homosexuality is not a sin

I will start this round with my current assessment of my opponent. Pro has been begging for someone to take this debate seriously. Pro has had a few attempts at this debate go awry with people discontinuing partway through or just telling Pro that Pro is obviously wrong without giving serious argumentation. I took this debate in good faith giving serious arguments against Pro’s position. I cited chapter and verse and then gave clear explanations for why Pro’s rationalizations fail. At no time did I attack the character of Pro except to chastise Pro for relentless ad hominem attacks in the last round and in this opening where I am chastising Pro for Pro’s childish response to getting what Pro asked for. Pro wanted someone to take this topic seriously and challenge Pro’s arguments. I did that. Pro responded by insulting me, calling me a bigot, and then doing the equivalent of a child sticking its fingers in its ears, closing its eyes and saying “I can’t hear you, you are wrong”. At this point, it seems clear to me that Pro has no rational, logical, or mature way to deal with my arguments and has lost this debate on all possible metrics. The 7 point system deals with conduct, spelling and grammar, argumentation, and sources. Let’s see how that is going so far. Pro’s conduct is reprehensible. Pro has been slandering me for two rounds essentially for taking the Con side. What makes this worse than such slander in a typical debate is the fact that Pro has been petitioning hard for someone to take the debate seriously and when someone does, Pro insults him for it. Pro’s spelling and grammar speak for themselves. Pro has failed to actually rebut points, instead choosing to simply tell me I am wrong. Pro has even tried the cheap route both in this round and the last round of linking me to someone else’s argument as opposed to relying on Pro’s own arguments. That is not how you debate. Pro has repeatedly made truth claims about things like pagan rituals without citing sources. There is still time to turn some of this around by doing things like citing sources and actually rebutting points, or Pro can do the only honorable thing left to Pro in this debacle and admit defeat. To my mind, resorting to insults and refusing to give real rebuttals is essentially that admission, but Pro could at least end this debate in a dignified fashion. “What you are viewing as an "ad hominem" are obvious facts regarding you, so if you have some issue with how you are, I recommend you try bettering yourself.” More ad hominem Given how you are trying so very hard to defend the anti-homosexuality eisegetical interpretations on the Scriptures, is proof that you are not pro gay marrage, and that you do beleive all of the Scriptures. More ad hominem. Also, I don’t believe any of the scriptures to be true. I am arguing as to what is in the text, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Do you think that people who argue about Harry Potter believe that Voldemort posed a legitimate threat to the world? I have had anti-homosexuality religious folks like you try stating so many lies about your intentions, and many other things. Your words prove otherwise. More ad Hominem which is especially ironic since I have a number of debate on here debating against theism and theistic ethics. And, this is not a debate, it is a YouTube comment section. No, this is a debate. That said I do have a (hugely unsuccessful) YouTube channel which is actually relevant here. You have slandered me by saying that I am a homophobic bigot who believes that god tells me to hate and kill homosexuals. Here I discuss the ridiculous ideas from the religious right about homosexuality and demonstrate that I see homosexual people as equal to myself, that the idea of bigotry against them is ridiculous: https://youtu.be... Here I discuss why unnecessary suffering is strong evidence, if not outright proof, that most iterations of the Christian god cannot exist: https://youtu.be... I bet you even ignorantly still beleive that the sin or one of the sins of "Sodom" was homosexuality. More ad hominem. Also, I didn’t care about your bit about Sodom and Gomorrah, it was not necessary to make my case, hence ignoring it. Not one of the links you provided refutes the one I provided, in fact the opposite is true. There is nothing in any of the Scriptures that states that only the moral aspect of the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians. Either Christ fulfilled all of it, or He failed. Did you read anything from the links? They clearly describe the idea of fulfilment as “to bring to its highest extent”. This means that the laws were solidified by him as opposed to being abolished. He makes it very plain in the verses I cited that your idea that the Old Testament no longer applies is an idea to which he was very much opposed. In any event, the point of the links was to show that I can link to other people’s arguments too. It was to show that using such a tactic is cheap and should not be used in debate. That includes the 10 Commandments. Jesus even did away with the restrictions regarding the Sabbath in the 10 Commandments while He was alive. Cite the verses that back this up. I am not even sure why you care about the Torah, in your mind the homosexual aspect is backed up by the New Testament. The same is true for all the 10 Commandments but the ones regarding the Sabbath. Do you remember your opening arguments where you spent most of the time trying to soften the Old Testament and when I demonstrated that you had failed you tried to pull the old “but that’s the Old Testament” trick? It is, quite frankly, insulting the intelligence of the voters that you would try to base most of your argument on a softened version of the Old Testament and then accuse me of being the one stuck on Old Testament. Remove temple prostution and idolatrous sex orgies, and your beloved verses in Romans would not have existed. Would you care to get into how the Apostle Paul felt about many other things that are considered irrelevant, and even ridiculous? You have said that many times and it has been refuted many times. This is getting repetitive. You are completely ignoring my arguments that show the difference between things that are only banned when done in a non Hebrew/Christian fashion yet are not banned for Hebrews and Christians. You have also failed to show a single verse where there is the slightest hint that homosexual relations are ever permitted. In fact, you have yet to deal with more than one argument I made. Your only legitimate rebuttal to any point I made was to challenge me on the definition of the word lust. Aside from that you are basically copying your opening and refusing vehemently to address my arguments directly. Here is a fact for you, for a homosexual to have sex with someone of the opposite gender would in fact be them giving up what is natural for them for what is unnatural for them. How is that relevant to this debate? This debate is about whether a particular book condemns homosexuality and whether it would permit gay marriage, not about what homosexuality entails. I am not stating that has anything to do with those verses, where (at least the vast majority were heterosexuals) were engaging in all forms of sex in a orgie, but in the mind of someone like Paul, it was all shocking, and all unacceptable. I think you kind of admitted defeat here. You are admitting he found homosexual relations to be unacceptable. So, you go look up "THE TRUTH ABOUT ROMANS AND HOMOSEXUALITY" Then come back and prove it wrong. If you do not, that will be you fully admitting that you are wrong. Again, you are trying to present someone else’s argument as if it were your own and you seem to think that can win you the debate. I have no interest in the sexual practices of Romans. Your job was to defend your position which requires you to actually refute my points, not simply declare that you win because you think I am a bigot.