God does not Consider Homosexuality a Sin

Thanks, con! MAIN ARGUMENTS: I. Leviticus 18:22 is incorrectly translated and/or interpreted. It states: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB) 1. My first point concerns who this law applies to (my opponent's resolution is to prove that no one should practice homosexuality according to God). I argue that the verse in question only applies to Israelites. At the beginning of Leviticus 18, God even tells Moses to specifically address the Israelites. [1] Leviticus 18 later states, "You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you," (NLT). Apparently, Israelites are considered God's chosen people, to be kept the most pure. "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession," (NIV). Evidently, Levitical laws are set up to distinguish God's chosen people apart from others. Furthermore, Christians are not fully bound by the Mosaic Law (first five books of the Old Testament, including Leviticus). Let me delve into that with Galatians 3:23-25... "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (NASB) We are no longer bound by the law because of faith in Jesus. "God's Law continues to serve as that schoolmaster to those Jews who still adhere to it as the standard for their conduct. And in its general, moral sense as found in the heart of the Law, the Ten Commandments, it continues to serve as a moral compass and God's prescription for holy conduct." [2] What's meant by "moral compass"? Let's see: "These laws are still valid - but, as we know, they are applied in a spiritual way. The application of the law has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ. If our hearts are circumcised, it does not matter whether we have been circumcised in the flesh. If we are offering spiritual sacrifices, we do not need to offer animals... If we examine our hearts for corruption and are being cleansed by Jesus Christ, then we do not have destroy houses that have mildew. If our thoughts are pure, we don't have to worry about our fabrics... The laws are valid, but the way in which we obey them has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ." [3] 2. The word "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22 comes from the Hebrew word "toevah". It's translated as "abomination" and "detestable" in many cases, "Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo." The word toevah "...(and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice." [4] This would make a lot of sense, seeing how Levitical laws apply specifically to Israelites, as I've argued. Another source says that, "If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."" [5] So why wasn't the word "zimah" used? I urge the audience of this debate to reflect on this. 3. The original Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 does something that doesn't make sense in English. Let's look at a literal translation: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman. It is an abomination (detestable)." [6] Obviously that's not coherent. Let's break it down: "lyings of a woman" indicates a possessive. The woman owns something. Therefore the translation, "as one does" has no place. A noun belongs here, not a verb. "The Hebrew literally says: "You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding (or bed) of a woman (or wife), it is a despised thing (or despicable act)." The Bible doesn't always tell us why something is "despised," and hence we have to use reason. It is likely that the two men were having sex on the bed of the woman to despise her and rub it in her face that she wasn't woman enough. Reuben slept with his father's wife on his dad's bed to despise his father Jacob. Also, according to the book "How the People Lived in the Bible [HPLB], on pg. 117, it states: "The women's portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men's half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman's quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael's tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21)." [7] The source goes on to explain that an equivalent for the word "on" is omitted in the original Hebrew because it isn't necessary for comprehension. But in English, it is. 4. Why do English translations of Leviticus 18:22 only supposedly refer to homosexual men? If homosexuality is the issue, it shouldn't be so gender inclusive. I think it's reasonable to say that if the verse is really talking about homosexuality, women should also not lie with women. That's not what it says though. II. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is incorrectly translated and/or interpreted. Right now, I'm at 9,500+ characters with my rebuttals. Seeing as I have a lot to say, I will delay my arguments & support for my main points II and III until round 4. At this point, I ask that my opponent mention any other scripture that supposedly explicitly condemns homosexuality. III. Romans 1:26-28 is incorrectly translated and/or interpreted. REBUTTALS: 1. "...God placed different expressions of love, so not all love is the same." To clarify, I'm not saying all love is the same in the way I would not say all temperatures are the same. "Cold" is distinctly different from "hot", but all temperatures are still a measure of heat. In cold, there is heat (the movement of particles). In warmth, there is more heat. In other words, all temperatures fall on the same spectrum. ""...you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength."" I don't see how this refutes that all love falls on the same spectrum. Given the verse con quoted, love for God is like an extreme measure of love. I will liken it to an extremely hot temperature. Certainly, as we progress toward the love of God, we may lose some features of love. As love intensifies, we lose sexual attraction because love for God does differ from love for one's spouse. As heat intensifies, we lose features too. For example, ever see snow in the middle of June? Probably not. I argue that all love (according to my definition and not including lust) is a varying intensity of the same thing. 2. Genesis 2:24 I feel this verse is out of context, so I will quote the bigger picture: Genesis 2:23-24... "The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."" Furthermore, I want the audience reading this debate to know that at least seven bibles translate the beginning of Genesis 2:24 as "For this reason..." or "This is why..." [8] The bible is not commanding that men marry wives, but rather explaining why they do. It merely supports that God intended for the majority of people to be heterosexual. Considering only about 3.5% of the US population is gay, [9] this is a reasonable and likely interpretation. However, nothing about Genesis 2:24 supports God condemning homosexuality. Interestingly, if we interpret the verse further, we may even find that it approves of homosexual relationships. The bible indicates that because woman is a part of man, she and man "shall become one flesh." Well, all men are already made up of the same flesh. Can't two men also marry and become one "for this reason"? 3. "...he established specific boundaries within each human relation such as marriage and family structure..." Con does not support further this claim. "If homosexuality is against nature then it is only just and loving for him to correct us." Homosexuality is not against nature. Genetics and pre-natal hormones have been found to influence sexuality, [10] [11] suggesting that homosexuality was part of God's design. Why might it be a part of God's design? It's very simple. To control the population rate. The human species, as a whole, faces far fewer natural selection pressures than the rest of the animal kingdom; typically speaking, we don't need to hunt for food, and we have reliable shelter, health care, police protection, etc. So many people make it to sexual maturity nowadays that our population has spiked. The more it increases, the more limited our resources become. Therefore, homosexuality could be a wise design on God's part. "Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, said: "In Shakespeare's time, only about one English baby in three made it to be 21... All those deaths were raw material for natural selection, many of those kids died because of the genes they carried. But now, about 99% of all the babies born make it to that age."" [12] [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://carm.org... [3] http://www.gci.org... [4] http://religiondispatches.org... [5] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [6] http://www.affirmingtheology.com... [7] http://www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com... [8] http://biblehub.com... [9] http://www.census.gov... [10] http://www.theguardian.com... [11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [12] http://www.bbc.com...