This is historically inaccurate. Actually, the biggest abolitionists were Christian conservatives. I'll bet you I can name more Conservative Christian abolitionists than you can name conservative Christian slavery proponents.

moral chaos that ensues when there is no government or worship of God, and "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (a phraase that is repeated no less than 5 times in the four chapter section in which this account appears. So, the account actually says the opposite of wht you attempt to misuse it to say. It says, "This is morally reprehensible, but these are the depths people sink to when they forget/ignore God and His moral laws." I really wish people who want to impugn the Bible, and traditional morality, would bother to actually read the Book first, instead of cherry picking passages out of context.

Three problems with your thesis, aside from it being off topic: First, the text does not say that she was "murdered for being raped." It indicates that she was already dead, due to the intense, all night gang rape she had been subjected to (by homosexuals, no less, who preferred to have men, but "settled" for a woman. But that's another subject.) Second, this account is descriptive (that is, it recounts what actually happened), not prescriptive (that is, it doesn't say that this is what should be done, the way "Thou shalt not kill" does, for instance.). In fact, in context, it is shown NOT to have been the right thing to do. Finally, this account is from the book of Judges, in a section specifically designed to show the moral chao

If you can't defeat the argument, attack the messenger.

wouldn't be the case if they were inherited. "I feel, therefore I am" is not a sound philosophical or practical principle.

My point was that, if it were genetic, the only way it would be passed on would be for someone to go against the behaviour that the nonexistent gene prescribed. That is, the homosexual gene could only be passed on by engaging in non-homosexual sexual behaviour. So, it would be biologically self defeating. As for your argument that it isn't about behaviour, but about inclination, if this were true, then people who wanted to steal, for instance, but didn't, should go around calling themselves thieves, since it's not about the behaviour. And people who want to give to their fellow man, but don't, should just call themselves philanthropists. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Besides, people's inclinations change over time, which wo

species; homosexual behaviour cannot.

This assumes that 'gayness' is inherited, instead of being a behaviour, whether chosen or not. Since the only way it could be inherited is for homosexuals to go against their nature, by engaging in heterosexual behaviour, it stands to reason that this is not how it is passed on. You can't have it both ways. Either, you are born that way--in which case, the disorder would have been evoluntionarily weeded out as counterproductive way before now, or you choose to act that way, and define yourself by your behaviour (in the same way that a drunk defines himself as an alcoholic, focusing solely on his drinking behaviour), in which case, your behaviour goes against what nature has determined is right (heterosexual behaviour perpetuates the spec

Come on, Howard. Tell us how you really feel.

basic biology, and produce a child without any female involvement (So, no donated eggs, no "surrogate mothers"), this will remain true. All your ranting and posturing about "creeps". and "crazed religious fanatics" will not change the basic facts of biology. Baring that, you can only rail against the fact that reality is biased against homosexuals having children.

by definiton, unnatural, and can never fulfill the purposes that marriage was instituted to fulfill. Since children are better provided for, and, by all measures do better with married, heterosexual parents, changing this pattern to fulfill the desires of a small group, is not in the child's best interest. If some children's biological parents are dead, or otherwise unable or unwilling to provide for their children, it makes the most sense for society to assure that the children are raised in homes that are as close to the ideal of two married, heterosexual, biological parents as possible. So, gay"marriage" and gay adoption are both unnatural, and contrary to the best interests of the child. Untill you can change basic...