Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

All right, I feel that we've fallen a bit off topic in the last round and we're now taking turns attacking the straw man, the issue was if homosexuality is against what god has designed (since my opponent is so fixed on that part of the debate). My opponent must first explain what god has in fact designed, for he has not explained what gods plan is. He has built his entire case on the possibility of mistranslated verses and AIS. But, he has not considered that even if I where to concede that it is not mentioned it would still be sexually immoral. The fact that, according to my opponent, homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures does not mean that it is a part of gods design. However we can indirectly deduce that homosexuality is NOT a part of gods plan. I make the case for marriage:Wherever we see the mention of marriage in the scripture (no matter where it is) it is always described as a covenant between a man and a woman. (Genesis 2:22-24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Deuteronomy 24:5; Matthew 19:4-6; Corinthians 7:1-16;Mark 10:6-9; Ephesians 5:22-33). We can safely regard this as an indicator that the Lord wishes humans to pair off as man and wife, one sex for the other, as he is the husband of all humankind. If homosexuality would be a part of gods plan would he not have mentioned it somewhere, anywhere, in the scriptures since we're looking so close into it to begin with? As the second step: Since physical marriage is defined according to the bible as between a man and a woman it is logical to deduce that god did not intend homosexuals to marry. Since they cannot marry they have to stay abstinent for the scripture has on numerous occasions condemned sex out of wedlock; deeming it as immoral (Hebrews 13:4, along with certain verses cited here above). So being a homosexual is not a sin, just acting on it? Isn't that a bit strange? If sex out of marriage is sexually immoral, and marriage is not intended for homosexuals, we can see that practicing homosexuality is immoral. As we have already seen in various verses in this debate sexual immortality is a sin. If it is a sin then we must deduct that it is not according to gods plan. Now, on the issue of accurate translations, my opponent asked me why we should rather follow the latin version instead of the OT. What he forgot to make note of is that we don't even have a full original text. Hebrew has changed so often, with its creating spanning several millennial of oral preservation before finally enduring a few more millennium of constant rewriting and copies[1]. to say that the fragments we do have are any more reliable than the original latin scriptures is as sensible as saying that the 100th person in a giant game of whispers is more accurate than the 160th one. He of course may be closer to the word the game started out with, but the odds of him having the correct word is next to none. The Latin verses are often harmonious with the Hebrew texts to our understanding. The question should rather be “Why should we not trust in those translations?” The Vulgate bible was made only a couple of centuries after the OT in greek was written, why would it so suddenly change the stance on homosexuality changing it into the latin “Male bedfellows” which is a reference to homosexuality?What baffles me about my opponent is how he insists that millions of millions of bibles, all condemning homosexuality, are wrong translations. He has nowhere given us a cross reference proof that his interpretation of the scriptures is in fact correct. if we put the old testament beside the point for this round and ignore the old covenant and focus merely on the usage of the word arsenkoites. We already see that it is used in a passage where forbidden things are listed: And my opponent insists that it does not mean “homosexuals” but instead is a compound word for “bed” and “male” and uses the example of “Honeymoon”. If we would see that word standing by itself I'd agree that we cannot know what it means. But we also have usage and context. If we'd see honeymoon in a sentence where we where discussing marriage we could make the assumption that it has to do with it. We would know the general meaning, and that is enough. so, let's look at etymology and context. We'll accept [male + bed] are the two correct words . we must still ponder what it means. saying “we don't know what it means, so it must mean something else, what it means doesn't matter” won't do here. In order to disprove one theory we must have a counter theory. The word appears only a miniscule amount of times in the NT (Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 mainly) and if we remove the word from the context we get the following passage:“Do not be deceived: Neither [...] adulterers nor male prostitutes nor <malebed> nor thieves [...] will inherit the kingdom of God. “ We see that these are all sinful things: so we can strike out that our word means something good. So, we have to find a sinful thing that includes a male and a bed. Male prostitution is also out, for it has already been mentioned just before the word appears; μαλακa2;ς which has a Greek root for the word “soft.” since it does not mean soft in this context (“thou shall not be soft!' does not make for a convincing sin”) it has been argued that it was used to describe the receiving partner in a homosexual relationship. since it is placed after “adulterers” and preceding our own “Bedmen” we should conclude that it to deals with sexual immortality, and in this case a term used for male that feminize themselves to attract male customers. [2] another argument for the homosexual context of that word is the bible of Paul [Septuagint] and how it uses the term in other places. In the Septuagint we find Leviticus 20:13 we again see the two words standing together[3]: O40;ρσενος κοP55;την which later came together and formed arsenkoites. If we then directly translate the verse word by word:“and who sleep with male bed [as with] women, abominable [...] both death [...]” here the word combination is being used to apparently describe homosexuality, and as such it is reasonable to assume it also means that in our first example Bedmen refers to something sexually immoral based on the context of the words preceding it. What does It mean if it isn't referring to homosexuality? Now, my opponent asked me a great deal of questions: so let's weed out those mute or are stating the same: 4 is mute, it's the question of free will against gods will. 5 is answered; with barely a bible in existence agrees with his translation of the OT, why would we accept the least popular translation?6) OC and NC both have verses pertaining to homosexuality in all translations, I've already show that it is more than likely that it is against gods plan in NC. Showing that NC condemns it makes this argument beside the point.7 is not supporting my opponent, it's a strawman. the context of each word changes despite the word staying “almost” the same. In 1Cor. We see that we're discussing custom, as we accidentally agreed on. However in romans the usage of the word is being presented alongside “function”, not “incline”[4]. Numerous translations of the word usage indicate that we're talking about sexual function, not orientation and as such it isn't custom.8 is answered.1-3 are all AIS arguments: So let's run quickly trough it: Putting beside the fact that homosexuality is a “moral problem” whilst AIS is a medical problem. Genesis 1:26 stated "And God created man in His image, in His likeness; male and female He created them....and it was very good." Where did the lord intend for AIS to happen? Where are the scriptural evidence that they are a work of god? We see in the genesis that in the beginning all was good, and no plagues nor mutations affected humankind. Since my opponent has not addressed theistic evolution which would on it's own explain mutations I'll add onto it the creationist view. In Genesis 3:17 and onward god cursed all of mankind and evicted them from Eden, and it was there where death, disease, and mutations came to be. With that in mind we see both from T.evo. And creat. That AIS, a disorder, was not a part of gods perfect plan; To use them in the case of homosexuality is as valid as saying leprosy was only intended by god in order to show that Christ can heal. God, as shown in the Genesis, wished for us to have a single gender identity. AIS have a wide array of methods to identify with one gender or the other. What my opponent is failing to realize is that gender is NOT solely based on what sex organs you have: If I am born without a genital for some odd reason, do I have no gender? No, because I might have a strong jawline and identify as a male. Hence I submit myself to the male role within god, but do not identify as genderless. Now, my opponent has mostly been on the offensive, but for his case to hold he too has the same burden of proof, and as such I'd like these questions answered: 1: What is god's plan precisely?2: How can one practise homosexuality without going against the gods two-sex marriage agenda; and thus becoming sexually immoral and sin?3: Is homosexuality only a sin if it is acted upon? Are all homosexuals to be abstinent?4: Why is the hebrew fragmented version, that has been rewritten and preserved orally for millennia from it's creation be any more accurate than the latin versions written few kin after?5: If homosexuality is in fact not a sin, why is it so that next to all bibles written that we understand condemn it in some form?6: what do the words arsenkoites AND malakos mean in the context they are used without implying or condemning homosexuality?7. why does “moral gender” matter less than “physical gender"? 1-http://www.truthnet.org...2-http://www.robgagnon.net...3-http://www.ellopos.net...4-http://carm.org...