I am sorry but I fail to see how the externallity of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is proof of homosexual design.
Not design, evolution.
Think, for 2 seconds, what the purpose of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is. Then think about one thing that men typically have, and women typically don't, and what sense it makes for something of that function to be outside of the body, rather than inside, considering who has what and does what with it. Sorry, language filters, you know?
Nerve endings serve more than one typical purpose other than sexual functioning,
Actually, no. Nerve endings typically have one highly specific function. Heat sensors detect heat, light pressure sensors detect light pressure, itch sensors detect itch... But by all means, if you can think of a non sexual function for sexually responsive nerve endings in the anus, I'm all ears.
and you have not addressed how the lack of flexibility and self lubricating features, seem to detract fro this idea of homosexual evolution.
Not at all. The body is full of "design flaws". The eye, for example, could be much better designed to see better and for longevity. But you aren't going to tell me the eye isn't for seeing just because there are a few design sensors. All we can determine is what an organs function is from what we can observe it doing. If we were to take the idea and run with it that structures with design flaws inherent aren't intended for any activity that agravates those design flaws, well, pretty soon you'll be telling me that knees aren't intended for walking on!
The fact is God is clear on the subject of homosexuality,
How do you know what God thinks on the matter? You're not another fair weather Biblical literalist, are you?
it is against the design of the human body.
Nonsense. arguments from design inherently fail here. Now, I don't know you from a bar of soap, but how close am I... You were first sure that homosexuality was a sin, and then went looking for support from an argument from design, rather than looking at the body, determining that homosexually didn't seem to be an appropriate function, and then deciding it was a sin. Am I right?
However the fact that homosexuality being a sin, as I told a homosexual friend of a mutual friend is no different to adultery, cheating, stealing, hatred, murder etc etc. Sin is sin, as in James it says if you break one part of the Law you are guilty of breaking all of it. The point is we all need a saviour as we are all lost and guilty of disobedience to God
This part I agree with.
Don't forget being judgemental and haughty too.
