"Pinning the homosexuals" is a terrible idea

The character limit has prevented me from typing all my arguments in thelast round, I will introduce the rest of them here. Please note that only oneof them have to prevail for me to meet my BOP. Argument 2 for BOP 1: Love your enemiesJesus said, ""But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (2) Even if my opponent is correct in that homosexuality is wrong(which still does not make homosexuals enemies), would penning your enemies in an electrified fence be loving them? Jesus taught redemption, not condemnation. Argument 3 for BOP 1: SinMy opponent has made two statements:1. Homosexuality is a choice2. Homosexuality is a sinI will use my opponent's own statements to refute himself. If homosexuality is a choice and a sin, why would it be any different from any other sin? You do not see people saying to put people who steal inside a electrified pen to die out. My opponent must admit that we have all sinned in one way or another, but because of Jesus' forgiveness, we can be redeemed. So what makes homosexualityso different for homosexuals to deserve to be thrown into a electrified pen and die out? Refuting my opponent's arguments "First off, my opponent tries to create a distinction between justices and jobs based on what Jewish men wrote. This debate is to be focused on the Bible, though, so lets see what it has to say. "Historical evidence is equally as important. This debate is NOT entirely focused on the Bible, it is about whether your idea is consistent with it and whether it will work or not. "Pro says, "Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they: only list justices and cite the precept, 'Love your neighbor asyourself. '"No, I never said that they only have teachings like that. "Jesus said, "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, OR THE PROPHETS: I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL"(Matthew 5:17). The Law includes the first five books of Moses as any Biblical scholar will admit. Well, what is in the first five books of Moses, then? Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed an abomination: THEY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. " If Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law, then he must be in agreement with this verse. "Ah, but my opponent here has only posted part of the entire sermon. The Law and the Prophets are mentioned twice in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:Jesus said, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets: I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill"Later, in the same sermon, Jesus said:"In everything, therefore, treat others the same way you want to be treated for this is the Law and the Prophets. "We see that the Golden Rule (which designated the Justices) was the entire Law and Prophets for Jesus. When Jesus said that he didn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, he was referring to preserving the Justices. The notion that the Justices are the entire law was central to Matthew’s depiction of Jesus. But my opponent lifts a statement out ofcontext and uses it to repudiate five teachings within the very same book! The meaning is so simple. In essence Jesus stated:I haven’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets because only the Justices are the Law and the Prophets. This was the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount! The pattern is as follows:• Cite teachings on relations between man and neighbor, and• Reference the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself. ”"Plus, Jesus also said, "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO SEND PEACE ON EARTH: I CAME NOT TO SEND PEACE, BUT A SWORD"(Matthew 10:34). Jesus didn't just cite, "Love your neighbor as yourself. " (1) (5)Again, my opponent has picked specific verses out of the entire context in order to delude the audience. It must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" in Matthew 10:34:32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father,a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6] 37 Anyonewho loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. " (5) It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the functionof a metaphorical sword. "The problem with people citing that verse is they never consider any other circumstance. Suppose a murderer broke into your house, raped your wife, and killed your kids. Would you love him as thyself? Or would you defend your family? Jesus believed in protecting yourself. He told his disciples, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: AND HE THATHATH NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT, AND BUY ONE"(Luke 22:36). Thus, you can't love everyone as yourself. "Loving everyone does not mean no self defense. "Paul condemned homosexuality in THE NEW TESTAMENT. Romans 1:27 says, "And likewise also the men, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER, MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error(AIDS/HIV) which was meet. " Verse 32 says, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that THEY WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS ARE WORTHY OF DEATH. " No, my friend, they did not "only list justices. "This is the third time my opponent has pulled a specific verse out of the entire meaning of the passage. The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. This is what Paul was condemning. (5)And right after that passage, Paul warned not to condemn others: "Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. " (King James Version)" (5) "What my opponent needs to remember is that when they listed a few of the Ten Commandments as the Law, that was apart of the first five books of Moses. The Commands against homosexuality were included in the first five books of Moses. This makes it apart of the Law. The words "justices" and "jobs" are not apart of the Bible as my opponent uses them. "The historical evidence for justices and jobs is plentiful. Jewish law was divided into Justices and Jobs, which includes the law of Moses. (1) Due to the character limit, I will post my last rebuttals in the next round. 1. Jesus on Homosexuality by Micheal Wood 2. . http://www.jesuswalk.com...3. . http://www.answering-islam.org...4. . http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... 5. . http://www.bible.cc...;