Biblical Reason Against Homosexuality

Sorry, It has taken me so long to respond I have been very busy. Mr. Vines "sympathy" story does not disprove or weaken his arguments and so I see no reason why you need to bring it up. Mr. Vines point here is that our understanding of sexuality is different from that of Antiquity which affected the writing of intellectuals of that age. This is confirmed by the fact that the main views on homosexuality stemmed from Pederasty, Prostitution, And sexual slavery. Paul would have been well aware of this because it was the norm of Roman Antiquity. The point Mr. Vines is getting at is that contextualization is important. Take for example how many Church today take Paul's writings on Female Ministry leadership, A good bit of Christians say that Paul was writing based on a culture where women did not take the leadership role and was not writing based on the decree from his "maker". The same applies to homosexuality and to authoritative texts in scripture. Mr. Vines give scripture as his evidence. His evidence is written in (1 Corinthians 7:7-9, Matthew 19:11). There is context and as I have shown with Paul it is very important to understand. Remember it is the context that we use when answering objections based on the apparent Immoral God of the OT. So Mr. Vince is not begging the question. Okay so as I have argued before abomination can be applied to a broad range of things that Christians don't consider sinful just read Deuteronomy 14 so abomination does not necessarily work anymore as the term had more to do with what was foreign to Israel than what was moral. Also just because Genesis call the angels "men" does not mean that Mr. Vines' strange flesh argument is invalid but if anything further confirmed. Further speaking Jude does not specifically define the sexual immorality and perversion and so here you are begging the question. As I have argued the OT law was temporary and was fulfilled by Christ effectively abolishing it. Also, Vines argued that there is no reason to accept homosexual prohibitions when you don't accept other prohibitions because you realize they applied to cultural law and not the moral law such as the planting of crops and the mixing of fabrics regulations. The old law is dead. Combined with the arguments concerning Paul you still fail to show me where Mr. Vines is wrong. When addressing Paul one must understand Context which I talked about before so now you are just going in circles repeating the same arguments despite my refutations. You are using a lot of words to say very little. Okay, So I will concede here that the argument that term homosexual didn't exist until 1892 isn't really a strong argument in of itself here is what Vines is saying. Paul used the terms he did in the context of a condemnation of same-sex exploitative relationships what I say is that Paul has no authority to decide who will enter the Kingdom as nothing suggest that God was telling him who will enter and so Paul is basically begging the question. I assume what Vines is saying here is that the basis for Marriage is relationship backed up by his celibacy argument as well as context and marriage is not necessarily sexual, Procreative, Heterosexual, Vines does not say that marriage isn't Monogamous, Non-incestuous and symbolic of the gospel and the fact that you bring this up shows me that you misrepresent his argument. We have arguments and evidence that stand up under scrutiny and thus we shall adopt them. The fact you suggest otherwise is also a begging of the question fallacy. Finally. On humans are relational beings this is backed up by the celibacy argument which says that unless God has decreed that we be so then relationship are to be had and one is at odds with scripture to deny marriage relationships to homosexuals. In conclusion. The arguments have been given and in response, I have seen misrepresentations, Lack of contextualization, Circulatory arguments and logical fallacies. May my opponent try again.