Good evening, let's have a good debate and good luck to you. The biblical positionon homosexuality isn't based on isolated verses, but rather verses on a repeated framework grounded in creation theology where sexual ethics are defined by the male-female design established in Genesis and consistently reflected throughout Leviticus and the New Testament.

You mentioned the Mosaic laws against shellfish and mixed fabrics, but your argument completely ignores the ceremonial laws Israel used to set thenselves apart from their neighbors, all practicing Paganism, and moral laws that the New Testament continue to affirm. As you begin treating the two as identical, you don't get fully into the biblical context stated earlier in my rebuttal. Could you clarify for me what you meam by "the real issue is practical, not theoretical" because that feels inserted randomly. You also mentioned the harms that are caused from this, but you have yet to demonstrate causation, not just corelation between the two. Showing that LGBTQ people experience harm doesn't, on its own, prove that respectfully expressing religious belief is what caused it. Also, You need to distinguish peaceful moral disagreement from bullying, abuse, or discrimination, because they are all different actions. Love, compassion, and treating others with dignity, while being absolutely essential in the Christian walk, aren't the only things believers are called to do. We're also called to: 1) Speak truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) Believers are called to be truthfull without harshness. 2) Loving our neighbors (Matthew 22:39) This is regardless of any choice made. 3) Showing kindness and mercy (Collosians 3:12-14; Luke 6:36) 4) Avoiding hypocrisy (Matthew 7:1-5) This is done simply by applying the same moral standards on ourselves.

The claim that the biblical framework is inconsistent because of its inclusion of things such as polygamy doesn't automatically disprove a Christian view of marriage. The bible, according to Christians, describes some practices without endorsing them, so the existence of polygamy doesn't mean it's the model being taught. That's like saying that Nazism is right because a history book describes it: It just doesn't add up. Saying the New Testament passages were wrote to specific churches IS a context point, however it doesn't cancel their broader relevance by itself. The fact that "homosexual" is a later translation issue also doesn't settle the meaning of the original passages. If the claim is that Paul condemned exploitative behavior, that needs textual support from his writings, not simply an assertion. The statement that being gay is not a choice doesn't automatically answer the moral or theological question being debated. The discussion is usually about whether a sexual ethic is being rejected or defended not simply whether someones identity is voluntary.