The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin

NEGATION OF CONTENTION 2 My opponent has tried to make the claim in John that the entire Bible God's current command. Again I make the following references: Deuteronomy 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. " Deuteronomy 25: 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts. 12. you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Clearly the entire Bible is not a current direct commandment from God. The law of Jesus is only applicable as stated in the following passages: Romans 10: 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version) 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Ephesians 2: 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace "Bible is Jesus (at least the words of Jesus) hence, ANYTHING in the Bible is the "Word of God"" My opponent in this debate is attempting to make a ridiculous assertion that every word in the Bible is the word of God. This is obviously a ridiculous analogy using one obscure bible verse and applying it to suit his needs in this debate. If this is so then my opponent proposes that Jesus says we should stone those who are disobedient, not eat the pig-meat, not wear blended fabrics, etc. I believe it was Jesus who stated: John 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. " To conclude: My opponent bases his entire argument on a new, and incredibly weak analogy on a misinterpreted piece of scripture to suit his own needs in this debate. To be understood in full one cannot simply pick and choose a verse of scripture to suit his needs and vaguely misinterpret an introduction to John which plainly is meant to show that Jesus is the son of God. SOURCE and FURTHER EXPLANATION: . http://www.biblicalunitarian.com... @Mathew 19:4-6 My opponent again misuses a prose of Matthew and misinterprets it to suit his own needs instead of showing any direct reference to it by Christ. The reason he has failed to produce such a scripture is because it doesn't exist. CONTENTION 1 NEGATION. "clearly they wanted to rape them . . . . . you admit to this" Yes "a mob of men wanting to "gang rape" two men is not a sign of homosexuality" Obviously it isn't? How does rape constitute homosexuality? Is my opponent making a bold assertion that many men in prison are homosexual? No they clearly just want to rape and dominate. Homosexuality is a natural attraction to men and wanting a mutual interest back, not forcefully gang raping someone. Rape is rape. Rape is a sin. Homosexuality is never shown to be a sin. It doesn't matter who they raped. If they raped women it would still be a sin, Sodom and Gomorrah would still be destroyed. Rape and violence is a sin period not homosexuality. Denoting homosexuality as a sin from the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah is gross misinterpretation and is used when someone doesn't clearly read this passage in Genesis. "however homosexuality was definitely a part of it. " An assertion which has neither factual nor logical backing. Sodom would be destroyed whether the Angels were male or female, if they truly even have a sex. Because the city was "Sinning greatly" before the angels arrived. The threat of gang rape, violence, and lust simply confirmed that sin. Homosexuality is never not ONCE stated as any of those reasons. My opponent has no logical nor factual backing supporting this extremely weak contention. To conclude, Paul feels in the Bible that those who are homosexual will not enter heaven. Paul is not God. He specifically mentions he is not God when he makes statements such as "I say" and he differs them when giving a commandment from God when saying "Not I, But the Lord" as referenced above. If the old testament law even applied, which it clearly doesn't (only the law of Jesus does), homosexuality still wouldn't be considered a sin. NOWHERE in Genesis does it even imply that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality. It states earlier on in Genesis that the people in that town were "wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD" before the incident with Lot. Furthermore the Lord goes onto say: "outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous". The sin of rape, lust, and violence are sufficient enough to confirm the Lord's belief. Homosexuality is NEVER stated nor even IMPLIED that it is a sin in Sodom and Gommorah. No matter the sex of the angels (no proof that angels have a sex) rape is still rape. Rape is still a sin no matter to what sex it is. To Conclude: My opponent is basing his entire argument off a weak analogy that is based upon a misquoted line of scripture in the intro to John the Baptist's Chapter. Evidence that every word in the Bible is the word of Jesus is clearly incorrect. Furthermore he assumes without any factual or logical backing that homosexuality is a sin in the Sodom and Gomorrah incident. My opponent has accepted my definitions, and by such definitions he has clearly failed in proving that God clearly states not implies or makes a statement, but CLEARLY STATES as said in the resolution, that homosexuality is a sin or is wrong in any way.