Gay is Right in Christianity

I wanted to thank you at first for introducing me to debating, but after the way you shamelessly insulted your fellow debater in a personal, first-person manner, I can not thank you any more. WHEN HAVE I INSULTED YOU? WHEN HAVE I CALLED YOU AN ANTI-CHRIST? If I have been overtly obvious, that is my mathematical brain telling me to list all sources of proof in order that no section should be misunderstood. This is no insult. It is just a simple principle of reasoning. "IT DID NOT WORK!" What is that supposed to mean? Do you conjure that I was mad at you for going against me? You should be careful when you say "I know good and well that this was an attempt to portray me as person who does not follow God." because your tone interpretation was flawed. I will not say any more mean things about you. I understand that you have only debated twice, yourself, so you might be subjective sometimes. Just remember this: Never be subjective. NEVER!!! I realize that I have been subjective in this argument, but I will apologize right now. I hope that you will accept it. On with a rebuttal and final statement: "This is the equivalent to pulling a bunny out of a hat. You can provide "reasoning" which is not necessarily the full story. the bottom line is, of that time period, God needed people to have lots of children. Which was pecan pie homosexuality of frowned upon, along with pulling out." A bunny pulled out of a hat is completely conjured. It is creating something out of nothing. Er was Judah's first born. Traditional actions such as priesthood was passed down through the first-born. If Judah's first-born was killed without having children, then those traditions could not be carried on. This is not conjured, the bible states these first-born only rules. It is stated that God wanted people to have a lot of children. Including the argument from round 2, which still doesn't have proof against despite the claim, there were two reasons that Onan was condemned: He directly disobeyed an order from God, and he disobeyed a commandment. This point is not concluded. It will be synthesized with the next points. As for "Which was pecan pie homosexuality of frowned upon, along with pulling out.", faults in grammar make this sentence impossible to understand. (Pecan pie is a noun, not a verb. I do not pecan pie.) "Cherry Picking" a cute term for confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is where only supporting cases are analyzed, and contradicting cases are rejected without reasoning. When I presented a verse directly outlawing homosexuality, I presented a supporting case. You stated Jesus loves us all, a case of rejection. I proved the fact that Jesus loves us all does not make sins right. (In fact, now that I think of it, if this were true, what determines the validity of a law?) Jesus' love only makes sins forgiven. Thus, considering and reasoning out your case. Conclusion, I have not Cherry Picked. All verses stated in Pro's initial statement are still being analyzed. Even that strange use of nouns as verbs, random interjections of prepositions and a compliment that describes no predicate was analyzed. On the contrary to your accusation that I have selective attention, I would like to counter-accuse Pro of "cherry-picking": The event of Onan's condemnation was given a rebuttal that states a reason outside of the initial reason the event happened. In the conclusion that the two reasons are independent and can coexist, the initial reason was not counteracted. This was directly rejected without proof and called a conjuring act even though biblical facts were used. Glasses and homosexuality both are developed not born with. No gene has been found to cause homosexuality. Most importantly, if God outlawed homosexuality in the old testament, homosexuality must have been a choice. God is a just God, he doesn't punish unfairly. "To wrap things up, I'm also going to say, that just like you have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions, man is full of evil. Some might say the devil himself. However, everyday men were allowed to write the bible. It would be ignorant to think that personal agendas were not put first. At the end of the day, humans are human. Could Bias be in the bible. You better believe that man is imperfect. But there is no reason for us to judge. just like the verse that you did not give an argument to, "Let he who is with out sin throw the first stone". Which WAS said by a perfect man. One who only wanted better for us." To what extent was the conclusion that "everyday men were allowed to write the bible." made? The men who wrote the Bible were moved by the Holy Spirit. Those men weren't allowed to write the Bible, they were operated to write the bible. Not only to write the Bible, but to write it exactly as told. When the Holy Spirit moved those men to write the Bible, the Holy Spirit was actually writing the Bible. The Holy spirit is God. When an editor turns on his/her computer and writes an essay, they write as themselves because it is their motive to write the bible. When the Holy Spirit moves people to write the Bible, the people write as the Holy Spirit. corollary: God wrote the Bible. You said earlier that in the rebuttal I called you equivalent to an anti-Christ, but that is not the case. The counter-rebuttal forgot one important fact, all scripture is God breathed. The statement was not repeated as insult, but as an important fact. All of the Bible should be equally respected because it is all God's word. Do not forget that we are not arguing whether following all the law is possible. We are arguing whether homosexuality is a sin, whether it is outlawed in the Bible. The New Testament also mentions Homosexuality. This verse is specifically picked to seemingly counteract a past developed conclusion. Romans 1:26-27 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. If God is just, why did he give people to vile passions. This is stated in the verses before this passage. The people already had the glory of God shown to them, but they rejected it. They self-proclaimed themselves as the wise. In showing this fact false, God gave them to sin. (Finally, the final statements.) The validity of the whole Bible is nonnegotiable. If you want to say the Bible is biased, that sinful people made the ideas and thoughts in the Bible, then you are not Christian. Yes, now I am calling you an anti-Christ. Homosexuality is condemned in the old and new testament. Reading part of a reason is analogous to reading half a blue print. Build with either, and your argument (or house) will go crashing down.