God loves homosexuals, but does not approve of their actions.

Sappho Incarnate, Thank you for the well though out post! I admit I was not expecting such an in-depth argument, but I was pleasantly surprised! It is always a good thing when one is compeld to dig deeper into God's word! Now to the debate... In your last argument you said that the verses that I quoted in Leviticus were to be disregarded, due to the fact that most Christians dismiss them today as outdated. There are many laws in the Old Testament that are to dimissed as outdated, however I don't think that homosexuality is one of them. Back in the days of the Covanent of Works, there were many things that made people "unclean", such as touching a woman while she is on her period, or wearing cotton polyester blends. However these things were abolished at the institution of baptism. The greek word for baptism is 'baptizmos' (bap-TEEZ-mahs), and its english translation is 'ritual washing'. In the Old Testament, things that made you seriously unclean, such as touching a woman while she is on her period, required a ritual washing or cleansing. Once this cleansing took place, the person was clean again. In the New Testament, when baptism took the place of circumcision, it also abolished the need for ritual cleansings, because the blood of Christ has cleansed us all permanently. The Bible itself also states it's credability in second Timothy. 2 TIM 3:16--- "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," Whae he says all, it obviously includes the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. Romans also has somthing to say about the credability of the law. ROMANS 7:12--- "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." "The law" is refering to the old Testament, as it generally does in the New Testament. Finally, 1 Timothy states that the law is for the unrighteous; spacifically sodomites. 1 TIM. 1:9-10--- "...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and muderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," The New Testament, that which no Christian dismisses as outdated, says that the law (the Old Testament) is for the lawless. Sodomites make the list of lawless people. In defense of the Romans passage, all I have to say is that you skipped over a rather important word: natural. God created man to do what is natural to do, and when Paul refers to men burning with lust for eachother, it is called unnaturaul. In the greek, Romans 1:27 has this phrase: 'para phusin' (para FOOseen). The english translation of this is 'contrary to nature or the natural order of thing; unnatural intercourse'. When it says that men exchanged their natural relations for unnatural ones, this is what it means. Gos created men (and women) to act naturally, the way he created them. Homosexuality is refered to as unnatural. This is rienforced in Jude: 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." The Bible is clear on the fact that sodomy is unnatural and strange, contrary to how God created man. In the New Testament, Paul even goes so far as to say that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of God: 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10--- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." Ths Bible puts it in plain terms that homosexuals and sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God. Obviously, then it is a sin. I believe what I have writen above, namely the passage in Jude, defends the passage in Genesis sufficianly, so I will not take further measures to defend it in the argument. Depending on what you cover in your next argument, I will address it further in my next argument. Thanks!