Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

I'll accept this challenge and will be playing the devil's advocate and state that Homosexuality is against nature and what God has designed. Let's begin, shall we? What are we debating?Ladies and gentlemen, readers of the debate. What is homosexuality? All right, perhaps we don't need to define that one, It's the sexual orientation of longing to love someone of your own sex. This is a large topic of controversy and has mostly be religious in nature; as given by the fact that my opponent has included gods plan in the resolution. The resolution is a double resolution, which means that in order for my opponent to win the debate he must prove that homosexuality is NEITHER against nature nor gods plan. If I manage to defend either of the two it means that my opponent cannot prove it and thus has lost. I'll start by knocking the religious part out of this debate as quickly as possible. I'd like all readers of the debate to take note that this debate is NOT concerning if homosexuality is wrong or immoral. We're simply debating if it is against nature and also against gods plan.WHAT HAS GOD DESIGNED? My opponent starts by asking me to provide at least one verse where homosexuality is condemned. So, to get that out of the way:Leviticus 18:22: „You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.“1 Corinthians 6:9-11: „Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [...] will inherit the kingdom of God. [...]“Romans 1:26-28: „For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. [...]; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. [...]“Leviticus 20:13: „If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination[...]“1 Timothy 1:10: „The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine“ [1] There we have 5 verse where homosexual relations are outcast and are a sinful act. In direct response to the resolution where it is stated that homosexuality is against what god has designed, we can look at another passage and see what god had envisioned when it comes to love and marriage:1 Corinthians 7:1-40: „[...] each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. [...]“ Here we see that god has wished that each man would pair off with each woman, for they can become one flesh at the end of time.[2] So half of the resolution has fallen, it is not part of gods plan to allow homosexuality to exist. My opponent has to properly give reasons and properly define why it isn't a part of gods plan in order to protect the resolution as a whole. Now, because this isn't the main weight of the resolution let's go to the part where it is against nature to be a homosexual. The natural process of love. To find out if it is unnatural to be a homosexual we need to find out what is the true purpose of love and sexual orientation. According to evolution love must be a result of the animals desire to reproduce and then care for his young, it's only logical, the parents that care best for their young must therefore give it the most chances of surviving. An animal pair that cannot create offspring and care for it must therefore “fail” at evolution since none of their genes are returned to the gene pool in the next generation and ending their blood-line. Homosexuals, due to the nature of the act, cannot have children of their own. They can adopt children and care for them, but it will never be their own biological children naturally, meaning that their bloodlines are ending and their genes are not passed on. Since they are thus avoiding the natural target and meaning of evolution they aren't in harmony with natures plan of making the strongest members survive and pass the genes on. They can only ever fulfil half of it by caring for someone else’s offspring and thus helping the species as a whole, but they aren't taking part in the evolution themselves. AIS hermaphrodites. My opponent made the interesting point that AIS patients shouldn't exist and that they are not in harmony with a plan that god may have created. This needs not be, that they are mealy an “accident.” let me explain, both from the godly view and the natural view.we assume that Theistic Evolution[3] is correct for the sake of the debate so we can include god in the equation. Theistic evolution suggests that the theory of evolution and the process attached to it are real but where initially started by god. So it's a giant domino, a system that was designed by god and from there has simply been kept in motion by it's own. If we assume that this is the truth then anything successfully produced by evolution can be considered part of gods plan while the remains that aren't successful evolution is simply a bi product and isn't a part of the plan, it was just created alongside it. So anything that is not beneficial to evolution is not beneficial to gods plan either. AIS [Androgen insensitivity syndrome] is a genetic disorder where the XY chromosome in the fetus is unresponsive to Androgens, collectively and incorrectly called the male hormones since they are much more abundant in males. With this immunity the children will not develop correct sexual organs; the female remnants of the genitals do not get correctly transformed and relocated to form male genitals except to a limited degree, meaning that they can be classified as female, but are genetically male. Male if the condition is really limited or a strange cross between both. There are two problems with this: Neither are a case for the resolution. AIS is a genetic disorder, which means that it is not a natural phenomenon in the human body. It is formed by accident so to speak. Unless the disorder is incredibly mild all patients are infertile. They can be wonderful human beings, be a perfect stereotype of the gender they choose and be a perfect benefit to society, but as far as actually producing natural offspring they lack a few dimes to the dollar. Since they are infertile they cannot produce offspring and cannot carry their own genes down the species bloodline. Their evolutionary paths end and they aren't consistent with the evolutionary plan of “survival of the fittest”. And since they do not benefit evolution they do not benefit god's plan either and thus aren't an argument for my opponent. To conclude. My opponent, in order to win the debate, must successfully answer and defend the following points Homosexuality is natural (or at least, it isn't against nature) What has god designed how does homosexuality fit in with what god has designed He must also remember that this is a duo resolution and that he must be able to defend both parts of the resolution in order to win this debate.Homosexuality isn't a bad thing, far from it, it is just as beautiful and loving as any other form of love. But we've seen that it has no evolutionary purpose when it comes to spreading our genes and we see that god isn't the greatest fan you'll get. My opponent must show us that indeed we're misinterpreting the holy verses and that evolution, nature, has more properties to it than just surviving, just evolving. My opponent must show us that there is a fine line, that homosexual orientations are in fact a part of the universal plan. 1]http://www.openbible.info...2]http://www.openbible.info...3]http://en.wikipedia.org...4] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...