Homosexuality is not a sin

I do understand my own debate. I challenged you to show where the Bible condemns (present tense) homosexuality. When one interprets the Bible, they interpret Bible passages with other Bible passages. You cannot "cherry pick" verses. If we were just dealing with the Old Testament, you might have a point. However, we are dealing with the ENTIRE Bible. "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." I have already proven that we are not under the law anymore, but under grace. YOU still have not given a rebuttal for Galatians 5:14, "For the ENTIRE LAW is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." I challenge you to show me where "homosexuality" is anywhere in that verse. I'm assuming you are a Christian since you mentioned "Christianity" in your first post. We are dealing with the Christian New Testament, so can you please explain to me how homosexuality is still a sin in light of Galatians 5:14 and Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Heb. 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." ? You simply cannot quote a verse and ignore the rest of the New Testament and try to make it say something it does not. If you continue to do this, then you also need to explain why ALL the abominations in the Old Testament are no longer sins. I, for one, can with the verses I just quoted. We are not under the law, but under grace. "My opponent comes up with excuses such as "but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew". However these are completely irrelevant." Original translation is not relevant?? What is then? The Bible was not written in English or much less, American-English and it DOES matter what the original manuscripts say. Do you have a rebuttal to the Hebrew translations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 besides, "My English Bible says something else, therefore, I'm right"? Do you have a rebuttal to the Greek translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 or not? Simply calling something irrelevant and not backing up your claim, frankly, proves absolutely nothing. What gives you the authority to decide if the English translations are just as reliable as the Greek and Hebrew? If you believe all Bibles are created equal, then pick up a "New World Translation" of the Bible. This particular one was put forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses. This version robs Christ of his Deity! I'm willing to bet that you might take issue with this version. Now I will give my rebuttals to con's rebuttals: "If you read my argument, you would realise I have explained how it is a sin in a verse, NOW." All you have done is quote an English-written Bible that puts the word "homosexual" in the text that was not originally there. I challenge you to PROVE that "homosexuality" is the correct word translated there. If you can, you will immediately be famous because to this day, no one has. "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." I know what I said. I said "THE BIBLE", which means, "ALL OF IT." You interpret scripture with other scripture. If you really understood the Bible, you would know that the New Covenant found in the New Testament is the ONLY covenant we live by now. The verses that I quoted in the New Testament say that we are not under the laws of Moses or the Old Covenant anymore. If I am wrong, what verses do you have to refute what I just said? I have given many to prove my case in my second post. You said that since the verses are in Leviticus, then they do prove your point since they are in the Bible. It DOES prove that laying in the bedding with a male in your WIFE'S bed is a sin as I have already proven with the Hebrew. That means the man was married to a woman already. No one is arguing that adultery is not a sin. I challenge you to show how two men outside this situation are sinning. Furthermore, prove that we are STILL under these laws. I went on to examine what the word "arsenkoites" meant in the Greek and why it should not be translated as "homosexual". "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." Maybe it was lost in translation? We are dealing with evidence, not speculation. What evidence do you have that "homosexual" is definitely the word that should be translated here? We are not dealing with your personal opinions here either, so saying, "I'm pretty sure" about anything holds no water in this debate. You must prove that homosexuality was sexually immoral. Do you have evidence or not? I do not use translation as an excuse for anything. I use translations as an argument in order to be accurate. Translations do not "lead" to anything except mistranslations of the original manuscripts. To summarize, my opponent has given two verses in the Old Testament which he believes condemns homosexuality, but in light of the original Hebrew, we find that it is NOT the case. Furthermore, even if my opponent's interpretation of the verses in Leviticus were correct, my opponent would still need to explain why they believe we are still under the Old Covenant and not under the New Covenant and grace for which I have already proven. My opponent would still need to explain why Galatians 5:14 says, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." and Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." It's bad enough that my opponent is tying to say that the English version of the Bible is just as reliable as the Greek and Hebrew, but my opponent is arguing for an American-English version! The point of this debate is to find out what the Bible says about homosexuality, not someone's opinion about what the author's were saying. We must be accurate in order to know for sure what was being said. This is why my opponent has yet to prove that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible