Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

One part of the debate that bothers me is that I will not have the last word. It bothers me simply because my opponent will give a rebuttal to this round and I will not be able to refute or rebut his arguments. Please keep that in mind.I think the BIble makes it clear what God's design WAS. According to the Bible, he created male and female for each other and told them to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:22-31) Keep in mind, this was at the beginning of creation. The earth was not populated yet.If the food supply starts running out, would we still point to this verse and say, "We must keep multiplying" simply because this verse says so? Of course not. So whether or not something was God's design at one point in history, is irrelevant. Times, culture, and the structure of societies change. My opponent never explained how the people that are born infertile are part of God's plan if He told us to "multiply". My opponent also referred to the Bible as "God's Word". IF the Bible really is God's Word, why does my opponent go at length to say that it is not trustworthy and full of contradictions? My opponent keeps making the argument that the New Covenant speaks of homosexuality because adultery would still be a sin. This is becoming a vicious circle. He keeps making the argument that unless homosexuality is mentioned as part of God's ORIGINAL design, then it should be condemned. What Biblical evidence do you base that on? Is it a sin for a child to only have one parent? God MEANT for us to have a mother and father. Would it be a sin for a woman to adopt a child if she is not married? Why no mention of this in the Bible? You are making the assumption that the Bible covers every subject or situation we will ever face. There is no evidence of such a claim. When God does not want us to do something (or sin), He seems to be pretty clear about it. As I said before, in order to avoid sinning in the light of "wedlock", gays should be allowed to get married. My opponent still has yet to deal with Romans 10:4, Galatians 5:14, and Hebrews 8:13. My opponent made the argument that we can only know God's design by what is written in the Bible. My opponent AGAIN is making the argument that unless something is endorsed, it is a sin. Where does the Bible make that claim? Again, prove that typing on a computer is not a sin. Is birth control a sin, since God told us to multiply? I doubt the writers of the Bible could for-see condoms or birth control pills. Are they a sin as well? How do I know that AIS are part of God's plan? Simply because he created ALL THINGS. Colossians 1:16, "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. Since God is perfect and he does not make mistakes, He would not create something by accident. He asked, "Why would he not mention it, homosexuality existed and was known back then, so why would the scriptures not directly mention it as good anywhere?" We must be careful here not to label something as a sin, just because God does not endorse something. Galatians 5:14 already told us the criteria for how not to sin, "Love your neighbor as yourself, the ENTIRE LAW is summed up in this one." My opponent even said, "God, that has been rather specific on things that did exist back and told us what we could do, never mentioned it positively." True, but we don't call something "sin" just because it is not mentioned positively. He then challenged me to show where God's laws have changed over time. I take issue with the sources you quoted pertaining to this subject simply for the biases they hold given that they are Christian organizations. For example, polygamy is allowed in Exodus 21:10 and 2 Samuel 5:13 and MANY more. THEN, in the New Testament, (1 Timothy1:6) it says, "..the husband of ONE wife". Furthermore, the Bible tries to justify itself by saying that this was Christ "fulfilling the law, not ending it." (Matthew 5:17). We are no longer required to keep that Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, but it WAS one of the ten commandments. The list goes on and on. This proves my point that LAWS can change and God's LAWS and His Word are not the same. "The most recent addition of m+f is from Christ [Mark 10:7-9]: " 7"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,a 8and the two shall become one flesh. " We are back to square one. How does a "fair" and "just" God create someone with 2 genders and expect AIS to follow this? Again, is artificial insemination a sin since it's never mentioned? As for gay marriages existing back in 30 A.D., this still proves my point more than my opponents. If God was aware of gay marriage as my opponent suggests, WHY DID HE NOT SPECIFICALLY CONDEMN IT?! According to my opponent, he certainly would have had the opportunity. Translation: My opponent made an interesting observation; he asked the question, "If the scriptures are unreliable to the point we cannot trust them why are we basing our cases on it? Why would we be so fixated on something we don't trust? Simple, because it is the only thing we have: it is the only way that we can even start to get a glimps at what God wants from us." I don't base my case on it. In fact YOU are the one that called it "God's Word". If it is God's Word, why can it NOT be trusted? The Christians base their condemnation of homosexuality on a book that is unreliable and cannot be trusted, yet, it's God's Word? I have not said that The Greek and Hebrew contradict themselves, only my opponent has. My opponent has NOT shown evidence of me contradicting my own arguments. He is trying to ignore the fact that the oldest and most reliable manuscripts are the Greek and Hebrew. Just because THEY have been translated over time, does not mean they are not reliable. They also don't contradict each other. My opponent need to show evidence that they do. MALEBED We are dealing with 2 words here "arsenkoites" which had never been defined and "malakoi" which HAS been defined. I believe my opponent is simply confused here between the 2 words. I also believe he is being extremely dishonest here. The word "malakos" means "soft, cowardly, lazy". The problem with a word that has so many definitions tied to it, is that no one knows for certain what it means. It has also been used to describe "and effeminate call boy". Again, no one is defending prostitution here. I have never argued that "malakoi" is not defined, but "aresenkoites" is NOT. My opponent accused me of making an opinionated statement, but suggested that he had "context" of homosexuality on his side. We are both guilty of making opinionated statements. The words, "arsenkoites" and "malakois" are 2 of the most debated words in The Bible. Neither one of us are Greek or Hebrew scholars, so at this point, WE CANNOT TRUST "God's Word". THIS was the trap I was referring to. We can both prove our points by referring to "this translation" or "that translation". What does God say for sure? I don't know. What I do know is that if God says homosexuality is a sin, then there are people that God made that will be sinning no matter who they are with if they choose a mate, because they are born male AND female. IF the Bible is true and is the Word of God, as my opponent suggests, he needs to explain the contradiction of God's law vs nature. He still needs to explain why a "fair" and "just" God would make a law that everyone was not able to follow. My opponent explained how we determine AIS could determine their gender with motor skills, social, agressiveness, ect. Reference please? I know many 100% females that have these traits. Furthermore, WHEN do you decided what sex you are. Some are assigned a sex at birth and later feel as though they were assigned the wrong gender.While I will agree that the mind plays an important role, according to http://www.isna.org..., "The child is assigned a gender as boy or girl after tests (hormonal, genetic, radiological) have been done and the parents have consulted with the doctors on which gender the child is more likely to feel as she or he grows up. In cases of intersex, doctors and parents need to recognize, however, that gender assignment of infants with intersex conditions as boy or girl, as with assignment of any infant, is preliminary. Any child"intersex or not"may decide later in life that she or he was given the wrong gender assignment; but children with certain intersex conditions have significantly higher rates of gender transition than the general population, with or without treatment." Once the decision is made, what if the patient feels they made the wrong decision and wants to change? Once you decide, is that the end of the story? God is obviously silent on the issue. Closing remarks: (My opponents expected answers) 1) Silence on SSM proves MY point. If God had a problem with it, why was he silent on it? 2) God didn't change his mind, he changed his LAWS as I have proven time and again. 3) I have proven that no one knows what "arsenkoites" means. Malokois is defined above in post. 4) The same way AIS sex is not a sin. PROVE it IS a sin. I don't have to prove a negative. 5) It cannot be trusted. Simple. If one part is wrong, all parts are subject. 6) It was the original language. My opponent needs to now explain that if the Bible is God's Word, why all the contradictions? He is using that book for the basis of all of his arguments. Here is what we do know 1) AIS people exist. They will be gay with anyone they choose as a mate 2) If my interpretation of the Bible is wrong on the subject of homosexuality, how do you reconcile God creating AIS people? 3) What is your rebuttal to Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13 4) If God reveals to us our orientation through our gender and we are born with 2 genders, then what? Thanks!