Tossing this into the mix to see how the different parties respond:
[list]
[*]I see a lot of biblical referencing in this debate with people recounting stories/events in the Bible to prove if something is right or wrong. This leads to the following questions: If something is mentioned in the BIble, does that directly mean it is acceptable or unacceptable, considering some of these stories/events never actually comment on whether the act was good/bad? In other words, is it merely a historical event and just that or is it an example of what is/isn't allowable? Also something to consider is who committed the acts in each situation: was the person who did such things, like rape, supposed to be someone good or bad? To put it in biblical terms, does that fact that either a "saved" or "unsaved" person committed the act change anything?[/*]
[*]I see that the statement that If someone [b][u]acts[/b][/u] a certain way, then it must mean that they [b][u]thought[/u][/b] it first. Therefore, thinking and doing are the same thing. ~~~ That said, does thinking one thing really equate to enacting that behavior? If someone has the thought of killing someone but never acts on it, are they still a murderer? What is murder without an actual, well, murder?[/*]
[*]Not to mention, some Psychologists have theorized that personality can actually be changed under the right circumstances (source: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-18/henry-kellerman-personality-how-it-forms; I suggest listening to the whole podcast), so if this theory is true, then is sexual orientation, if taken as a facet of personality, a valid argument against what a person is vs what they do? Does someone's mere actions dictate who they are as a whole, is it their thoughts only, is it both thought and behavior or is there more involved, especially if personality (which is defined as the pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving by the APA) can, in fact, be changed? To put it another way, if personality can change and sexual orientation is a part of personality, can the orientation be changed or not? Is it ultimately a choice? And if it is a choice, is that enough to say
[/*]
[*]On the topic of biblical theology and all that: First off, I notice most scriptural references are from the Old Testament, but wasn't some of the Old Testament, in terms of some of the rules in it, made null because of Jesus Christ? If this is true, what parts of it are still applicable and which ones are void?[/*]
[*]As there are many Judeo-Christian denominations, doesn't the fact that there are so many different beliefs under the same religion make the religion unreliable? What makes one different from another? Is it the same God? The same religion? And related to this topic, what is the point of using different translations? If the BIble is supposed to be eternal and "God's word", then does believing in solely one translation prove that the previous claim is false? What makes on translation correct and not another? Are they all correct?[/*]
[*]Since, according to the fundamental principles of evolution, the primary goal of any living species is to pass on the best genes for survival and reproduce (survival of the fittest and all that), and since Homosexuality is, in essence, a "mutation" (if it even is a mutation) that works against survival of the fittest, is that enough ground to discriminate against them from a strictly scientific perspective? What about from a moral one? In other words, can the argument be made that if Homosexuality is not compliant to evolution, it a deterrent to the advancement of the human race?[/*]
[/list]

That should be enough to keep you guys thinking. Remember, in debate, the winner (if you can even claim there is a winner) is the one who debates the best. That does not mean they were persuasive. The point of Debate is not to persuade the other or to blatantly shoot someone down, but to effectively defend your own stance (like in English class). "Winning" (and that term is used loosely) does not mean you are correct, just as "losing" (also used loosely) doesn't mean you are wrong. Merely it is a competition of who can [b][u]defend[/u][/b] better, not attack. Overall, its really just a way to see other people's points of view and letting that affect you in whatever way it does, whether it makes you stronger in your original beliefs or adopt new ones.

-- -- --

Why, yes, I am a neutral observer. Oh, and yes, I did participate in Debate Club back in High School (not yet in University). Why, I do enjoy playing Devil's advocate for all parties. Thank you for noticing.