homosexuality isn't a sin

1) False ClaimsI have not provided one single straw man argument, as I have directly replied to each of your claims. I have not made any assumptions about what you think or have claimed that you made implications toward something. Those are pretty much the two surefire ways of someone making a straw man argument. If I have made a straw man argument, please feel free to directly quote me to prove it. As for your claim of me using a shotgun argument, I once again disagree. I have directly responded to each of your claims. I have not peppered in extra arguments or material. 2*) Defining Arsenokoitai/ArsenokoitesLexicons are extremely important when conducting a lexical analysis. I have provided the proof that all modern Greek lexicons define arsenokoitai/arsenokoites as "homosexuals"/"homosexual activities." On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single argument as to why all Greek lexicons, to my knowledge, are incorrect. I am more than willing to admit if I am wrong, but you have not made any refutation to the lexical definitions given in Englishman's Concordance, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc.The Hebrew word toebah is always translated as "abomination," "loathsome," "detestable," etc. It is never translated as "ritually unclean" in any of its 117 occurrences in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs has this to say:toebah – (n) abomination2. ethical sense:b. to God and his people: unchasity Leviticus 18:224*) Parsing Physiken I was not claiming that "physuken" is used in Romans 11:21, as that is not even a real Greek transliteration. Physin is used in Romans 11:21, which means "nature." Physiken is used in Romans 1:26-27 to mean "natural." Your Google Books source does not bring anything up on my computer other than the Google Books homepage. So I cannot make any comments on the source itself. However, your use of the suffix to make physiken in Romans 1:26-27 an active voice is not correct. Englishman's Concordance rightly parses physiken in Romans 1:26-27 as an adjective accusative feminine singular. It does not declare it to be an active voice. 5) Examining 1 Samuel 18:20-21Why is my translation not supported? If anything, it agrees with what you said. The KJV is one of the few that disagrees with what you said. As for your conclusion that Johnathan must be the one he is talking about, read the text again:"So Saul said: 'I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philistines may come upon him.' Saul then said to David a second time: 'You will form a marriage alliance with me today.'" (NW)The reason why it is the "second time" is because it is the second time the declaration had been made. 1 Samuel 18:21 is in reference to his daughter Michal, which is explained in verse 20:"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him." (NW)As for my translation of 1 Samuel 20:30, it is also correct. You made no argument against it other than what you think it should be. If you have a problem with my translation, then prove it to be incorrect in the Hebrew. 6*) Defining RachamYou are incorrect in regards to racham. This word does not mean "to fondle." Rather, it means "compassion." Your definition is in regards to lexical number 7355, which is not in Daniel 1:9. The lexical number referencing "tender love" in verse 9 is lexical number 7356.7) Examining Matthew 5:17-20Name one scholar that supports the claim that ceremonial laws, outside of principle, are to be continued to this day. Specifically in regards to Matthew 5:17-20. I am not appealing to higher authority, but I am appealing to what the Bible actually teaches.Conclusion:Most of your arguments are either mistaken, dishonest, or not supported by sources. All refutations to my claims have been addressed and proven to insufficiant. Sources:[2*] http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com...[3*] http://biblehub.com...[4*] http://biblehub.com...[6*] http://biblehub.com...