Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed
I'll accept this challenge and will be playing the devil's advocate and state that Homosexuality is against nature and what God has designed. Let's begin, shall we?
What are we debating?
I'd like all readers of the debate to take note that this debate is NOT concerning if homosexuality is wrong or immoral. We're simply debating if it is against nature and also against gods plan.
My opponent starts by asking me to provide at least one verse where homosexuality is condemned. So, to get that out of the way:
There we have 5 verse where homosexual relations are outcast and are a sinful act. In direct response to the resolution where it is stated that homosexuality is against what god has designed, we can look at another passage and see what god had envisioned when it comes to love and marriage:
Here we see that god has wished that each man would pair off with each woman, for they can become one flesh at the end of time. So half of the resolution has fallen, it is not part of gods plan to allow homosexuality to exist. My opponent has to properly give reasons and properly define why it isn't a part of gods plan in order to protect the resolution as a whole.
Now, because this isn't the main weight of the resolution let's go to the part where it is against nature to be a homosexual.
The natural process of love.
To find out if it is unnatural to be a homosexual we need to find out what is the true purpose of love and sexual orientation. According to evolution love must be a result of the animals desire to reproduce and then care for his young, it's only logical, the parents that care best for their young must therefore give it the most chances of surviving. An animal pair that cannot create offspring and care for it must therefore “fail” at evolution since none of their genes are returned to the gene pool in the next generation and ending their blood-line.
My opponent made the interesting point that AIS patients shouldn't exist and that they are not in harmony with a plan that god may have created. This needs not be, that they are mealy an “accident.” let me explain, both from the godly view and the natural view.
AIS [Androgen insensitivity syndrome] is a genetic disorder where the XY chromosome in the fetus is unresponsive to Androgens, collectively and incorrectly called the male hormones since they are much more abundant in males. With this immunity the children will not develop correct sexual organs; the female remnants of the genitals do not get correctly transformed and relocated to form male genitals except to a limited degree, meaning that they can be classified as female, but are genetically male. Male if the condition is really limited or a strange cross between both. There are two problems with this: Neither are a case for the resolution.
AIS is a genetic disorder, which means that it is not a natural phenomenon in the human body. It is formed by accident so to speak. Unless the disorder is incredibly mild all patients are infertile. They can be wonderful human beings, be a perfect stereotype of the gender they choose and be a perfect benefit to society, but as far as actually producing natural offspring they lack a few dimes to the dollar. Since they are infertile they cannot produce offspring and cannot carry their own genes down the species bloodline. Their evolutionary paths end and they aren't consistent with the evolutionary plan of “survival of the fittest”. And since they do not benefit evolution they do not benefit god's plan either and thus aren't an argument for my opponent.
My opponent, in order to win the debate, must successfully answer and defend the following points
He must also remember that this is a duo resolution and that he must be able to defend both parts of the resolution in order to win this debate.
As for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,
(Hebrew) "V'et-zachar lo tishkav mish'k' vei ishah"
Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing.
(The women's portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men's half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman's quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael's tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21)."
Leviticus KJV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)
Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
As you can see, as we go from Hebrew through the translations and bible rewrites to the present time, (I've only stated a few examples but its a lot more complicated then this) it's original meaning, like many statements in Leviticus, are not relevant in modern society. If 18:22 stayed with its original translation, no one would pay any attention to it. It's been translated like this purely to boost bible sales. Newer bible sales have become more and more homophobic to boost sales. Homosexual global population is around 10% lesbians 6%. By hurting the minority, the bible publication have boosted sales for the overhaul majority (90% straight male). The plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The "bedding" or "bed" in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out.
Most English translations leave the word, "bedding" or "laying" out the the verse when translated.
" "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526)
I would like to point out that those two verses in particular, were in the Old Testament. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that the entire law is summed up into one commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14. Homosexuality is not mentioned in that verse at all. Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." This verse makes it clear that we are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws. Eating pork, wearing clothing that contains more than one type of fabric are ALL forbidden. Eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), a woman wearing a man's cloak (Deut 22:5) and the Hebrews breaking bread with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32) are ALL abominations too.
To put an end to this argument once and for all, Christ came to set up a NEW Covenant and we are no longer bound by the old. 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.' "
This is why I believe that even if your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were correct, they are still irrelevant because Christ has come and we are under a NEW COVENANT.
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. 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. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. So you have NOT "proven: anything at this point. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. ("The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946." That was taken from a CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS website.
The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak."
The verse you quoted in 1 Timothy uses the same word "arsenkoites" and I have already shown that no one knows for certain what Paul meant when he used that word. You have not offered evidence to show that "sexually immoral" refers to homosexuals, it is simply your opinion.
As for Romans 1:27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.""
First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE":
1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair.A279; It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans .
"phusis " We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another.
None of these verses give clear condemnation of homosexuality. It only proves it is wrong in certain circumstances; just as heterosexuality is wrong in certain circumstances.
My opponent went on to make a point of "Nature" and animals. Animals also commit homosexual acts in nature. "Homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 animal species."
Taken from http://www.news-medical.net...... Having said that, I don't believe that just because animals do something that it makes it "right". Some animals eat their young. I only mention "animals" because my opponent did.
Marriage and choosing a mate is not just about reproduction. Infertile people, people above the childbrearing age, AIS intersex people, and people that choose not to have children still choose to get married and are not condemned for it; nor is reproduction a requirement for marriage. None of this proves that homosexuality is "wrong"or against "God's plan".
For the record, I never made the point that AIS people should not exist. What I said is that the premise that God ONLY created male/female and ONLY created them for each other contradicts that particular belief. While my opponent defined what an AIS intersex person is, he never addressed the questions at hand:
1) If our sexual orientation is determined by God, and he reveals what our orientation should be by our gender, what is one to do that is born with a vagina AND testicles? My opponent said, "They can be wonderful human beings, be a perfect stereotype of the gender they choose and be a perfect benefit to society?"
What scriptural evidence does my opponent have to support that position? It is clearly opinion.
2) Why are THEY allowed to make choices about gender and others are not?
3) Who would this person choose as a mate without sinning if homosexuality is a sin?
4) Probably most importantly, how does one (anyone for that matter) determine their sexual orientation?
Thank you and I yield.
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. 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”
a word for word translation leaves us with
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.
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."
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.
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 :
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.  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.
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:
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. “ 
I will offer rebuttals to my opponents arguments:
He said he didn't know if he could trust my Hebrew translation, but the source of validity comes from (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526)
As for issues in translations, I will agree that there are in fact, many interpretations and translations of the Greek and Hebrew text. My opponent later made reference to the Vulgate Bible written in Latin. We must understand that the Bible was nor originally written in LATIN! It was written in Greek and Hebrew. Obviously, they would be the most accurate translations. My opponent also stated that "we are forced to accept the most common and popular translation". Based on what? Popularity? I think not. The NIV version is one of the most popular and accepted translations on the planet, but MANY would argue that it is not the most accurate.
I have offered a reliable source to back up my claim about the word, "bedding" in Leviticus. My opponent has not refuted my claim. Quoting a different translation of the Bible is not evidence that his translation is the most accurate. I challenge my opponent to show why we should accept the Latin translation over the Hebrew, when the Hebrew was the original language.
The New Covenant:
I would make the argument that the law IS relevant to this debate. While it's true that loving yourself does not refer to sex or sexual meaning, it certainly can refer to you NOT loving your neighbor or spouse. If you cheat on your spouse, it is not loving. My opponent quoted Matthew, obviously Jesus was alive and had not been crucified yet. His crucifixion had not taken place and been "fulfilled" yet. That is why right before He died, he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30) Then the temple curtain tore and God and His people were no longer divided. THAT is why we are no longer under the law and the verse you quoted only applied to the people BEFORE Christ's death. Romans 6:14, "We are no longer under the law, but under grace.." Otherwise, how do YOU explain Romans 10:4 without contradicting yourself and the Bible? How do you explain Hebrews 8:13? These verses must be dealt with by my opponent.
I challenge my opponent to show a verse in the Bible that says what hes says it does. Where does it say we are still under the law, but we are not under punishment through Christ? I have offered scriptural evidence. My opponent is offering a LOT of spiritual opinions, but not backing up his claims with the Bible. Last of all, if we are still under the old laws, my opponent would need to explain why we are no longer encouraged to obey ALL the laws in Leviticus; for example, not eating shellfish, wearing more than one type of fabric, ect..
My opponent accused me of "pointing out the correct meaning" of the Greek translation of "arsenkoites" I have already gone on record stating that NO ONE knows for certain what that word means. He also said that we can "guess proof". What evidence does he have of that? We are dealing with facts, not guesses. He gave an example of a "compound phrase". The problem is that we are not dealing with a "compound phrase", but a compound WORD. I gave the example of "honeymoon". If you saw that word for the first time and had no previous context, you more than likely would not be able to "guess" the meaning. Furthermore, male prostitution was common in those times and the Bible DOES speak against promiscuity and prostitution and not necessarily homosexual ones either. SO, this verse in 1 Cor and 1 Tim does not prove anything about homosexuality. My opponent is offering speculation because of the "popularity" of translations, not evidence.
My point of bringing up the word, "natural" was not to prove that it was "right" or "wrong". It was to refute the notion that my opponent was implying that homosexuality is not "natural" or "found in nature". I was in reality, making 2 different points. I was also pointing out that it was not "custom" at the time or in Jewish tradition for man to be with a man. I would also add that long hair is the issue here, not "ornamental locks" as my opponent suggests. Paul was writing to the Romans, not the Greeks. Furthermore, he was addressing the Gentiles AND Jews. My opponent's source only speculates, but makes it clear that they are not certain their interpretation is correct. They state, "..we cannot cross-reference other passages to see how the word (Kamao) was used in other contexts. The author of this passage WAS LIKELY referring to the Greek custom of women who would pile their hair on top of their heads." My opponent completely missed the point. Even if that was the correct translation, "nature" still does not control the issue of hair. It still had to do with "custom" and this source actually agrees with me. I have just proven this.
One last thing about homosexuality and animals; my opponent tried to make the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural", all I was doing was pointing out that it IS found in nature. It does not matter WHY animals do it, since animals are not equal to humans.
Here is what we know for certain that the Bible says:
1) God created male and female (Genesis 5:2)
2) God is a "just" God. My definition of "just" comes from https://bible.org......
"While the most common Old Testament word for just means "straight," and the New Testament word means "equal," in a moral sense they both mean "right." When we say that God is just, we are saying that He always does what is right, what should be done, and that He does it consistently, without partiality or prejudice. The word just and the word righteous are identical in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sometimes the translators render the original word "just" and other times "righteous" with no apparent reason (cf. Nehemiah 9:8 and 9:33 where the same word is used). But whichever word they use, it means essentially the same thing. It has to do with God"s actions. They are always right and fair."
3) "God is not the author of confusion." 1 Cor 14:33
My opponent gave the explanation that everyone sins, so it does not really matter what mate they choose, so the point is dull. He still needs to prove HOW we sin. I have already offered Biblical evidence of how we sin (Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4) He said, "The Lord will help them identify as one another if they are in doubt." Reference please? My opponent has made some interesting assumptions. He said that if AIS people fall in love, they could choose the sex they act more like or the gender they look like. How do you know that is the correct way to determine gender? Again, my opponent offered no evidence to support this view. What Biblical evidence do you have to support this theory? You mentioned hormone therapy or surgeries. What about the people that do not have access to that, or the people born before these services were provided? Would God make these people wait for technology?
My opponent defined what a heterosexual and homosexual person is. I agree with those definitions. What I do NOT agree with is my opponents theory that, "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." Why does it have to be physical? Most people argue that genetics or DNA determines what sex a person is. These individuals are born with male AND female parts. Genetically, they are more male, hormonally, they are more female.
As for my opponent's verse about the blind man, blindness is never addressed as a "sin" issue, just like homosexuality never was.
To conclude, my opponent still has not answered the following questions and refuted the following comments:
1) If our sexual orientation is determined by God, and he reveals what our orientation should be by our gender, what is one to do that is born with a vagina AND testicles? My opponent said, "They can be wonderful human beings, be a perfect stereotype of the gender they choose and be a perfect benefit to society?"
What scriptural evidence does my opponent have to support that position? It is clearly opinion.
2) Why are THEY allowed to make choices about gender and others are not? Biblical evidence, please.
3) Who would this person choose as a mate without sinning if homosexuality is a sin?
4) Probably most importantly, how does one (anyone for that matter) determine their sexual orientation?
5) My opponent needs to show evidence of why we should accept the most "popular" and "accepted" translations over the original Greek and Hebrew.
6) Explain or show BIBLICAL evidence of why you believe we are still under the Old Law and we are no longer punished under the New law.
7) Explain why "nature" had to do with biology in Romans 1 and not in 1 Cor 11:13-15. The source my opponent quoted actually agrees with my position that the word "nature" had to do with "custom.
8) What evidence do you have that you are interpreting the compound word, "asenkoites" the correct way, when it was the first recorded use of the word?
These questions must be answered in order for my opponent's view to make logical sense. If God ONLY created male and female for each other, he is a "just" and "fair" God, is not the author of confusion, is not a respecter of persons, and we are not under the law, but under grace, homosexuality is not a sin and AIS people are living proof of it My opponent would need to explain why a "fair" and "just" God would make one set of rules for one person and not another.
Thank you and with that, I yield to my opponent.
All right, I feel that we've fallen a bit off topic in the last round and we're now taking turns attacking the straw man, the issue was if homosexuality is against what god has designed (since my opponent is so fixed on that part of the debate). My opponent must first explain what god has in fact designed, for he has not explained what gods plan is. He has built his entire case on the possibility of mistranslated verses and AIS. But, he has not considered that even if I where to concede that it is not mentioned it would still be sexually immoral. The fact that, according to my opponent, homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures does not mean that it is a part of gods design. However we can indirectly deduce that homosexuality is NOT a part of gods plan.
As the second step: Since physical marriage is defined according to the bible as between a man and a woman it is logical to deduce that god did not intend homosexuals to marry. Since they cannot marry they have to stay abstinent for the scripture has on numerous occasions condemned sex out of wedlock; deeming it as immoral (Hebrews 13:4, along with certain verses cited here above). So being a homosexual is not a sin, just acting on it? Isn't that a bit strange?
If sex out of marriage is sexually immoral, and marriage is not intended for homosexuals, we can see that practicing homosexuality is immoral. As we have already seen in various verses in this debate sexual immortality is a sin. If it is a sin then we must deduct that it is not according to gods plan.
Now, on the issue of accurate translations, my opponent asked me why we should rather follow the latin version instead of the OT. What he forgot to make note of is that we don't even have a full original text. Hebrew has changed so often, with its creating spanning several millennial of oral preservation before finally enduring a few more millennium of constant rewriting and copies. to say that the fragments we do have are any more reliable than the original latin scriptures is as sensible as saying that the 100th person in a giant game of whispers is more accurate than the 160th one. He of course may be closer to the word the game started out with, but the odds of him having the correct word is next to none. The Latin verses are often harmonious with the Hebrew texts to our understanding. The question should rather be “Why should we not trust in those translations?” The Vulgate bible was made only a couple of centuries after the OT in greek was written, why would it so suddenly change the stance on homosexuality changing it into the latin “Male bedfellows” which is a reference to homosexuality?
if we put the old testament beside the point for this round and ignore the old covenant and focus merely on the usage of the word arsenkoites. We already see that it is used in a passage where forbidden things are listed: And my opponent insists that it does not mean “homosexuals” but instead is a compound word for “bed” and “male” and uses the example of “Honeymoon”. If we would see that word standing by itself I'd agree that we cannot know what it means. But we also have usage and context. If we'd see honeymoon in a sentence where we where discussing marriage we could make the assumption that it has to do with it. We would know the general meaning, and that is enough. so, let's look at etymology and context.
We see that these are all sinful things: so we can strike out that our word means something good. So, we have to find a sinful thing that includes a male and a bed. Male prostitution is also out, for it has already been mentioned just before the word appears; μαλακa2;ς which has a Greek root for the word “soft.” since it does not mean soft in this context (“thou shall not be soft!' does not make for a convincing sin”) it has been argued that it was used to describe the receiving partner in a homosexual relationship.
since it is placed after “adulterers” and preceding our own “Bedmen” we should conclude that it to deals with sexual immortality, and in this case a term used for male that feminize themselves to attract male customers. 
another argument for the homosexual context of that word is the bible of Paul [Septuagint] and how it uses the term in other places. In the Septuagint we find Leviticus 20:13 we again see the two words standing together: O40;ρσενος κοP55;την which later came together and formed arsenkoites. If we then directly translate the verse word by word:
here the word combination is being used to apparently describe homosexuality, and as such it is reasonable to assume it also means that in our first example
Bedmen refers to something sexually immoral based on the context of the words preceding it. What does It mean if it isn't referring to homosexuality?
Now, my opponent asked me a great deal of questions: so let's weed out those mute or are stating the same:
Putting beside the fact that homosexuality is a “moral problem” whilst AIS is a medical problem. Genesis 1:26 stated "And God created man in His image, in His likeness; male and female He created them....and it was very good." Where did the lord intend for AIS to happen? Where are the scriptural evidence that they are a work of god? We see in the genesis that in the beginning all was good, and no plagues nor mutations affected humankind. Since my opponent has not addressed theistic evolution which would on it's own explain mutations I'll add onto it the creationist view. In Genesis 3:17 and onward god cursed all of mankind and evicted them from Eden, and it was there where death, disease, and mutations came to be. With that in mind we see both from T.evo. And creat. That AIS, a disorder, was not a part of gods perfect plan; To use them in the case of homosexuality is as valid as saying leprosy was only intended by god in order to show that Christ can heal.
God, as shown in the Genesis, wished for us to have a single gender identity. AIS have a wide array of methods to identify with one gender or the other. What my opponent is failing to realize is that gender is NOT solely based on what sex organs you have: If I am born without a genital for some odd reason, do I have no gender? No, because I might have a strong jawline and identify as a male. Hence I submit myself to the male role within god, but do not identify as genderless.
Now, my opponent has mostly been on the offensive, but for his case to hold he too has the same burden of proof, and as such I'd like these questions answered:
1: What is god's plan precisely?
My opponent said that I have built my entire case on the possibility of "mistranslated verses and AIS". That is completely untrue. One of my main arguments that my opponent has failed to deal with is that we are no longer under the law in Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13. Even if homosexuality WAS a sin, it no longer is according to those verses. These points may be mute and unimportant to my opponent, but they are Biblical evidence for my case. Simply ignoring them will not be permitted.
As for the case for marriage:
I find it interesting that my opponent states exactly what the Bible says about God creating male/female. In my opponent's closing arguments about AIS people, he said that the people in the Old Testament were perfect and the world was without plagues, ect.. The problem with that argument is that "marriage" in the New Testament still only mentions male/female. We both agree on that. He still has not dealt with whether or not AIS people should be able to get married under these terms. Fact of the matter is that they will still be gay and straight at the same time. Also, how does my opponent know for certain that God didn't create these people this way on purpose and that their condition is not part of His plan? My opponent made the point that just because homosexuality is not mentioned, does not mean that it IS part of God's plan. It works both ways; just because the Bible does not mention AIS, intersex, or hermaphrodites, does not mean that THEY are NOT part of his plan.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago, so we must take into consideration the times and the culture. We cannot read a verse that was written and in every case apply it for 2014. There were no sexologists, biologists, or scientists in that time. In that time, and with Jewish custom, marriage was ceremonial AND religious. It was supposed to be one man and one woman FOR LIFE. Polygamy, divorce, remarriage, ect. was all eventually allowed. My point is that just because God doesn't mention something at the time a particular verse is written, does not mean that he doesn't change certain aspects of whatever subject the verse is dealing with. If your argument is correct and God only created male/female marriage for each other and that was God's only plan, was it His plan for people to have more than one spouse, get divorced, remarried, ect? Also consider the population of gay people back then. We don't know for certain what it was, however, it is safe to assume that since it's very tiny today, then it was even smaller then. There would have been no reason for gay marriage since it didn't affect many in the population. You are the one that must first prove that homosexuality IS a sin. The burden of proof is on you. Can you prove that typing on a computer is not a sin? According to your logic, if you can't, then it is.
Even if God did intend for man and woman to be together (I believe he did THEN to populate the planet) it does not make it a command. If he said, "Man can ONLY be with woman", you would have a legitimate argument. Your position still does not explain who an AIS person should be with if homosexuality is a sin. In fact, it proves that God is not so hung up on sexual orientation. God could not condemn gay marriage since did not exist at the time.
While it's true that Hebrew has changed, it's still the original language that was used. My opponent totally avoided the question and never answered why we should trust the Latin over the Hebrew. All he did was ask ME a question. Asking me a question does not answer a question. His example of the "Whispers" was flawed because he has fallen into my trap. I'll explain why:
Since Bibles were written by men and interpreted by men and almost NONE of them agree with each other, this alone proves that the Bible cannot be trusted. I have shown what the original Hebrew says and my opponent keeps accusing me of not having a cross references that my interpretation of the Bible are correct. Read my previous post. " "Bedding" is the most widely attested translation of "mish'k' vei"" (The dictionary of classical Hebrew Sheffield: Volume V Nun-Mem Ed. David J.A Clines. Sheffield Accademic Press, 200, p.526) As for the Vulgate, my opponent tries to trivialize the fact that it came out CENTURIES after the Hebrew. Quite a time span.
He also accused me of claiming to have the "correct translation" in ALL verses about homosexuality. Not true. I simply said that no one knows what the word "arsenkoites" means for certain, so we should not assume in the year 2014 what a word meant in those times.
In your translation of 1Cor 6:9-10, you have, "male prostitutes" thrown in there and you make the argument that "arsenkoites" cannot mean "male prostitutes" because it would be mentioning it twice. Funny, when you go to http://biblehub.com..., only 2 translations out of 22, have "male prostitutes". According to YOUR ARGUMENT, why would we accept THIS translation when ALL the others disagree and translate that word differently?! One more example of why the Bible cannot be trusted. Your argument about that verse is now null and void. You have not proven what that word means. When you read the King James translation, I Corinthians 6 orders the vices as: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners." As I have already proven, no one knows for certain what that word means and you can't know for certain just by reading it. We cannot say with certainty what Paul meant when he wrote arsenokoites, but it is clear that it does not refer to same-sex relationships.
It is tempting to look at the etymology of arsenokoites to find out what it means. However, the etymology of a word gives only its history, not its meaning.4 In English, for example, the etymology of the phrase "lady killer" suggests either "a lady who kills" or "a person who kills ladies", but it really means "man who knows how to charm ladies". The only reliable way to determine the meaning of a word is from how it is used. The way arsenokoites is used indicates that it does not mean "homosexual". However, the etymology of this word does give a clue (and it is no more than a clue) about what it means.
"In order to disprove one theory we must have a counter theory. "
A theory is not "proof" and a theory has evidence to back it up. There is no evidence to support that this word is "homosexual", it's only speculation. Another way to play word games with 1 Cor 6:9, using your own logic, would be by looking at the word and their literal meanings; a similar process could produce arseno + koites = man + bed, W76; man sleeping U94; couch potato.
As for the Septuagiant, it contains contradictions and the Apocrypha books. The contradictions are:
1) There was a 500 year difference just during the time between Adam and Noah.
2) The Greek Septuagint teaches a local flood. It has Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood and he was not even on the ark!
3) Jews were not permitted to live in Egypt (Deut. 17:16), but they did and they fell into idolatry. (Jeremiah 44 "Queen of Heaven")
He first makes the claim that AIS have a wide array of methods to identify with one gender or another. My opponent still has not answered HOW we do that. True, if I am born without a penis, it does not make me a woman. BUT, if I am born with testicles, female breasts, a vagina, but no ovaries or fallopian tubes or cervix, but I DO have male DNA, WHAT AM I? What sex do I choose as a mate if I don't want to sin against God if the Bible really says that homosexuality is not a sin?
My opponent's questions:
1) About God's plan?
God may have planned for man and woman to be together at one time, it was not a command since the human population is becoming more than the world can handle.
2) We can practice homosexuality without sinning in light of marriage by making gay marriage legal.
3) Homosexuality is not a sin. You have not proven that it is, so no, abstinence is not necessary.
4) The Hebrew is older and is the original language it was written in.
5) Bibles don't condemn homosexuality, people's translations and interpretations do. People are not perfect and just because the majority agrees does not make something "right" or "wrong". The majority of people in this country agreed that slavery was "right". They were not "right". Also, Martin Luther changed MANY things the Catholic Church taught, but suffered because of it. Change happens very slowly. Too slow.
6) No one knows for certain what "arsenkoites" means. "Malakos" meant "cowardly, soft, lazy."
7) I don't understand your last question.
In closing, my opponent has not shown evidence that homosexuality is against nature or what God has designed. He has yet to answer the question of who an AIS person should choose as a mate, how they make that decision, and why he believes the Bible supports that decision. If you are born 2 genders and our orientation is based on only ONE gender, how do you decide? Could God not make up His mind? I have shown that a perfect God by nature would not create a book for us to follow that says so many different things that contradict each other. My opponent my find a translation here or there that agrees with his position, but so can I. So now what are we to do? Probably the smartest thing to do would be to go to the oldest manuscripts (Hebrew and GreeK). That is what I have been saying all along. My opponent has not offered solid evidence that "Arsenkoites" is "homosexual"
Ladies and gentlemen, when my opponent said that he chooses the topic of the debate he made a good point, but he must remember that he must also include all sub-topics and topics directly related to the resolution. My opponent has not properly defined what “Design of god” is, and as such further discussion on what is part of it is mute. How can he prove what is part of his design if we do not know god's design? I've suggested that god designed the world for man and woman as described by, well, almost everyone in the bible that has brought the topic up[1-2] in both testaments. We hear nothing on same sex marriages nowhere in the scripture as far as I am aware of, and as such we have to ask ourselves the question: Why would gods word leave out something that is a part of his design? Homosexuality existed back then, it didn't spring up in the 19th century like the word we use today. My opponent needs to answer this, what is gods design? Without that the entire debate is just about mute (so to speak)
My opponent also mentioned the new covenant, again. Even if the old law has been abolished it would still be irrelevant, for we see that the new Covenant also speaks dimly of homosexuality, it still speaks strictly of male/female marriage and it still abolishes adulterers, which sex outside of wedlock applies to. If we can make our conclusion that new testament does mention these things it would mean that the abolished law is mute and thus the “biblical evidence” looses it's scope. We have seen that god favours man+woman marriages and looks at any other non-wedlock sexual relations as a sin, and since wedlock is reserved for m/f according to every verse that mentions it we see that homosexuals are a bit in the corner.
My opponent then goes on to use the logic that AIS might just be a part of gods design. This is precisely why we need to know god's design: We can only know what has been written in the scriptures, it's a little hard to ask god direct questions as this point. But since intersex is nowhere to be found how can we be sure that they ARE a part of god's plan? This is a baseless argument, I can ask my opponent the exact same question and it would lead us nowhere: “How does my opponent know for certain that God Did create these people this way on purpose.” N.b. that is a positive claim and thus is the one that needs proving, not the inverse. As already stated, even if Ais, homosexuality and whatnot is not mentioned as my opponent argues we already see that there are no indications of it anywhere: In no stories, no indirect deductions as with man/woman marriage, the command to multiply, nowhere. God, that has been rather specific on things that did exist back and told us what we could do, never mentioned it positively.Why would he not mention it, homosexuality existed and was known back then, so why would the scriptures not directly mention it as good anywhere?
My opponent next stated indirectly: “Times have changed. Polygamy, Divorce and remarriage are all allowed now!”
The next fallacious argument: “According to your logic x cannot be proved so it is y” kind of strikes me as scraping the barrel. I already deducted that god wishes man+women pairs; I also pointed out that the Bedmales must mean something with the sole response of “you can't prove it, so it isn't what you think it is.”
The next argument came from nowhere: “God could not condemn gay marriage, it did not exist at the time he stated that males are to be with females.”
This is somewhere around 30AD. Homosexual marriages have existed long before that date, and it wasn't all that uncommon either. Emperor Nero lived shortly after the estimated death of Christ and he was reported to have been married twice to a male. Homosexuality was a surprisingly common act in f.x Ancient Rome, so “it did not exist” is dull.
Now, back to arsenkoites and malakoi. First my opponent states that I stated mal. meant male prostitutes. Had he properly read a bit lower he had seen that I also stated that it has been argued that it meant the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. Looking at the biblehub source he provided we see this usage in 13 verses, along with 2 male prostitutes and 4 other verses that skip the word all together but change homosexuals to a broader term that might reach over both words at once. So far we have 19/22 that are portraying malakoi according to my case, showing it is not void.
Now, what I meant by a counter theory is that in order for a theory to become void is for it to be disproven and replaced. When it comes to etymology we can't leave a blank for the words and state “Well, we do not know this so it must mean sth else” The fact is these words had to be used over something, and based on the context these words are used in it must be sexually immoral: But we need the real meaning. My opponent made the interesting statement: “It is clear that it isn't same-sex relations.” Based on what? That is an unproven statement at this point in the debate and if pro has taught us anything in his reasoning it is that unproven opinions are void, this one included, contradictions are not helping late debate. I have shown you that the context suggest homosex. both from the context it is used in as well as how the two words are used elsewhere.
The “Man sleeping” argument is absurd; The context would then suggest that it was forbidden to sleep as a man or be lazy. It would be a strange list: “nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor men that sleep nor thieves“
Ars. And mal. Are bad, and I've already made the case for it's true meaning based on use and context. My opponent has pretty much voided the entire argument with: “You can't prove the meaning, though you have made reasonable arguments for it, but I'm right”. The inverse can just as well hold: You cannot prove it does not mean homosexuals, it's just as valid of an argument, but both are invalid reasoning, an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. These words mean something bad, but without knowing the “real” meaning we must find the most likely one. I have context on my side, giving me the more likely case. pro has not proven that I'm incorrect.
There are several ways to decide ones sex. One is simply to have a look at your genes and act according to them. However we know that sex is not only what sexual organs you have. The brain responds and rewires itself in different patterns depending on the sex. If someone identifies strongly as a female it might suggest that that is what god intended (Note: might). If you are aggressive, develop better motor skill than social skills, tend to be physical, not emotional and are certain you are male, it indicates a male brain and thus a male sex. Since there is no such thing as “true hermaphrodite” except in neglectably few cases there will be a way to find your true gender despite the disorder. Gender identity crises are rare with PAIS and a mjority stick with their assigned gender
my opponent has 1 round to establish the final case: and I'll expect solid answers: mainly emphasizing:
My opponent keeps making the argument that the New Covenant speaks of homosexuality because adultery would still be a sin. This is becoming a vicious circle. He keeps making the argument that unless homosexuality is mentioned as part of God's ORIGINAL design, then it should be condemned. What Biblical evidence do you base that on? Is it a sin for a child to only have one parent? God MEANT for us to have a mother and father. Would it be a sin for a woman to adopt a child if she is not married? Why no mention of this in the Bible? You are making the assumption that the Bible covers every subject or situation we will ever face. There is no evidence of such a claim. When God does not want us to do something (or sin), He seems to be pretty clear about it. As I said before, in order to avoid sinning in the light of "wedlock", gays should be allowed to get married. My opponent still has yet to deal with Romans 10:4, Galatians 5:14, and Hebrews 8:13.
My opponent made the argument that we can only know God's design by what is written in the Bible. My opponent AGAIN
is making the argument that unless something is endorsed, it is a sin. Where does the Bible make that claim? Again, prove that typing on a computer is not a sin. Is birth control a sin, since God told us to multiply? I doubt the writers of the Bible could for-see condoms or birth control pills. Are they a sin as well? How do I know that AIS are part of God's plan? Simply because he created ALL THINGS. Colossians 1:16, "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. Since God is perfect and he does not make mistakes, He would not create something by accident.
He asked, "Why would he not mention it, homosexuality existed and was known back then, so why would the scriptures not directly mention it as good anywhere?" We must be careful here not to label something as a sin, just because God does not endorse something. Galatians 5:14 already told us the criteria for how not to sin, "Love your neighbor as yourself, the ENTIRE LAW is summed up in this one." My opponent even said, "God, that has been rather specific on things that did exist back and told us what we could do, never mentioned it positively." True, but we don't call something "sin" just because it is not mentioned positively.
He then challenged me to show where God's laws have changed over time. I take issue with the sources you quoted pertaining to this subject simply for the biases they hold given that they are Christian organizations. For example, polygamy is allowed in Exodus 21:10 and 2 Samuel 5:13 and MANY more. THEN, in the New Testament, (1 Timothy1:6) it says, "..the husband of ONE wife". Furthermore, the Bible tries to justify itself by saying that this was Christ "fulfilling the law, not ending it." (Matthew 5:17). We are no longer required to keep that Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, but it WAS one of the ten commandments. The list goes on and on. This proves my point that LAWS can change and God's LAWS and His Word are not the same.
"The most recent addition of m+f is from Christ [Mark 10:7-9]: " 7"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,a 8and the two shall become one flesh. "
We are back to square one. How does a "fair" and "just" God create someone with 2 genders and expect AIS to follow this? Again, is artificial insemination a sin since it's never mentioned? As for gay marriages existing back in 30 A.D., this still proves my point more than my opponents. If God was aware of gay marriage as my opponent suggests, WHY DID HE NOT SPECIFICALLY CONDEMN IT?! According to my opponent, he certainly would have had the opportunity.
My opponent made an interesting observation; he asked the question, "If the scriptures are unreliable to the point we cannot trust them why are we basing our cases on it? Why would we be so fixated on something we don't trust? Simple, because it is the only thing we have: it is the only way that we can even start to get a glimps at what God wants from us." I don't base my case on it. In fact YOU are the one that called it "God's Word". If it is God's Word, why can it NOT be trusted? The Christians base their condemnation of homosexuality on a book that is unreliable and cannot be trusted, yet, it's God's Word? I have not said that The Greek and Hebrew contradict themselves, only my opponent has. My opponent has NOT shown evidence of me contradicting my own arguments. He is trying to ignore the fact that the oldest and most reliable manuscripts are the Greek and Hebrew. Just because THEY have been translated over time, does not mean they are not reliable. They also don't contradict each other. My opponent need to show evidence that they do.
We are dealing with 2 words here "arsenkoites" which had never been defined and "malakoi" which HAS been defined. I believe my opponent is simply confused here between the 2 words. I also believe he is being extremely dishonest here. The word "malakos" means "soft, cowardly, lazy". The problem with a word that has so many definitions tied to it, is that no one knows for certain what it means. It has also been used to describe "and effeminate call boy". Again, no one is defending prostitution here. I have never argued that "malakoi" is not defined, but "aresenkoites" is NOT. My opponent accused me of making an opinionated statement, but suggested that he had "context" of homosexuality on his side. We are both guilty of making opinionated statements. The words, "arsenkoites" and "malakois" are 2 of the most debated words in The Bible. Neither one of us are Greek or Hebrew scholars, so at this point, WE CANNOT TRUST "God's Word". THIS was the trap I was referring to. We can both prove our points by referring to "this translation" or "that translation". What does God say for sure? I don't know. What I do know is that if God says homosexuality is a sin, then there are people that God made that will be sinning no matter who they are with if they choose a mate, because they are born male AND female. IF the Bible is true and is the Word of God, as my opponent suggests, he needs to explain the contradiction of God's law vs nature. He still needs to explain why a "fair" and "just" God would make a law that everyone was not able to follow.
My opponent explained how we determine AIS could determine their gender with motor skills, social, agressiveness, ect. Reference please? I know many 100% females that have these traits. Furthermore, WHEN do you decided what sex you are. Some are assigned a sex at birth and later feel as though they were assigned the wrong gender.While I will agree that the mind plays an important role, according to http://www.isna.org..., "The child is assigned a gender as boy or girl after tests (hormonal, genetic, radiological) have been done and the parents have consulted with the doctors on which gender the child is more likely to feel as she or he grows up. In cases of intersex, doctors and parents need to recognize, however, that gender assignment of infants with intersex conditions as boy or girl, as with assignment of any infant, is preliminary. Any child"intersex or not"may decide later in life that she or he was given the wrong gender assignment; but children with certain intersex conditions have significantly higher rates of gender transition than the general population, with or without treatment." Once the decision is made, what if the patient feels they made the wrong decision and wants to change? Once you decide, is that the end of the story? God is obviously silent on the issue.
(My opponents expected answers)
1) Silence on SSM proves MY point. If God had a problem with it, why was he silent on it?
2) God didn't change his mind, he changed his LAWS as I have proven time and again.
3) I have proven that no one knows what "arsenkoites" means. Malokois is defined above in post.
4) The same way AIS sex is not a sin. PROVE it IS a sin. I don't have to prove a negative.
5) It cannot be trusted. Simple. If one part is wrong, all parts are subject.
6) It was the original language.
My opponent needs to now explain that if the Bible is God's Word, why all the contradictions? He is using that book for the basis of all of his arguments. Here is what we do know
1) AIS people exist. They will be gay with anyone they choose as a mate
2) If my interpretation of the Bible is wrong on the subject of homosexuality, how do you reconcile God creating AIS people?
3) What is your rebuttal to Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13
4) If God reveals to us our orientation through our gender and we are born with 2 genders, then what?
First off: My opponent is making blunt shots at me stating that the scripture is contradicting itself: that notion is aimed directly at my opponents case where he himself used the contradicting nature of a certain bible as base for diminishing its value. I responded with the notion that all include contradictions, but since we're discussing theology with our soul evidence being scripture related it is the best we have since the passages we are discussing have nothing to do with these contradictions and thus are beside the point. My opponent also argues that the hebrew text is the most accurate and should be followed in this debate, but it too is unreliable according to your own case. Those things ARE mutually exclusive, we cannot accept both arguments. If we accept that the scripture is not valid a hyper-majority of this debate has gone invalid and mute; including my opponents case wherever he references the scripture. He also asked me to show contradictions in the Hebrew texts: I'd say three would suffice:
ISA 14:21 shows example of children being punished for the sins of their fathers, while DEU 24:1 shows that each person cannot die for sins of their fathers.
2SA 6:23 describe Seul dying without children, whereas 2SA 21:8 describe her as having at least a single daughter.
My opponent makes the interesting case of adoption to prove that gods plan isn't always written in the scripture. Unfortunately for his case adoption is mentioned, often, always in a positive light. When it comes to single mother adoptions specifically we can indirectly deduce from other parts of the scripture. For instance, we know that Moses is adopted by a single woman. There are no inducting verses that make us think that his adoptive mother was married. Yet Moses was favoured by god indicating that adoption is blessed no matter the parent. The truth is indirect deductions often have to suffice when it comes to scriptures, and indirectly we see that homosexuality is not favoured.
Now, God may have created all things, by that does not mean he endorses them. He created casinos and diseases, leprosy and alzheimer's, muggers and murderers, disasters and infertility. Yet he endorses none of these things. Homosexuality is not endorsed. What my opponent and I do not agree on is if it is mentioned anywhere, I state that it is mentioned both indirectly (m-f) and with arsenkoites.
It is ironic that my opponent cites 2 Sam 5:13, the king David. He had 700 wives, but the lord did not allow it, for this behaviour lead his son, Solomon, astray from god: “He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God “. we also see the Jesus explained divorce being allowed not because god endorsed it, but because men where hard of heart and easily tempted if we may put it that way: “He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. “
laws may change, but they don't do so without us actually getting a notifier on it. Nowhere is it said that homosexuality has been allowed, which was already forbidden indirectly and directly. Neither is unjust divorce nor polygamy nor remarriage. He did mention it, you're just arguing that he did not, I never conceded to that point except for the sake of argument, I am arguing that he did mention it and wasn't silent, as already shown. Nowhere did my opponent prove that laws do change without a reason or without a notice. It is always man that changes the law.
The issue with Arsen and Mala is that they are not without meaning. I've already made the case why they should mean what I think they mean but my opponent's core rebuttal is “you cannot know so you're wrong.” Why am I wrong? The contexts suggests homosexuals, the etymology suggests homosexuals, the usage of the two words making Arsen. are used in a verse condemning homosexuals in other places, why is it not homosexuals? There are no indicators of it meaning anything else, so why would it mean something else? My opponent has not properly refuted the claim that the words mean what they mean, and as such they are the most likely answer meaning god DID condemn SSM both directly and indirectly with M+F verses.
On AIS, for it is the base of my opponents case:
When I listed the “likely criteria” for gender responses I was simply taking what usually cuts genders apart. However, my opponent is mixing up “having two sexual organs” and “being of both sexes.” as hard as you'll try and defend that claim the truth is AIS are all of either sex. There are not many that identify as both, usually they pick one and other. And even changing the sex is relatively rare: as I already cited in my last round only a few PAIS patients decide that they where assigned the incorrect gender, meaning your hormone tests are in my favour as they reveal the “true” gender of that person with an alarming success rate. The issue is that they are only one, they are either homosexuals or not. Biologically, they are one gender. Mentally, they are one gender. The only issue is that their body is defective and partially unresponsive to androgens. I may be feminine, but I identify as a male. Hormone testing show I am male, genetic testing show I'm male, my brain is male even If it is relaxed even if I am sensitive and artistic. That's where my opponent's argument falls together, because the co-presence of certain organs does not decide one's sex. There are more variables to it than that and your gender identity is one along with your preferences and wishes. God makes no mistakes, but it is ours to understand his will and ask for his forgiveness if we go against it.
Unlike a lot of things that did exist as the bible existed few are under as much controversy as homosexuality. As you, our charming readers of DDO, may have noticed god's stance on the matter is somewhat blurry. Is he silent on the matter? Does he indirectly forbid it? Does Arsenkoites matter in the case or does it not? Both me and my opponent have made good cases, but I believe that the scriptures are not in favour of the act, and that god's plan is undefined in my opponents case. We have seen how god seems to prefer males and females falling in love, and we have seen how homosexuality is discouraged in the few places it does surface in the written word whether in translations or the original text according to my case. We see how a species full of homosexuals would go extinct and we see how god who wishes us to survive, multiply and prosper would wish us to pair off and love long and create a large family.
Now, dear voters of this debate: I wish that you keep a perfectly neutral PoV as you read trough this debate and I'd wish that your own opinions on Same sex marriage do not interfere with your votes, nor your opinion of god, AIS or the scripture. For we are not discussing the validly of these things, we're not discussing if homosexuality is immoral or “wrong”, only if god made way for them in their plans, if god would allow them. The existence of god is irrelevant as is if Ssm is moral outside Christianity. I ask readers to keep this in mind as they vote.
With that I thank Pro for a challenging and entertaining debate and wish you all a good night.