“That’s your argument my grammar is bad alright guess I’m wrong then guess homosexuality is true because my grammar is bad?”
I’ll add the punctuation that I think the writer intended.
“That’s your argument? [Because] my grammar is bad alright guess I’m wrong? [By that reasoning] then guess homosexuality is true? Because my grammar is bad?”
It could just as easily be interpreted:
“That’s your argument. My grammar is bad alright. Guess I’m wrong then. Guess homosexuality is true. Because my grammar is bad?”
If I add my own punctuation I can interpret this pup to be as passive-aggressive or openly hostile as I imagine him to be.
The use of trueness is misused as well. I think we can all agree these days that homosexuality exists. In that sense, homosexuality is “true”. The crux of the argument is whether it is moral or not.
Ambiguous grammar aside, if an apologist wants to make an argument that homosexuality is biblically immoral, then say that.
To answer that argument:
From a biblical point of view, Lot’s disastrous relations with his Sodomite neighbours is often brought up. I might point out that these lechers were also rapists, considering random strangers or Lot’s own daughters to be fair game. Rape is an act of violence and cruelty, an obvious violation of the Golden Rule.
As for any New Testament prohibitions remember also Peter's vision where God tempted him with all sorts of unclean foodstuffs. God reminded Peter that in the age of Grace, whatever God calls clean is now clean.
Apply the Golden Rule. If there is love, trust, loyalty, and mutual respect, it is approved of God.
