To be polite but frank, I think your description of me committing a 'black swan fallacy' and moving goalposts is actually exactly what you're doing right now.
I also never claimed that you were definitively portrayed bible on being positive on homosexuality. I simply detected an insinuation and decided to prod at it a bit with a half-hearted question. I say half-hearted because I already know the answer to my question anyways lol.
Why don't we just de-complicate the whole thing, shall we? Homosexuality is not a normative variation. In fact, we can't even prove it's genetic. At best, it is an adopted behavior-based probably more on psychology than anything else, maybe coupled with hormones and brain patterns. But that's as far as it goes. In any case, your point on 'it's not as damaging as rape or sexual molestation' is hard to hold up as well, from a 'natural' or evolutionary standpoint. If you think about it, considering how many people use the animal kingdom(saying homosexuality in animals is common, so therefore it's OK for us)as an example to call it 'harmless'(which, I don't see how it's exactly harmless naturally speaking since it would prevent procreation and passing on your genetics...which is kind of the whole point of living, from a purely scientific standpoint)think about this; sexual molestation and rape is actually very common in the animal kingdom. Have you ever seen an otter raping a baby seal before killing it? It's not pretty. Or perhaps a lion murdering a cub that came from a rival?
I'm obviously not trying to place homosexuals on the same level as murderers and rapists, but I'm making the point that your view on the matter is based on morals; and unless you get your word from God, there is no universal standard of morals. We would've only developed morals as a species in order to become more social and boost our chances of surviving in numbers; just another tactic used by nature. With that being said, one could also argue that ANY means of ensuring survival and the best genes passed on would be, by nature's standards, the best choice.
Also, homosexuality has likely been around since humans have been. Just because it wasn't called the same thing, doesn't mean it was different back then. Homosexuality, is wanting to have sex with the same gender. That's literally it.
There are times when being dogmatic is appropriate. Being homosexual is not spiritually beneficial for a Christian, as it goes against the basic principles of marriage. I also did not say procreation was ABSOLUTELY necessary, but it is a very important factor in marriage as a whole.
I'm also not really going to address the whole 'misogynist' view of marriage back then since that'd turn into a whole other historical debate and honestly morality has nothing to do with it. After all--if we'd done it God's way from the get-go, women wouldn't have been treated that way to begin with. That there is man's error.
At least the bible doesn't permit a man to beat his wife with a stick if she refuses to obey like in the Quran :1
If you're going to speak in a way that can reasonably be interpreted as such, maybe reconsider the argument once over?
~~~
Arguably it IS a normative variation in that it fits the basic requirements we'd have for sexuality of two people consensually engaging in sex that isn't harmful societally or in terms of human dignity. You have little to no basis to say it's purely environmental and certainly not in the sense of people having to be abused sexually for it to come about. Genetic is more complicated that just the genes themselves having those properties, epigenetics shows that they can be changed by the environment rather than a psychological factor being the reason for the disposition
~~~
You do know there aren't that many homosexuals right? It's not damaging if it's a normal variation that's a minority in the population, but I get the feeling you don't even understand evolution entirely.
~~~
No one is committing an appeal to nature fallacy, they're turning the claims of those who claim homosexuality is unnatural on its head in a reductio ad absurdum: by their logic, rape is moral because it would be natural, but so would homosexuality. The problem is with that fallacy being used to justify the normalcy of homosexuality, not pointing out evidence that it isn't a strictly human behavior
~~~
A universal standard of morality doesn't have to be absolute and unflinching, it has to acknowledge that not all contexts dictate the same application of moral principles, otherwise you're literally applying morality as legalism instead of considering that the situation matters far more than one tries to ignore. Morality no more needs the supernatural than it needs dogma in any form, it needs skepticism and applying the principles with consideration to consequences (physical, emotional, etc) as well as the virtues we consider based on their benefits in motivating behavior
~~~~
No, you're strawmanning evolution as committing an appeal to nature fallacy by saying evolutionary theory has anything to do with morality: it doesn't, btw, it's descriptive, not prescriptive, because evolution doesn't happen the way you seem to think it does
~~~~
Pretty sure homosexuality varied in frequency of monogamy and such, the idea of such committed relationships was sadly a general minority in many cultures, but the minority position in terms of demographics no more indicates untruth than the majority does the contrary
~~~~
Except Christianity itself doesn't dictate everyone must get married, if you're taking Paul as remotely authoritative, since he says that you can be devoted without being married. Also, pretty sure you have little basis to suggest all married Christians must have kids, but you've quite possibly not said that. Your opinion based on interpretation of the bible doesn't mean it is necessarily true or will be acknowledged as having a solid basis
~~~~
No, pretty sure God's way is also misogynist, considering he didn't make Eve from dirt, he made her from Adam's rib, which suggests a woman is lesser than a man at least metaphorically, but even God seems to dictate a woman being submissive in terms of post-fall commands to Adam and Eve. If all you have is some pie-in-the-sky equality in heaven, that's wishful thinking that's not realized until the end of days anyway, so it's basically pointless to the present discussion unless you can demonstrate that God wants women and men to be equal and not have a patriarchal favoritist attitude to men
~~~
Sorru, you don't get to pull a tu quoque and dismiss Islam because of its own context that probably isn't regarded positively by modern Muslims, the culture they existed in was as harsh as the OT practically, yet you cry that we should consider the context and how God permits bad things because of some plan. I sense cognitive dissonance a bit here. I'm not supporting Islam, even in the reasonable sense it can be said to exist, but if all you have is "Well, these people are bad too," then you've failed to see how little that matters to the truth and merit of YOUR book's claims, because it could be that both of you are wrong
~~~~
The Abrahamic religions have no issue with slavery, particularly the OT in terms of such things and even if God was against it, it seems particularly a failing to not supposedly enforce some notions in the Decaloque that owning a person was morally wrong
