Gay marriage should be illegal

I think it is important to deal with the Bible verses my opponent quoted right away and address them properly. I think my opponent will agree with me that the Bible was not written in English and sometimes it is imperative that we consult the original Hebrew and Greek translations in order to be accurate. As for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, (Hebrew) "V'et-zachar lo tishkav mish'k' vei ishah" Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing. (The women's portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men's half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman's quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael's tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21). " Leviticus KJV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV) Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. As you can see, as we go from Hebrew through the translations and bible rewrites to the present time, (I've only stated a few examples but its a lot more complicated then this) it's original meaning, like many statements in Leviticus, are not relevant in modern society. If 18:22 stayed with its original translation, no one would pay any attention to it. It's been translated like this purely to boost bible sales. Newer bible sales have become more and more homophobic to boost sales. Homosexual global population is around 10% lesbians 6%. By hurting the minority, the bible publication have boosted sales for the overhaul majority (90% straight male). The plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The "bedding" or "bed" in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out. Most English translations leave the word, "bedding" or "laying" out the the verse when translated. " "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J. A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526) I would like to point out that those two verses in particular, were in the Old Testament. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that the entire law is summed up into one commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself. " Galatians 5:14. Homosexuality is not mentioned in that verse at all. Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. " This verse makes it clear that we are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws. Eating pork, wearing clothing that contains more than one type of fabric are ALL forbidden. Eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), a woman wearing a man's cloak (Deut 22:5) and the Hebrews breaking bread with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32) are ALL abominations too. To put an end to this argument once and for all, Christ came to set up a NEW Covenant and we are no longer bound by the old. Heb. 8:13, "In that He says, 'A new covenant, He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. ' " This is why I believe that even if your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were correct, they are still irrelevant because Christ has come and we are under a NEW COVENANT. My opponent made reference to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. He also said the word for "sodomy" meant, "homosexuality". My opponent did not offer proof of this assumption. Until he does, we cannot assume that it does. Furthermore, there was not a Greek nor Hebrew word meaning, "homosexual" at the time the Bible was written. As for when the word "homosexual" appeared in the Bible, ""The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946. " That was taken from a CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS website. . http://carm.org...... Now let's deal with Genesis 19: "9 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant"s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning. " "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square. " 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom"both young and old"surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. " This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we? My opponent goes on to make the argument that the reason homosexuality is a sin in the Bible is because the idea of a man and a woman together is to produce children. He argues that producing children is human nature. So is sex. Should people that are over the age of childbearing not be allowed to marry simply because they cannot reproduce? Are they not partaking in "human nature"? Should an intersex person (person born physically male and female) not be allowed to marry because they will be gay and straight at the same time no matter who they choose as a mate? What about people who are infertile? My opponent mentioned "animals". "Homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 animal species. " Taken from . http://www.news-medical.net... Having said that, I don't believe that just because animals do something that it makes it "right". Some animals eat their young. I only mention "animals" because my opponent did. My opponents asked a very interesting question, "Would the creator of the world want his creation to be forcibly changed against his will? " I think we would first need to clarify what his "will" is in the first place. My opponent made the following argument: " Although I have a lot of libertarian leaning beliefs, the gay marriage is more about violating states" rights than it is about protecting personal liberties. " The problem with that argument is that there is still no argument about why gay marriage should be illegal in the first place. If one sect of people does not have the right to marry and another sect does, is unconstitutional. It goes against, "All men are created equal. " Remember, back in the Civil War times, certain states wanted to keep slavery legal. It went against the Constitution and lost out. Furthermore, in the 1960's many states allowed segregation. That too, went against the Constitution. In closing, my opponent has not made a valid argument of why gay marriage should be illegal. I have shown that when the Bible verses my opponent quoted are looked at in their historical context, they take on a totally different meaning. In Leviticus, I proved that the verses show that Jewish law prohibited a man from having sex with another man in his wife's bed. Genesis 19 dealt with homosexual rape, not homosexuality in the context of 2 loving and committed members of the same sex. Even if we were to accept the English version and accept the interpretation that man lying with a man WAS a sin, it no longer is because Christ set us free from the law. My opponent offered absolutely no argument other than the premise that the sates have the right to determine what is best for themselves and the Federal Government should stay out of it. Thank you and I yield to my opponent.