This seems like a fun thread. I'm going to go through and cherry pick some things from the last page or so that I feel weren't sufficiently addressed.

[quote=Shy]
Every verse you referenced discuss an ACT of homosexuality, none speak in regards to the person themselves.
[/quote]

This gets into some sketchy territory. Thinking and being a certain way is okay so long as you don't act on it? Consider it as a facet of personality, which sexuality kind of is. An analogy to this would be if the Bible said acts of kindness are a sin. Being kind and thinking kind things is fine, but actually expressing that trait is sinful? That's pretty damning against the people who possess said trait that results in sin. Another example: being happy and thinking happy things is fine, but smiling and laughing are sinful. See how ridiculous it is?

The expression of one's sexuality is inextricably tied with having that sexuality (unless you're asexual or similar, but that's kind of irrelevant here). Saying expression of a sexuality is not okay it just a weak and indirect way of saying that sexuality is not okay. What if some fascist regime of homosexuals attained world dominance and made a law that said heterosexual sex acts were now illegal? That wouldn't just be a statement against those acts, it's a statement against heterosexuals as a whole, that they are bad and illegal. The reasoning for such wording of a law is that you can't police people's thoughts and know they're of a particular sexuality, so it's only the acts of expression of sexuality that can be found out and thus condemned and be grounds for punishment. That is what those Bible quotes are doing, condemning and outlining punishment for homosexual acts, so they do indeed fit the intended point of the Bible saying homosexuality is bad.

[quote=Magic Magnum]
Science is entirely based on finding the truth, with no assumptions made.
[/quote]

Woah woah woah, hold on there. Are you forgetting the foundational assumptions upon which science is built? Saying no assumptions are made is simply and objectively wrong. I'll list these assumptions so you can see what I mean.

1 - The universe is a real physical place. Pure objective no assumptions science only gets us as far as cogito ergo sum. Everything past that is an assumption.

2 - Human senses and tools to enhance them are reliable. We cannot know for absolute certainty that our senses are accurate, and we happen to know there are things we cannot naturally perceive (spectrum of light for instance), so we are assuming that we can actually gather objective data.

3 - Through observation and experimentation, we can understand and make predictions about the world around us. This is a combo of the above and the assumption that cause and effect is a real thing and that it's reliable and predictable with enough knowledge.

Without making those core assumptions, we cannot have science. We cannot know them to be true with objective certainty, thus they are assumptions. These assumptions being made are part of the root of why science is said to never be 100% objectively accurate: it's always possible that one of those core assumptions is false, thus invalidating everything we know as science.

It's easy to forget these are assumptions because we humans constantly make them in day to day life, but they are indeed assumptions. Just keep that in mind next time you want to say how science is better than religion due to supposed objectivity. I happen to agree that science is preferable due to its methodology, and I have many issues with religion and its methodology, but you've got to have intellectual integrity with this stuff and admit the failings of your preferred system if you wish to have a stable foundation upon which to build your arguments.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]
It's just that it doesn't seem like discrimination when the Bible mentions everyone a long together, literally, with homosexuals, since we all not only sin but are headed towards the same consequences.
[/quote]

That doesn't make it not discrimination though. The fact that homosexuals are one of the explicitly listed categories of sinners means that discrimination is in effect, both in the meanings of "making a distinction" and "acting favorably or unfavorably toward a group based on a particular trait."

Consider this following list of sinners for example: murderers, rapists, cheaters, liars (even white lies), thieves (even so much as a penny), blasphemers, black people.

Just because all black people already happen to fit into the prior categories, due to everyone having lied or stolen at some point as a child at least, does not mean that listing them in particular is not discriminating. If the point of the list of sins was to just say "hey, everyone's a sinner, get some Jesus or burn forever" then it could have listed sinners simply as everyone instead of giving particular categories. Once you have particular categories you then have distinctions, which is the basis of the non-prejudice meaning of discrimination. Once you add in rewards and punishments based upon those categories you're into the prejudice type meaning of the word.

That's what the Bible is doing by saying homosexuality is a sin. It is in both meanings of the word discriminating against homosexuals, just in the same way it's discriminating against liars and thieves and murderers and so forth. Arguing that it doesn't discriminate against homosexuals (or other sinner groups) just because everyone is a sinner is ridiculous and totally ignores the meaning of the word 'discrimination.' If you want to argue that it's justified in the same ways as the discrimination against murderers and so forth is justified, cool, give something to back the stance up and we can have a discussion about it, but saying there is no discrimination present is just silly and wrong.

[quote=Magic Magnum]
So let me approach it from this way instead, outside of God saying that it's wrong what is actually bad about Homosexuality?
[/quote]

As a non-religious person, I can provide an answer to this that's rooted in science.

The basic biological imperative of all living things is to reproduce and pass on genetic material. This is the sole purpose of the existence of any living thing, the only purpose in life one can really derive from a purely scientific perspective, and this purpose is strongly enforced by things like the sex drive in humans and the migration of various animals to mating grounds during certain seasons. Homosexuality goes counter to this biological imperative because it cannot produce offspring, thus it is bad. If you want to go further with it, you can even say it's a non-beneficial mutation, just as would be a mutation that causes sterility, both being non-beneficial for the same reason.

Obviously (or I hope it's obvious, at least) this isn't a good justification for discrimination and whatnot. Our population numbers and technological advancements mean that some people not mating and producing offspring doesn't truly do any harm to the species. Someone else being homosexual doesn't do you any harm, so there's no point in giving a shit about it on a social or moral level. From the pure biological perspective it's bad, but fuck it, not really relevant to humans in this day and age.

[quote=Shy]Genesis 19:1-38 - This isn't really promoting rape. Lot was outnumbered and his guests were in serious danger. As was procedure back then, protecting your guests was the most important thing for you to do, so he offered his own daughters instead. Is it a good message? No. Does it support rape? Eeeh not really but if you tried maybe.

So we have 1 that explicitly condones it while 2 others are maybe's. Then 3 support taking people as spoils of war and marrying them then having sex with them which could be considered rape. In reference to the spoils of war that was common practice back then to take women from places you conquered and marry them though.
[/quote]

You forgot that later part of Genesis 19 that talks about Lot's daughters getting him drunk, raping him (rape by way of that intoxication and taking advantage of him), and having children by him. It doesn't condemn or punish them for their rape or incest, so that's another one that sort of condones rape.

Also some of those spoils of war thing didn't mention anything about having to marry those women. Zechariah 14 just says the women will be ravished, no marriage. Judges 5 just mentions that each man would get a damsel or two, not necessarily that they'd be married before the ravishing commences. The thing from Numbers 31 also says nothing about marriage. Even if it's implied, there's the part about how taking a woman by force after killing her people and then making her marry you is pretty much rape, and just because it was common practice that doesn't mean it's okay or it wasn't rape.