AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage

Once again, my opponent opens his debate trying to justify his demand that this debate only refers to the Christian God, despite the fact he never explicitly laid this out in the opening. My opponent does not seem to understand the value of defining his resolution - he failed to lay out his definition, and it is his fault that he failed to do so, not mine.Beyond that, most of my opponent's argument for this round is simply unfounded ranting that has little to nothing to do with the debate resolution. Because of this I am ignoring most of it, with the following exceptions:*My opponent's first argument is trying to justify his claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. He mostly claims every single condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is a translational fault, but provides no sources to back up his claims. Further, this interpretation is simply bizarre given that both Christians and Jews have historically interpreted it as a ban on homosexuality.[1] If the English translation is faulty, wouldn't the original readers - the ancient Jews - have been all hunky-dory about gay relations being great and gay marriage being fine and critical of any interpretation that states otherwise? *Even more bizarrely my opponent states the present translation is only used to 'boost Bible sales' (lolwut?) and that newer translations are increasingly 'more homophobic'. He further claims 10% of people are gay and 90% are straight (what about bisexuals?) and thus the evil cabals that write the Bible are marketing to the 90%. Aside from the fact none of this is sourced, my opponent is being blatantly bigoted and heterophobic by assuming all straight people will buy a Bible that condemns homosexuality and this logic should be disregarded.*My opponent claims we do not live under the law of Moses anymore. However, in round 2 my opponent claims the word of God does not change. Which is it? This is yet another example of my opponent contradicting himself.*My opponent claims that Romans 1 doesn't condemn homosexuality because heterosexuality "isn't natural to them". This assumes homosexuality is purely genetic (which there is no actual proof of) and that people back in the days of the Bible knew it was genetic. Quite frankly it is an absurd argument.*He claims the point of this debate was to "asking YOU how you reconcile your position on homosexuality, the Bible, and AIS people together without contradicting the Bible." and that he hasn't contradicted himself at all. Both points are flatly wrong - the resolution has nothing to do with my personal feelings, and I have plainly established multiple times where my opponent contradicts himself.*He claims that "I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and I intend to prove that you can't hold the view that you do on homosexuality, AIS people, and the Bible, without contradicting yourself." This flat-out pisses me off. My opponent has gone from creating a definition of God ex post facto to literally changing the debate resolution ex post facto. This debate is predicated on the existence of God (or, as you claim from Round 2 on, the existence of the Christian God), not hypothetical - if there is no Christian God, there is no God to approve of the debate resolution and thus I would win by default as Pro has the burden of proof here. This revisionism from my opponent should be proof enough of his poor conduct and reason for him to lose conduct points.*My opponent is using his own definition of 'just' - not a Biblical definition - to assert that no just God would oppose gay marriage. This is flat-out hypocritical, as he previously accused me of using my own opinions rather than evidence.Finally, my opponent asks me questions. I will not answer them, as:A) I've already answered most of them in some way or the other.andB) They do nothing to establish, positively or negatively, the factually of this debate resolution. The fact of the matter is, nothing my opponent has said has proven that the existence of AIS intersex individuals proves God approves of gay marriage. To the contrary, his debate arguments have hardly even argued the point. For example, the whole discussion on Biblical texts on homosexuality? It has nothing to do with intersex individuals justifying gay marriage in God's eyes. I have argued multiple alternate reasons (religious exemptions, celibacy, God might not exist) that could much more efficiently and adequately provide answers, but my opponent has hardly addressed any except for celibacy - and even then, he attempts to debunk it by arguing that, under his definition of 'just', God must support gay marriage. Add on to that my opponent's horrendous conduct and contradictory arguments and it becomes clear: a vote for Con is the only rational choice. The debate resolution has not been proven, and has in fact been adequately disproven. References:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...