For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

Pro is correct that many people interpret passages differently but does that mean they are right? No it doesn't. We need to know the correct interpretation, so lets find it. Pro just asserts, disturbingly I mite add:"They note that the persons involves in the orgy were former Christians and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature their heterosexual orientation and engaged in same gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature their homosexual orientation and engaged in opposite gender sexual behavior would also be sinning."Now, I have never heard this before. I would actually like the link so I can go there and debate them on this subject because they are flat out wrong. Let's read the full passage in Romans:Romans 1:26, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."This verse describes something against nature. In the next verse we see that which is against nature, Romans 1:27, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with menworking that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." We see the phrases used to describe these acts as, "lust, unseemly, error, vile and against nature." These descriptions do not sound like they are good in the sight of God. This goes more into my opponent suggesting that homosexuality is natural in this passage and they are going straight. Well it says nothing about homosexuality as nature or ok. It says that straight people are being vile by having sex with their own sex. Let's remember my opponent must show that the Bible supports homosexuality activity. That has not happened so far. "Douglas Campbell in his book "The Deliverance of God" Campbell suggests that in Romans 1:18-32, Paul was presenting an argument by other that actually oppose his own beliefs."Was Paul an apostle? Yes He was. Was He chosen by God to write the scriptures? Yes He was. Would God chose Him just inflict his biased opinion? No He would not. Would the Spirit allow Paul to post personal biased material? No the Spirit would not. If this interpretation is correct by Cons source, would this mean God is not in control of His message? Yes it would. How can we believe anything about the Bible is God is not in control of the authors? I have no idea. "For millennial, Christian theologians have generally interpreted this passage as representing Paul's beliefs."Indeed they were Paul's belief because He believed in what Christ taught and what the Spirit placed on his heart. This is the entire creditability of the scriptures and my opponent is trying to dismantle their vadality. The creditability of the Bible is not on debate here. "If Campbell's interpretation is correct, then the church has reversed the meaning of the passage and condemned behaviors that Paul would not have condemned."My opponent inserts this and his source said no such thing. This flagrant dishonesty. "Still another interpretation is asserted by author Jack Levison . He suggests that the start of chapter 2 of Romans is the key message and should be used to interpret Romans 1."Chapter one came first so my opponent my give us a reason to believe this and then I will address it. "Now back to the old testament part you most certainly do have to accept all of the Old Testament Law's."No, I do not. Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the Old Testament and gave us His testimony. He nailed the Old Law to the cross through His sacrifice, making the Old Law no obligatory for man. We know have the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ personal testimony that we must follow. See if Romans did not mention homosexuality, then it would not be something a Christian should not do, possibly. But it does and is a vile sin. "you are just cherry picking random quotes because you do not agree with it your self. In Leviticus you can not eat shell fish or mix fabrics commit adultery"Like hear, my opponent mentions this and yes it was a Law but Jesus took that on Himself on the cross. My opponent needs to show this is a teaching that Jesus taught in the New Testament and He would be right."Now onto your statement that you turned straight once you hit puberty I would challenge that because if you can turn straight I can turn gay."I had no interest in women or men(never have been interested in men) until I hit puberty. This topic is not the debate at hand. It is not religious or in the Bible so I do not have to address it. If my opponent shows that homosexuality is not condemned in the scriptures or is suggested as good in the scriptures then He wins the debate, so this point is not called for. Thanks and back to Pro.