Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

Contradicting bible: First off: My opponent is making blunt shots at me stating that the scripture is contradicting itself: that notion is aimed directly at my opponents case where he himself used the contradicting nature of a certain bible as base for diminishing its value. I responded with the notion that all include contradictions, but since we're discussing theology with our soul evidence being scripture related it is the best we have since the passages we are discussing have nothing to do with these contradictions and thus are beside the point. My opponent also argues that the hebrew text is the most accurate and should be followed in this debate, but it too is unreliable according to your own case. Those things ARE mutually exclusive, we cannot accept both arguments. If we accept that the scripture is not valid a hyper-majority of this debate has gone invalid and mute; including my opponents case wherever he references the scripture. He also asked me to show contradictions in the Hebrew texts: I'd say three would suffice: ISA 14:21 shows example of children being punished for the sins of their fathers, while DEU 24:1 shows that each person cannot die for sins of their fathers. GEN 32:30 and EXO 33:11 describe god in situations where he could be seen face to face, whereas JOH 1:18 and EXO 33:20 both describe that no man can nor will see god's face. 2SA 6:23 describe Seul dying without children, whereas 2SA 21:8 describe her as having at least a single daughter. Along with this the creation of man vs animal is mixed between Gen1 and Gen2. All these contradictions are in the hebrew scriptures when translating word for word, but that doesn't mean that every single verse is invalid. This contradicts your case. Another contradiction is “just because they have been translated does not make them invalid.” Same argument can be used over each and every translation. If the scripture managed to stay intact for millennia without changes it is illogical that it would suddenly take an 180° turn in under 2 centuries when translating between languages. Another contradiction to your case from this argument is the whole law. If the scriptures are invalid so is the whole law in all its glory. Anyhow I already addressed that the whole law will be mute if arsen. Is a word over HoSe making it condemned under the NC. The general message is still intact, even if a few words went under the radar. Adoption: My opponent makes the interesting case of adoption to prove that gods plan isn't always written in the scripture. Unfortunately for his case adoption is mentioned, often, always in a positive light[1]. When it comes to single mother adoptions specifically we can indirectly deduce from other parts of the scripture. For instance, we know that Moses is adopted by a single woman. There are no inducting verses that make us think that his adoptive mother was married. Yet Moses was favoured by god indicating that adoption is blessed no matter the parent. The truth is indirect deductions often have to suffice when it comes to scriptures, and indirectly we see that homosexuality is not favoured. Creator of all things: Now, God may have created all things, by that does not mean he endorses them. He created casinos and diseases, leprosy and alzheimer's, muggers and murderers, disasters and infertility. Yet he endorses none of these things. Homosexuality is not endorsed. What my opponent and I do not agree on is if it is mentioned anywhere, I state that it is mentioned both indirectly (m-f) and with arsenkoites. Polygamy: It is ironic that my opponent cites 2 Sam 5:13, the king David. He had 700 wives, but the lord did not allow it, for this behaviour lead his son, Solomon, astray from god: “He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God “. we also see the Jesus explained divorce being allowed not because god endorsed it, but because men where hard of heart and easily tempted if we may put it that way: “He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. “ laws may change, but they don't do so without us actually getting a notifier on it. Nowhere is it said that homosexuality has been allowed, which was already forbidden indirectly and directly. Neither is unjust divorce nor polygamy nor remarriage. He did mention it, you're just arguing that he did not, I never conceded to that point except for the sake of argument, I am arguing that he did mention it and wasn't silent, as already shown. Nowhere did my opponent prove that laws do change without a reason or without a notice. It is always man that changes the law. Bedmale: The issue with Arsen and Mala is that they are not without meaning. I've already made the case why they should mean what I think they mean but my opponent's core rebuttal is “you cannot know so you're wrong.” Why am I wrong? The contexts suggests homosexuals, the etymology suggests homosexuals, the usage of the two words making Arsen. are used in a verse condemning homosexuals in other places, why is it not homosexuals? There are no indicators of it meaning anything else, so why would it mean something else? My opponent has not properly refuted the claim that the words mean what they mean, and as such they are the most likely answer meaning god DID condemn SSM both directly and indirectly with M+F verses. AIS: On AIS, for it is the base of my opponents case: When I listed the “likely criteria” for gender responses I was simply taking what usually cuts genders apart. However, my opponent is mixing up “having two sexual organs” and “being of both sexes.” as hard as you'll try and defend that claim the truth is AIS are all of either sex. There are not many that identify as both, usually they pick one and other. And even changing the sex is relatively rare: as I already cited in my last round only a few PAIS patients decide that they where assigned the incorrect gender, meaning your hormone tests are in my favour as they reveal the “true” gender of that person with an alarming success rate. The issue is that they are only one, they are either homosexuals or not. Biologically, they are one gender. Mentally, they are one gender. The only issue is that their body is defective and partially unresponsive to androgens. I may be feminine, but I identify as a male. Hormone testing show I am male, genetic testing show I'm male, my brain is male even If it is relaxed even if I am sensitive and artistic. That's where my opponent's argument falls together, because the co-presence of certain organs does not decide one's sex. There are more variables to it than that and your gender identity is one along with your preferences and wishes. God makes no mistakes, but it is ours to understand his will and ask for his forgiveness if we go against it. Final rebuttals1) they won't, I already gave the arguments, they are only one gender that show the outward signs of two. On a mental and biological level they still operate as a single gender with disrupted function when it comes to the sexual organs and forming the outward body. Since they are a single gender the problem is eliminated.2)The same way he created leprosy, or cancer, alzheimer's, blindness and schizophrenia. It is a disorder, our bodies are not perfect and our own biological functions betray us. On the topic of theistic evolution, which my opponent never refuted or even commented on in r2-3, any disorders are accounted for as side effects of god's creation. Ais has already been discussed in this light3) Heb. Is irrelivent for it only abolishes the old law. Romans is tied with Gala and Gala is answered as so:I already made It clear that the new covenant makes note of Male and female exclusive marriage with anything out of wedlock be a sin, god has yet to change that as far as we know. I also made the case for Arsen which would show that the NC did condemn SSM. Gala was a basis for all other law4)See above in 1-2 and the chapter before that. TO CONCLUDE: Unlike a lot of things that did exist as the bible existed few are under as much controversy as homosexuality. As you, our charming readers of DDO, may have noticed god's stance on the matter is somewhat blurry. Is he silent on the matter? Does he indirectly forbid it? Does Arsenkoites matter in the case or does it not? Both me and my opponent have made good cases, but I believe that the scriptures are not in favour of the act, and that god's plan is undefined in my opponents case. We have seen how god seems to prefer males and females falling in love, and we have seen how homosexuality is discouraged in the few places it does surface in the written word whether in translations or the original text according to my case. We see how a species full of homosexuals would go extinct and we see how god who wishes us to survive, multiply and prosper would wish us to pair off and love long and create a large family. Now, dear voters of this debate: I wish that you keep a perfectly neutral PoV as you read trough this debate and I'd wish that your own opinions on Same sex marriage do not interfere with your votes, nor your opinion of god, AIS or the scripture. For we are not discussing the validly of these things, we're not discussing if homosexuality is immoral or “wrong”, only if god made way for them in their plans, if god would allow them. The existence of god is irrelevant as is if Ssm is moral outside Christianity. I ask readers to keep this in mind as they vote. With that I thank Pro for a challenging and entertaining debate and wish you all a good night. 1-http://www.gotquestions.org...