Ok, well, first, Christianity didn't have a problem with slavery being abolished (I'm assuming you mean in North America). Sure alot of the people who did have a problem with it were Christians, but there was a reason for that: at that time the only people who were here were Christians.

So, really, Christianity was the main proponent of anti slavery, as well as being completely against it.

Now, if you're talking about Roman Catholic Christianity, which, by the way, is the only denomination that can really be considered a cohesive organization, I can assure you that they (the organization) could have given a shit less about it.

The same goes for inter-racial marriage.

But racism is a a problem that saturates EVERY SINGLE BIT OF LAND (as well as sea, air and space, where applicable) ON EARTH. I use the present tense in that sentence on purpose. So, progress regarding racial issues have almost nothing to do with religion of any kind.

Now, if you're talking about slavery in general, saying that it is gone is humourous. I don't feel the need to delve into that though aside from saying that it has almost nothing to do with Christianity.

On women suffrage: Once again it is mankind's fault, not religion's. It wasn't Christianity stemming progress, it was damn near every male up until about when they got rights. And the reason for male's (and in many cases, even female's) aversion to women's rights was largely due to traditions based in economics and general survival. And it was for that same reason that the blacks were suppressed.

Now, as time went on, as humans adapted to their environment, and technology advanced, those traditions, which in the past were necessary for survival, became out dated and were gradually phased out. This process was resisted, because as a survival tactic becomes a tradition, the reason it was orginnally practices becomes lost to the masses, but the importance of tradition to the masses remains intact.

To sum up: It has nothing to do with Christianity either.

On homosexuality: This issue is slightly biblical, i'll give you that, but, as a straight man, can you honestly say that hearing stories about homosex, or seeing two guys go at it doesn't kind of make you uncomfortable? If you said yes, then you are gay and the question doesn't apply to you. The main barrier in the way of homosexual marriage is the entire collective will of straight men not wanting to know that two guys are screwing each other.

A lot of it has to do with religion and the institution of marriage as well, and from a scientific standpoint, homosex doesn't get anyone anywhere except for off, if you are a member of that community.

From a modern economical standpoint, there are merits to homosexual marriages, but, once again we witness the struggle between outdated tradition and the quickly changing environment, and society's change withb it, which is, once again, secular.


As a final thought: You guy use the phrase close minded like it's a horrible thing to be, when each and every one of us is completely close minded. I mean, the Christians say gays are evil, but the gays think that they're not so bad. Neither side is going to convice the other of their argument. They are all close minded. Everyone hase to be closeminded about something . Otherwise everyone would just sit around drooling after they had blackout due to oxygen starvation from repeating "yeah that makes sense, you're right" over and over again.

And the reason this is, is because there is no right fucking answer. You can pleasure yourselves to the prospect of scientific, or societal "progress" all you want, but it is really progress? Are we, as humans, winning the war? Have we become happier? I'll tell you what, I can have just as much fun running around in circles naked in my front yard screaming "The pigs have stolen my duodenum!" as I can looking at internet porn. An dyou can talk to anyone on earth, in any region, of any level of class, of any level of wealth or poverty, of any race or sexual preference, and you will notice that every single one of them complains the exact same amount. And everysingle on of their complaints is legitamate.

I stand before you perplexed as to how I managed to accomplish any of what you just said, as well as to why you'd choose to post in this topic for the sole purpose of baselessly (as it stands now) call me an idiot in that tone, which doesn't contribute anything to the topic at all (GJ).

So I ask that you do pick apart my arguement as well as tell me exactly how I demonstrated a lack of knowledge in addition to telling me how I backed your argument (assume thats what you meant). Because 1) I'd like to know, and 2) it would actually constitute a meaningfull contribution to the topic.

You're right, you didn't say the word idiot. But here's what you did do: You said that I didn't know anything about the subject. That I can handle, because it could very well be true.

You also implied that actually telling me about the subject, explaining to me how I proved my ignorance, or trying to cure me of my purported ignorance at all would be a waste of time , because you believed that all of the necessary information was immediatly at hand and should be completely and immediately understandable by those reading the topic, or obvious, to sample your diction. And since you were also implying that it should have been obvious to me before submitting the post in question, you basically implied that not only do I not know what I'm talking about, I also don't possess the ability to learn about, or understand the subject.

This is synonymous with stupidity or idiocy. And since you told me this without contributing anything else to the topic, it means that you posted those words with malicious intent-- a hypothesis that is supported by the overall tone of your post.

So yes, you DID call me an idiot, and considering you didn't have anything to back that claim up, I don't really appreciate the implication.

Now, so everyone is clear, closed mindedness is the inability to consider alternatives to one's own way of thinking. It has nothing to do with what you actually think. So, the fact that I think "that not having a problem with homosexuality makes you one"(why this is false later) does not make me closed minded, it means that I have an opinion.

To further explain my original example: A Christian not accepting that homosexuality isn't evil is an example of a closed minded Christian. Conversely: A homosexual who does not accept that homosexuality is evil is an example of a closed minded homosexual.

The point I was trying to make here, is that if you hold to any of your opinions (read: anything you perceive as opinion or fact) at all, that makes you a closed minded individual. The auxilliary point then becomes: being closed minded is not a bad thing because 1)the alternative is essentially impossible to achieve and 2) if everyone was open minded nothing would get done.

To clear a part of my homosexuality argument up: I didn't say that being ok with homosexuality makes you a homosexual. I said that being ok with watching two dudes have sex, or hearing such an act described makes you a homosexual or at least bisexual (if you're a guy.

This is not a closed minded opinion, it is simply an opinion (because opinions can't be closed minded). You can think it is a wrong opinion, but I don't care what you say: if you consider yourself straight and can stand looking at meatspin for more than a split second, then I think you need to find a mirror and have a long hard look at yourself.

To conclude: Before you people just call me an idiot and dismiss me as a waste of time, I suggest you actually read what I posted.

Thank you.