Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

I must disagree with my opponent in saying that we have fallen off topic in the previous round. He challenged me to show what God has designed. Now, that to me, IS NOT the topic. I chose the topic of this debate and my opponent agreed to it. My opponent is supposed to prove that homosexuality is against nature and what God designed. I am supposed to offer evidence that it is NOT. My opponent said that I have built my entire case on the possibility of "mistranslated verses and AIS". That is completely untrue. One of my main arguments that my opponent has failed to deal with is that we are no longer under the law in Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13. Even if homosexuality WAS a sin, it no longer is according to those verses. These points may be mute and unimportant to my opponent, but they are Biblical evidence for my case. Simply ignoring them will not be permitted. As for the case for marriage: I find it interesting that my opponent states exactly what the Bible says about God creating male/female. In my opponent's closing arguments about AIS people, he said that the people in the Old Testament were perfect and the world was without plagues, ect.. The problem with that argument is that "marriage" in the New Testament still only mentions male/female. We both agree on that. He still has not dealt with whether or not AIS people should be able to get married under these terms. Fact of the matter is that they will still be gay and straight at the same time. Also, how does my opponent know for certain that God didn't create these people this way on purpose and that their condition is not part of His plan? My opponent made the point that just because homosexuality is not mentioned, does not mean that it IS part of God's plan. It works both ways; just because the Bible does not mention AIS, intersex, or hermaphrodites, does not mean that THEY are NOT part of his plan. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, so we must take into consideration the times and the culture. We cannot read a verse that was written and in every case apply it for 2014. There were no sexologists, biologists, or scientists in that time. In that time, and with Jewish custom, marriage was ceremonial AND religious. It was supposed to be one man and one woman FOR LIFE. Polygamy, divorce, remarriage, ect. was all eventually allowed. My point is that just because God doesn't mention something at the time a particular verse is written, does not mean that he doesn't change certain aspects of whatever subject the verse is dealing with. If your argument is correct and God only created male/female marriage for each other and that was God's only plan, was it His plan for people to have more than one spouse, get divorced, remarried, ect? Also consider the population of gay people back then. We don't know for certain what it was, however, it is safe to assume that since it's very tiny today, then it was even smaller then. There would have been no reason for gay marriage since it didn't affect many in the population. You are the one that must first prove that homosexuality IS a sin. The burden of proof is on you. Can you prove that typing on a computer is not a sin? According to your logic, if you can't, then it is. Even if God did intend for man and woman to be together (I believe he did THEN to populate the planet) it does not make it a command. If he said, "Man can ONLY be with woman", you would have a legitimate argument. Your position still does not explain who an AIS person should be with if homosexuality is a sin. In fact, it proves that God is not so hung up on sexual orientation. God could not condemn gay marriage since did not exist at the time. Translation: While it's true that Hebrew has changed, it's still the original language that was used. My opponent totally avoided the question and never answered why we should trust the Latin over the Hebrew. All he did was ask ME a question. Asking me a question does not answer a question. His example of the "Whispers" was flawed because he has fallen into my trap. I'll explain why: Since Bibles were written by men and interpreted by men and almost NONE of them agree with each other, this alone proves that the Bible cannot be trusted. I have shown what the original Hebrew says and my opponent keeps accusing me of not having a cross references that my interpretation of the Bible are correct. Read my previous post. " "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526) As for the Vulgate, my opponent tries to trivialize the fact that it came out CENTURIES after the Hebrew. Quite a time span. He also accused me of claiming to have the "correct translation" in ALL verses about homosexuality. Not true. I simply said that no one knows what the word "arsenkoites" means for certain, so we should not assume in the year 2014 what a word meant in those times. In your translation of 1Cor 6:9-10, you have, "male prostitutes" thrown in there and you make the argument that "arsenkoites" cannot mean "male prostitutes" because it would be mentioning it twice. Funny, when you go to http://biblehub.com..., only 2 translations out of 22, have "male prostitutes". According to YOUR ARGUMENT, why would we accept THIS translation when ALL the others disagree and translate that word differently?! One more example of why the Bible cannot be trusted. Your argument about that verse is now null and void. You have not proven what that word means. When you read the King James translation, I Corinthians 6 orders the vices as: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners." As I have already proven, no one knows for certain what that word means and you can't know for certain just by reading it. We cannot say with certainty what Paul meant when he wrote arsenokoites, but it is clear that it does not refer to same-sex relationships. It is tempting to look at the etymology of arsenokoites to find out what it means. However, the etymology of a word gives only its history, not its meaning.4 In English, for example, the etymology of the phrase "lady killer" suggests either "a lady who kills" or "a person who kills ladies", but it really means "man who knows how to charm ladies". The only reliable way to determine the meaning of a word is from how it is used. The way arsenokoites is used indicates that it does not mean "homosexual". However, the etymology of this word does give a clue (and it is no more than a clue) about what it means. "In order to disprove one theory we must have a counter theory. " A theory is not "proof" and a theory has evidence to back it up. There is no evidence to support that this word is "homosexual", it's only speculation. Another way to play word games with 1 Cor 6:9, using your own logic, would be by looking at the word and their literal meanings; a similar process could produce arseno + koites = man + bed, W76; man sleeping U94; couch potato. As for the Septuagiant, it contains contradictions and the Apocrypha books. The contradictions are: 1) There was a 500 year difference just during the time between Adam and Noah. 2) The Greek Septuagint teaches a local flood. It has Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood and he was not even on the ark! 3) Jews were not permitted to live in Egypt (Deut. 17:16), but they did and they fell into idolatry. (Jeremiah 44 "Queen of Heaven") AIS: He first makes the claim that AIS have a wide array of methods to identify with one gender or another. My opponent still has not answered HOW we do that. True, if I am born without a penis, it does not make me a woman. BUT, if I am born with testicles, female breasts, a vagina, but no ovaries or fallopian tubes or cervix, but I DO have male DNA, WHAT AM I? What sex do I choose as a mate if I don't want to sin against God if the Bible really says that homosexuality is not a sin? My opponent's questions: 1) About God's plan? God may have planned for man and woman to be together at one time, it was not a command since the human population is becoming more than the world can handle. 2) We can practice homosexuality without sinning in light of marriage by making gay marriage legal. 3) Homosexuality is not a sin. You have not proven that it is, so no, abstinence is not necessary. 4) The Hebrew is older and is the original language it was written in. 5) Bibles don't condemn homosexuality, people's translations and interpretations do. People are not perfect and just because the majority agrees does not make something "right" or "wrong". The majority of people in this country agreed that slavery was "right". They were not "right". Also, Martin Luther changed MANY things the Catholic Church taught, but suffered because of it. Change happens very slowly. Too slow. 6) No one knows for certain what "arsenkoites" means. "Malakos" meant "cowardly, soft, lazy." 7) I don't understand your last question. In closing, my opponent has not shown evidence that homosexuality is against nature or what God has designed. He has yet to answer the question of who an AIS person should choose as a mate, how they make that decision, and why he believes the Bible supports that decision. If you are born 2 genders and our orientation is based on only ONE gender, how do you decide? Could God not make up His mind? I have shown that a perfect God by nature would not create a book for us to follow that says so many different things that contradict each other. My opponent my find a translation here or there that agrees with his position, but so can I. So now what are we to do? Probably the smartest thing to do would be to go to the oldest manuscripts (Hebrew and GreeK). That is what I have been saying all along. My opponent has not offered solid evidence that "Arsenkoites" is "homosexual" I yield.