigned to argue against it, but here’s the problem.

I wanted to help her out because God knows she needed the credit, so we went to a bunch of religious sites that would, of course help her out (no matter how embarrassed I was as a Catholic to read such hate). We found a site called sacred-text.com. Here’s what we found on the LGBT section (which I was pleasantly surprised to find):

Did you know?

• Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
• The Qur’an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
• Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
• The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
• The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
• The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
• The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
• ‘Traditional marriage’ in the Bible includes polygamy.
• No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
• Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
• Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
• Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

This poses a threat to her extra credit because her opponent is God-awesome at debates. How can we compete with this, assuming that these points may be addressed?

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Of course one could point out the physical mismatch when two men or two women want to have sex, their bodies simply don’t match. For example, sex between men may result in serious conditions, as the anus is not made for such activities. The muscle can be destroyed, resulting in lifelong incontinens.

But you made your list from a religious point of view, so I will focus on it, that it: only the biblical points.

1. How many verses dedicated to the topic doesn’t say anything about degree of validity. It is enough to have it stated once.
2. Leviticus shows that homosexuality is neither a larger nor a smaller sin than, say, adultery. As other sins, it is an act which shows that we deny God, who is the source of life, and thereby we will loose our life if we don’t repent.
3. Though Jesus don’t condemn same-sex marriage, he does say something about marriage: It is between man and woman, and those who for different reasons cannot enter into such marriage are called to live life as single.
4. The destruction of Sodom was due to their many sins, amongst them homosexual acts. They mistreated strangers by trying to rape them.
5. The Bible doesn’t condems same-sex marriage, instead it condems all homosexual acts, no matter what the circumstances. For example: The greek word - arsenokoites is a word which includes all forms for homosexual activities, whether it be prostitution, within “marriage” or incest. It simply condemns men sleeping with men.
6. The Bible doesn’t say that David and Jonathan had sex.
7. The OT confirms that polygami was practiced in old times, but Jesus statet that God intended marriage to be between one woman and one man. Practice of polygami in old times doesn’t tell us anything about homosexuality.

 

[Ruthie]

Is the debate going to center on the Bible? If not, I wouldn’t bring it up.

Do a Google search for homosexuality health statistics. You will find a lot of sites.

Find the stats to support the following 3 issues (and others you may come across) so that you can cite them by author, publication, and page number. (I.e. “Dr Honest Physician reports, in his article ‘Health Risks of Doing That,’ published in the July 2007 issue of ‘Politically Incorrect Medicine,’ on page 3002, that…”) This may take some digging. Do the digging, or you won’t have a leg to stand on. Is there a med school library that might have copies of medical mags and journals?

The three issues:

It’s physically unhealthy. Anal cancer is common in gay men, extremely rare in heteros.

Transmission of STDs is common where there’s tissue damage, and sodomy causes tissue damage. (Don’t use the term “sodomy.” Use the anatomically correct term, which I don’t use on these forums!)

If it’s so mentally healthy to be “out,” how come the stats for mental disease and suicide haven’t dropped since the '70s?

Another stat to look for is on rates of sadomasochism among gays vs. heteros. I think there’s a significant difference - but I don’t know if you can prove it. S&M is not healthy either physically or mentally.

If you want to be prepared to defend the Bible, I’ll be glad to help with that, too.

To God be the glory,

Ruthie

 

[elliejanba]

Also do some research on why it was once considered a mental health issue, and why it was removed. It wasn’t removed because of research, rather it was removed because of lobbying.

Read up on Kinsey, his reports link pedophilia to homosexuality. His statistics generally show that people choose a sexual preference based on their first sexual experience. Many homosexual men had their first experience as children by other older children or grown male adults.

I would also check up on this site: narth.com/index.html

It is one of the leading research on homosexuality as an irrational belief.

 

[RobbyS]

Of course one could point out the physical mismatch when two men or two women want to have sex, their bodies simply don’t match. For example, sex between men may result in serious conditions, as the anus is not made for such activities. The muscle can be destroyed, resulting in lifelong incontinens.

But you made your list from a religious point of view, so I will focus on it, that it: only the biblical points.

1. How many verses dedicated to the topic doesn’t say anything about degree of validity. It is enough to have it stated once.
2. Leviticus shows that homosexuality is neither a larger nor a smaller sin than, say, adultery. As other sins, it is an act which shows that we deny God, who is the source of life, and thereby we will loose our life if we don’t repent.
3. Though Jesus don’t condemn same-sex marriage, he does say something about marriage: It is between man and woman, and those who for different reasons cannot enter into such marriage are called to live life as single.
4. The destruction of Sodom was due to their many sins, amongst them homosexual acts. They mistreated strangers by trying to rape them.
5. The Bible doesn’t condems same-sex marriage, instead it condems all homosexual acts, no matter what the circumstances. For example: The greek word - arsenokoites is a word which includes all forms for homosexual activities, whether it be prostitution, within “marriage” or incest. It simply condemns men sleeping with men.
6. The Bible doesn’t say that David and Jonathan had sex.
7. The OT confirms that polygami was practiced in old times, but Jesus statet that God intended marriage to be between one woman and one man. Practice of polygami in old times doesn’t tell us anything about homosexuality.

Also Jews widely condemned homosexuality because of its association with heathen worship, so that Josias’ reforms included getting rid of male and female prostitutes on the temple grounds. Later, it was associated with the Greek lifestyle, and again, Greek polytheism. Paul regarded it as a kind of madness, but spiritual madness, or obsession. And in no society has there ever been legal homsexual marriage. It is an invention of modern times, a mockery of traditional marriage.

 

[tman07]

Ethical Theories such as Natural Moral Law, as used by the Roman Catholic Church to condemn homosexuality, prove useless.

Natural Moral law was first postulated by Aristotle and developed by St. Thomas Aquinas with five main precepts

1. To live
2. To learn
3. To contribute to the order of society
4. To Reproduce
5. To worship God

Although Homosexuality takes away from the ability to reproduce so does celebacy. So if you follow Natural Moral Law then you are damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

Also If the bible comndems all same sex acts including presumably same sex marriage would be condemned also, why then is it permissable for David and Jonathon to have a same sex marriage?

if an act is intrinsically wrong, it is intrinsically wrong to all especially if you follow an absolutist system like the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

 

[fix]

Ethical Theories such as Natural Moral Law, as used by the Roman Catholic Church to condemn homosexuality, prove useless.

Natural Moral law was first postulated by Aristotle and developed by St. Thomas Aquinas with five main precepts

1. To live
2. To learn
3. To contribute to the order of society
4. To Reproduce
5. To worship God

Although Homosexuality takes away from the ability to reproduce so does celebacy. So if you follow Natural Moral Law then you are damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

Also If the bible comndems all same sex acts including presumably same sex marriage would be condemned also, why then is it permissable for David and Jonathon to have a same sex marriage?

if an act is intrinsically wrong, it is intrinsically wrong to all especially if you follow an absolutist system like the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Celibacy is consistant with the moral law. It is not unnatural. Same sex acts are unnatural. This is a matter of reason.

 

[Frost]

Also If the bible comndems all same sex acts including presumably same sex marriage would be condemned also, why then is it permissable for David and Jonathon to have a same sex marriage?

They didn’t have a same sex marriage.

 

[tman07]

In the origonal post it says “The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.” sounds like a marriage to me…

If natural moral law is known to us through what is considered natural and all things natural were created by God and reproduction is natural and therefore created by God, how can two opposing things both be natural, for example reproduction and celebacy.

‘Acts which uphold and further these precepts are deemed good. Acts which do not are called bad.’