According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a Sin.

I am sorry to say that you completely missed the point of my whole argument. That is ok though, because it is kind of a confusing thing to grasp at first. I will try to simplify it a little more in this argument. "...because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in." This is quite true, however we are not talking about the laws of the land, but the laws in the Bible. Remeber the thesis of the debate is: According to the BIBLE, homosexuality is a sin. "Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact." We are not arguing whether or not homosexuals CAN marry according to the laws here on earth, but rather whether or not they SHOULD be able to marry according to the laws writen in the Bible. As Christians, we are bound to the laws of the Bible, so we should stand by the fact that God considers homosexuality a sin, and we should oppose it's legality. "...again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want." Again, you missed the point. We are talking about the laws of the Bible in this debate. In the title, I did not say "according to the laws of the land", I said "According to the Bible". Like I said, you as a Christian should be opposed to gay marraige. Why? Because God says it is a sin. Being a non-believer does not give people the right to sin, nor you the right to support them in their sin. "LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it." You very well might, but not in this debate. This debate is not about the laws of the land. We are talking biblically. In this next sction, you COMPLETELY missed the entire point of my argument. This I do not blame you for, because I'm quite sure I did not word it as well as a could, and it is an over all confusing topic. I will try to restate more clearly. What I was trying to do was give examples of sins that were abolished with the institution of the Covanent of Grace, and tell why they were abolished. Law such as touching pigskin were abolished with the institution of baptism because baptism represented the ultimate cleansing, or the once-for-all cleansing in the death of Christ. Homosexuality was not included, and we know this because it is spoken against in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. I did not go off topic, rather I went into an in-depth explaination. Perhaps more in-depth than was necessary, but I like to close that point right off the start so it is not an issue. "...if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want." Unfortunately you do not remember correctly. We are debating Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, and whether or not Christians should support it. "So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins?" No that is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that baptism is symbolic of the cleansing found in the death of Christ. Thus it is a one time thing. I believe that if you are a christian, and you go your whole life without baptism, you will still go to heaven. I also believe that baptism is noting more than a sacrament, and though we are commanded by God to do it as Christians, salvation is not dependant on it. I hope the whole baptism issue is cleared up now. "Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it." Again, we are debating according to the Bible. However, I can provide you with verses that meet those standards if you wish... Jude 7--- "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire." This verse, being ambiguous on the spiritual state of said people, refers to both Christians and non-christiasns. ROMANS 1:21-27--- "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." This scripture passage refers to people who have never believed in or worshiped God. Besides this, in all of the other verses I have quoted, it does not say "Christian sodomites", but rather refers to sodomites in generl. Having said that, all of my previous arguments still stand. I hope that cleared things up! Thanks! Renzzy