[Catt of the Garage]

I've never heard of this either and some research is probably in order. It sounds like a reasonable theory on the different categories of law and why we should still follow some but ignore others; but like keltic63, I would be wondering how you know which verse fits into each category - without some kind of guidance on whether a particular precept is moral, legal or ceremonial it seems of little practical use. You don't know which is which, so you don't know which to follow and which to ignore, and you're back to square 1, aren't you?

The real flaw in this argument to my mind is that the splitting up of the Holiness Code into three different categories could just as well be used as an argument for homosexuality as an argument against it. Your adversary is assuming that the prohibitions on homosexuality are "moral" precepts, but who's to say? The word used to mean "abomination" in these verses is one which is usually used in the context of ritual uncleanness or idolatry; and that could place those verses in the category of "ceremonial" law. Alternatively, the early Israelites were charged (unless I'm much mistaken) to stone people indulging in this behaviour, which smacks of a "legal" precept. It's a matter of interpretation, and if there is no way to determine which interpretation is correct then it's a dead end.

If I were you the first thing I'd do is take the discussion back to your adversary and get them to explain to you how they make the distinction between the different categories of law in the Holiness Code. If their basis isn't biblical or very, very logical, then this is a human construct and of no particular value in the argument.