AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage

My opponent made the argument that I provided no evidence to back up my claims that "translation" from Greek and Hebrew to English is the main problem in the verses that supposedly relate to homosexuality. Let's start with the 2 verses in Leviticus. Leaving the word "bedding" out of the translation totally changes the meaning. "" "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526) There's your proof. As for 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, the word, "arsenkoites" was never used before that time. The only way to be sure that a new word is being used in the correct way is to see how it was used in other situations. Since it was the first recorded use of the word, there is no way to do that. "Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek - so rare, there is no other extant use predating or contemporary to the Bible (a linguistic phenomenon known as a hapax legomenon). Philo is often claimed to have used it around 35 CE. That claim is in fact, false.[3] The context in which it is used in Corinthians is not enough to determine the original meaning. As such, the translations of this word into English and other languages are little more than guesses. Some liberal Christians insist it refers specifically to pimps or pederasts, but there's no more evidence to support this meaning than any other. ationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites As for the Jews being ok with homosexuality, gays have been hated throughout history. So, my answer is, "No, Jews would not have been ok with homosexuality." People hate anything that is "different". My opponent believes that I am contradicting myself by saying that the Word of God does not change, but God's laws did. That is not my belief, but a fact. For example, polygamy is allowed in Exodus 21:10 and 2 Samuel 5:13. 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. I would like to point out that my opponent never gave a rebuttal to refute my Bible verses that say that we are no longer under the law of Moses, therefore, even if homosexuality was a sin, it no longer is. Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13 As for Romans 1, I never said homosexuality is not condemned here simply because heterosexuality "is not natural to them". I said Romans 1 doesn't condemn 2 loving and committed members of the same sex because there is nothing sinful about that type of relationship. My opponent is supposed to prove that homosexuality in EVERY circumstance IS. The people in this chapter of Romans were idolaters, promiscuous, adulterous, and lustful. That of course would be the reason homosexuality in that context would be condemned; just as heterosexuality would be condemned in those circumstances. My point for bringing up the word "natural" is to show that "natural" had to do with "custom", not biology. That was my reason for quoting 1 Cor 11:13-15 At this juncture, my opponent has not shown how he reconciles the Bible with the AIS condition. He has not explained how we are to determine our sexual orientation if it is not done by our gender. If we have 2 genders, what are we to do? I have not changed the debate. I didnt' "create a definition of God" either. My opponent is really getting off topic here. I simply stated my belief that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. That does not change the debate. I'm not sure where my opponent is getting some of these strange ideas from. In fact, I am saying that we can assume that it IS the Word of God for the sake of argument while debating. What I am saying is that IF it is the Word of God, it will not contradict itself. There is no way to reconcile the Bible, AIS condition, and homosexuality without contradicting yourself. My definition of "just" comes from https://bible.org... "While the most common Old Testament word for just means "straight," and the New Testament word means "equal," in a moral sense they both mean "right." When we say that God is just, we are saying that He always does what is right, what should be done, and that He does it consistently, without partiality or prejudice. The word just and the word righteous are identical in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sometimes the translators render the original word "just" and other times "righteous" with no apparent reason (cf. Nehemiah 9:8 and 9:33 where the same word is used). But whichever word they use, it means essentially the same thing. It has to do with God"s actions. They are always right and fair." I hope that is satisfactory to your request. Now that I have answered my opponent's requests for sources and definitions, we can finally get some answers to the questions that he is refusing to answer. 1) Since I have shown what "Biblical justice" or a "Just" God is, please explain or offer scriptural evidence of why a "just" God would make one set of rules for on person and not another when they were born a certain way. 2) If God is so hung up on sexual orientation, why did He create people that were born as BOTH GENDERS??? If your entire argument is based on "gender", in other words, you argue that if one is born a woman (GENDER) they should be with a man( GENDER). If one is born a man (GENDER), they should be with a woman (GENDER). If you are BORN as 2 genders, then your argument completely falls apart. They will technically be gay and straight at the same time because they are both sexes. This shows the clear contradiction of the Bible and my opponents view. I have already shown that God is "just" and my opponent has offered no rebuttal, except, "That is YOUR definition of "just"! This is probably THE MOST important question that I have asked and you still have not answered it. My opponent tried to give the answer that "celibacy" would be an answer, but offered no scriptural evidence to show as of yet. 3) If our sexual orientation is NOT determined by our gender, how is it determined then? I feel compelled to post my opening argument again. My opponent has accused me throughout this entire debate of not being honest about the God and Holy Book that I was referring to. Here is my opening statement again: An AIS intersex person has a vagina, female breasts, and is hormonally more female than the average female. They also have internal testicles (sometimes external, but usually internal) and their DNA is male. They do NOT have ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, or cervix. If God is against gay marriage and you believe the Bible agrees with your position, how do you sustain the contradiction in light of science? In other words, they are clearly born with male and female parts, which sex should THEY marry? Their DNA is 100% male. Outwardly, they appear female and are almost always attracted to men. If God is so caught up on our sexual orientation, and says marriage is only for male and female, what is a person with this condition to do? We know that God is a "just" God according to the Bible so he would not make a law or rule for one person and not another. These people are clearly born this way and through no fault of their own, are forced to deal with this dilemma. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...... I would like to remind the audience that I am the one that picked the content of the debate and was posing the challenge, not the other way around. My opponent was supposed to answer the questions in the opening statement and he never did. I have shown that a just God could not make a law about "not committing homosexuality", call himself "just", and create people with both sexes! They will be gay and straight with anyone that they are with. Could God not make up His mind? Who would He expect them to choose for a mate? My opponent mentioned celibacy. God said in Genesis 2:18, "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone." Which is it? To close, my opponent accused me of ranting. I found that offensive. My opponent simply cannot understand that I can comprehend the Bible without believing that it is true. I dare say that I know the Bible better than than most, but I don't believe it is the Word of God. Since Christians consider it the ultimate authority, I agree to use it. Unfortunately for most of them, they don't really know what is in there. Thank you!