Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

To begin, I will attempt to answer everything from Con's last two posts. Genesis 2:21–24 refers to Plato's theory of androgyny. Con's answer to my first and second question both relied on this. This theory and Con's "coming of age interpertation," went unsupported. Neither Con's argument text nor the reconnections.net reference in any way gave reason to connect such a theory to the teaching of the Bible; the words Genesis, Bible, etc. were not in it. The proposition is that the Bible, not Plato, condemns homosexuality. Therefore, if an extrabiblical source is used, the source must reason from the Bible that it permits (or in my case, condemns) homosexuality. And if Con's source was just for explaining the theory as opposed to supporting it, it would still need to be supported in Con's argument text, though. Either way, the theory remains unsupported. Instead of believing this theory, letting Scripture interpret Scripture shows that the explicit conclusion of Genesis 2:21–24 is that "a man shall ... be joined to his wife" (i.e., the couple's sexes do matter, v. 24). Let us "Hold fast the pattern of sound words" contained in the Bible (2 Tim. 1:13): The polygamy of "Lot" shows that marriage is not solely for reproduction. Lot was not mentioned in Genesis 16 or 25, and he married neither Hagar nor Katurah. You must be referring to Abraham (aka, Abram), Lot's uncle (Gen. 12:5). At the very least God's main desire for marriage is offspring that will serve Him (Mal. 2:15; Ps. 127:3–5). However, I will not use this argument against homosexuality in this debate.Sodom's inhospitality (i.e., materialism and uncharitableness) is the reason it's condemned, not homosexuality. To support this, you said that "Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel." While the Sodomites clearly were not hospitable and considerate, it was more than just that. The Book of Ezekiel is not a book of the New Testament; it was an Old Testament book written almost 600 years before Christ.[1] And I don't believe that there is a story in the Bible about a hungry man coated in honey that was stung to death by bees; can I have a reference on that? Sodom is rementioned in the New Testament, though: As I said in my last post, the Book of Jude says that it was because Sodom had "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh," (i.e., "because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities," GW) that they were condemned (Jude 7), not just for inhospitality.Leviticus 20:13 refers to the kedoshim, who committed homosexuality as a ritual, not homosexuality in general. Yes, there were people known as kedoshim (aka, qadesh or qedeshim). The first place where they are mentioned in the Bible is Deuteronomy 23:17. The New King James Version footnotes them as people "practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals." However, no reference of them is ever given in Leviticus. Rather, the men being discussed in Leviticus are those who "lie with a male as with a woman" (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). And, unlike you said, I did provide evidence stating that what you claim is false: I quoted 20:13, then said that "if you read down ... to Leviticus 20:23 ... God says, 'And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things [i.e., the things that were just listed, including homosexuality], and therefore I abhor them.' ... Instead of homosexuality being wrong because ... the foreign, idolatrous nations were doing it, the foreign, idolatrous nations were abhorred because they committed these sins; again, 'they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them' (v. 23)."Leviticus is figurative and cannot be used to condemn homosexuality without the other things prohibited in Leviticus being condemned. Yes, Leviticus isn't binding. But it's not figurative; its teachings just don't apply to us today, as it's part of the obsolete, Old Testament (Heb. 8:6–13). However, it does show homosexuality to be an unnatural "abomination" (discussed in next paragraph). Isn't it strange that before the law of Moses, during it, and after, it's never been supported? The word "to'evah" refers to wickedness in general, not homosexuality. As you showed in your literal translation of it, homosexuals "do a to"evah." So you're saying that the two homosexuals do wickedness ("an abomination," NKJV). This point actually supports my proposition.Homosexuality cannot be condemned without those who are intersex being condemned. Intersexuality is a trait, not an action, so it can't be helped.The "Hebrew" word Malakoi, in 1 Cor. 6:9–10, does not condemn homosexuality. It depends on the source you use. And I wasn't talking about malakoi; I was discussing the next word used, arsenokoites, "a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast."[2] Clearly, homosexuality is condemned when using reliable lexicons. (Also, the New Testament's written in Greek, not Hebrew.)Romans cannot condemn homosexuality without everyone being homosexuals. Rom. 2:1 is talking about those who "practice the same things" they judged others for. Jesus also taught this (Matt. 7:1–5). If you meant that 1) if homosexuality is sin, and 2) all have sinned, then 3) all have committed homosexuality, then you made an illogical syllogism; just because someone's in sin doesn't mean they're in homosexuality: Below are questions for Con:1. What evidence from the context of the Bible is there for Plato's theory of androgyny?2. Jesus' saying people are made "male and female" is a quote from Genesis 1:27. If one's sex isn't a factor in marriage, why did Jesus bring up the fact that people are made "male and female" without mentioning other things they are made (e.g., "in the image of God")?3. Are there any approved examples of homosexuality in the Bible?4. Are there any disapproved (condemned) examples of homosexuality in the Bible?5. If sinful religions practice ritual homosexuality close to where we live, would this make it sinful today?6. As arsenokoites (homosexuals[2]) are condemned, do any lexicons not define them as homosexuals?7. Why does Romans consider passionate ("burned in their lust for one another") homosexuality to be "against nature" (1:26–27) if "our other half" can be of the same sex?Now I'll explain why the judges should vote for me:ConductI forfeited, so...Most convincing argumentsCon never proved his "coming of age interpertation"; I used Scripture. I used the Bible's context for what Leviticus condemned; Con did not.Most reliable sourcesMost of Con's extrabiblical sources were inaccessible from the Internet; the two that were required extra clicking.Spelling and grammarCon made spelling errors. Here are some examples (in no particular order): 1. a women2. Furtality 3. methaor4. flase5. rediculous6. bellow (for below)7. Philsbury References[1] https://bible.org...[2] http://biblehub.com...