Christians Should Accept and Love Homosexual People

Before I refute the Pro's arguments, I would like to set something straight. The resolution limits this debate to Christians, not just anyone. Christians must hold unwaveringly to the Bible. To say that a book of the Bible is "based on what [Paul] personally believed, not straight from God," is actually heresy. Here, I will quote Robert M. Bowman Jr. from the Christian Research Journal, as he gives one principle for identifying heresy: "the Bible alone is the written Word of God, and as such is the infallible, definitive standard in matters of controversy in the church. This principle follows from the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, who taught that while human tradition and religious leaders are fallible, Scripture is the Word of God and never errs (Matt. 5:17-20; 15:3-9; 22:29; John 10:35). Since to be a Christian means, minimally, to be a follower of Jesus Christ, no person or group can claim to be truly Christian that does not at least acknowledge this special authority of the Bible. " A Christian is defined by Merriam Webster as "A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ." Jesus Himself taught that the Bible is the infallible Word of God (John 10:35, Matt. 5:17-20, Prov. 30:6, Rev 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2)! No Christian can deny the infallibility of the Word of God, so as a Christian decides whether homosexuality is a sin, the Bible needs to have the ultimatum. Those are the terms that the resolution sets when it uses the word Christian. 1. Now that we have established that, I will respond to Pro's first point that being gay is not a choice. a) Because the Bible says that being gay is a sin, it must be a choice. Pro had it right when he said, "In all cases, a sin is a choice," but then he drew the wrong conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice, therefore not a sin. The correct conclusion is that because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, it must be a choice. b) Homosexual temptations are not a choice, but homosexuality is. Homosexual temptations are just that, temptations. Some people are tempted by them, and others aren't, just like with every other temptation. The temptations themselves are, at least largely, something that happens to us, as opposed to something that we choose, but we do choose whether we will act on them. Our gay friend who grew up in a conservative Christian environment and "suppressed" his sexuality can be compared to someone who is justifiably angry at someone, but so much so that he wants to murder him. He has a desire to murder, but it would still be wrong for him to do it - society requires that he "suppress" that part of himself. Is the temptation his fault? No. Is sin permissible just because we have the desires inside us? No. God expects us to exercise self control. c) Pro said, "If it were truly a choice, then would it not be a choice for the converse? Would a man not choose to be straight?" My response is yes. We choose whether we will be homosexual or heterosexual when we express interest in a specific sex. Most people default to heterosexual because they find no conflict - heterosexuality works for them. However, they can choose to be homosexual if they find that their own sex arouses them, and not the opposite sex. Again, the temptations are not a choice, but the switch is. Now in defense of my own points: 1. Pro has said that my examples of God condemning homosexuality do not stand because it was actually Paul condemning it, and not God. My response to this is that all scripture, not just Paul's letters, is written by God, through humans, and 100% infallible. To make the claim that God's condemnation of homosexuality is illegitimate because it was written by Paul and not God is to call all scripture illegitimate. All scripture was written by humans, not just Paul's letters, but it is all the direct Word of God. God would not have allowed Paul's letters to be put into His Holy Word if it had even one mistake in it. Finally, I will respond to the rest of my opponent's points: 1. Pro brought up Ruth and Naomi as a Biblical example of a "homosexual" relationship. a) This argument assume that because Ruth and Naomi had an intimate and committed relationship, it must have necessarily been sexual. I have intimate committed relationships with all of my closest female friends (I am a girl), but they are not sexual. In fact, most of them have seen me exposed at one point or another (I was on swim team for a long time and we changed in one locker room), but we are all 100% heterosexual. b) If they had been homosexual, the Bible would have said so. The Bible would not have described their relationships in such depth and yet failed to bring up the small side note that they were romantically involved. c) "Don"t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me." Here, Ruth is describing her commitment to Naomi, and commitment is just as important for platonic relationships as it is for romantic ones. d) The Hebrew word used for "clave" in Ruth is דָּ֥בְקָה, and does not refer exclusively to romance. It is the past tense of "cling," and can also mean "stick" or "stuck," and the Bible uses it to refer to people, clothing, and even souls. Its use in this verse does not in any way imply romance or sexuality. In Genesis 2:24, the Hebrew word for "clave" is וְדָבַ֣ק. Similar, but not the same. http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... 2. Pro also brought up the example of David and Jonathan as a Biblical "homosexual" relationship, saying that the phrase "in the twain" means that David would be married to both Jonathan and Michal. The Hebrew word used here for "in the twain" is בִּשְׁתַּ֛יִם, pronounced "bi""ta"yim," and every translation except KJV, even ASV, translates it in some form of "a second time," or "a second chance," in reference to Merab. KJV translators added the phrase "one of" because there is no mentioning of David being homosexual anywhere else in the Bible, David has been heterosexual in every past Bible example (think Bathsheba, or any of his other concubines), and if he were the only example of a homosexual relationship in the Bible that God did not punish, they expected that the text would explicitly state it. http://biblehub.com... I want to point out that Pro has not yet responded to my attacks on any of his original points except for Sodom and Gomorrah. This point doesn't really show us anything for either side of the debate, because there were multiple sins that they were punished for. I cannot prove that they were being punished for their homosexuality as well, and Pro cannot prove that they weren't. However, I was able to turn his other points to my side of the debate, and he has not yet responded. In conclusion, because Christians must uphold the infallibility of the Bible, because the Bible is clear on the status of homosexuality, and because we have free will and can control our own decisions, a Christian has no choice but to conclude that homosexuality is a sin.