Gay marriage is sinful.

I appreciate Con's honest request. I am happy to have honored it. It's the least I can do for someone who protects our freedoms by serving in the military. REBUTTALS As always, I capitalize for emphasis only. Last round, Con said: "What I am arguing is that the Bible, nor Jesus for that matter, never condemns homosexuality nor gay marriage." My response: With all due respect to my friend lannan, to say the Bible doesn't ever condemn homosexuality is just silly. Anyone who has read it without trying to twist it to fit some kind of politically correct world knows better. Now, as for the Bible not SPECIFICALLY condemning gay "marriage", that assertion is true. Jesus didn't specifically condemn gay marriage, but He didn't specifically condemn rape either. So I have to ask my opponent if he thinks Jesus is okay with rape too? The Bible also doesn't specifically condemn bestiality marriage either. It only specifically condemns bestiality. But does that mean my opponent believes the Bible is okay with bestiality marriage? Clearly the Bible doesn't condone either kind of those types of "marriage". Con said: "Remember this debate is over what the Bible says..." My response: I agree. So with that in mind, I have to wonder why my opponent continues to add things to scripture that cannot be found in the text. For example, why does he claim the passage in Genesis is somehow about Plato or androgyne, when neither is mentioned in the text? Or why does Con claim the passage in Leviticus is referring to Kedoshim, human castration, or anal sex during a religious ritual when NONE OF THAT IS MENTIONED OR ALLUDED TO? I DIDN'T IGNORE ANYTHING I didn't ignore Con's claims that Genesis 2:21- 24 was about some kind of "coming of age". That's Con's interpretation, but it's not Jesus's interpretation. As I mentioned last round, Jesus interprets Genesis 2:21-24 for us in Matthew 19:4: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" As I pointed out last round, the reason ("cause") God created man is for him to "cleave to his wife". So God willed man to have a female spouse (wife). Therefore, the opposite of this would be against God's will. And by the definition laid out in round one, sinful. Infertile Wives Ther was no reason for me to discuss this issue, because Con was agreeing with me. He is right to say permanently infertile couples should not get married. I agree. As we can see from Genesis 1:28 God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply,...". So we see from the beginning that it is God's will that married couples "multiply". This is not possible with two homosexuals, and therefore clearly not what God willed. And as me and my opponent agreed in round one, anything that goes against God's will is sinful. Sodom I never claimed the story of Sodom supported my claims. Con thought I would, so in round two, he tried to counter what he imagined I would say. However, I never had any intention to use the story of Sodom. There's plenty of other evidence from scripture I can use. Leviticus Again, none of those issues Con used to interpret Leviticus are mentioned in Leviticus. My opponent is forcing something into the text that simply isn't there. I can't put it any more plainly. If I'm wrong, it should be easy for my opponent to prove otherwise. All he has to do is tell me which verse or verses mention the word "Kedoshim". Or, since we both agree that all biblical interpretations should coincide with what the early Christians believe, show me where any Christian from the first 500 years of Christianity ever interpreted the passage that way. If Con is unable to do so, I think it's pretty clear who is going against the way we agreed to interpret scripture. Con's Calkboard Picture This picture lists a number of things that are banned in Leviticus. We're not debating any of them. Maybe they are all sinful, maybe they're not. For the purpose of this debate, I'm not arguing either way because those issues are not what is being debated here. As I stated in round two, an argument can be made why someone might believe the actions listed are not banned anymore. One could argue that only those moral laws that were preserved in the New Testament are still sinful today. For example, there's no verse in the New Testament that bans shaving, but I have shown how the ban on homosexual sex is still banned in the New Testament (Romans 1:26-27). Con's Misinterpretation Con quotes Leviticus 18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to"evah. 20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them. Con then says that these verses aren't talking about homosexual sex, but rather "religious rites of the Canaanite Priests". But notice what is NOT mentioned in either of those verses: 1. Religious rites 2. Canaanite Priests Now as to what is banned in both those verses: 1. Men having sex with men. Again, Con is forcing something that is NOT in the text. Biblical Support??? Con then claims the book of Romans refers to Kedoshim and the pagan God of Cyblee. I only have one problem with this claim... It's completely FALSE. There is no mention of either of those characters in the letter to the Romans. Again, if what my opponent says is true, all he has to do is tell us which verse or verses either of those words are found in the book of Romans. More of Con's Misinterpretations Con is mistaken to say Leviticus 18:23-25 only refers to bestiality. Now, it's true that verse 23 is referring to bestiality, the same is not true for verses 24 and 25. Let's look at those verses: Leviticus 18:24 "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; 25 and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." Notice, verse 24 says not to defile yourself with "ANY of these THINGS". The language of this verse makes it clear that verse 24 is warning the readers not to do any one of a number of things (plural). It's not talking about only one thing (singular). But what are these THINGS that should be avoided so as not to "defile" oneself? That's easy. Beginning in verse 6 of Leviticus 18, God gives Moses a list of sexual sins His people should avoid. They include not looking at your father naked (verse 6), not having sex with your neighbor's wife (verse 20), not having homosexual sex (verse 22), and not having sex with animals (verse 23). Then in verse 24, it says not to do ANY of the THINGS just mentioned. So we can see that the quote from Eusebius was correct to tie in homosexual relationships with the defilement mentioned in verse 24. SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE I have enjoyed this discussion with my friend lannan. I am glad that we were able to discuss this issue in a respectful manner. Having said that, I believe I have won the debate, and would like to share my rationale for such a statement: 1. We both agreed in round one that: A. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. B. Anything that goes against God's will is sinful. 2. Dropped arguments By dropping my "I never said you stole money" and "Development of doctrine" arguments, he agreed that those approaches were the best way to interpret scripture. I say this because according to standard rules of formal debate, once an argument is not addressed, it is considered true for the remainder of the debate. In other words, it's too late for my opponent to try to refute them now. [3] With that in mind, we both agree the proper way to interpret scripture is to lean on the guidance of the early Church fathers. This proposes a problem for Con, as I have given evidence that the early Christians interpreted scripture to say: A. God's will needs to be the center of every marriage. (Tertullian) B. Gay marriage is not in line with God's will. (Eusebius of Caesarea) 3. Because Con agrees how we should interpret scripture, and because the early Christians taught gay relationships are against God's will, Con implicitly agrees they are sinful. (See definition of "sinful") Sources: 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)