AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage

To open his final round, my opponent claims to have cited his claim on translations - unfortunately, he has not. He has cited words, but he has not sourced what Hebrew version he is using in any of these verses. Voters need to take this into account. To refute his claim, however, in the Halakha - the body of Jewish law[1] - homosexuality is forbidden based on the Leviticus verses.[2] In addition, the Mishneh Torah - a Hebrew translation of the Torah written by Maimonidies, one of the most well-known Torah scholars[3] - specifically forbids both male and female homosexuality and marriage in Halacha 21:8 and 21:18, using those verses in Leviticus as proof.[4] This is the same section that discusses the immorality of incest, adultery, and bestiality.[4]If my opponent's claim is correct, and the Hebrew text does not forbid them, wouldn't those who know Hebrew the most - the Jewish people - be on the forefront of correcting it, not listing it among sexual misconduct and crimes? My opponent's only response to this is that Jews 'hate gays' because they are different. Never mind that, assuming his is correct, ignoring this would be twisting and changing what they perceive as the literal commandment of God. The Jewish people might be able to tolerate that (after all, the Bible notes many times where they turned away from God's law), but rabbis? I doubt it. The logic just doesn't make sense - it's all assumptions on my opponent's part, and you know what they say about assumptions.Next, my opponent attempts to argue that the Word of God does not change but his laws do and the OT laws are abolished. He does this by making several bizarre claims: among them, he quotes part of the Bible that says Jesus did not abolish the OT law, and then argues that since the law was abolished (even though he established that it wasn't), homosexuality is OK. Never mind all those pesky NT verses that establish marriage as one man, one woman, or those that condemn homosexuality.After this, my opponent claims that Romans does not condemn 'loving homosexual relationships' because it 'isn't sinful'. This is utter garbage because I have already established homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, and Romans 1 does indeed condemn homosexuals ("For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 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.") He then claims that I am supposed to prove that homosexuality in every situation is sinful. For the umpteenth time, my opponent attempts to change the debate resolution: nowhere in this debate was I supposed to prove homosexuality is wrong, because this is not a debate on homosexuality. It is a debate on whether or not AIS intersex individuals prove God endorses gay marriage. What does the morality of gay sex have to do with AIS intersex people proving God's stance on gay marriage? The fact of the matter is, it doesn't.Next, my opponent commits a straw man fallacy by falsely defining my argument. He says "my opponent has not shown how he reconciles the Bible with the AIS condition. He has not explained how we are to determine our sexual orientation if it is not done by our gender. If we have 2 genders, what are we to do?". Aside from having no standing on gay marriage (my opponent hasn't even bothered to establish why the existence of AIS people proves God supports gay marriage), this is a blatant lie because in round 1 I clearly stated that there are numerous alternatives: for example, there could be a religious exemption for these individuals (something I clearly established has precedent in the Torah and Koran), they could be called to celibacy (something my opponent has assaulted me on, but has never proven why it isn't a viable option), or there could be no God. My opponent is trying to pigeonhole me into a position I have not taken and is ignoring key points of my argument. Add onto that his false claim that he defined 'God' in the first round and this establishes my opponent is being deceptive in his debate tactics. From there he claims that he believes the Bible isn't the word of God (despite him continually quoting in, the debate by his own retroactive definition being dependent on it). Then, he claims there is "no way" to reconcile the Bible with AIS. Well, guess what - I already have. Multiple times. You've just ignored all of them because you can't handle the truth.Next, my opponent has defined the word 'just' to give his definition of a 'just God'. Naturally, he doesn't explain how it is unjust for AIS individuals to have a religious exemption or be celibate - he already ignored the first and ranted about the last.After this, my opponent once again gives his three questions. These questions are designed to ignore my debate points: for example, question 1 has already been superseded by me suggesting AIS individuals could have a religious exemption. My opponent has never bothered to debate this argument (and probably can't effectively do so), so he designs the question to ignore it. The second question is just as deceptive: he's claiming intersex people are born with 'both genders' (they aren't), acts like my 'entire argument' is based on gender (it's not). Once again, my opponent creates a big straw man and ignores my actual point. My argument has actually not even addressed the topic of gender at all but my opponent's acts like it is all I talk about. He claims God is 'just', but never explains why it would be unjust under God's law for AIS people to remain celibate. He's explained why he thinks it is wrong, but never establishes why God thinks it is wrong, and that's a big distinction. Question 3 isn't even worth answering because it has nothing to do with the debate premise.After literally re-posting his entire first round argument (easy to do because it is short and shallow), he claims it is 'offensive' for me to accuse him of ranting. Given the definition of rant is to " speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way" and the example sentence is "she was still ranting about the unfairness of it all",[5] I think describing my opponent as ranting is entirely appropriate. After all, where in this debate has he actually been focusing on the resolution? He's mostly been yelling about how wrong it would be (under his definition of wrong) for AIS people to remain celibate, claiming the Bible doesn't oppose homosexuality in contrast to its words, and accusing the evil Bible publishing companies of putting in all the stuff about homosexuality. He also claims I cannot comprehend the form of his attack (I can, and it is pretty weak) and claims I am ignorant about the Bible. That, I will leave to the voters. If you, after reading this debate, have been honestly convinced through my opponent's changing debate resolutions and definitions, poor conduct, rants on Bible manufacturers, and arguments that are contradictory, irrelevant to the debate (or both), that AIS interesex people prove God endorses gay marriage, by all means vote Pro. If you've come from this debate realizing my opponent's stance is not accurate, that there are other legitimate (and very much more sensible) options, and that my opponent never refuted any meaningful points of mine vote Con.References:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. https://www.chabad.org...5. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...