Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

Ladies and gentlemen, when my opponent said that he chooses the topic of the debate he made a good point, but he must remember that he must also include all sub-topics and topics directly related to the resolution. My opponent has not properly defined what “Design of god” is, and as such further discussion on what is part of it is mute. How can he prove what is part of his design if we do not know god's design? I've suggested that god designed the world for man and woman as described by, well, almost everyone in the bible that has brought the topic up[1-2] in both testaments. We hear nothing on same sex marriages nowhere in the scripture as far as I am aware of, and as such we have to ask ourselves the question: Why would gods word leave out something that is a part of his design? Homosexuality existed back then, it didn't spring up in the 19th century like the word we use today. My opponent needs to answer this, what is gods design? Without that the entire debate is just about mute (so to speak) My opponent also mentioned the new covenant, again. Even if the old law has been abolished it would still be irrelevant, for we see that the new Covenant also speaks dimly of homosexuality, it still speaks strictly of male/female marriage and it still abolishes adulterers, which sex outside of wedlock applies to. If we can make our conclusion that new testament does mention these things it would mean that the abolished law is mute and thus the “biblical evidence” looses it's scope. We have seen that god favours man+woman marriages and looks at any other non-wedlock sexual relations as a sin, and since wedlock is reserved for m/f according to every verse that mentions it we see that homosexuals are a bit in the corner. My opponent then goes on to use the logic that AIS might just be a part of gods design. This is precisely why we need to know god's design: We can only know what has been written in the scriptures, it's a little hard to ask god direct questions as this point. But since intersex is nowhere to be found how can we be sure that they ARE a part of god's plan? This is a baseless argument, I can ask my opponent the exact same question and it would lead us nowhere: “How does my opponent know for certain that God Did create these people this way on purpose.” N.b. that is a positive claim and thus is the one that needs proving, not the inverse. As already stated, even if Ais, homosexuality and whatnot is not mentioned as my opponent argues we already see that there are no indications of it anywhere: In no stories, no indirect deductions as with man/woman marriage, the command to multiply, nowhere. God, that has been rather specific on things that did exist back and told us what we could do, never mentioned it positively.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? My opponent next stated indirectly: “Times have changed. Polygamy, Divorce and remarriage are all allowed now!”By whom? The church made up of man, or god? Where is the scriptural evidence that this is in deed god's will and not societies will? What about nations that do not allow these things? Are they wrong? God and Christ have both condemned these things. We need proof of them changing the rules. Changing his mind about something mentioned ambiguously on one occasion, let's let it slide. something that has been hammered on again and again? That's a pretty big change of heart.God didn't allow these things, man did. [3,4] The next fallacious argument: “According to your logic x cannot be proved so it is y” kind of strikes me as scraping the barrel. I already deducted that god wishes man+women pairs; I also pointed out that the Bedmales must mean something with the sole response of “you can't prove it, so it isn't what you think it is.” The next argument came from nowhere: “God could not condemn gay marriage, it did not exist at the time he stated that males are to be with females.”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. “ This is somewhere around 30AD. Homosexual marriages have existed long before that date, and it wasn't all that uncommon either[5]. Emperor Nero lived shortly after the estimated death of Christ and he was reported to have been married twice to a male. Homosexuality was a surprisingly common act in f.x Ancient Rome, so “it did not exist” is dull. translation:The bible is fragmented, 10 fragments make up Romans alone. If we where to somehow recreate all the unique books that these fragments came from, how many would agree on individual verses? according to your standards; none. The original Greek and Hebrews are just more translations, more transcriptions. They are, as I pointed out and you conceded to in your “trap”, unreliable when it comes to the original wording. So why trust it? Your trap is contradicting the entire debate so far. 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. A few lines lower he, as far as I can tell, tries to make my source, the septuagint, lose it's validy based on contradictions in it. This is an oddly absurd point to make, for each and every single biblical source we've posted so far has contradicted itself at some point, even the Hebrew text Pro holds so dearly includes a contradiction or two. Should we ignore it? No, it is still valid theological evidence. If we are to accept his argumentation it would mean that every single argument in his case that is somehow related to the bible becomes void and he's been contradicting himself from round 1. Given that this is a debate on theology it would essentially make this entire debate void and pointless and strip it down to: “GOD IS WHAT I SAY HE IS BECAUSE I SAY IT.” MALEBED Now, back to arsenkoites and malakoi. First my opponent states that I stated mal. meant male prostitutes. Had he properly read a bit lower he had seen that I also stated that it has been argued that it meant the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. Looking at the biblehub source he provided we see this usage in 13 verses, along with 2 male prostitutes and 4 other verses that skip the word all together but change homosexuals to a broader term that might reach over both words at once. So far we have 19/22 that are portraying malakoi according to my case, showing it is not void. Now, what I meant by a counter theory is that in order for a theory to become void is for it to be disproven and replaced. When it comes to etymology we can't leave a blank for the words and state “Well, we do not know this so it must mean sth else” The fact is these words had to be used over something, and based on the context these words are used in it must be sexually immoral: But we need the real meaning. My opponent made the interesting statement: “It is clear that it isn't same-sex relations.” Based on what? That is an unproven statement at this point in the debate and if pro has taught us anything in his reasoning it is that unproven opinions are void, this one included, contradictions are not helping late debate. I have shown you that the context suggest homosex. both from the context it is used in as well as how the two words are used elsewhere. The “Man sleeping” argument is absurd; The context would then suggest that it was forbidden to sleep as a man or be lazy. It would be a strange list: “nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor men that sleep nor thieves“ Ars. And mal. Are bad, and I've already made the case for it's true meaning based on use and context. My opponent has pretty much voided the entire argument with: “You can't prove the meaning, though you have made reasonable arguments for it, but I'm right”. The inverse can just as well hold: You cannot prove it does not mean homosexuals, it's just as valid of an argument, but both are invalid reasoning, an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. These words mean something bad, but without knowing the “real” meaning we must find the most likely one. I have context on my side, giving me the more likely case. pro has not proven that I'm incorrect. gender: There are several ways to decide ones sex. One is simply to have a look at your genes and act according to them. However we know that sex is not only what sexual organs you have. The brain responds and rewires itself in different patterns depending on the sex. If someone identifies strongly as a female it might suggest that that is what god intended (Note: might). If you are aggressive, develop better motor skill than social skills, tend to be physical, not emotional and are certain you are male, it indicates a male brain and thus a male sex. Since there is no such thing as “true hermaphrodite” except in neglectably few cases there will be a way to find your true gender despite the disorder. Gender identity crises are rare with PAIS and a mjority stick with their assigned gender[6] my opponent has 1 round to establish the final case: and I'll expect solid answers: mainly emphasizing:1-the silence of same sex marriages in the bible2-why god would change his mind on m-f3-what the words do mean if they do not mean homosex.4-how homosex. Is not a sin if marriage is m/f5-how the contradictions matter, we're discussing wording, not vality.6-you stated yourself that the bible is untrustworthy, without contradicting yourself, why would it be the most accurate?7-Mental gender Identity 1-openbible.info/topics/marriage2-www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&version=KJ213-www.openbible.info/topics/divorce4-www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm5-www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html6-http://goo.gl...