homosexuality is not a sin

I am going to start off this round by suggesting you look up ad hominem because you did a lot of it in your last response. “I have alread in detail proven that those verses that some of you so desperately want to beleive are condemning any and all homosexual sex for any reason do nothing of the sort by using their Scriptural context.” In a debate you don’t simply claim you defeated a point, especially one that was raised as a rebuttal to your earlier points. Also, what makes you think I care what the scriptures say? I took this debate because you are making claims you can’t back up and pretending the Bible says things it clearly does not say. “You are in fact using parts that so obviously were regarding things like Pagan idolotrous orgies.” Even if you had demonstrated that the prohibitions were being used to discuss how wicked the pagans were, it is very clear that the acts themselves are listed as wicked. All you would have shown is that the god is using the pagans as an example of people who do wicked things, including homosexual sexual relations. This would not imply that homosexual relations are acceptable outside of paganism. That said, you never demonstrated that the sexual verses were referring to pagans. If it wasn’t clear enough in the way pagan ritual is demarcated in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20 makes it crystal clear as I already showed and will show again shortly. I could also provided some basic cultural context, and I can provide a lot more that proves you wrong. Then provide it with a source. Given the fact that you are not capable of proving that homosexual sex is any more a sin than heterosexual sex, your argument regarding what qualifies as a marrage is groundless. I already provided that evidence in Leviticus and in Romans where homosexual sex is explicitly listed as sinful. When the book wants to refer to activities that are not sinful in and of themselves, but only sinful when done in the context of paganism, the book makes that point clear. For example, worship is not sinful, but when directed at a god other than the Hebrew god it is. This is shown in 1 Corinthians 10:7 when it is explicitly stated that they must not worship false gods. Let’s go back to Leviticus for a minute. Leviticus 20:8 is an explicit command to follow the decrees of the Hebrew god. Guess what follows that explicit command? A bunch of decrees including one that explicitly tells the Hebrews to execute homosexuals. There is no way to misinterpret that unless you have an agenda. For example, if you have an agenda to twist a bigoted, hateful book into being a loving, kind book. I also don't need to argue the Law of Moses, because Jesus fulfilled all of that and we are no longer bound by any of it. Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus explicitly states that he has not come to abolish the law of Moses and that it will apply until the earth has ceased to exist. I know a lot of Christians like to use the “but that’s the Old Testament” excuse, but it does not hold water when the Jesus figure explicitly states that the Mosaic Laws still apply. Additionally, if you actually believed this, then why did you bother trying to soften the Old Testament? This feels like you are trying to escape the inescapable conclusion that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality. And here is a conservative right-wing site that provides proof of that in detail... http://www.gotquestions.org...... Here are a bevy of Christian websites that reject that interpretation(which, by the way is not “proof” of your position) http://www.thebible-tencommandments.com... http://lifehopeandtruth.com... http://www.gty.org... The thing is, in a debate we deal with the arguments of the debater, not the arguments of others that you post links to. I cited scripture that is clear in meaning and explained how it fits into my argument. I didn’t just post links hoping someone else would do it for me. “You are trying to claim that the context is a list of prohibitions, but to interpret the Scriptures in that way, is irresponsible at best. By doing it your way, the Scriptures clearly state that if a man rapes a virgin woman and is caught, he must pay her father and she is to marry him for as long as he lives.” Well, it does say that. There are some who say that the father can reject the payment, but regardless the raped woman really gets no say in her future. The bible was written by people who, by today’s standards, were bigots. I put the verses people like you love taking out of their Scriptural context back in. More ad hominem I know people like you hate context when it is not in your favor, and you deny it all the time. More ad hominem. The people that were engaging in those idolatrous sex acts in Romans, was not the issue Paul had with them. Sure, in Paul's eyes, things like that would be shocking, and be against his cultural upbringing. No, it is the acts themselves that are referred to as sinful. Read what I quoted. It is explicitly stated that men having sexual relations with men and women having sexual relations with women is sinful. There is not any implication here or ANYWHERE in the Bible that homosexual sex is permitted under ANY circumstance. For things that are forbidden to do in a pagan context, like worship, but are encouraged in a Hebrew or Christian context, the distinction is made clear. I proved this earlier in this round. By the by, this is New Testament, so your prior attempt at a “but that’s Old Testament” defense doesn’t work here. Tell me, what part in the Scriptures condemn any and all homosesxual sex for any reason when there is not even a hint of idolatry involved in the context? Do you think that the 10 commandments must be thrown out because they start with an order to not worship other gods? Does that mean those rules are only talking about pagans? You seem to be grasping at straws to cherry pick this book and remove anything that goes against your views. None of it refutes what I stated. How does a set of verses that clearly defines male and female homosexual sex as sinful not obliterate all of your points? You need to actually refute a point, not just say it is refuted. You clearly want all homosexuals to be put to death Exponential ad hominem. “That is what a homosexual is to people like you, and you are the ones that are more like those than Paul is condemning.” More slander. Lust is not a passing thought, or a sexual orientation, it is a sexual obsession. And, in the case that Jesus was referring to, it is sexually obsessing over someone other than the person you are married to. Source for this interpretation? Still, this was your only legitimate rebuttal this round as opposed to simply slandering me or repeating your prior statements without directly addressing what I said, so I guess that is something. “For you to use that part of the scriptures in the way you just did, proves that you have distorted interpretations on them.” More ad hominem. You have not refuted anything I have stated, and you have provided proof of how you misuse the Scriptures for whatever reasons. More ad hominem and some irony considering you used this round to insult me and claim victory without actually rebutting any of my major points. I am still waiting for a legitimate rebuttal to my arguments from the last round and not a simple repeat of their initial points. I want them to directly address my arguments, not just tell me I am wrong. One thing I do want to add is a mistake I made in the last round where I made a mistake with the verse numbers in Leviticus. It was verses 1-5 dealing with pagans, 6 dealing with spiritualists, and then the 7th verse is where the explicit instructions for how Hebrews should behave begins. Also, I am pro gay marriage and don’t believe a word of the Bible. This is irrelevant to the debate, but I can’t just ignore the slander my opponent wrote.