Homosexual Behavior Is Immoral

Con holds to a view of Biblical errancy which leads him to conclude that the Biblical writers were simply incorrect on some matters of human sexuality. However, this seems conveniently "rigged' in order to avoid all criticism of homosexuality on grounds of special revelation. There is no indication that the intent of the author of Genesis was to give an exhaustive treatment of human sexuality. Indeed, he only seemed to be concerned with establishing a general norm (Man and woman) for sexual behavior. Other details were not included, or were revealed later. This accords with the notion of progressive revelation. Now, one would think that if God would have at least some mention of homosexual behavior if such relationships were to be approved of. Why would God endorse heterosexual relationships and not homosexual relationships if both were part of his intent for human sexuality? Moreover, why didn't God design/guide evolution to produce sexual organs that would be compatible with both genders? One does not have to be a Biblical inerrantist to notice that something is missing that should be there. There thus seems to be no good reason to toss out God's intent for human sexuality in Genesis other than its being too simple (Which it was arguably supposed to be). Con argues that is it not homosexuality which is condemned in Genesis 19, but inhospitable behavior. But this interpretation doesn't seem to be correct. Why did God judge the two cities? Con seems to propose that they were judged not for their homosexuality, but for their inhospitably in wanting to rape the angels. But this seems unlikely. Homosexuality is elsewhere listed a capital crime, and there's no evidence that the same was true of inhospitably. Why would God judge Sodom and Gommorah for having bad manners while ignoring the more serious crime? Moreover, God couldn't have judged the two cities for their inhospitality -- for he had already issued his judgement days before. Did he judge them for their homosexuality, then? The spotlighting of homosexuality in verse 5 as well as the various mentions of their immoral behavior throughout the Old and New Testaments makes this very likely. In regards to Leviticus, while it was true that the ceremonial laws no longer apply, the condemnation of homosexuality, incest, bestiality, adultery, and child sacrifice still do. Those commandments were addressed not to the priests, but to all the sons of Israel (Lev 18:2, 20:2). These were not just ritualistic commands, for commands that were to be observed by everyone. Writes Dennis Prager, "It is one thing not to put a Torah punishment into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin." [1] Coming now to Romans 1. Let me begin by saying (As I already did in the first paragraph) that it seems rather "convenient" for Con to hold that Paul erred on his analysis of homosexuality. But more to the point, is homosexuality condemned outright? It seems so. Even though homosexuality was a judgement for another immoral behavior, it's still seen as immoral. Writes JP Holding, "according to Jewish thought, this sort of homosexual behavior was a symptom of Gentile idolatry. It is because they were idolaters that they engaged in the sinful homosexual act, which was sinful completely apart from religious considerations." [2] Despite the fact that my opponent is a Biblical errantist, the fact that condemnations of homosexual behavior can be found throughout the Bible should be enough to at least shift the burden of proof on him. ________ [1] -- As cited by Greg Koukl, What Was The Sin of Sodom and Gommorah? http://www.str.org... [2] -- JP Holding, Paul and Homosexuality, http://www.tektonics.org...