Homosexuality is not a sin

My opponent does not even understand his own debate. Because of his ignorance, I will explain such once more. What does my opponent want me to prove? " I would like to challenge anyone to show me where the Bible condemns homosexuality." So he asks anyone to prove the bible condemns homosexuality. It does not matter when in the bible, or if it isn't true any more, it is still wrong in the bible. Since I have already proven in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, in both old and new testament, I have already won this debate. My opponent comes up with excuses such as "but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew". However these are completely irrelevant. He asked me to show him where the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I did! He cannot create excuses like translation and different versions. No matter how you see it, homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, regardless where. Because of such, I have won this debate. Now I will make various stronger arguments because my stubborn opponent continues to make irrelevant excuses. Rebuttals: "Since we are talking about homosexuality being a sin in the PRESENT TENSE, you must prove that it is a sin NOW. If you read my argument, you would realise I have explained how it is a sin in a verse, NOW. "This debate is about whether or not homosexuality IS a sin, not if it WAS a sin. " If you read your opening rules, you would realise you said if it was a sin to the bible, not if it was a sin in the new testament only. And even if it was, I have already proven it is in both covenants. "The verses that you quoted in Leviticus do not prove your point." Since they are in the bible, they have. "I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. there was not Greek word for "homosexual" at the time that verse was written. " I extracted these verses from (ESV). I have already proven that homosexuality is a sin according to the bible NOW. "The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position." Yes we can. It was in the bible. Maybe it was lost in translation, but it is still in the bible. It is a sin to the bible, regardless if it was changed in translation or not. And if they didn't use homosexuals, they may have also used "sexually immoral" which I am pretty sure was dated back then. Since both mean the same, it is highly possible that it was in the bible. "So you have NOT "proven: anything at this point." You asked if it was a sin according to the bible. I have proven such. By the way, you use translation as an excuse for it not being true, however you asked me if it was like this NOW. Since the translations have led to this, homosexuality is against the bible NOW. I have already proven my point, whereas my opponent created various irrelevant excuses trying to dodge the fact that the bible is against such NOW. I have already proven my point, and it cannot be contended.