Your opinion on homosexuality?

[Tmutarakhan]

Yes. It's also discriminatory to prohibit people who cannot responsibly make the decision to drive or not drive based on alcohol consumption.

Not all "discrimination" is bad. Allowing same-sex marriage is not a physical threat to other motorists.

Yes, but it is a threat to the dictionary meaning!

Patterns of ink on paper, unlike human beings, do not suffer any pain, and cannot be "threatened" since, like any other inanimate matter, they are as content to be in any state as any other.

[Hittanryan]

You'll pardon us if we don't take that at face value, right?

I am not disputing it; you can believe whatever you would like to believe in.

Good, because I am of the opinion that man creates God, not the other way around.

[Salandriagado]

If that's what makes you happy.

That is what is said to have been done.

It is one of a whole lot of nonsensical things that are said to have been done.

[Venolia]

I am not disputing it; you can believe whatever you would like to believe in.

Good, because I am of the opinion that man creates God, not the other way around.

Good to know.

[Venolia]

That is what is said to have been done.

It is one of a whole lot of nonsensical things that are said to have been done.

If that is how you feel, then, yes, it is, to you.

[Ifreann]

Everyone should try it at least once.

Never judge the gays until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Then you're a mile away and have their no doubt fashionable shoes.

[Astrolinium]

Everyone should try it at least once.

Never judge the gays until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Then you're a mile away and have their no doubt fashionable shoes.

You want to take my shoes, go ahead. They used to be white, now they're a dingy brown and in sore need of replacement.

[Tmutarakhan]

If that's what makes you happy.

That is what is said to have been done.

The books don't actually say that, you know? Nobody really knows when this attribution of the books to "Moses" came up. In the books, the only thing Moses is said to have written down personally is an account of Israel's battle with Amalek.

[Zeotropica]

In and of itself (detached from other people), would we consider homosexuality a genetic advantage?

A 'genetic advantage' is not a fixed or immutable point on a scale, in some circumstances a certain genetic trait may be an advantage , in others less so, or even disadvantagous.

Further to this point, a trait may be advantagous to the individual, or the overall race, or both, or neither, again, circumstance decides, not the approval or disapproval of 'we'...

I, or even 'we', may feel your question is most probably aimed at establishing if a certain genetic trait is socially acceptable in any circumstance, which, of course, has bugger-all to do with genetics, save as a scientific fig-leaf for bigotry...

[Venolia]

That is what is said to have been done.

The books don't actually say that, you know? Nobody really knows when this attribution of the books to "Moses" came up. In the books, the only thing Moses is said to have written down personally is an account of Israel's battle with Amalek.

I am not claiming otherwise; traditionally, he is thought to have written the first five books. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)

[Batuni]

...
I feel like whoever came up with that one was really freaking bored.

Moses wrote it, he was commanded to do so by God, and most of the Laws were given to him by God, orally, that is, and then Noah wrote them down.

God gave Moses oral?

This 'Bible' is racier than I thought.

[Venolia]

Moses wrote it, he was commanded to do so by God, and most of the Laws were given to him by God, orally, that is, and then Noah wrote them down.

God gave Moses oral?

This Bible is racier than I thought.

Orally means by mouth, but, to answer your question, no He did not.

[Salandriagado]

The books don't actually say that, you know? Nobody really knows when this attribution of the books to "Moses" came up. In the books, the only thing Moses is said to have written down personally is an account of Israel's battle with Amalek.

I am not claiming otherwise; traditionally, he is thought to have written the first five books. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)

Except that he demonstrably didn't.

[Venolia]

I am not claiming otherwise; traditionally, he is thought to have written the first five books. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)

Except that he demonstrably didn't.

Except that, I'm not disputing it.

[Tmutarakhan]

The books don't actually say that, you know? Nobody really knows when this attribution of the books to "Moses" came up. In the books, the only thing Moses is said to have written down personally is an account of Israel's battle with Amalek.

I am not claiming otherwise; traditionally, he is thought to have written the first five books. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)

You were claiming that it was a FACT that Moses wrote those books. Since the books include an account of his death, and lists of local rulers for centuries after his time, and since there is no source for the tradition anyway, rational people have not taken that "tradition" seriously for a very long time. It is a tradition that the French royals descended from the rape of a princess by a sea monster: do you consider that factual, just because people long ago used to say that?

[Salandriagado]

Except that he demonstrably didn't.

Except that, I'm not disputing it.

Yes, you are. You claimed that it was an opinion. Things that are demonstrable facts are not opinions.

[Venolia]

I am not claiming otherwise; traditionally, he is thought to have written the first five books. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)

You were claiming that it was a FACT that Moses wrote those books. Since the books include an account of his death, and lists of local rulers for centuries after his time, and since there is no source for the tradition anyway, rational people have not taken that "tradition" seriously for a very long time. It is a tradition that the French royals descended from the rape of a princess by a sea monster: do you consider that factual, just because people long ago used to say that?

I never said it was fact.

[Condunum]

God gave Moses oral?

This Bible is racier than I thought.

Orally means by mouth, but, to answer your question, no He did not.

You don't know that.

[Venolia]

Except that, I'm not disputing it.

Yes, you are. You claimed that it was an opinion. Things that are demonstrable facts are not opinions.

Two people are arguing against me, both think I made a claim, one thinks I said it was a fact, while the other thinks I said it was an opinion; while, in reality, I was just responding to a post.

[Chinese Regions]

Do you eat pork and shellfish? Wear clothes of two fabrics?

Old bible traditions are distinguished to all who have an argument as stupid as this!

Then why support the old bible tradition of the ban on homosexuality yet not follow other laws? Cherry-picking the laws that suit you.

[Venolia]

Orally means by mouth, but, to answer your question, no He did not.

You don't know that.

I know what 'orally' means.

[Condunum]

You don't know that.

I know what 'orally' means.

But you don't know God didn't give Moses oral.

[Venolia]

I know what 'orally' means.

But you don't know God didn't give Moses oral.

'Oral' as in oral sex?

[Chinese Regions]

It doesn't. Blind people can't drive, and homosexual couples can't procreate.

If procreation is the reason for marriage, then would it be unreasonable to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples?

Procreation is simply one of the by-products of marriage.

I am told people actually have children outside of marriage.

Yes it is very horrifying indeed

[Tmutarakhan]

You were claiming that it was a FACT that Moses wrote those books. Since the books include an account of his death, and lists of local rulers for centuries after his time, and since there is no source for the tradition anyway, rational people have not taken that "tradition" seriously for a very long time. It is a tradition that the French royals descended from the rape of a princess by a sea monster: do you consider that factual, just because people long ago used to say that?

I never said it was fact.

You're statement was "Moses wrote it, he was commanded to do so by God". Not "some ignorant people used to say that Moses wrote it"; just "Moses wrote it" as if it were like "Stephen King wrote The Stand" or "Shelby Foote wrote a multi-volume Civil War history."