For those who want proof of the exodus

[KevinM1]

The morality of homosexuality didn't change; society's perception of it changed. Consensual sexuality is never immoral by nature, whereas owning another human as property is and always has been.

This is not true.

Your framing these acts through the lens of modern morality. from your current vantage point you can say A was never ok or b always was despite what the people who live in a society thought 50 years ago.

 We know this because 50 years ago their were laws on the book identifying homosexuality as being a criminal offense, therefore an immoral act in most states. where as now it is legal for gays to get married. Their was a paradigm shift in morality concerning homosexuality in this country.

If your going to be a self-righteous douche and claim the high ground while ignoring history, I'd like you to go ahead and list all of the other 'morally right' things society currently deems immoral/illegal. Where does underage sex, incest, and sex with animals rank in your version of 'always been moral?' What if all parties give their consent? After all you did say:

Consensual sexuality is never immoral by nature,

I think most of us don't care one way or another about incest.
Animals cannot give consent.
Children can, but it wouldn't be considered informed consent since children really don't understand/grasp things (even when they think they do).  That's why we don't let them vote, make important financial decisions, etc.

Regarding biblical slavery, your entire "It still happens today and you condone it!" show is merely a transparent way to equivocate.  If we condone slavery in the 21st century, then we have no right to criticize the slavery mentioned in the bible.  Except, we don't actively condone it.  It's a fact of life that, given how globalized capitalism works, individual people cannot do much about it because, as you say, our entire culture is built upon cheaply produced goods.  And we have no viable second option.

So, no, it's not that we accept (as in approve, morally support) slavery.  It's that we're not in a position to change it much.

You'll note, however, that there is a global push to improve working conditions and worker safety around the world.  The notion that one can beat their slave/employee is considered grossly immoral by most, and that's why we take issue with that particular portion of the bible.  As you noted with laws regarding homosexuality, morality is subjective and changes over time.  And that's why we scoff at the idea of the bible being a font of objective morality.  Because objective clearly morality doesn't exist.  Morality is never static.  It's, instead, based on ideas of equity and fairness, and those are always fluid.

So, it really doesn't matter if ancient Jews felt that it was okay to beat slaves so long as they didn't die.  Generally speaking, we're beyond that in thought if not practice, and the practice is largely out of our control due to a variety of factors.