Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

My opponent raises a variety of interesting arguments and I'll thank him for that, but unfortunate they don't quite hold up, albeit they come close to it. I'd also appreciate if my opponent would better cite his arguments, as many of the points he brought up where completely uncredited and therefore not perfectly valid, whether they where correct or not. Translations and interpreting the OT. Now, For the simple reasons that I cannot read ancient Hebrew nor Greek I cannot fully refute the translations my opponent is offering, but neither can he prove them for I am also to believe that he cannot read the ancient texts himself. The problem with using a translation argument is that it is up to debate; there exist a numerous amount of translations, number of interpretations and with over a thousand fragments making up the entire scripture[1]. Because we have so many different interpretations, so many translations and so many different versions we are forced to take the most common and popular translation.In the case of Leviticus that means the bible condemns homosexuality for that is the most accepted translation. If we go to the Vulgate bible, written in Latin and was not available to the public we see the phrase: “ [lev. 18:22] cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est”[2] a word for word translation leaves us with“With man not unite in coitus women for it is an abomination.” [roughly translated with wiki wiktionary [3]] Since the Vulgate bible was written sometime in the late 4th century we can see that the accepted translation of the Leviticus that has condemned homophobia has lingered for nearly 1600 years. After posting the case of the translated scripture my opponent touches the subject, without any citations, that this was made in order to boost bible sales. Until I see the sources for this I'm going to handle this as an opinion that does not belong in this debate. He says that because the Bible is being printed to suppress the minority it boost the sales for the majority. This is a fallacy, it assumes that the only reason that anyone would buy a bible is because it condemns homosexuality. It is assuming, indirectly, that every single percent of that 90% majority is a homophobic straight male. This is baseless and the argument will have to be a lot more precise in order to hold up. In any case it is false, for we have already seen that the homophobic verses have been a part of the holy scripture since before the Vulgate bible. At that time only priests and holy men where allowed to possess and read the bible for no commoner could read the complex latin scripts if they where lucky enough to be allowed to handle the rare texts. We can safely assume that there where no selling to boost at that time and therefore the homophobic interpretations cannot be correlated to boosted sales. The new covenant He next touches the whole law and the breaking of the old law. The whole law is not relevant to this debate, for loving your neighbour as yourself is not intended in a sexual meaning, unless you have a strong sexual desire for yourself. But that is beside the point, the point is the abolishment of the old law. What my opponent failed to realise is that Christ did not break the old laws, far from it. He even states himself: “”[Matt. 5:17] Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."[4] Christ in fact lived according to the old law and never sinned. This allowed him to take on the sins of every man birthed after his death and allowing you to place your faith upon him and gain forgiveness for all your sins. He did not abolish the law, he abolished the punishment. You still sin by not following the old covenant, but place your faith in Christ and the debt will be forgiven. Meaning that god still is against homosexuality, but he is ready to forgive it if you place your faith in Christ. The verse on the old covenant being obsolete is taken a bit out of context; the new covenant IS Christ, he is the deal we made to our father. If we accept Christ, the new Covent we will not be bound by the old covenant for the new one (Christ) pays the debt of the old. If we break the old laws we are forgiven by the new laws, but this requires us to actually accept that Christ is the messiah.[5]Bedfellow of man My opponent correctly pointed out that there is in fact no Greek word for homosexuals at that time and again gives us a translation of a Greek text. He then points out the “correct” meaning. Assuming that this is the correct compound word we can see the words bed and male. All right, let us say that we cannot use it as proof, but we can guess the proof. If I'd present you with a compound phrase “The bed of men” and said that it is something forbidden what would you deduce the meaning to be? It is unlikely that it refers to men not being allowed to have their own beds. It can be guessed that it means a plural of men cannot use a single bed, which again leads to homosexuality. If we again look at the Vulgate verse we see the following word combination at that location [6]:“masculorum concubitores “ which is roughly translated to “male bedfellows” which is more than likely to be a citation to homosexual relations. My opponent then brings up Romans 1:27, that gays cannot give up the natural function with woman to be with male. This is a fallacy, reading to literally into the text. The reference there isn't what is natural to the gay. If I appeal to the extremes and say that I suffer from necrophilia (Note, I am in no way comparing homosexuality to necrophilia on a moral level, it is simply to make the case, stone me for it later) that may make it natural to me. But is it natural? Of course not. It is immoral and will not provide me with children nor a real lover. Men are giving up what was considerer natural for men in general to be with one and other. In the case of the hair my opponent falls into his own translational trap for two reasons: for the original text suggests that it isn’t' long hair being spoken against, but ornamental locks. Braiding ones own hair into a decorative pattern on top of the head as was a Greek custom at the time and not the length of the hair. [7] the other error is the wording “nature of things” is not referring to nature itself. The nature of things is another name for common sense, common costumes and knowledge. My opponent also mentions homosexuality in nature. It must be noted in this context that homosexuality in nature Is almost always a result of social traditions present in that species of animal. For instance the dwarf chimpanzee use sex, homosexual or not, as a method to solve conflict. But once again from the evolutionary point of view it serves no purpose for the individual itself. Whenever animals initiate in homosexual “love” they usually either “adopt” or one of the two have sex with someone of the other gender in order to produce offspring. For humans homosexuality isn't natural tendency for the species as a whole; if we appeal to the extremes ones again a species full of homosexuals would eventually go extinct. AIS My opponent seems to be making the case that because AIS in theory cannot avoid sinning due to their defect they are somehow a pro-homosexual argument. Both parts of this argument are dull arguments:1) everyone will sin, nobody can avoid sinning and thus that fact that AIS will according to my opponents theory sin if they don't stay abstinent is mute. They'll love whoever they want and in turn be forgiven. The lord will help them identify as one or the other if they are in doubt, but most AIS will identify with one of the two sexes on a mental level. By the time AIS patients do fall in love they have already chosen to be one sex or the other using various hormone and surgical therapies with only a minority actually avoiding the choice of gender. We can address this in two ways: Either they act the gender they are supposed to be or they act the gender they look out to be (nobody Is perfectly in between, you'll always be a bit more male or bit more female. 2 ) Ais rarely identify themselves as homosexuals, that's the issue. The official definition of a homosexual states that it is someone who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. The official definition of heterosexual states that it is attraction to the opposite sex. Because AIS are both genders according to my opponent they must then be heterosexual, as well as homosexual. 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. As Christ said on the blind man; “[John 9:1-3] Rabbi, who sinned? Was this man born blind because he sinned? Or did his parents sin? It isn’t because this man sinned,” said Jesus. “It isn’t because his parents sinned. This happened so that God’s work could be shown in his life. “ [8]Those that are born defected shall be healed at heavens gate, our lord is just, and if a defected individual still serves as a servant of our lords they shall be forgiven whether they are natural or not and in turned be healed.Now, I'll have to leave the rest of the rebuttals to the next round, but in the meantime I'd like my opponent to address the questions I posed to him during my last round as well as here. I await the next arguments. 1-http://www.provethebible.net...2-http://www.latinvulgate.com...3-http://en.wiktionary.org...i4-http://www.biblegateway.com...5-http://www.gci.org...6-http://www.biblegateway.com...7-http://jewsandjoes.com...8-http://www.biblegateway.com...