Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

My opponent made the statement that he would appreciate it if I would cite my sources better. I have been listing them throughout the debate and while I'm making my points, rather than listing them at the end. I will offer rebuttals to my opponents arguments: He said he didn't know if he could trust my Hebrew translation, but the source of validity comes from (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526) As for issues in translations, I will agree that there are in fact, many interpretations and translations of the Greek and Hebrew text. My opponent later made reference to the Vulgate Bible written in Latin. We must understand that the Bible was nor originally written in LATIN! It was written in Greek and Hebrew. Obviously, they would be the most accurate translations. My opponent also stated that "we are forced to accept the most common and popular translation". Based on what? Popularity? I think not. The NIV version is one of the most popular and accepted translations on the planet, but MANY would argue that it is not the most accurate. I have offered a reliable source to back up my claim about the word, "bedding" in Leviticus. My opponent has not refuted my claim. Quoting a different translation of the Bible is not evidence that his translation is the most accurate. I challenge my opponent to show why we should accept the Latin translation over the Hebrew, when the Hebrew was the original language. The New Covenant: I would make the argument that the law IS relevant to this debate. While it's true that loving yourself does not refer to sex or sexual meaning, it certainly can refer to you NOT loving your neighbor or spouse. If you cheat on your spouse, it is not loving. My opponent quoted Matthew, obviously Jesus was alive and had not been crucified yet. His crucifixion had not taken place and been "fulfilled" yet. That is why right before He died, he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30) Then the temple curtain tore and God and His people were no longer divided. THAT is why we are no longer under the law and the verse you quoted only applied to the people BEFORE Christ's death. Romans 6:14, "We are no longer under the law, but under grace.." Otherwise, how do YOU explain Romans 10:4 without contradicting yourself and the Bible? How do you explain Hebrews 8:13? These verses must be dealt with by my opponent. I challenge my opponent to show a verse in the Bible that says what hes says it does. Where does it say we are still under the law, but we are not under punishment through Christ? I have offered scriptural evidence. My opponent is offering a LOT of spiritual opinions, but not backing up his claims with the Bible. Last of all, if we are still under the old laws, my opponent would need to explain why we are no longer encouraged to obey ALL the laws in Leviticus; for example, not eating shellfish, wearing more than one type of fabric, ect.. My opponent accused me of "pointing out the correct meaning" of the Greek translation of "arsenkoites" I have already gone on record stating that NO ONE knows for certain what that word means. He also said that we can "guess proof". What evidence does he have of that? We are dealing with facts, not guesses. He gave an example of a "compound phrase". The problem is that we are not dealing with a "compound phrase", but a compound WORD. I gave the example of "honeymoon". If you saw that word for the first time and had no previous context, you more than likely would not be able to "guess" the meaning. Furthermore, male prostitution was common in those times and the Bible DOES speak against promiscuity and prostitution and not necessarily homosexual ones either. SO, this verse in 1 Cor and 1 Tim does not prove anything about homosexuality. My opponent is offering speculation because of the "popularity" of translations, not evidence. My point of bringing up the word, "natural" was not to prove that it was "right" or "wrong". It was to refute the notion that my opponent was implying that homosexuality is not "natural" or "found in nature". I was in reality, making 2 different points. I was also pointing out that it was not "custom" at the time or in Jewish tradition for man to be with a man. I would also add that long hair is the issue here, not "ornamental locks" as my opponent suggests. Paul was writing to the Romans, not the Greeks. Furthermore, he was addressing the Gentiles AND Jews. My opponent's source only speculates, but makes it clear that they are not certain their interpretation is correct. They state, "..we cannot cross-reference other passages to see how the word (Kamao) was used in other contexts. The author of this passage WAS LIKELY referring to the Greek custom of women who would pile their hair on top of their heads." My opponent completely missed the point. Even if that was the correct translation, "nature" still does not control the issue of hair. It still had to do with "custom" and this source actually agrees with me. I have just proven this. One last thing about homosexuality and animals; my opponent tried to make the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural", all I was doing was pointing out that it IS found in nature. It does not matter WHY animals do it, since animals are not equal to humans. AIS INTERSEX: Here is what we know for certain that the Bible says: 1) God created male and female (Genesis 5:2) 2) God is a "just" God. My definition of "just" comes from https://bible.org...... "While the most common Old Testament word for just means "straight," and the New Testament word means "equal," in a moral sense they both mean "right." When we say that God is just, we are saying that He always does what is right, what should be done, and that He does it consistently, without partiality or prejudice. The word just and the word righteous are identical in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sometimes the translators render the original word "just" and other times "righteous" with no apparent reason (cf. Nehemiah 9:8 and 9:33 where the same word is used). But whichever word they use, it means essentially the same thing. It has to do with God"s actions. They are always right and fair." 3) "God is not the author of confusion." 1 Cor 14:33 My opponent gave the explanation that everyone sins, so it does not really matter what mate they choose, so the point is dull. He still needs to prove HOW we sin. I have already offered Biblical evidence of how we sin (Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4) He said, "The Lord will help them identify as one another if they are in doubt." Reference please? My opponent has made some interesting assumptions. He said that if AIS people fall in love, they could choose the sex they act more like or the gender they look like. How do you know that is the correct way to determine gender? Again, my opponent offered no evidence to support this view. What Biblical evidence do you have to support this theory? You mentioned hormone therapy or surgeries. What about the people that do not have access to that, or the people born before these services were provided? Would God make these people wait for technology? My opponent defined what a heterosexual and homosexual person is. I agree with those definitions. What I do NOT agree with is my opponents theory that, "They choose the mate their own physical dominant gender suggests and if they are true to their choice they have been forgiven, as the rest of us. They must do what they feel the most fits them and the lord will forgive them on the account of their defect for it is not their sin." Why does it have to be physical? Most people argue that genetics or DNA determines what sex a person is. These individuals are born with male AND female parts. Genetically, they are more male, hormonally, they are more female. As for my opponent's verse about the blind man, blindness is never addressed as a "sin" issue, just like homosexuality never was. To conclude, my opponent still has not answered the following questions and refuted the following comments: 1) If our sexual orientation is determined by God, and he reveals what our orientation should be by our gender, what is one to do that is born with a vagina AND testicles? My opponent said, "They can be wonderful human beings, be a perfect stereotype of the gender they choose and be a perfect benefit to society?" What scriptural evidence does my opponent have to support that position? It is clearly opinion. 2) Why are THEY allowed to make choices about gender and others are not? Biblical evidence, please. 3) Who would this person choose as a mate without sinning if homosexuality is a sin? 4) Probably most importantly, how does one (anyone for that matter) determine their sexual orientation? 5) My opponent needs to show evidence of why we should accept the most "popular" and "accepted" translations over the original Greek and Hebrew. 6) Explain or show BIBLICAL evidence of why you believe we are still under the Old Law and we are no longer punished under the New law. 7) Explain why "nature" had to do with biology in Romans 1 and not in 1 Cor 11:13-15. The source my opponent quoted actually agrees with my position that the word "nature" had to do with "custom. 8) What evidence do you have that you are interpreting the compound word, "asenkoites" the correct way, when it was the first recorded use of the word? These questions must be answered in order for my opponent's view to make logical sense. If God ONLY created male and female for each other, he is a "just" and "fair" God, is not the author of confusion, is not a respecter of persons, and we are not under the law, but under grace, homosexuality is not a sin and AIS people are living proof of it My opponent would need to explain why a "fair" and "just" God would make one set of rules for one person and not another. Thank you and with that, I yield to my opponent.