Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

I am glad my opponent agrees to use the KJV, Hebrew & Greek. But, if he thinks that because he says he refuted the scriptures I provided makes it true but it doesn't. I assume from my opponents last round he accepts his burden of proof in this debate. I would ask my opponent to properly structure his rounds and his points. I think the best bet for me in this debate is to show the Jewish and Hebrew traditional understandings of homosexuality compared to the passages I supplied. I then will give a full argument from my point of view and then address my opponent. ORTHODOX/TRADITIONAL Traditional Judaism considers homosexual acts as a violation of Jewish law (halakha). According to the Bible, homosexual acts are "to'evah," an abomination. According to Boteach, a Orthodox Rabbi and the author of Kosher Sex: A Recipe for Passion and Intimacy, "homosexual acts are wrong simply because the Torah says they are wrong, and not because they are an aberration or sickness. Judaism does not prohibit or in any way look down upon homosexual love. In the eyes of Judaism the love between two men or two women can be as natural as the love between a man and a woman. What it does prohibit is homosexual intercourse. " . http://judaism.about.com...In Leviticus 18:22 it states that: "[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to'eva. " The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination". However, because the word is used twice in regards to homosexuality, its second use has been understood by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh hu va, meaning "He is deviating from what is natural. " (literally "He is wandering with it [from the natural way of the world]" since the Hebrew word to'e means "He is wandering", va "with it. ") "Homosexuality," Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions In Leviticus 20:13 it states: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. " These short verses above are part of a lengthy portion in Leviticus, chapters 17-26, which scholars have long designated as the "Holiness Code. " They are the classic texts that clearly address same-sex intercourse, and appear, prima facie, to unconditionally condemn such behavior. It is beyond dispute that these proscriptions are against some kind of sexual relations between males. . http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu... The meaning of these texts hinges upon the words mishkav zakur or "lie with a male. "This phrase is also found in Numbers 31:17-18 and Judges 21:11-12 where it is used to distinguish women who are virgins from those who are not. The distinguishing factor is that virgins have not mishkav zakur, that is, they have not experienced a man as a male, or one who pierces or penetrates. In Romans 1:26-27, I don't see how one can get around the fact that it states that the women exchanged normal relations for those contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν). Similarly men exchanged the customary relationship with women for that with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν), condemning them. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, It is clear that Paul, like Judaism before him, identifies homo eroticism as another instance of sexual immorality. 1 Timothy 1:10 talks about whore mongers. For them that defile themselves with mankind - Sodomites. See the evidence that this crime abounded in ancient times, it was forbidden by the law of Moses, and was punishable with death. "Scobie and Campbell argue against the restriction of the word Arensokoitai to pederasty. Hays, Scobie, and Malick point out that the meaning is identified by its derivation from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the component words refer to homosexual conduct. Wright identifies other compound verbs ending in –koitēs and referring to sexual activity. Via agrees arsenokoitēs refers to homosexual activity. <. http://christianstudies.wordpress.com... \l "_ftn23"> Deuteronomy 22:5 talks about Moses speaking about the identity of the two genders. Paul also reiterated Moses in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15. They were saying that God made the gender differences for reason and they are very important in our lives not just physical but spiritual. This nature of man and woman was established in Genesis all the way to Revelations. Speaking of Genesis, in Genesis 2:21-25 we see that God creates woman from man. God ordains that a man shall marry a woman. My opponents interpretation is lacking. God made man and woman before the fall, woman was created for man(not another man), homosexuality is a result of the fall of man and therefore is a sin. There is every reason to believe God created man and woman for procreation and to be helpmates. This is verified and described in Genesis. I think I have established that the Bible does make homosexuality a sin. Even if you dislike it or not, you can not get over the wording used and the intentions implied. I rest my opening case and will move on to my opponents round 2. I would first like to say that my opponent really only addressed six of my seven verses, he should address them all in round 3. REBUTTAL My opponent wants me to refute every single point given but he refuted his whole case and therefore submitting the debate. I will explain, my opponent made some very interesting comments or quotes in his second round. I quote, "there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination. " The verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning. " This quote totally shows that the Bible considers male and male intercourse(which is homosexuality) a sin. This refutes the resolution alone, therefore giving me the win. My opponent seems concerned about just female homosexuality. That can remain his concern but all I must do is show that the Bible considers homosexuality as defined in round one, a sin, for male or females. But that was the reason my opponent ignored Romans 1:26-27, which specifically identifies women having relations with other women. This being the primary verse describing homosexual behavior in the N. T. and my opponent ignores it. "Instead, there is something about anal sex between men that is at the center of the biblical concern. Of course the obvious question is just this: Why does the Torah consider anal sex between men to be such a problem? " Because it is a sin and considered a abomination to God and addressed further in Romans 1:26-27. My opponent further says, "Anal sex is is detrimental to Anyone. " There are two kinds of homosexuals, male and female, and the Bible clearly in the O. T. & N. T. condemns male homosexuality as admitted by my opponent. Pro is under the assumption that, while the Bible condemns gay sex between men, it nowhere condemns being a lesbian/lesbianism. Romans 1:26-27 puts this assumption to rest: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. CONCLUSION: My opponent fatally wounded himself by agreeing that the Bible condemns male and male anal sex, which is homosexuality defined by our terms. My opponent ignored some critical verses in Romans. My opponent should clarify himself more in round 3. Back to Pro.