Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

I think Pro saved us his strongest round for last. For that I will commend him but there are still too many holes and contradictions in his case. Me and opponent can agree that Leviticus says anal sex is forbidden. Were we have not agreed is that these passages only speak of anal sex as clearly stated by myself when I said, "I do not agree with Pros interpretation. " I have shown you that God created and ordained a man and woman to marry and are helpmates in numerous passages. If my opponent is right then these passages inspired for marriage by God lose their meaning. "did I argue that Homosexuality was the intent? " If homosexuality was not the intent as my opponent admits, then what was the intention? No homosexuality? If homosexuality was not intended then that makes it seem unwanted in the eyes of God. To be considered unwanted or unintended is to mean shameful. This comment alone by my opponent makes homosexuality appear as a sin. He continues, "YHWH didn't intend for example people to be blind, have leprosy , or cancer, should we say that since that's not how YHWH intended it, that it's a sin to be blind, have leprosy, or cancer? " No, these conditions are the result of sin as is homosexuality. Are we to think that sin bears righteousness? By this logic it is not sinful to blind people, give people leprosy(if you can), and cancer, since homosexuality is not a sin. No, that would be a sin, and the same so, homosexuality is still a sin. My opponent virtually connected homosexuality with diseases and impurity. The Bible says to stay pure. Then my opponent says that God used homosexuality as a punishment. This again is a very odd statement. God would punish people with homosexuality and we should think homosexuality is good after that? Like my dad used to say from that show tool time, "I don't think so Tim! " In Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 my opponent continues to try and add more than is there. There is no specific reference to any sexual act but only a reference that men should not lie down with other men was they would a woman. Lyings of a woman, no where, has a reference to penetration and if it did then that includes oral. . http://www.religioustolerance.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... If my opponent wants to interpret this as penetration then that is fine but this includes any oral activity(including kissing romantically or with tongue), it also includes fingers and toys. My opponents source on this subject is shown as a homosexual Jew(no bias) but nevertheless he is a source. He is just a few out of many that disagree with his assessment. . http://mahrabu.blogspot.com... This link offers a few other Jewish Rabbi's that disagree and also links Lesbianism to Leviticus. Either way for thousands of years these verse were interpreted as homosexuality and only now has the meanings of the language been questioned. The meaning can not be questioned as it no doubt condemns men that act with men as they would women, clear as day. This leaves us to think of any sexual act with a woman and not just anal or penetration. My opponent mentions plurality of the term, well, this could mean the plural terms on all the homosexual acts. Then he says it is only plural for one meaning 'anal'. My opponent then goes on to say that the passages in 1 Corinthians 7are only for prostitution, again, after already admitting that it spoke of unmarried men last round. These verses are obviously referring to unmarried men who use prostitutes. Again Pro post alot of verses and does gymnastics with them. He states Paul is only talking to married men then why all the language of getting married? I end with this verse which is the last verse posted in 1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. " Clearly referring to unmarried people. I am not arguing that married people were not also referred here but I am saying that unmarried were as well. My opponent accuses me of not following doctrine and then he rejects the very scriptures that shows one should not have relations outside of marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. " He then tries to suggest that Paul is trying to suggest sex, when his verse shows that Paul says get married if you are having sex. This shows that marriage is required for sexual acts. In Exodus we are given the instruction on what to do if a man has consensual sex with an unmarried, unengaged woman: "If a man seduces (implies consent) a virgin (or a woman of marriageable age) who is not pledged to be married, and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price (or marriage present) and she shall be his wife" (emphasis mine). Most scholars believe the same prohibition is found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered . .. he must marry the girl. .. ." Most scholars believe that "rape" is not being addressed here, but consensual pre-marital sex (albeit the man's strong initiation), especially given the phrase "and they are discovered. ". http://www.boundless.org... In Romans my opponent is getting desperate. Both of my opponents quotes on Romans are the same quote and person quoting. Let's get greek: The Greek for "natural function" are φυσικP52;ν χρQ34;σιν, phusikan krasis. "natural" - phusikan, 1) produced by nature, inborn, 2) agreeable to nature, 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature "function" - Only two instances in N. T. Rom. 1:26,27. χρQ34;σις, εως, O69; use made of anything, usage; more specifically of sexual intercourse function, sexual use (RO 1.26, 27) "The issue is not one’s natural orientation or one’s natural preference, but of natural function. Preference is internal. Function, in this context, is biological and is related to design; which is why Paul tells us that the men gave up the natural function ("use" KJV) of the woman and burned for other men. There is nothing here about sexual orientation. It is about sexual function where the norm is male and female, not male and male, or female and female. " . http://carm.org... "The fact that homosexual conduct is described in this regard makes sense when one realizes that homosexual temple prostitution was a common phenomenon of cultic idolatry rituals in the geographic location and time in which Paul was writing. Taking this interpretation of Romans 1:26b-27 preserves the symmetry inherent within the text. " . http://www.jeramyt.org... We read the views of the same Saint my opponent supposedly quoted: Saint Augustine is categorical in the combat against sodomy and similar vices. The great Bishop of Hippo writes: "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust. " . http://www.tldm.org... Obviously Saint Augustine considered homosexuality and female anal relations immoral. To conclude my opponent never addresses the point that there is no homosexual reference to marriage in the entire Bible. Not in the entire Bible is there one positive reference to homosexuality and the only reference is negative. My has no proved his case and that is his job not mine. My job was to show his case weak and unBiblical.