the hammer of homosexuality

[Drich]

Concerning what?

(An unsupported accusation such as your post would be a ad hoc attack) which is an ignorant persons response to a topical conversation.

Irony anyone?

Mermaid is right you know

concerning what? Again, empty unsupported attack means she/you are doing the very thing you claim I am doing.. Which means I am right... you know.

[Drich]

Like what for instance? (I'm asking for book chapter and verse) I would also like you to define bigoted for the purpose of this conversation.

those who do not know history...

Someone else who thought as you did... Adolf Hitler. He saw Christianity and the bible as a hostile message and even deemed it "hostile Christianity" verses "positive Christianity" that both supported hitler and his rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity


Oh, the hypocrisy of modern douche baggery!

So let me get this straight.. You said the bible is bigoted and its message is harmful (as hitler did) you then say you don't care what Christians think so long at it does not harm people, unless what is thought comes from the bible, then it is your wish that our lives fall into calamity so as to make us loose faith in everything we believe, just so we can agree with you on this one social issue?

Do me a favor sport define Bigot for me.

Also I'd like to ask what have I said here that causes harm to homosexuals?

Lastly I'd like to ask if you know the difference between a disagreement on a social issue and hatred? You do know it is possible to disagree with people and not hate them correct?

To me hate is passifing or justifying someone when what they are doing is going to cause them long term harm, rather than confronting someone (who is seeking the truth) about their sin.

Again to do this is an act of brotherly love, not hate.

Bigoted stances in the bible


18:22 <- ding ding ding mother fucker 
Leviticus 18:22, 12:31 <- 
33:26
vv 27-28

The bible is not historically accurate and yes the bible is horse shit. Study WW2 history christianity was the religion to unite the masses. Your religion  isn't as clean as you think. 

Hypocrisy? Hah i bet you eat shrimp and lobster don't get me started. 

Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

[Edwardo Piet]

I look forward to you dealing with Drich here TheRocketSurgeon

(So tempted to interject myself but I'll resist the urge).

[SofaKingHigh]

Homosexuality is not bred out of the gene pool because of kin selection; it appears to have conferred an advantage in tribal settings to have a small percentage of members of those tribes (roughly 1 in 20) who did not produce mouths-to-feed (for most of our hunter-gatherer history, food was a scarce enough commodity that it was all but impossible to support groups of larger than 200 on that system of living, due to the difficulties of overgrazing and having to move on), yet who could serve in both the child-raising role and the hunter or gatherer roles.

We saw this archetype in most of the hunter-gatherer groups observed in historical times, when "civilized" (primarily-agricultural, that is) peoples encountered those groups and sent anthropologists to study them. In Native American culture, they are called the "third gender", and were often treated as spiritually significant, like "Medicine Men" and spiritual guides of the tribe, for instance.

It is only since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when food became exceedingly plentiful by comparison, that the notion of "breed as much as possible" became possible, let alone advantageous.

Google the concept of "kin selection". Genetics is not a simple matter of pass-down-by-individuals, in social animals like humans, but a matter of the survival of the tribe and the family-gene-pools within it. It's why we see homosexuality in every social animal we observe. It's also why meerkats (for instance) have behaviors that seem detrimental, like the ones who stand in high, exposed places and cry out when they see an approaching predator, yet are actually survival-enhancing because the one who dies to the predator on occasion nevertheless ensures that his kin make it to their hidey-holes in time.

This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches

I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

[Drich]

We don't have to define bigot for you, it's what you are, you say what your doing "isn't hate its brotherly love" bullshit its brotherly love.

You can't/won't define bigot because to you it is just a mean name to call people when you strongly disagree with them, and if they were programmed by society properly they will take back what they said an fall in line. That is why someone like you will not define a word like bigot when asked.

However those looking for truth will always provide any truth they have when asked. Which was the reason why I've defined 'bigot' several times in this thread. for my usage of the word and to correct mindless social lemmings and their usage of the word.

Look here sport, A Bigot is not just an insult. It describes hate or intolerance a person has for someone who holds a different opinion. Now it is true that I have a different opinion, but I ask you to show me the hate in anything I have said.. Now remember me having a different opinion is not hate. it is simply a different opinion.

Now let's look for hate in what you have said.... Nothing?!!? Imagine that.
Now lets look at the hypocritical words of the pro gay loby.. (or what you and the pervious posted said.) hmmm.. Me loosing my faith because I take my instruction from the bible, would be an example of hate. calling me names (not using word terms properly/contextually) eg, homophobe, bigot, Hater of gay people, again without proper context the names/titles can all be construed as hate speech. as they are mean in a slanderous way, to defame my ideas and discredit me personally. So I ask then who is the bigot here? If you respect the truth at all, then you have to concede it is you. If you are not a fan of truth then you're a nobody I need to be concerned with.

What is the reason for this/your bigotry and hate? I simply don't agree with your world view. I say Homosexuality is a sin like all other sexual sin found in the NT. which again puts the homosexual on the same level as anyother brother or sister who has fallen into sexual sin. My call to repentance to the homosexual is no different than any other heterosexual caught in sexual sin. This is true equality sport. not bigotry. Me telling the homosexual he can justify his deeds before God, or me simply remaining silent is akin to me sending that person to Hell. Calling them to repent takes a rather large measure of brotherly love especially in today's society.

People like you are the reason LGBT people commit suicide because you bully them and teach your kids to pick on them, if you really loved them you'd support them and help them with their situation, not call them faggots and demon possessed reprobates.

Gay people do not have a special in or reason to commit suicide. They commit suicide for the same reasons everyone else does. they are unhappy with themselves and think death is a release or end to their suffering. This is not unique to the gay community. If however given the social acceptance in recent years if gay suicide has not changed or has even increased then perhaps it is not the outside influences that contribute to gay suicide, but internal ones. (Something inherent with that life choice.)

You said Adolf Hitler saw Christianity as "hostile" I dont know if you've read Mein Kamph but Hitler says God guides him and anybody who goes against the church should be killed he also said his most ardent goal was to be a priest. German soldiers had belts that said "gott mit uns" which means God is with us in German Hitler also said we needed to fight against the atheistic agenda. If you think homosexuality goes against Gods law then you need to follow his other rules to such as, you can't shave your beard, you can't wear mixed fabrics, you can't pick up sticks on the sabbath, you must kill your kids if they talk back to you, and men must own their wife and women must be submissive to their husband.

You didn't even look at the link I provided to positive Christianity did you?

"Positive Christiianity" was Hitler's own version. Meaning He completely cut Himself and those in Germany off of the R/C Church and ALL other non state sponcered/propaganda filled bibles and denominations.

So yes Hitler did indeed use the term 'God' but as I said (Before you strawmanned off into this completely uninformed/ignorant of basic history tangent) Hitler saw the bible and Christianity as prescribed by the bible as a 'problem' to the Germany he was creating. He deemed all non Nazi State versions of Christianity is Negitive, and issued edicts forbidding it's practice. In His version he was the prophet/pope to God, and his word was akin to the words of God. This subsequently is why he also forbade Atheism.

---

Oh and one more thing Hitler used Christianity as a way to justify his antisemitism and homophobia. Hitler also signed a treaty with the Vatican, and Catholic priest would often promote Nazism and antisemitism in their sermons. So don't try to say to me "well Hitler just used Christianity as a political tool" due to what the Catholic priests did.

Again, no. I ask you go back and read what I posted on "Positive Christianity." Educate yourself, before you speak. Don't make it so easy for me to make you look foolish. it makes everything you stand for also look ill informed and foolish.

[Reforged]

Bigoted stances in the bible


18:22 <- ding ding ding mother fucker 
Leviticus 18:22, 12:31 <- 
33:26
vv 27-28

The bible is not historically accurate and yes the bible is horse shit. Study WW2 history christianity was the religion to unite the masses. Your religion  isn't as clean as you think. 

Hypocrisy? Hah i bet you eat shrimp and lobster don't get me started. 

Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

You're not one of those stupid individuals who doesn't know that the bible represents far more than two completely different religions are you?
Case and point; every single denomination who interprets the Bible radically differently.
If you're going to be insulting could you at least do it properly? 
(FYI; You're using the laughing emote far too much at things that aren't that funny to the point its becoming meaningless.)

[Reforged]

You can't/won't define bigot because to you it is just a mean name to call people when you strongly disagree with them, and if they were programmed by society properly they will take back what they said an fall in line. That is why someone like you will not define a word like bigot when asked.

However those looking for truth will always provide any truth they have when asked. Which was the reason why I've defined 'bigot' several times in this thread. for my usage of the word and to correct mindless social lemmings and their usage of the word.

Look here sport, A Bigot is not just an insult. It describes hate or intolerance a person has for someone who holds a different opinion. Now it is true that I have a different opinion, but I ask you to show me the hate in anything I have said.. Now remember me having a different opinion is not hate. it is simply a different opinion.

Now let's look for hate in what you have said.... Nothing?!!? Imagine that.
Now lets look at the hypocritical words of the pro gay loby.. (or what you and the pervious posted said.) hmmm.. Me loosing my faith because I take my instruction from the bible, would be an example of hate. calling me names (not using word terms properly/contextually) eg, homophobe, bigot, Hater of gay people, again without proper context the names/titles can all be construed as hate speech. as they are mean in a slanderous way, to defame my ideas and discredit me personally. So I ask then who is the bigot here? If you respect the truth at all, then you have to concede it is you. If you are not a fan of truth then you're a nobody I need to be concerned with.

What is the reason for this/your bigotry and hate? I simply don't agree with your world view. I say Homosexuality is a sin like all other sexual sin found in the NT. which again puts the homosexual on the same level as anyother brother or sister who has fallen into sexual sin. My call to repentance to the homosexual is no different than any other heterosexual caught in sexual sin. This is true equality sport. not bigotry. Me telling the homosexual he can justify his deeds before God, or me simply remaining silent is akin to me sending that person to Hell. Calling them to repent takes a rather large measure of brotherly love especially in today's society.

"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city""

Done, now you can stop deflecting with long walls of text dedicated to relatively minor points. No need to thank me. 
Another question I would ask, based on this definition, is that are you intolerant to the opinion that gay people have a right to be themselves without ridicule or any type of harassment?
I mean, you're declaring it a sin. You're saying God is going to send them to hell. You support God, you say hes right. About everything. Therefore you think its right for gay people to burn forever?
And you have the gall to feign offence at being called intolerant? 
Just stop, its demonstrably false, demeaning and detracting from your main points.

Gay people do not have a special in or reason to commit suicide. They commit suicide for the same reasons everyone else does. they are unhappy with themselves and think death is a release or end to their suffering. This is not unique to the gay community. If however given the social acceptance in recent years if gay suicide has not changed or has even increased then perhaps it is not the outside influences that contribute to gay suicide, but internal ones. (Something inherent with that life choice.)

If a community targeted you by screaming abuse at you, calling you an abomination and saying you deserve to burn in hell regularly I dare say it might contribute slightly to you being "unhappy". Again, this is demeaning. 
To deny that the regular abuse they suffer does not play a role undermines any credibility you have. 
Its dishonest and you know it.

You didn't even look at the link I provided to positive Christianity did you?

"Positive Christiianity" was Hitler's own version. Meaning He completely cut Himself and those in Germany off of the R/C Church and ALL other non state sponcered/propaganda filled bibles and denominations.

So yes Hitler did indeed use the term 'God' but as I said (Before you strawmanned off into this completely uninformed/ignorant of basic history tangent) Hitler saw the bible and Christianity as prescribed by the bible as a 'problem' to the Germany he was creating. He deemed all non Nazi State versions of Christianity is Negitive, and issued edicts forbidding it's practice. In His version he was the prophet/pope to God, and his word was akin to the words of God. This subsequently is why he also forbade Atheism.

If you have evidence important to your argument copy and paste the specific sentence or paragraph important to it. Nobody should have to search through a webpage to find your point for you.
Anyway. He was a leader of a different denomination so that means Christianity isn't responsible.
Seriously. When has that line of reasoning ever worked for you?

Again, no. I ask you go back and read what I posted on "Positive Christianity." Educate yourself, before you speak. Don't make it so easy for me to make you look foolish. it makes everything you stand for also look ill informed and foolish.

So your house is pretty much just shards of glass at this point huh?

[dyresand]

Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

You're not one of those stupid individuals who doesn't know that the bible represents far more than two completely different religions are you?
Case and point; every single denomination who interprets the Bible radically differently.
If you're going to be insulting could you at least do it properly? 
(FYI; You're using the laughing emote far too much at things that aren't that funny to the point its becoming meaningless.)

Now you see why i used my plugin to stop seeing his posts.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

Homosexuality is not bred out of the gene pool because of kin selection; it appears to have conferred an advantage in tribal settings to have a small percentage of members of those tribes (roughly 1 in 20) who did not produce mouths-to-feed (for most of our hunter-gatherer history, food was a scarce enough commodity that it was all but impossible to support groups of larger than 200 on that system of living, due to the difficulties of overgrazing and having to move on), yet who could serve in both the child-raising role and the hunter or gatherer roles.

We saw this archetype in most of the hunter-gatherer groups observed in historical times, when "civilized" (primarily-agricultural, that is) peoples encountered those groups and sent anthropologists to study them. In Native American culture, they are called the "third gender", and were often treated as spiritually significant, like "Medicine Men" and spiritual guides of the tribe, for instance.

It is only since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when food became exceedingly plentiful by comparison, that the notion of "breed as much as possible" became possible, let alone advantageous.

Google the concept of "kin selection". Genetics is not a simple matter of pass-down-by-individuals, in social animals like humans, but a matter of the survival of the tribe and the family-gene-pools within it. It's why we see homosexuality in every social animal we observe. It's also why meerkats (for instance) have behaviors that seem detrimental, like the ones who stand in high, exposed places and cry out when they see an approaching predator, yet are actually survival-enhancing because the one who dies to the predator on occasion nevertheless ensures that his kin make it to their hidey-holes in time.

---

This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches

Well, on the one hand, you're right... bisexuality is more common than outright homosexuality, in humans and animals both. It's not a binary solution-set. Look up the Kinsey Scale, if you want to know what I mean.

It is clear by this point that homosexuality is not genetic, but epigenetic, relating to the developmental genes which switch on and off at varying times and durations in order to regulate the hormone environment in which the sexuality-governing regions of our brains (and endocrine system) develop. However, it is a "fixed" thing in adults, wherever they wind up landing on the Kinsey Scale, as demonstrated by experiments like the pheromone-detection blind studies.

And even if there is  a gene which has a variant that tends to allow for that epigenetic cascade to occur, it will not necessarily be bred out of a population due to natural selection pressure, due to the "mid-setting" of bi- or pan-sexuality and due to kin selection effects in social species.

With the exception of the ultra-right-wing conservative Christian group the Family Research Council, every serious study on the subject has shown that homosexuality is a fixed trait, and not a choice in individuals who develop as "Kinsey 6" homosexuals. Your suggestion that non-reproduction would automatically breed out of a gene pool is wrong for the same reason that childhood cancers don't breed out of gene pools, why warning-alert behaviors that are deleterious to the lookout but not to his kin group don't breed out, and why altruistic behaviors don't breed out. The first one is an example of a combination of genes that may not be harmful except in a particular combination that results in cancer, while the latter two have deleterious effects in the individual but are helpful to the genes of others who share the same basic gene-set as the individual who has the "deleterious" combination.

Please try to actually understand evolution, rather than bending an oversimplified version to suit your religious prejudices.

[Drich]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigoted?s=t
I see an OT Command for OT Jews to put Homosexuals to death.. Are you one of the foolish atheists who do not understand that their are no more OT Jews left? Do you further not understand that OT Judaism is not NT Christianity?

On your definition, if youre in agreement of the dictionary to define bigotry, can you please these illustrate the hate you see in either the OT command or the NT commands on Homosexuality.

Before you trip yourself up on what the SAB provided for you in Leviticus, know that it was not commanding jews to rid the world of all Homosexuals, by putting them to death. The laws only pertained to the jews themselves. At any point a jew could simply leave. To stay meant death, but even so putting a person to death does not mean one has to hate them first. Which according to your definition is the difference between bigotry and a disagreement.

Despite what you personally believe about the OT Command, the OT commands only spoke to the OT Jews, non of which are still around anymore. what does the SAB have to say about NT command concerning Homosexuality? Because really (unless you want to try and red herring yourself off into something you might have an argument on by focusing on the OT) that is what is being discussed.

Someone else who thought as you did... Adolf Hitler.

Pleased to meet you Godwin, Strawman, Ad Hominem  and Reductio ad Hitlerum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Wow you invoke Godwin's law and lose the argument by default, and make at least 3 fallacies all at once, congratulations: Have a cookie.

Soory Sport all those links have one thing in common. That the subject (YOU) didn't actually do or present an idea Hitler did.

But, lets look at them one at a time to show how complete your failure actually is..
Godwins law:
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis.

Inappropriate means in context non topical
Inordinate In context is an excessive comparison
Hyperbolic here means to exaggerate

Now you words was to identify the bible as dangerous and toxic to society. Which is EXACTLY what Hitler did.
He knew that bible tote-ing germans would see his edicts and propaganda as false doctrine and call him out on his make believe. which is exactly why he ban all non-Nazi/german issued bibles and also why he bann all non state sponcered churches. Which again fit your words to a tee. In that you don't care what Christians do unless it comes from the bible. You said 'if faith was bible based then it was your 'prayer' that we loose our faith.' Again, your wishes were played out in 1930's Germany.

So again sorry Sport, but just because people do reference hitler and Nazi Germany and compare it to modern soceitial doom-assery doesn't mean all instances in doing so is wrong. As you can see I had a valid point Because you literally took a page from History and made it your wish. You wanted all bibles gone so 'christianity' could become something controllable by society. Again This is EXACTLY What Hitler did! He Removed all bibles and mandated changes in his version of the church so as to fit his new society.

So again I say, those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.

Which btw disqualifies 'Godwins law', your mislabeled strawman (Because again you like hitler wish to remove the structure of Christianity that disagrees with or challenges you and what you think) Because as your definition proves a strawman would be me redefining your argument and attacking my own definition rather than what you said. However as I pointed out this is not the case.

which leaves Reductio ad Hitler: "in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning."

Again, You want all bibles Gone. Hitler did that very thing. Which bring you to 4 out of 4 on the failure scale.

He saw Christianity and the bible as a hostile message and even deemed it "hostile Christianity" verses "positive Christianity" that both supported hitler and his rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Hi red herring fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

It's totally irrelevant that he did that. The Bible is full of potentially harmful shit, the fact he exploited that doesn't mean it isn't full of harmful shit anyway.

As you pointed out a red herring has nothing to do with what is being discussed. But again as I pointed out it is nothing but topical. You in essence wanted all bibles to be burned, and their doctrine replaced with a social acceptable doctrine. Hitler burned all non Nazi bibles, and replaced them with bibles that supported his social programs. You want to eliminate all bible believeing Christians and you want to keep all societially tamed Christians... Again Hitler did this very thing in "Positive Christianity." He (did) like you (want to do) eliminated all outside versions of Christianity and established his/your own, where society dictates the mandates of God. How else could he program Christians to kill jews by the millions when the bible says we are to respect them?
You failed 4 out of 4 times.

Nice try though. If my ideas were toxic and History has shown people like me to be the bad guy over and over again I (like you) would say just about anything if I were trying to run from the light of truth to try and discredit the other person.

So let me get this straight.. You said the bible is bigoted and its message is harmful (as hitler did)

Well even Hitler got that part right then. Keep going with the Ad Hominems.

an Ad Hoc is a personal attack. It would be like me calling You Hitler. This is not what happened. I said to all those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it. Then I laid out how your ideas have already played out in History. I was not calling hitler. I was trying to educate you on how poisonous your ideology is.

He just used it deliberately in a maliciously negative way with his propaganda. The Bible still IS potentially full of harmless bullshit.
Hey I'm pretty sure Hitler also believed that 2+2 = 4 just like I do does that make me wrong and like Hitler for agreeing with Hitler than 2+2=4?

Red herring.
Hitler's grade school math did not incite millions of people to rally against the world and kill millions more. However controlling religious belief did.
Which again is what you want to do.

you then say you don't care what Christians think so long at it does not harm people, unless what is thought comes from the bible, then it is your wish that our lives fall into calamity so as to make us loose faith in everything we believe, just so we can agree with you on this one social issue?

No I'm just saying that I hope that those who are bigoted simply because they have strongly homophobically bigoted  beliefs merely because the Bible is anti-homosexuality lose their faith if that changes their bigoted view on homosexuality.

Again As I am a Christian show me Book Chapter and verse in the NT first, that tells us to have an irrational aversion of homosexuals.

Again, the bible does not single out homosexuals. It lumps all who commit sexual sin under one heading and would have them repent if they are to follow God. Like the Jews/jewish law concerning Homosexuals it only pertains to those who follow the religion.

If the only reason some Christians are homophobic bigots is because they believe what the Bible says about homosexuality and if they didn't believe what the Bible says then they would stop being bigoted then of course I hope they lose their faith!
If that happening reduces bigotry then it's a good thing! Less bigotry=good.

That's not true for two reasons.
One you are literally using bigotry as a tool to get what you want. (Complete compliance and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle) So much so you don't care if your aligning yourself with the SAME Tactics Hitler used to brainwash a nation.

Two, you have yet been able to point to a single instance where I have shown hate to the Homosexual. Again disagreement is not hate. yet you very specifically wished that my world be turned upside down inorder to shake me of my faith.

You are the bigoted monster here by all honest definition of the word. You don't care about anything except the whole and complete preservation of your social agenda and ideals. Everyone else who opposes you is met with extreme-ism and no quarter or consideration is given to specific objections. For people like you WERE of the Same mentality, and self righteous zeal who first put on white sheets, and oppressed black people in America, It is people like you who so willingly gave up their bibles and gobbled up hitler's Christianity so to march jews into ovens. It is people who whole heartedly just swallow up, hook line and sinker ALL public/popular societal doctrine without question and with blind abandon, then turn their HATE everyone and everything else who opposes soceity. You literally are who you think me to be.
Put your cause aside for a moment and look at the outline of behavior you are involved in. Everything I have pointed out here is true.

Know that you can't point to hate in my words against homosexuality, only opposition. Yet you wish (and really it is only a matter of time because you refuse to learn the lessons of history) ill befall me and my way of life because I simply do no agree with you. Now take that fact (you wish ill on me and my way of life because we disagree)

Ignore the why we disagree and just look at the hate it takes to wish ill on a person's whole way of life. Now ask yourself how is that any different that what Dark age Christians did? or KKK members did? Or what the Nazi's did... Again if you ignore the cause All of these groups share a common outline. It is this same outline that you automatically assigned to me, but again wrongfully so because again their is no hate in my opposition, only disagreement. So that only leaves you and your hate which again means you are what you claim me to be.

[quote]
Also I'd like to ask what have I said here that causes harm to homosexuals?

Yes I know the difference and yes that is possible. Once again I'm saying that if you have a bigoted view of homosexuality because of what the bible says about homosexuality then if losing your faith is the only way to change that then I hope that happens. The less bigots the better.
[quote]
To me hate is passifing or justifying someone when what they are doing is going to cause them long term harm, rather than confronting someone (who is seeking the truth) about their sin.

If you consider homosexuality is a sin and that is your motivation for thinking homosexuality is wrong then you are a homophobic bigot for biblical reasons so I hope you lose your faith so you can lose your bigotry.
If  you consider homosexuality to be wrong or unnatural then you're a bigot.

Again to do this is an act of brotherly love, not hate.

Regardless of if the motivation is intended to be love, if you think homosexuality is wrong then you're a bigot.

Again To disagree on the morality of a sex act does not make on a bigot. Wishing someone ill because the do not agree does indeed make you a bigot. So look again at who is using hate to push their agenda and who is not.