The Bible does not exclude homosexuals as acceptable people.

"HE WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT JESUS AND PAUL CONDEMNED SEXUAL SIN BUTWHO IS TO SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS SEXUAL SIN?" Uhhhh.... the Bible... That's what your debate is about, after all. You seem to be equivocating your personal feelings with the statement you've made. If you wanted to argue that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, then perhaps you should have framed your debate within that context. Going off on wild tangents seems to be standard operating procedure around here, but I am going to remain within the framework of the debates premise. "IT IS A NATURAL GENETIC AND SOCIAL OCCURANCE ACCORDING TO MANY LEADING STUDIES AND SOURCES INCLUDING THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATION." Not that this is relevant to the debate, but I will again point out that this is an appeal to authority and an argument from consensus. "YOU MENTIONED MOSES, A CHARACTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, NOT THE NEW." When I did I was correcting a misnomer of yours. After that point I mentioned two verses in the New Testament that point to homosexuality being an aberration to God. Whether it was the Old or New testament, what is that supposed to mean when together they comprise "the Bible?" You say that as if it detracts from my argument and strengthens yours. You stated that the Bible doesn't exclude homosexuality. That isn't true, and I've demonstrated that. "THIS VERSE SEEMS TO BE CLEAR: PAUL SEES WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN AND MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN, AND HE CONDEMNS THAT PRACTICE." Right, so I'm not sure what you are even arguing about. You've now conceded that the Bible does in fact do what you claim it didn't. My opponent quotes a Reverend, who he claims is homosexual. "DID THESE PRIESTS AND PRIESTESSES GET INTO THESE BEHAVIORS BECAUSE THEY WERE LESBIAN OR GAY?" First of all, his assertion is baseless and unsubstantiated. Read Romans and there is nothing within it indicating that Paul is referencing pagan rituals. Secondly, go figure that his discourse wouldn't be a dispassionate liturgical endeavor given the fact that he claims he is gay but is also a Christian. He is attempting to reconcile the two because they are at odds -- because his message is disparate to the Bible's message. "HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED! ITS PERFECTLY NATURAL." Whether it is or it isn't, on what grounds do you make your claim? You have to appreciate the irony in this. If people say the Bible imposes its beliefs on the common man, then how is it any different if the common man imposes his beliefs on the Bible? Its all imposition, and its all relative. And if stating that homosexuality is an aberration is wrong, then you are going to have to substantiate that claim. "IF SCIENCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH PROOF TO YOU THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL..." Whoa, hold up a minute!... I gave no indication as to what my personal belief on the matter was because its irrelevant to your assertion. Again, if you really wanted to argue that homosexuality was natural, then you should have framed your debate within that context. It seems that all you really want to do is bash the Bible and to exonerate homosexuality from it. If you want to debate about that, then switch your tactic. Just know that I think its pretty crappy to do that to someone who has already chosen to debate you on a specific topic. In any case, if you do decide to change the topic at least STICK to it, and make it clear as to what you really want to be debating. Because your opponent may be in agreement with you, and switching it in the middle of a debate forces your opponent to concede with you after the fact. That's not cool. Because as of now you are all over the place introducing one thing after another that bear no immediate relevance to the topic. So please tell me what is it is that you want to debate, really, and be specific. Do you want to debate Christianity? Do you want to debate the Bible? Do you want to debate whether homosexuality is (un)natural? What is it that you want, because I can't make heads or tails of it. And quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of people derailing a topic to smuggle in erroneous and irrelevant topics in the middle of a PRE-defined debate!