Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

Final Round so I'll try to not reach limit, Lets start with this fact, 1, My opponent agrees only Anal sex is condemned in Leviticus, no lesbianism, as proven later Lyings of Woman is a Specific Sexual act, not simple and general sexual relations, 2, Where there is no law, there is no transgression, "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." -Romans 4:15 "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law." -Romans 5:13 "If God held homosexuality back from them then that would show God disapproved of homosexuality." He didn't hold back Homosexuality, He used it as punishment to them, Romans 1:27:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "The wording used is 'as he lieth with a woman' and this phrase has many meanings and not one as my opponent suggest. " Lyings of woman in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 do not refer to sex in general but a specific act, that being, lyings of woman, which is Penetration. Anal penetration only is condemned, my opponent even agreed with me in Round 3, and I quote, "I do not reject my opponents rendeering of the verses in Hebrew or their wording. I do conflict with his interpretation of them." So if my opponent agrees that Anal sex(lyings of woman) is condemned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 so he has no basis for Homosexuality being a sin in Leviticus, only a condemnation of a specific sex act, like the specific sex act of sex during menstration with a woman. We can agree that if all homosexual behavior is condemned because 1 specific homosexual act is condemned, then all heterosexual behavior is condemned because several specific heterosexual acts, we don't use that logic in reality. "This phrase can mean any sexual action that a man would do with a woman. " Actually it cannot, Lyings of woman is a Specific sexual act, it's penetration even Hebrews agree, http://www.jewishmosaic.org... ". And where is a man penetrable? Here the rabbis make use of the fact that the word lyings is in the plural form. The lyings of a woman are plural because she may be penetrated vaginally or anally. A man, missing the vagina, is singly penetrable anally. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning." So if it's not in the law, it is never condemned. Lesbianism is never condemned in law, therefore it's no transgression, likewise Male Homosexuality. so he reduces his argument to dust there as he has 2 ways, 1, Refute As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul. The author writes: "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (KJV) KJV, "God created man and woman and not two men or two women. He did this because humans needed to procreate and they were both suitable help mates. This point shows intent by God on what should be." Which is true, did I argue that Homosexuality was the intent? No, I'm arguing Homosexuality isn't a sin. YHWH didn't intend for example people to be blind, have leprosy , or cancer, should we say that since that's not how YHWH intended it, that it's a sin to be blind, have leprosy, or cancer? No. likewise with Homosexuality, YHWH didn't intend it, but it still isn't a sin. My Opponent AGAIN uses 1 Corinthians 7 as his case for his "atheistic" doctrine against pre-marital sex, which has been refuted, "My opponent was right that this passage refers to prostitution but it also addresses pre-marital sex." No it doesn't, you just admitted it "My opponent was right that this passage refers to prostitution" Watch this, my opponent uses 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, yet doesn't include verse 6!, 3 It is God"s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b] Watch this, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." This a quotation that Paul is addressing, Paul refutes this by saying, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." What's Paul telling a husband and wife? to "come together again(Have sex again) so you do not get tempted to commiit Premarital sex? No no, this was to a married person, so that they do not get tempted to Sexual Immorality/Prostitution, you can't have premarital sex if you're already married, my opponent makes himself look silly here. The passage as proven speaks of practicing self control so yoi do not commit evil like the pagans, nothing speaks of Pre-marital sex you present a false doctrine. "It is clear that the Bible prefers one to deprive oneself of sexual relations." Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." My opponent proves himself to be someone who rejects YHWH's creation, which is blasphemy. And even Paul recommends to have sex in order to avoid immoral sex such as pagan prostitution, " each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2 ROMAN 1:26-27 My opponent is right that God punished the Romans for their idolatry." Amen, my opponent continously mentions that I am correct, why should we take his argument serious? "He further tells us that scholars have shown that Bible says pre-marital sex is not a sin but gives us no link or quote." I reached character limit last round, here's the Source, http://www.unc.edu... http://www.gaychristian101.com... Modern day interpretation of Romans 1 has been different in earilest times, then people ascribed it to lesbianism as, Watch, *** One early Christian writer, Anastasios, clearly dismisses the view that Paul was referring to lesbianism in his comments on Romans 1:26: Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n) *** Augustine continues this line of thought (fairly explicitly): But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." quoting Romans 1:26 (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)" and this makes sense because as proven no law in The Bible prohibits Homosexuality, as proven Leviticus's Lyings of woman from Jew Sources means Specific Anal sex only, so it makes sense for Romans to not be about lesbianism or even Homosexuality My Opponent continues to insist that "lyings of woman" means general sex, this has been refuted by the fact that Sanhedrin and Jew Sources say Lyings of Woman is specificlaly plural because it's only penetration. We have no reason to vote con. he uses unreasonable logic and faulty assumptions, Vote Pro not because you like me or because you agreed with me before hand, or even because of how I debated, but on the facts alone which I have provided. YHWH Bless.