THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[Tassman]

Translation "people who agree with me"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

[Tassman]

Was Moses alive during the times of Judges? In any event Deuteronomy 22:25-27 states the following.



Deuteronomy 7:3 also forbids intermarriage. . .



Think about it. . .

[Tassman]

I'm not missing the point. That homosexuality exists naturally is not an argument for its protection or preservation. That is what you initially argued.

edited version of my argument and the one upon which you based your comment. My original argument was contained in #63 and should be read as a whole...especially the part seer omitted in his usual dishonest way:

In short, the argument against homosexuality cannot be made on the basis that it's "unnatural", because it demonstrably isn't, nor on the basis that it harms social cohesion, because it demonstrably doesn't.

[Adam]

Ephebophilia.

[arnoldo]

You seem to be accepting the historical reality of the OT which is a step in the right direction for you. . . The next step is to read the quote in context. . .who is speaking? Read the context of the event which only applies to the tribe of Benjamin for the sole purpose of preventing it's extinction. After that reread this verse.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27
But if the man comes upon the engaged girl out in the countryside, and the man grabs her and has sexual relations with her, then only the man who had intercourse with her is to die. 26 You will do nothing to the girl, because she has done nothing deserving of death. . .

Finally, realize that even if the OT states that David committed adultery or murdered someone it doesn't mean that the OT condones it like you seem to be implying. .

[Tassman]

You seem to be accepting the historical reality of the OT which is a step in the right direction for you. . . The next step is to read the quote in context. . .who is speaking? Read the context of the event which only applies to the tribe of Benjamin for the sole purpose of preventing it's extinction. After that reread this verse.

What part of my Post #107: legend" and my Post #106

[seer]

And it is not acceptable because it is natural. Which is what you implied.

Homosexuality, as with heterosexuality, is acceptable because it does not damage the social fabric of society in the way that anti-social behavior does.

Just because something does not "damage" the social fabric of society does not mean it should be morally acceptable. Bestiality doesn't generally harm the "social fabric of society" yet we would not consider that moral.

Once again anti-social behaviour such as rape harms social cohesion; hence our proscription of it. Although there was a time in primitive tribal history when it was acceptable under certain circumstances, just as it continues to be commonplace among our primate cousins.

But that is nonsense Tass, rape in the higher primate groups does not harm social cohesion - their social cohesion is fine. So that is a silly reason.

[Carrikature]

By that logic, we shouldn't lock our doors because it's assuming any person can be a thief.

Not even close.

[Carrikature]

edited version of my argument and the one upon which you based your comment. My original argument was contained in #63 and should be read as a whole...especially the part seer omitted in his usual dishonest way:

Try again. I quoted you directly, and the post I quoted was #63.

In short, the argument against homosexuality cannot be made on the basis that it's "unnatural", because it demonstrably isn't, nor on the basis that it harms social cohesion, because it demonstrably doesn't.

Neither can you make an argument that it should be accepted because it's natural, which is what you did.

[Carrikature]

Just because something does not "damage" the social fabric of society does not mean it should be morally acceptable. Bestiality doesn't generally harm the "social fabric of society" yet we would not consider that moral.

Certainly the social fabric of society is not the only consideration involved. We consider bestiality immoral for similar reasons as pedophiliac acts: the inability of the victim to grant consent.

But that is nonsense Tass, rape in the higher primate groups does not harm social cohesion - their social cohesion is fine. So that is a silly reason.

Even if it's true that their social cohesion is not harmed (which I don't grant), that doesn't speak to its effect on human social cohesion. It definitely affects human social cohesion.

[Carrikature]

I haven't read the post in question

If you can't be bothered to spend a few minutes tracking back to a previous post, why should the rest of us be bothered to read your comments on it?

[Sparko]

Not even close.

actually yeah it is.

[Carrikature]

actually yeah it is.

Not at all.

Consider:
1) Some black men commit crimes.
2) You're a black man, therefore you're probably going to commit a crime.

The first is true unequivocally. The second is profiling. The same thing is true of men as sexual predators. #1 is true, #2 is what is happening. Same thing with locking your doors at night. People steal, but that's not the same as singling people out as potential thieves.

It's a very important distinction.

[seer]

Certainly the social fabric of society is not the only consideration involved. We consider bestiality immoral for similar reasons as pedophiliac acts: the inability of the victim to grant consent.

Why would consent be even come into the picture? Isn't that a rather arbitrary line in the sand? I mean we don't ask for consent when we want to kill and eat the sheep.

Even if it's true that their social cohesion is not harmed (which I don't grant), that doesn't speak to its effect on human social cohesion. It definitely affects human social cohesion.

Well seems that is because you are not enlightened, we need to get over this provincial idea that rape is bad thing. And I'm not sure how rape undermined social cohesion in the higher primates - they see to flourish just fine.

[Sparko]

Not at all.

Consider:
1) Some black men commit crimes.
2) You're a black man, therefore you're probably going to commit a crime.

The first is true unequivocally. The second is profiling. The same thing is true of men as sexual predators. #1 is true, #2 is what is happening. Same thing with locking your doors at night. People steal, but that's not the same as singling people out as potential thieves.

It's a very important distinction.

Neither is making men stay out of the ladies room. derp.