Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

I appologize this round as I will have to spend only 1000 character on much of my opponent's questions. I will also fix my broken links in the comments section. Question 1 My opponent asks for evidence from Biblical context of this and thus I shall give it. There are 4 types of love shown in the Bible throgh 4 different words for love, in Greek, in the Bible. Eros- This in a lot in the New Testiment and is that of sexual love. Storge- Natural affection between familyPhileo- “to be a friend to…fond of an individual or object; having affection for (as denoting attachment); a matter of sentiment or feeling”. [1]Agape- Means that the unconditional love one gives to a community or grouping despite rejection. Here we can actually see that there are two different types of love here that are counted as androgyny in the Bible by looking at the Greek version. Question 2I have already answered this question, but let's further into this. The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. " Genesis 2:18Here we can see from the Bible it says that he would make Adam a HELPER, not a companion. Note that this is from the NIV version firstly, we can see that by Eve being a HELPER the wife was made to HELP the husband and this seperation would be defeating the reason God made more people. Under this own justification we can see that Jesus approves of homosexuality by his own standards. Question 3 and 43. There are many. Though I don't really have the character space to truely elaborate on it. There is the story of Naomi and Ruth. "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you! ” (Ruth 1:16-17)Sounds like love to me concidering that we also say many things like this at weddings. 4. No, not really anywhere. The only example I can think of is the condemnation of Kedoshim, but that is a condemnation of a Pagan/Gentile cult, not a condemnation of homosexuality but a cult. My opponent drops my Rape punishment argument of Lot. This is a key argument that shouldn't be ignored in this debate as this completely debunks the entire Sodom argument by itself. Plus here are a series of passages that are against this kind of inhospitality. (Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11)Question 5My opponent is committing a red herring logical fallacy. We are needing to focus on the to'evah meaning wickedness and this refers to the Pagan religion and I have shown in my opening arguments that this was done to weed out the sitting cults in the region and discredit them. Leveticus was known for doing this. My opponent has also failed to answer the key questions that I have asked one is how litteral we should take Leveticus and everyone can agree that this isn't the case. Since he has comitted his logical fallacy we can see that it should be thrown out on my opponent's side and this should be given to my side. Ironically he does this with the 1 Cor. 6:9-10 verse as well. Question 6 As for my opponent's reference to arsenokoitēs it means that, "specifically interpreted as male sexual paedophilia,"[2] so we can actually see that with the Greek translation this is a paedophillic reference, NOT homosexual. The funny thing was that the term "homosexual" was not added to the Bible until the year 1946. It NEVER appeared in it before then. We can see that this was added in as part of the semantics game to discourage homosexual activites, but it actually referred to male paedophilia according to Matt Slick, President of the Christianity Apologetics and Research Ministry. [3] Note that this IS a Lexicon. Question 7 Why I'm glad you raised the question on this verse as this refers to a different sexual interaction that ISN"T homosexuality. It is actually that of an orgy. [4] Let's look at key sections of the passage for this. "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 [sic] of their error which was meet. "If we look at the underlined sections we can see that the sections here point to that of an orgy by showing them leaving their spouses to go do something unnatural for another. Burned in their lust is a key phrase and this is to further my point here to show that this refers to the orgy. [4]Now to over look the 'point system' since my opponent has. ConductMy opponent forfeited. Spelling and GrammarTie, now, I will admit that I have made several spelling mistakes, but my opponent is just as guilty when it comes to bad grammar. So you're saying that the two homosexuals do wickedness ("an abomination," NKJV). (incomplete sentence) However, it does show homosexuality to be an unnatural "abomination" (discussed in next paragraph). (Hanging Dependent Clause)I can find you more, but I don't want to waste characters here, but you get the point. ArgumentsI have refuted all of Pro's points and even his new arguments that he brought up in R4. He has dropped several of my own arguments such as my "rape as punishment" argument. My opponent has failed to meet his half of BOP and he has used several Red Herring Logical Fallacies in this debate. SourcesI appologize for the broken links in Round 2, but I shall repost them in the comments section. I have used many Biblical sourcing as well as historical evidence and translation evidence to help my own points.