Christians Should Accept and Love Homosexual People

First, I'll respond to the arguments of the pro, then I'll provide my own negative case. 1. Pro has tried to deny the example of Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of homosexuality being punished. I will agree to the Pro's point that homosexuality was not their only sin that God punished in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, God was clearly still punishing them for their homosexuality. 2. Pro has made the claim that Leviticus 18:22 makes homosexuality a sin because semen is unclean, and not because homosexuality in itself is an abomination. I have two responses to this argument. a) First, I will copy and paste the actual text of Genesis 38:8-10, which pro has cited: "8 Then Judah said to Onan, 'Sleep with your brother"s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.' 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother"s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord"s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. " If you read this passage, it is obvious that Onan was not put to death for spilling semen, but because he did not fulfill his duty to his brother's wife. It was his legal duty to take her as his wife, to continue their family name, and he specifically prevented this from happening. This impacts the round because Leviticus did not prohibit homosexuality only because semen is an unclean substance, but because homosexuality in itself is indeed a sin. b) My second response to this argument is that even if God had made this law just because He wanted to prevent an unclean substance from spilling, it would still be an abomination. Many laws that God made are not just laws of principle, but laws of practical application as well. For instance, the similar sexual law in Leviticus 18:19 that a man should not lie with a woman who is "bleeding." This is a perfectly practical law with a lot of wisdom in regard to health, and it would still be a sin to break. 3. Pro brought up the argument that if this law must be upheld, we must defend the entirety of Old Testament laws, citing Hebrews 8:13, that the old covenant is obsolete and aging. I have two responses to this argument. a) Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Here I am citing Matthew 5. While I do not have the word count to paste it here, I will request that everyone read it. Matthew 5 makes a great point as to what Jesus wanted to do with the law - He wanted us to go BEYOND the law, not to shirk it. In response to the law, "anyone who murders will be subject to judgement," Jesus said, "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement." In response to "do not commit adultery," Jesus said, "do not look at a woman lustfully." The list goes on. Jesus did create a new covenant, but the new covenant is not one of legalism, but of a legitimate change of heart. b) God has set us free from SPECIFICS in the old covenant. We know that animal sacrifices are no longer required because the Bible refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God and the Ultimate Sacrifice. We know unclean meats are made clean because of Peter's dream in Acts 10. Also, many laws were Jewish GOVERNMENT laws, like laws about who could and could not be allowed in the city. These laws obviously do not apply to us today, as they were given to the Jewish government to enforce. When Gentiles were allowed to follow Christ, we were given four things to avoid (Acts 15:20), out of all the Jewish law. These four things were, food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. Notice it did not say "adultery," but "sexual immorality." This includes anything sexual that God also deems immoral - including homosexuality. The impact of this is that sexual immorality (which includes homosexuality) was one of the four laws the early church gave to Gentiles, out of all of Jewish law. They considered it incredibly important. 4. I have one response to Pro's pre-rebuttal of Romans 1:26-27, and that is, if the passage had been condemning the unhealthiness of the homosexual relationship, and not the homosexuality in itself, it would have said so. I'll paste the passage for clarity: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." The passage makes itself very clear, that God punished them for their sin, and the only sin the passage explicitly describes is homosexuality. If you read the passage with an objective perspective, it is undeniable that God is condemning homosexuality. The Bible was not meant to be conformed to what we want it to say, it was meant to say what it explicitly says. Anyone who reads this passage for the soul purpose of learning God's desire, and not with their own agenda to prove, will clearly see what God is communicating here. It is not a mystery. 5. Finally, in his conclusion, the pro said, "If we are all made in the image of God and God makes no mistakes, are homosexual people not meant to be homosexual?" But this is flawed logic. The same argument could literally be made for a murderer, or any other sinner. "If we are all made in the image of God and God makes no mistakes, are sinners not meant to be sinners?" No, they're not, but they've been given free will, and they chose to abuse it. And now for my own case. I believe the Bible takes a very clear stance on homosexuality, and I will cite two different passages that support this claim. 1. 1 Corinthians 9-10: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Now some of you may have gotten suspicious to see a footnote after "men who have sex with men," so I'll post what that footnote says, just to prevent any confusion. "The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts." I don't think there's really any wiggle room here. 2. 1 Timothy 1:9-11a: "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God." To paraphrase, homosexuality is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God. It doesn't get much more clear than that. In conclusion, both sides have brought up Biblical examples where God condemns homosexuality. The pro has done so in an effort to deny their impact, and the negative has done so in an effort to bring them to your attention. Neither side has brought up Biblical examples of homosexual relationships that God has endorsed, or even ones that He neglected to condemn. Why? Because they aren't there. The only times the Bible mentions the topic, it is in condemnation. To an objective reader with no agenda behind their reading, the Bible makes itself very clear. No objective reader of the Bible can honestly deny that God condemns homosexuality.