Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

I shall spend my time here answering my opponent's questions, but I'm afraid I will not have time to get to Naomi and Ruth and thus that argument is to be stricken from context and to become null and void.If you excuse me, I'm going to be answering these out of order a bit. 3. As Sodom's homosexuality during the time before the law of Moses was condemned, how can it be justified? Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)I started this question by giving a Biblical verse where God tells his people to rape those who the military defeats. Now, before you come at me like an evil mob we have to observe one key thing here. In the Biblical times rape was a form of punishment that would occur after the battle. Not just to the women, but the men of the defeated military. This wasn't just to be immoral, but this, as God has permitted, allowed as a form of humiliation of the defeated nation. God was angry with Sodom not because of the fact that the two men wanted rape him, but rather to punish Sodom due to the fact that he was punished for no reason. That's like in the 1800s when blacks were lynched and they never committed a crime. It has the same corrilation. You see many times throughout the Bible that reference Sodom and Gamorrah out of the Hospitality example, NOT homosexuality and rape. Pro brings up Leviticus, but let's look at it litterally and apply it to today's society. If women are on their periods do they have to go live elsewhere, because they are unclean? Are we forbidden from wearing polyester blends? Are we forbidden from eating shelfish? The answer is simply no. Leviticus was not meant to be take litterally. We can easily look throughout the Bible and see that at the beginning of Genesis and see that the World is not created once, but twice. How did that happen? Did God mess-up and decided to take a mallet and destroy the world to start again? The answer is no. The Torah, first five books of the Bible, was created during the Hebrew exodus to Babaylon and more likely then not we can see that it was a tribal collection. 4th Centurary Christian Bishop Origin showed that the Bible isn't meant to be taken litterally as the Bible would be confusing. He showed that the early Bible was that of an Allegory. Unless my opponent can tell me that we exile women who are ovulating and can't where polyester blends than my opponent cannot take leviticus seriously. I also extend across my Leviticus and Kedoshim arguments. 1. Why did Jesus begin answering the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” by bringing up how “from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’”? [two is also involved] Ironically, this was also partially answered and was one of the first things that I went over. We can see that this was actually a coming of age story of androgyne which is supported by Bishop Origin. We can see that in context Jesus is refurring to Genesis 2:21-24 where Eve came from the rib of Adam. This was a connection point showing that Eve separeated from Adam at that moment and through a [heterosexual] marriage they rejoin. After the rejoinment there should be no reason that they should separate. It has no regards to homosexuality. The answer to number two is similiar to what I had argued under my Genesis argument. There really isn't a change, but we simply have to look at Plato's theory on this. He showed that this was an allegorical story showing that the children are to leave their parents and find their better half, whether this is a man, women, transgender, hermaphordite, or whoever.My question here is that if "homosexuality" is condemned by the Bible then what is of those who are transgender or hermaphordites (those born as XXY)? 4. Since Jesus's apostles condemned homosexuality, how can we say the Bible doesn't condemn it?First, I would like to address 1 Cor 6:9-10. My opponent has misinterperated the Bible, again let's turn to the Hebrew language to retranslate to what it really says. The word used is malakoi which translates to soft. Meaning that Paul was saying that those who are soft will not make it into heaven. We all know that he wasn't talking about the Philsbury Dough boy, so what was he talking about. The Greeks Generally used the term to mean lazy, degenerate, or lacking courage. [1] To move on to Romans 1:26-27. We can see that this was taken out of context. Here we can see that this is a speach that Paul is reading to condemn a lifestyle of idoltry and that is when the Jews started to chant "Yes, yes, they are guilty." Then Paul sprung on them Romans 2:1, " You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Thus we have Romans 3:23, " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Meaning that if what Pro is saying is true, then all of us are homosexuals and are thus to burn in hell as such. Though we know that isn't the case.I extend all arguments across the board and since I have ran out of characters I will now pass things off to my opponent.Non-Biblical Sourcing1. Dale B. Martin, Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meaning and Consequences (Source: Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley; Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, 1996), page 124. Nissinen also offers “frailty of body or character, illness, sentimentality, or moral weakness” as other possibilities for the meaning of this word in other contexts (page 117).