A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[1robin]

It's nice to see you here too.

Aww geeee.

Well, I find this to be kind of an odd assertion given that what you're saying actually amounts to a consoldiation of the family unit.

I am confused. I know exactly what your trying to get to but I have no idea how this is a step in that direction. I just don't get it.

Are you saying that homosexuality has destroyed empires?

Maybe, what I am saying is that immorality has destroyed empires and homosexuality was among those they committed. I don't know if homosexuality alone can destroy an empire (actually strict homosexuality would destroy the human race) but it is not hard to see that it would be a contributing factor but my statement was more general. Many times a new nation or empire has tore of from an older corrupt one and for a time tried to stay away from the evils that led them to leave. However as Taylor's cultural lifecycles predicted they eventually grow in their moral integrity until they are complacent and eventually start slipping into the same habits they broke from. If you look it up democracy's particular steps include leaving tyranny, establishing faith, growing strong, becoming complacent and fat, slipping into mediocrity with the loss of faith, then moral insanity and finally either collapse or being marginalized. You can see that occur in many nations pasts.

Wow, then we've been in the last days for thousands of years now, at least.

Nope, as Nietzsche said since philosophers killed God in the 19th century the 20th would be the bloodiest in history and general madness would prevail. There has never been anything like this and I don't mean only the technological ability to kill more but the willingness to use it and do so. There is no longer anywhere for a morally indignant population to escape to. The US was the last great light on the hill and it is quickly being extinguished. There has never been anything like this.

Well, I don't know, I think it's kind of insane to assert that the adoption of children by gay couples amounts to some kind of breakdown of the family unit. I mean, you're actually saying that creating a family unit is causing the break up of the family unit.

It isn't. At best there are only a handful of homosexual family groups in nature proper and not one strictly homosexual species. On what basis can anyone justify claiming that homosexual couples who adopt are legitimate and natural family groups. I am trying to keep my theological hand behind my back but it is hard to do so. Why must I argue from half of reality (and the worst half).

I'm sorry to say Robin, because I actually think you're better than the things you are saying here, I find your claims and assertions to be erroneous, immoral and demeaning to your fellow human being.

You must do far more before you can even suggest what I said is theoretically bad. I do not know how good I am but I have never ever personally restricted a homosexual from doing anything but despite that almost half of them I have known have destroyed themselves. I judge a behavior not a person or try to. I am sure telling thief he is acting unjustifiably is demeaning but it is also true. I try and never personally impose on anyone but if something which I say is true and just so happens to be inconvenient for someone who is voluntarily listening and I have justification for saying it I really don't care to much. I am not, will never be, and resent the suppression of truth gained by the enforcement of political correctness. It is evil. BTW I take my own medicine, if I do evil and that evil is called evil, I never contend with the one saying it. I agree and repent and try to do better. I never act as if the one saying so was wrong because they are not.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm out of this thread, I can't stand any more of this homophobic drivel.

 

[1robin]

Hmmmm ....

"As of 2011, for states with available data, the dissolution rate of same-sex couples is lower that of opposite-sex couples. The percentage of those same-sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8%, or 1.1% on average across all listed jurisdictions per year, while 2% of married opposite-sex couples divorce annually.[21] Other sources cite that lesbian divorce is twice the rate of gay male divorce.[22][23][24][25] Some studies have shown that lesbian committed relationships do not last as long as gay male committed relationships.[26]"

Divorce of same-sex couples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have never ever seen a stat that did not show that homosexual relationships do not produce higher rates of adultery, lower span of marriages, higher rates of intimate violence, even lower general relationship commitment.

Actually lets start with this bizarre article I just happen to run across first.

Homosexuality:Infidelity is the key to a stable marriage?
By Nicole M. King
www.MercatorNet.com
June 4, 2014
While progressives and liberals argue that homosexual “marriages” or unions are no less stable than heterosexual marriages, even if they are right, the monogamy of such relationships might nonetheless differ. Recent research indicates that homosexual couples are more likely to be permissive of infidelity and open relationships.
An article in The New York Times explains that recent research “reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians…The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years – about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationship, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."
What is peculiar in these cases is not just frequency of outside sexual activity, but that partners are aware of, and consent to, such infidelity. In fact, the article cites a previous study which “concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer [than monogamous gay relationships].” Because monogamy is often not expected, and infidelity is consented to, by the other partner, outside sexual activity is typically not a likely reason for terminating a homosexual relationship.
In contrast with the expectations among “gay marriages,” recent research indicates that adultery is likely the greatest factor in causing divorce among heterosexual marriages. Thus, the expectations and norms regarding fidelity seem to differ greatly between heterosexual and homosexual couple. Perhaps defining stability in terms of the mere duration of the relationship is not enough to capture what ought to be the relevant factors when considering a “stable marriage.”
Homosexuality: Infidelity is the key to a stable marriage? | Virtueonline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

Take that first line as evidence of calling right wrong that I had mentioned. Gays have to cheat to now save the marriage. What planet are we on?

 

[1robin]

I'm out of this thread, I can't stand any more of this homophobic drivel.

C-ya. Glad you managed to get in one final accusation or insult.

 

[Parsimony]

@Al-Fatihah

Is your argument that two men or two women cannot fall in love with each other or is it that they can fall in love with each other but lust is always involved? Or is your argument something different entirely? Just correct me if I've got it wrong. What is the difference between lust, sexual love and romantic love?

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have never ever seen a stat that did not show that homosexual relationships do not produce higher rates of adultery, lower span of marriages, higher rates of intimate violence, even lower general relationship commitment.

Actually lets start with this bizarre article I just happen to run across first.

Homosexuality:Infidelity is the key to a stable marriage?
By Nicole M. King
www.MercatorNet.com
June 4, 2014
While progressives and liberals argue that homosexual “marriages” or unions are no less stable than heterosexual marriages, even if they are right, the monogamy of such relationships might nonetheless differ. Recent research indicates that homosexual couples are more likely to be permissive of infidelity and open relationships.
An article in The New York Times explains that recent research “reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians…The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years – about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationship, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."
What is peculiar in these cases is not just frequency of outside sexual activity, but that partners are aware of, and consent to, such infidelity. In fact, the article cites a previous study which “concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer [than monogamous gay relationships].” Because monogamy is often not expected, and infidelity is consented to, by the other partner, outside sexual activity is typically not a likely reason for terminating a homosexual relationship.
In contrast with the expectations among “gay marriages,” recent research indicates that adultery is likely the greatest factor in causing divorce among heterosexual marriages. Thus, the expectations and norms regarding fidelity seem to differ greatly between heterosexual and homosexual couple. Perhaps defining stability in terms of the mere duration of the relationship is not enough to capture what ought to be the relevant factors when considering a “stable marriage.”
Homosexuality: Infidelity is the key to a stable marriage? | Virtueonline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

Take that first line as evidence of calling right wrong that I had mentioned. Gays have to cheat to now save the marriage. What planet are we on?

A fox news article from an opinion show states that the political view of their target audience is correct? What? This shocks me!

 

[Uberpod]

I'm out of this thread, I can't stand any more of this homophobic drivel.

C-ya. Glad you managed to get in one final accusation or insult.

I will fill his spot - I am not saturated yet.

 

[Uberpod]

I have never ever seen a stat that did not show that homosexual relationships do not produce higher rates of adultery, lower span of marriages, higher rates of intimate violence, even lower general relationship commitment.

Why don't you respond to the one shown you?

Take that first line as evidence of calling right wrong that I had mentioned. Gays have to cheat to now save the marriage. What planet are we on?

An open relationship is not cheating! Gay guys can talk with each other about what they find sexy in others , heteros get in trouble if they do this. Gays can even have sexual behavior with third parties inside or outside the couple without upheaval. Love and lust are not merged into an amalgam for them like it is for many women.

 

[1robin]

To be fair there has never been an atheist utopia. If Communist Russia is anyone's idea of a utopia then there is something wrong with them.

Well your right about that. There were disastrous atheist attempts to make them of every size but they all failed.
That is exactly what Russia was to be. Stalin was a resentful and failed seminary student hand picked for his intolerance towards faith in general. Entire policies were devoted to eradicating faith.

I will make a deal with you just for the heck of it. If you do not try and lay the acts of men that contradict my faith at the feet of my faith I won't do so with atheist crimes even though they have no doctrines that they violated. That is quite benevolent of me, no?

Though also to be fair if you want to take Stalin who was a dictator and psychopath who didn't act in the name of Atheism then it would only be fair if we added the 24.7 million people in Africa Suffering from AIDS in no small part because of the Christian influence against condoms in that region. If we're gonna make lots of indirect stretches then lets go for it on both sides.

Fine, then what verse exactly caused that? Stalin acted in many ways which are strictly atheist or secular. If you actually apply social Darwinism as it exists in nature you have the most violent and uncivil society imaginable. Not to mention that even given no condoms (which is not biblical to begin with and which no Christian I know agrees with) if Africans also obeyed the bible's verses on sexual behavior aids would never ever be a significant issue. That was some weird cherry picking. Blaming us for a teaching with no scriptural basis whatever but neglecting the actual verses that do teach about sex.

And no. Hitler was a Christian. By your ideology he wasn't a "True Christian" but he claimed to be a Christian and used Christianity to sway people the way he wanted as part of his toolkit for WWII and especially the extermination of the Jews (that was almost a purely Christian ideology). But by the same stretch if you remove Hitler from your counts could't Atheists remove Stalin? Then where do the number add up?

Ok you asked for it.

1. Hitler was never ever even remotely Christian.
2. At one time he courted the influence of the Catholic church and made a few sympathetic statements but as soon as he learned he would not get their influence he turned of them and Christianity with a vengeance.
3. Read any of his diaries and still say what you did with a straight face.
4. What he actually said once he dropped the pretentions was:

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

(This was what actually drove Hitler. Hitler actually only believed in social Darwinism, Nietzscheism who he personally recommended to Mussolini and Stalin, and Tibetan mysticism, plus he was simply bat crazy)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler was not a Christian:refuting atheist slander

Yeah that guy loved the Lord and the Lord's word. Come off it man. Also notice these are from his later post Christian pretentions era instead of his earlier propaganda seeking church approval.

Not enough. Let's see what he thought about the culture and people of our Lord.

“The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy.
- Rauschning,Hitler Speaks,p. 234
“...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again.”
- Song sung by Hitler youth
“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 87
“Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 222
“The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 220
“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.”
- Adolf Hitler (quoted in Burleigh and Wippermann, Racial State, p. 107)
“If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.”
- Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, p. 122; from a conversation with Croatian Foreign Minister General Kvaternik, July 21, 1941
“The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit is the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time.”
- Jackel, Hitler's Worldview, p. 52; from a speech at Nuremberg, January 13, 1923
“The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 7
“The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51
“.. Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement? Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending? Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew.”
- Rauschning,Hitler Speaks
“The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953),
Hitler Quotes from Adolf Hitler

Again that last one is what Hitler actually believed he took a secular look at nature and used social Darwinism to create policy. Euthanizing the old is not in the bible but it is logical for social Darwinism, same with killing anyone who competes for resources with the tribe, exterminating the weak to make mankind strong, killing the infirm who burden society, etc......That is not in the bible anywhere.

 

[1robin]

A fox news article from an opinion show states that the political view of their target audience is correct? What? This shocks me!

Where did you get that? BTW that was not an argument but was just something weird I saw and wanted Skeptical Thinker to look at.

 

[1robin]

I will fill his spot - I am not saturated yet.

Ok, rock on but I might need a substitute because I am exhausted.

 

[1robin]

Why don't you respond to the one shown you?

I have already posted stats in every category I listed including that one and will get around to piling on more soon but first I wanted to see what they said to what I did. If you want them in the meantime search my posts in other homosexual threads where I really piled up mountains of stats. I just can't repeat that whole process for every new poster.

An open relationship is not cheating! Gay guys can talk with each other about what they find sexy in others , heteros get in trouble if they do this. Gays can even have sexual behavior with third parties inside or outside the couple without upheaval. Love and lust are not merged into an amalgam for them like it is for many women.

I did not say it was cheating but it in fact is cheating. Infidelity is never fidelity. What vows do homosexual marry under for pity sake? I said it was adultery and it is that also.

Your actually proving my original argument. Btw have you went back and looked at my main contention yet. What your responding to was really just an off ramp and had nothing to do with it but proves it anyway. Promiscuity is the problem and what produces the damages I listed in my original claims. Admitting it is certainly no defense. Welcome, but I am burned out in this thread, and I have to go for today. Have a good one.

 

[columbus]

Gay guys can talk with each other about what they find sexy in others , heteros get in trouble if they do this. Gays can even have sexual behavior with third parties inside or outside the couple without upheaval. Love and lust are not merged into an amalgam for them like it is for many women.

No, not really. Doug has a jealous streak a mile wide. Sexual behavior with a third party would be a huge upheaval. He doesn't even like for me to talk about hot guys I see, because they are mostly big burly daddy types. He is rather smooth and barely 140# on a heavy day.

But the fact is I want him, not some perfect man. So I am careful not to just say anything that pops into my head. Why annoy him for no reason? You don't stay married if you do that.

Tom

 

[Draka]

Um, how is an open relationship cheating if both agree that that is the relationship they want to be in? And really, those of any orientation may have those types of relationships as well. Certainly not something blanket for one sexuality or another. Also, would it be considered that polygamous marriages are inherently cheating within their relationship? Relationships are complex creatures in and unto themselves. Having the legal classification of "married" does not make a relationship, nor define for everyone what their relationship must be. It is merely a legal commitment, the actual agreed upon personal commitment is what makes a relationship. Like, a couple could be together for many years, decades even, and not legally marry, yet some would foolishly judge that relationship negatively just because it doesn't have the title of "marriage" upon it. Even though it may be longer than most "marriages" and the people may be more "faithful" and even more content.

 

[Uberpod]

No, not really. Doug has a jealous streak a mile wide. Sexual behavior with a third party would be a huge upheaval. He doesn't even like for me to talk about hot guys I see, because they are mostly big burly daddy types. He is rather smooth and barely 140# on a heavy day.

But the fact is I want him, not some perfect man. So I am careful not to just say anything that pops into my head. Why annoy him for no reason? You don't stay married if you do that.

Tom

Thanks for your testimonial. Each relationship is different. What I was speaking of was a general trend in comparison with straights. I would say a significant minority of gay couples had agreed-to extracurricular activity and the percentage is somewhat larger than straight couples. As for talking comfortably about the sexiness of others for gay guys is a slight majority and for straights due to the wives sensibilities a slim minority. I will try and find the article where I read this.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sorry to butt in...

Open marriage with my husband for over 8 years. Married together almost 12 years in total.

But indeed, every relationship is different.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: Yet you failed to refute anything stated or answer the question as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite sex. You failed to disprove the fact joy comes from either giving or receiving, thus failing to disprove my argument for love. Thus your own failed rebuttal makes my point that homosexual sex is based on lust and not love. Otherwise, you would be able to answer the question. Thanks for the assistance.

So I'll leave you with your utterly failed response which only helped to make my point.

Now that others have shown you just how ridiculous it is to only define love within a romantic and sexual relationship as you say - we can move on from those stone age notions since we know your opinions on what love is holds no factual truths.

So let's once again answer for you why a homosexual is sexually attracted to the same sex and not the opposite and why a heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex, but not the same sex.

When a gay man looks at another man he may be attracted to his face, voice, eyes, lips, hands, arms, chest, build, frame, behind, skin tone, his haircut, hair color, his confidence, personality, his style, and later potentially his private parts.

When a straight man looks at a woman he may be attracted to her face, voice, eyes, lips, breasts, legs, frame, hair style, hair color, behind, skin tone, her confidence, her personality, her style, and later potentially her private parts.

Now obviously this is just a rough picture of what a heterosexual and homosexual man finds attractive but it answers what these two orientations are looking for. A gay man looks for masculine features while a straight man looks for feminine features. Why you ask? Because we're all wired differently.

But what we do know is what starts as a sexual attraction can later develop into a romantic loving relationship for both sides, depending on what kind of chemistry you both have and if you both click. Your personal definition on what love is doesn't refute that.

 

[Draka]

Sexual attraction to a person may actually come after personality and emotional attraction. Plenty of people meet over the internet, often times without seeing a pic of each other first and are drawn to who they are as a person. They fall for the person without ever having met them in person. In fact, as is often noted, one can fall in love with a person and the sexual attraction grows from there. That is, one can fall in love with a person they don't immediately find attractive physically, but as the emotional bonds grow, so does the physical attraction.

Now, given that both heterosexuals and homosexuals (and bis of course) fall in love over the internet, or phone, or what-have-you, (hello, blind people fall in love sight unseen all the time) then it would also make sense that, since homosexuals aren't obviously able to judge looks or attraction before having seen someone, that there cannot be just lust there. Lust requires "oh, I just wanna bang that cause it's so hot". If a person falls for another they haven't seen, or over time grows to love someone they initially didn't find their physical "type", then obviously there is certainly more than "lust" involved.

 

[ChristineES]

I am practically asexual. I get embarrassed speaking about even the most benign sexual experience between a elderly couple, even. When I speak of homosexuality, I keep the sex part out of it. Yes, I know it's weird. I have children and all that and I am married.

When I speak of homosexuality, I mean attraction, or love between people, not of the sex part of it.

People are misunderstanding this about me when I speak of it. They think I am saying things I am not saying. I just wanted to clarify a little or try to, anyway.

Good day

 

[oldbadger]

What percentage of Christians ever claimed any black man that ever lived had the mark of Cain exactly? How is something said by a handful of nuts and indictment of billions or have anything to do with the faith? That is simply nuts.

1. Every religion and every atheistic utopia has commuted horrific crimes. The difference is that we have a faith that judges those who do them even if they mistakenly think they are doing them for faith. Atheists do not. That must be why that the greatest bloodletting in recent memory have been atheistic utopic tyrants like Stalin, Pol Pot. Mao, Ceausescu, even Hitler (go ahead and challenge that last one and see what happens). You can add up the hundreds of years of crusades, add in the entire 400 years of the inquisition, throw in the hundred years war (which was actually about land), and Ireland's entire history and you would have all combined what just a single minor league atheist tyrant did in the 20th century alone. And you can't find a single NT verse (you know the covenant that actually applies today) that authorizes violence in anyway. So how about a little perspective here?
2. Slaves were held by almost every culture in history but what has only one occurrence is this Christian nation which self determined to end it.
3. While Christians did own slaves there is not a single verse that allows it and so it is not faith's fault and it was mostly confined to the minority who owned plantations, even in the south most Christians never owned a single slave and 300,000 Christians died to free slaves they had never met. How many times has that happened in any other nation especially an atheistic one?

So the reality of history and faith completely demolishes your misstated and cherry picked claims.

Oh I see so forget that the mountain of facts are against secular morality it is Christian morality (which created the public education system, built hospitals around the world, leads most private relief efforts even in secular nations, and is the most generous demographic on earth) that is the real problem in spite of the data. My Lord that was one horrific argument.


Most do (in spite of the hypothetical handful you mention who have not) but were are not perfect. However only we have an actual objective foundation for the existence of morality in the first place. That is correct, atheism has no explanation for the existence of morality what so ever. As illustrated by when asked Jefferson (not a Christian) said God was the only foundation for rights, MLK's promissory note for freedom was written by our Christian for fathers not humanists, and the philosopher of science said that without God morally is an illusion.

Immorality is not going away and has always been here with people who tried to rationalize it as well. What is the point?

It is funny how you use the tiny handful to justify the church if they agree or the tiny handful to condemn it if they do not. Nice work here, not.

[/quote][/QUOTE]

I find it saddening that you can associate same-sex love, relationships and marriage with your perceptions of a crashing society.

I find it saddening that you talk of laws not mentioned particularly by Jesus whilst ignoring his main message..... to love and understand each other and all....

I am beginning to think that your idea of Christianity is not Jesus's idea at all. It won't be that long before 80%+ of all Christian Churches accept that same-sex couples should be able to live in contented harmony, and left in peace from self righteous hypocrisy.