The Bible does not exclude homosexuals as acceptable people.

I first want to clarify that I'm not here to say whether or not it is good or bad to consider homosexuality a sin. I'm simply here to debate the premise, which is that the Bible doesn't REALLY exclude homosexuals, and as such, my personal beliefs on the matter are irrelevant to the debate. "JESUS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SAME SEX BEHAVIOR AT ALL... THE JEWISH PROPHETS ARE SILENT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY" That is true, however, it may very well be that homosexual behavior was more rare than it is now. The quantification of homosexuality is assumed to have remained static throughout the millenia, but it is possible that societal influence has allowed it to flourish, and indeed inflamed it. Case in point: Twenty years ago, virtually all high school kids would have ostracized their homosexual peers. In contemporary times it is often considered in high regard, in which case, homosexuality may very well be propagated through social norms rather than by genes. In any case, it is speculative in either direction at this juncture. What I mean is that we don't really know, nor do I think we could definitively know, the prevalence of homosexuality in the past. There could have been more in the past, there could have been less. The one's that were homosexuals could have been silent since in most cultures it was considered taboo. And they may have felt threatened with death, which, by the way, was hardly a concoction of Christianity or Judaism. The fact that homosexuality is taboo has been around a long time, and propagated by cultures not influenced or persuaded by Judeo-Christian ethics. My second premise about Jesus not mentioning homosexuality in the Bible is that omission does not automatically mean its acceptance. He was also silent about bestiality, but if we were to go by your rationale, we should assume that he was actually accepting of it. Regardless, I would agree that Jesus focused on the heart of a matter rather than specifics. For instance, he spoke frequently about sexual sin, as did Paul. They often didn't distinguish between different types of sexual sin. "IT IS NOT IMMORAL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN." I don't think this is the reason why it was considered immoral in the first place. "THE CITIES OF SODOM AND GAMORA WERE NOT DESTROYED BECAUSE OF THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR BUT RATHER BECAUSE... OF THEIR ARROGANT WAYS." I concur that it was not, at least solely, because of homosexuality. There are a number of theories that have been circulating for any number of years and centuries concerning it. Was it rape that God was particularly opposed to? Was it homosexuality? Or was it inhospitality? Or was it a conglomerate of many things, to include all of them or some of them? Given the fact that such a code of honor to care for those who are in need is etched in to Middle Eastern custom, there seems to be some relevance to the argument that it is, at least in part, about inhospitality. "About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it." -Flavius Josephus But then again, there is another argument that specifically points out that "abuse" is the sin. In other words, they argue that in an epistle, such as Paul's, they say that he is actually condemning homosexual abuse rather than responsible homosexual behavior. While this could be construed as a reasonable interpretation for drinking wine (don't be a drunkard), it hardly applies to other sins listed in 1st Corinthians 6 or 1st Timothy 1. But lets think about that logically for a minute. Is Paul calling for responsible adultery or responsible prostitution? Is there such a thing as moral theft and swindling? Obviously the argument breaks down. Scripture never condones sex outside of marriage (premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, or otherwise). And going all the way back to the beginning, we see that God created man and woman for the institution of marriage (Gen. 2:24). From that point we see that God has both a "perfect" will and a "permissive" will, one where He prefers you to live in accordance to His will, and the other where He allows you to eat your own mistakes. Even in the Book of Jude, the author clearly points out what the sins included. "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." -Jude 1:7 Whether the verse is condemning one thing or all things, the unambiguous complaint seems to be pertaining chiefly to sexual sin, regardless of the specific kind. "LEVITICUS IS A HOLINESS CODE WRITTEN 3,000 YEARS AGO." The Halacha (Jewish Law/customs) was given by Moses, which is called the "Law of Moses." Note the distinction between the Commandments given by God as consecrated by those given by Moses. Jesus even distinguishes between the two. However, I assume you are using this as a way to say that it is antiquated, and therefore we are not subject to the law, to include homosexuality. But if we crack open the Bible, we will see that only those born-again are not subject to the law, since Jesus is the fulfillment and the summation of what the law was intended for. Those outside of it will be judged not apart from the law, and their conscience will bear witness and testify against them. Regardless, the New Testament makes it clear that homosexuality is still considered an aberration, irrespective of how any of us personally feel about the matter. And really, that is all that I'm required to do to refute your claim since this debate is specific to the Bible and homosexuals. "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 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. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. -Romans 1:24-27 PRO states, "During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation" This is a straw man as it is both an appeal to authority and an argument from consensus. If it weren't, then by this rationale the supposed aberration of homosexuality should never have been challenged to begin with. Its also worth mentioning that it wasn't until the coercion of the American Psychology Association (APA) by homosexuals that homosexuality was begrudgingly taken off their list of pathologies. By your logic, the myriad of psychologists, counselors, educators, etc prior to its amendment should have been heeded on the basis of their profession. "that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences" If it is UNKONOWN then how can sexual orientation be determined at all, let alone determine a COMBINATION of causes? Anyhow, I thank PRO for making this post. I am looking forward to the debate.