Gay marriage is sinful.

I really found the picture to be quite humorous. He and I agree on many things. We apparently agree on my arguments concerning how we should interpret the Bible ("I never said you stole money"and "development of doctrine"). I say that because he never responded to them or tried to refute them last round, so he must agree with them. Having said that, I don't see how that helps his case. Here's why: DROPPED ARGUMENTS In "I never said you stole money" I argued that in order to come up with a proper interpretation of scripture, we need to avail ourselves with those who lived closest to the time of Jesus and the Apostles. I contend that my opponent will be unable to find a single member of the early Church fathers who said the Bible teaches that a gay lifestyle is in line with God's will. I on the other hand can find plenty of them that support my interpretation of scripture. And since what he advocates is opposed to them, we can know his stance is not a development of doctrine, but rather a departure. This fact alone should be enough for me to win the argument portion of this debate. REBUTTALS My opponent claims Genesis 2:21-24 doesn't teach that a man can only marry women, but that flies in the face of the plain reading of scripture. The verse specifically talks about how God made us man and woman, and then speaks about how the man clings to his wife, not his husband. If there's any doubt about the context of the passage, Jesus cleared up the confusion when He interpreted it for us in the other passage I quoted: Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? " So here we see Jesus saying how the Father made them man and woman, and "for this cause"' a man shall cleave to his wife. So, in other words,God made them male and female because He wanted the man to join his wife. So again, any action that is the opposite of that "cause" is against God's will, and by definition, sinful. Con's Confusion Con pointed out how I said it is God's will that men only have sex with women, and tried to refute it by giving scriptural examples of a man having sex with women. This was very confusing to me as his examples SUPPORTED my claims. I said the Bible teaches men should only have sex with women, and Con gave examples of men having sex with women. As for Con's claims that Abraham's wife was infertile, this is obviously wrong since she gave birth to Isaac in Genesis 21. Sodom I wasn't planning on using the story of Sodom to support my argument. I don't think the story of Sodom is a good passage to use when defending the sinfulness of homosexual sex. So with that in mind, there is no reason for me to defend an argument I wasn't planning on making. Leviticus Once AGAIN, Con inserts a bunch of claims about biblical passages that fly in the face of the plain reading of the passage. He claims the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is really a condemnation of "Pagan Priests called Kedoshim", cross dressing, human castration, and anal sex during religious ritual. Here's the problem I have with Con's interpretation. .. none of that is found in Leviticus. There's no mention of "Pagan Priests called Keepshim, cross dressing, human castration, or religious rituals containing sex. You know what IS in Leviticus? Condemnation of homosexual relationships. (Leviticus 20:19) Unfortunately, Con has offered us an interpretation unknown to the early Church, and is therefore incorrect based on the agreed upon/dropped parameters of this debate. What We're Not Debating: As I alluded to earlier, Con posted a funny picture of a man in front of a chalkboard. This graphic mentioned several other actions other than homosexual sex that are banned in the Bible. That was all very interesting. .. but we're not debating about ANY OF THEM. We're not debating about cursing. We're not debating about shaving. We're not debating about football on Saturdays, etc. All of those may or may not be sinful, but one thing their definitely not is relevant to our debate. NEW ARGUMENTS Biblical Support Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. " So here we can plainly see how, according to the Bible, homosexual relationships are "unnatural". And if something is unnatural, it's something that God never willed to happen. And if it's against God's will, then for the purpose of this debate, it's considered sinful. Historical Christianity Eusebius of Caesarea "[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it" [Lev. 18:24"25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A. D. 319]). This can't be any clearer. The union of homosexual relationships is an "unlawful marriage". Sources: 2. . http://www.catholic.com...