homosexuality is NOT condemned in the bible.

1) "Rom 1:26-27" This verse is one of the few verses used by homosexuality supporters to argue that even the Bible is pro-homo. Ahem. .. this is false beyond belief and I'll explain why. The verse states: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB). Let's take a look a closer look at these two verses. The passage has important words worth looking at, but strictly for our debate we'll look at the words you specified, which were, "natural function," or "natural use," used in the KJV. Now let's pan out the different translations of the Bibles from the original Greek to English. "natural relations"--ESV, NIV, RSV "natural function"--NASB "natural intercourse"--NRSV "natural use"--ASV, GNT, KJV, NKJV, YLT "natural sexual function"--ISV Here we can clearly see that the passage is not referring to a person's alleged natural sexual orientation. If the text only said "natural" and not "natural function/use," then your argument might be stronger. But the text doesn't help you in any way (sorry :/) . If the word, "natural," in this context means "natural sexual orientation," then why does Paul add the word, "function," and not something like "preference" (Rom. 12:9, NASB) or "choice" (Rom. 9:11) or "inclination" (1 Cor. 11:16) or "desire" (Rom. 1:27, 10:1)? Food for thought :) Oh, and verse 27 says that the "men abandoned the natural function of the woman. " I'm sure you know that by definition, "men" and "woman" are gender specific words. What is the man's natural function of the woman? Ya ya das ist Sex! Is Paul saying that the natural function of the man with the woman is really about natural desire of men with men? No. .. that's ridiculous. Instead, the words are used in the context of sexual activity--a man's natural function with the woman in verse 27 "Function" and "use" are not about preference but about sex. Now the original The Greek says, "natural function" which is fysiken chrasin in Greek. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural (fysiken) function (chrasin) for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire (orexei) toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB). "natural"--fysiken, 1) produced by nature, inborn, 2) agreeable to nature, 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature "function"-- "chrasin" use made of anything, usage, more specifically of sexual intercourse function, sexual use (Rom. 1.26, 27) The issue is not one"s perceived natural orientation or natural preference but of natural function. Preference is internal. Function, in this context, is biological and is related to design, which is why Paul tells us that the men gave up the natural function ("use" in the KJV) of the woman and burned for other men. There is nothing here about sexual orientation. It is about sexual function where the norm is male and female, not male and male or female and female. In addition to this, these verses are not promotion of any kind for acts such as homosexuality. 2) "1 Cor 11:13-15" Please read the verse carefully. .. . 1 Cor 11:13 says, "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? " This verse is asking us to judge ourselves if a woman's hair should be covered or not. It is basically says that it is law that a woman SHOULD cover her hair. In other words the Christian Hijab or Veil. 1 Cor 11:14 says, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him," This verse is asking us, "isn't it obvious that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair? '". And again, the word "nature" is fysis in Greek similar to the verse in the first point about 26 and 27. 1 Cor 11:15 says, "If a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. " This verse says to the women, yo. .. cover your hair because that's the law. So. .. how does 1 Cor 11:13-15, in any way, have anything to do with homosexuality? It's saying to the women cover your hair because the woman's hair is meant to be covered. Hair and Homosexuality. .. not the same. 3) "Jude 7 and Genesis 19" Um. .. no relation. The word "strange flesh" in Jude 1:7 is among the words used to describe unnatural desires. Unnatural desires are Man with Man and Woman with Woman. In fact it says that they succumbed to such actions and were punished as a result of doing so because it continues and says, "Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. " So how does this help your debate? In conclusion, as far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality results in punishment and punishment is a form of condemnation. So if you're saying that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible, then clearly you have not read before and after the verses you brought up in your original argument :)) Your arguments just go to prove that it is Christian Law that women should cover their hair in Church and Men should keep their hair short. You also proved that you haven't read the Bible, because the Bible is a Book of Laws and Divine Guidance for the people of that time. Divine Guidance did not promote homosexuality and condemned it for the sake of progress in Humankind. Your turn