The Real Reason America Has Embraced Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

The primary reason America is embracing same-sex “marriage” is not because we are more tolerant. It is because we are less moral.

By Michael Brown Published on June 8, 2018

A recent Gallup poll confirms what has been clear for quite a few years. The primary reason America is embracing same-sex “marriage” is not because we are more tolerant. It is because we are less moral.

Before you scream, “Homophobe!” please look at the evidence with me.

I’m not discounting that many Americans embrace same-sex relationships because they have an LGBT friend or loved one. To them, this is simply a matter of acceptance. Of love, equality, and fairness.

In that sense, America has become more “tolerant.” Much of the motivation is positive (although I heartily disagree with the outcome). We just want to be nice, accepting, and non-judgmental.

But there’s no question that our embrace of same-sex “marriage” is part and parcel of our slide toward sexual anarchy and away from biblical morality.

Part of a Bigger Shift

In Outlasting the Gay Revolution (pp. 58-65), I analyzed Gallup polls from 2001, 2013 and 2014. We now have a current poll released May, 2018. The downward trend continues, as expected.

In 2001, 40 percent of Americans found gay and lesbian relationships “morally acceptable.” By 2013, it had jumped to 59 percent. Today it stands at 63 percent.

But again, we must put this in context.

According to the 2013 Gallup poll, “Americans have generally become more tolerant of a series of moral behaviors over the past 10-12 years. This trend is particularly evident in views of gay and lesbian relations and having a baby outside of wedlock.”

Clearly, the shift toward the embrace of same-sex relationships falls within the category of a shift away from morality.

Notice those two categories: “gay and lesbian relations and having a baby outside of wedlock.”

According to the 2014 poll, “On a list of 19 major moral issues of the day, Americans express levels of moral acceptance that are as high or higher than in the past on 12 of them, a group that also encompasses social mores such as polygamy, having a child out of wedlock, and divorce.”

So, the shift towards acceptance of homosexual practice (as indicated in the poll) is part of a shirt toward acceptance of “polygamy, having a child out of wedlock, and divorce.”

Clearly, the shift toward the embrace of same-sex relationships falls within the category of a shift away from morality. In fact, in recent years, the headlines repeating these Gallup polls tend to be a repeat the same theme: “New Record Highs In Moral Acceptability.”

This really means “New Record Lows.”

New Lows

Let’s compare American acceptance of homosexual relationships with acceptance of a number of other morally controversial topics:

  • Divorce (from 59 percent in 2001 to 73 percent today)
  • Having a baby outside of wedlock (from 45 percent in 2001 to 62 percent today)
  • Heterosexual sex outside of wedlock (from 53 percent in 2001 to 69 percent today)
  • Polygamy (from 7 percent in 2001 to 17 percent today, up from 14 percent in 2013).

As the 2018 Gallup report notes,

Americans continue to express an increasingly liberal outlook on what is morally acceptable, as their views on 10 of 19 moral issues that Gallup measures are the most left-leaning or permissive they have been to date. The percentages of U.S. adults who believe birth control, divorce, sex between unmarried people, gay or lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, doctor-assisted suicide, pornography and polygamy are morally acceptable practices have tied record highs or set new ones this year. At the same time, record lows say the death penalty and medical testing on animals are morally acceptable.

Did I say the trend was continuing? Even porn is becoming popular.

Before You Boast …

Back in 2014 Gallup noted, “a few widely condemned actions, such as polygamy, have become slightly less taboo. Five percent of Americans viewed polygamy as morally acceptable in 2006, but that is now at 14%. The rise could be attributed to polygamist families being the subject of television shows — with the HBO TV show Big Love one example — thus removing some of the stigma.”

But of course! The same media that helped to remove the stigma surrounding homosexual relationships has helped remove the stigma of polygamy, polyamory, and incest. (This is all documented in Outlasting the Gay Revolution.)

So, before you boast about how enlightened America has become — how tolerant and diverse — put things in their proper context. Acceptance of homosexual relationships is part of our larger acceptance of divorce, pornography, sex between teens, sex between adults out of wedlock, and children born out of wedlock.

Is this really something to boast about?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Ray

    Proverbs 22:6 comes to mind.

  • Ray

    That kind of picture shouldn’t even be shown. It’s an abomination.

    • michael

      The only reason to support it is because of the constitution .I don’t think that churches should be forced to perform them .

      • Do you really think the framers of the constitution would have supported this? We have become mindless.

        • michael

          Some of them may have. Marriage by the state is a secular way of protecting the wealth of both parties. A Christian wedding is different because it’s a commitment before god

          • Willam Nat

            Nonsense. BTW God is capitalized.

          • michael

            Thanks for reminding me .

      • Paul

        I don’t think there is any reason to support homosexuality.

      • Anne Fernandes

        What about the constitution?

      • Willam Nat

        And if the Supreme Court ruled that it is Constitutional to bring back slavery, that would be a reason to support slavery?

        • michael

          It couldn’t happen through the courts because courts wouldn’t be able to over turn a constitutional amendment. And of course it wouldn’t be a reason to support it.

          • Willam Nat

            The Supreme Court CAN overturn a constitutional amendment if it interprets it in a different way. It’s a heck of a lot easier than finding a brand new “right” in the Constitution like they did with abortion.

      • Jim

        The Constitution has nothing in it that supports homosexual marriages in spite of the fact that homosexuality was around during the 1700s. In 2012, the SCOTUS determined that there was no power in the Constitution allowing the US government to define marriage, then contradicted that in 2015 by creating a right to be married for gays and lesbians out of their own imaginations.

        • michael

          You just contradicted your own argument. By your logic anyone can marry anything.

        • Elliot J. Stamler

          No, you are 100% wrong and I very much doubt being an apparent prude, you ever sat down and read the decision in the Obergefell case including, yes, the dissents. You may disagree with the decision but you display utter ignorance in writing that the majority’s rationale came out of their own imagination. You might (but you won’t – prudes never do) spend some time reading the history of cases litigating the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION and learn something.

  • Patmos

    Saw a video on YouTube of a guy going around Southern California asking people if they thought incest was okay, and the general response was sort of a shrug of the shoulders, “Sure, why not?”

    Yeah okay, maybe the video left out other responses, but that ANYONE would think it’s okay paints a pretty sordid picture of how far this country has fallen.

    • Andrew Mason

      A couple of points you might want to consider. Incest was okay until the time of Moses, and Christians are still commanded to wed incestuously in a spiritual sense. There’s also the fact that ‘modern’ moral standards really give no grounds to oppose incest. If it feels good do it remember. In the offchance offspring is conceived then a woman can simply choose an abortion. That’s obviously not the Biblical position, but we’re living in Sodom and Gomorrah not Heaven.

    • swordfish

      How did Noah’s family repopulate the world other than via incest?

      • Jim Walker

        So what are you waiting for swordfish ?

    • Elliot J. Stamler

      Are you naive as not to know that a guy going around to a small bunch of people in God-knows-where and getting an answer to such a question is not statistically evidence of anything!!! This country has NOT fallen in terms of morals and I have never met a person in my 79 years who thought incest was okay. I think YOU believe the country has fallen because like Michael Brown, you have a giant objection to everyone whose lifestyle or personal practices aren’t exactly like yours.

  • Bojaws Dubois

    We should get a pool going. Predict when will be Biff’s next column about perversion. Put down for next Thursday.

    • Andy6M

      Perhaps we could have a secondary pool going on what your response will be.

  • tamkae

    “Society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. These behavioral norms — mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn’t. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching. For over a half-century, the nation’s liberals — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Because of this, customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a culture, and now we’re seeing the results on many fronts.” –Walter E. Williams

  • swordfish

    “Acceptance of homosexual relationships is part of our larger acceptance of divorce, pornography, sex between teens, sex between adults out of wedlock, and children born out of wedlock.”

    None of these are necessarily immoral as long as there is consent between the individuals involved.

    • Jim

      What do you base your conclusion on and why is your morality more valid tjan Christian morality?

      • Boris

        There’s no such thing as Christian morality. When you are only good because you think you’ll be punished if you’re not, you are immoral and a rather horrible human being as well.

        • Andrew Mason

          You have that back to front. It’s not a question of don’t do X because God will punish you but rather do Y because that’s what God desires. Completely different approaches. Yes God says don’t do X too, but that’s because humanity is so depraved that it can find justifications for rape, genocide, and all sorts of atrocities.

          • Boris

            Here’s the problem with Divine Command Morality. Believing in the Bible God leads to a very dangerous version of moral relativism. The commandment, “Thou shall not murder actually means “Thou shall not murder except when I tell you to do so.” According to the Bible God often ordered what we would now term “ethnic cleansing.” Saul was directed to completely exterminate the Amelekites, including all the men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys. Saul lost his monarchy and eventually his life because he failed to carry out the instructions to the letter. Even the slaughter of infants is termed “good” when ordered by God under particular circumstances. That is moral relativism at its starkest.
            For humans morality is based in choices and choices are rooted in values. The most basic choice is between life and death, so the ultimate value is life. That which enhances and protects human life is good or right and that which harms or destroys life is evil or wrong. This leads to a more compassionate and rational system than that of a deity whose whims cannot be understood and who is not constrained in any manner by the commands he gives to others. Your biblical morality is subjective to the extreme because it is established by a being whose motives and nature are beyond human comprehension. This makes it impossible to discern any moral law beyond “God wills it.” You need to at least attempt show why my morality is not objective and why your morality is not subjective to the extreme, not to mention inferior and dangerous.

          • Jim

            Once again, how do you even know what is rigt or wrong without an external source? Consensus doesn’t get it because the Nazis consented to killing 6,000,000 Jews plus Gypsies, homosexuals and others by consensus. Atheists under communism killed over 100,000,000 of their own citizens who disagreed with thier utopian vision just in the 20th century. Cannibals ate each other. Indians put wives to death when their husbands died.

            Your opinion fails to take into account that God has one valuev that outranks the sanctity of human life and that is obedience to his commandments. The Amelekites were destroyed because of their wickedness in dealing with Israel. God actually held off his judgment for centuries waiting for the people to turn from the evil they did as with the Canaanites who were given 400 years while the Israelites dwelt in Egypt.

            I notice that you conveniently neglected to mention the Ninevites of Assyria as examples. Even though God sent Jonah to pronounce judgment for their wickedness, because they repented and changed their attitudes and behavior, their destruction was not carried out, even though there was no promise that God would relent.

          • swordfish

            The Bible condones slavery. Does that mean it is moral?

          • Andrew Mason

            It regulates a pre-existing structure. I don’t see that as condoning. Note too that it was thanks to the Bible that slavery was abolished.

          • swordfish


            “Accept (behaviour that is considered morally wrong or offensive).”
            “To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure”

            If you lay out laws regulating something, you’re condoning it by definition. As to it being thanks to the Bible that slavery was abolished, why did it take 1,865 years?

          • Andrew Mason

            Okay 2 definitions of condone:
            *to give tacit approval to
            *to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, etc.).

            The first is the definition of condone I think of and it is this definition which I used in saying the Bible does not condone slavery. If you use the definition that slavery was deemed objectionable, but that this was overlooked, then you might have a case. As I stated Scripture regulated slavery – required better conditions for slaves than otherwise would be the case.

            Actually the (Roman Catholic?) church abolished slavery fairly quickly. The problem is contact with Islam saw the concept of slavery restored to European consciousness and cause problems for the next millennia or so. As to how long slavery in any one country lasted, it’d depend on the country in question. In the US it took something like 200 years to resolve the issue, and it likely would have been less if the churches hadn’t compromised on Scripture. By contrast slavery is still legal in some Islamic nations!

          • swordfish

            “The first is the definition of condone I think of and it is this definition which I used in saying the Bible does not condone slavery.”

            I’d be fascinated to know how you work out that this first definition isn’t met by assigning a system of laws and rules to something. If anything, this goes beyond ‘condoning’.

            Incidentally, you can claim that this wasn’t slavery but indentured servitude, but the UN human rights charter classifies this as slavery.

            “Actually the (Roman Catholic?) church abolished slavery fairly quickly.”

            You’re missing the point. Why doesn’t the Bible condemn slavery, if it is the word of God?

          • Andrew Mason

            Approval means you support something. For instance approving of abortion means you support the killing of children. Regulating abortion however, requiring abortion businesses have the ability to get women admitted to hospital should mother or child require medical aid for instance, doesn’t require an individual support abortion, but simply to wish that a mother and child have access to the best possible health outcomes.

            The UN human rights charter is a modern construct. You can’t conflate modern norms with those of cultures millennia past. And while indentured servitude may be officially illegal, there are still fixed term contracts that require particular service as well as various other forms of non-free labor which are permitted.

            It does, indirectly. All men are brothers and should so treat one another. Ought you enslave your brother, or your fellow swordfish as the case may be? It is because of what Scripture teaches that the West abolished slavery, twice. Since men are fallen that first abolition didn’t stick.

          • swordfish

            “Approval means you support something. For instance approving of abortion means you support the killing of children.”

            Approve: “officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.”

            So, ‘approve’ doesn’t mean ‘support’, and abortion isn’t the killing of children because foetuses aren’t children.

            “The UN human rights charter is a modern construct. You can’t conflate modern norms with those of cultures millennia past.”

            We can’t compare modern moral standards to those in the Bible, despite it supposedly being the word of God? Was the Bible wrong about slavery, yes or no?

            “It is because of what Scripture teaches that the West abolished slavery, twice.”

            I don’t see how you can establish this as a fact when we have no alternate western history free from Christian influence as a control.

          • Andrew Mason

            Approve: To consider right or good.
            That’s within the spectrum of supporting something. Fetuses are children, merely unborn ones. Even the pro-abortion crowd periodically admit this. Obviously killing them is simply a variation on infanticide, another choice some folk advocate.

            Of course the Bible wasn’t wrong about slavery. As I’ve said repeatedly, Scripture didn’t condone slavery, it merely regulated it. Since slavery was the norm for cultures in those days regulation was highly enlightened.

            I don’t get what you’re saying. Are you suggesting only an external version of history merits consideration? That the facts of American history can only be established if an alternative history free on American influence can be considered? That, to use the American example, the only way we can be certain of the truth is if we considered the Hamas version of US history, or the Chinese version?

          • swordfish

            “Fetuses are children, merely unborn ones.”

            No, they are not. It would make as much sense to say living people are dead people, merely still-living ones.

            “As I’ve said repeatedly, Scripture didn’t condone slavery, it merely regulated it.”

            Regulating something IS CONDONING IT according to every definition of the word ‘condone’. Why didn’t the Bible condemn slavery if it is the word of God?

            “I don’t get what you’re saying. Are you suggesting only an external version of history merits consideration?”

            No, I’m saying that you can’t just claim the abolition of slavery was down to Christianity when you have no idea what would have happened had Christianity not existed, or had had a lesser influence on society.

          • Andrew Mason

            Except that many people consider fetuses to be unborn children, and even pro-abortionists admit they kill children. By contrast I had to read your ‘living people are dead people, merely still living ones,’ several times to comprehend what you actually meant. Given it may take a living person a century or more to die I’d contend that’s an unreasonable term of consideration. Within very narrow contexts the notion of being dead just not knowing it, or dead people still living could be valid but it refers to the proximity of death.

            As I have repeatedly said regulation is not a matter of condoning. Scripture implicitly condemns slavery but recognises that it was a facet of the culture of the times.

            Except that’s really not true. Roman culture was strongly pro-slavery as were various other cultures. Had the Roman Empire survived ’til the present day there’s no reason to think their attitude on slavery would be different. Your contention is effectively that since we can’t know what would have happened if things had been different we can’t claim that Christianity is the proximate cause for the abolition of slavery. It’s basically a militant demand for ignorance.

          • Elliot J. Stamler

            I have never in my life met a “pro-abortionist.” Those of us who support the Constitution on this issue are PRO CHOICE…that is not synonymous with being pro-abortion.

          • username_daniel

            Jesus did say that God permitted some things in the Law NOT because they were His will but because of where they were as people.

            Matthew 5
            33“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all…

            38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.

            Matthew 19
            7They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
            8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
            9And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

          • Boris

            What a pant load. This guy wants to make women slaves to the government. He thinks women are incubators.

          • Jim

            Great straw man argument.

          • Jim

            If you actually studied the text and its historical and cultural context, you would realize that 1) The Bible doesn’t prescribe slavery. The Old Testament
            Law acknowledges the existence of slavery and, within the historical time period, heavily regulates it to protect the slave from mistreatment. 2) What is actually practiced according to Hebrew law is a form of indentured servitude where someone voluntarily enters into a contract with another party in order to pay off debt and agrees to work for a given period of time. 3) The sabbath year and the Jubilee year required the release of those bound as servants or slaves. 4) In the New Testament, while the Roman Empire is made up of around 50% slaves, Paul acknowledges the fact of slavery and, within the church body, does everything possible to eradicate it, even trying to shame Philemon into releasing Onesimus.

          • swordfish

            “1) The Bible doesn’t prescribe slavery.”

            I said ‘condones’, not ‘prescribes’. But in any case, why doesn’t the Bible condemn slavery, as we do now?

            “2) What is actually practiced according to Hebrew law is a form of indentured servitude […]”

            Well, that’s alright then…

            “3) The sabbath year and the Jubilee year required the release of those bound as servants or slaves.”


            “4) In the New Testament, […]”

            Jesus said: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters.”

          • swordfish

            Is slavery moral?

          • Trilemma

            This is God condoning chattel slavery.

            “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. – Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV

            These slaves were slaves for life. They were never released. They were property.

          • Jim

            Israelites were released by law.
            As I said, any slavery was recognized by the Bible and highly regulated. You have to look at it in the historical context to find out how radical a concept it is to be held accountable by the law of the land for injuring a slave when slaves could be i discriminately killed on the whim of a master.

          • Trilemma

            True, Israelite slaves had to be released by law and could not be treated ruthlessly. Lev 25:44-46 is not talking about Israelite slaves but chattel slaves who were not Israelites, who were purchased as property for life, who were never released, and who could be treated ruthlessly.

          • Boris

            The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics.[1] Lysenko’s theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the “gene”; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[2] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection”.[2] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

            Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were fired or even sent to prison,[3] and numerous scientists were executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents.[4][5][6][7] The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was sent to prison and died there, while scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[2] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.[8]

            The denial of evolutionary theory lead to massive starvation and the deaths of 20 million Russians. Get your facts straight. Stalin was an evolution denier just like you. So was Hitler, who was devout Christian and roasted people simply because they were not Christians just like Jesus making Hitler the most Christ-like man who ever lived. No wonder you Christians love you some brother Adolf.

          • Jim

            Hitler was absolutely, positively NOT a Christian. It has been documented by numerous sources that he was an occultist and neo-pagan who imprisoned Christians and worked very hard, spending a ton of resources on finding, documenting and promoting his faith. He was unashamedly evolution oriented in that he used evolutionary theory applued to people and nations to justify his Aryan fantasy. No Christian loves Hitler ir what he did. You need to get your facts straight. Even PBS documented Hitler’s occult connection.

          • Boris

            “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshiped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

            Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

            “Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

            “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.We have Adolf Hitler’s own words describing his love for Christianity and Jesus, his hero. Your dishonesty is showing.

          • Jim

            Hitler was not Christian. The documentation of his paganism is overwhelming. Couching his theories in Christian terminology does not make him Christian. He capitalized on bad church theology and used it to justify making the Jews his scapegoats.

          • Boris

            Sorry the No True Scotsman Fallacy is not going to fly here. This is a fallacy free zone so I suggest you leave before you get further humiliated.

          • Elliot J. Stamler

            You are quite right in your comment about Hitler and I write that as a lifelong student of the history of the Third Reich. Hitler however didn’t “capitalize” on bad church theology as his principal justification for anti-semitism…he certainly exploited its thousands of years existence being a very canny politician but it wasn’t his principal justification…that was the overarching and all-encompassing role of RACE. From his first political beginnings in 1921 he founded his world-view on race and its concomitant, blood.

          • Boris

            They are stories and your God does not exist.

          • Jim

            The historical accuracy of the Bible as been confirmed by independent external sources and archaeology. It is so accurate that archaeologists use it as a primary source to identify dig sites, confirm the identity of sites and to place the artifacts in context. Israel uses it to teach the history of their nation in thier schools.
            Now,back to my question, what has atheism given the world? Besides 100,000,000 dead bodies.

          • Boris

            Really? The existence of angels, demons, heaven, hell, God, Jesus and events like the Passover event, the wandering in the desert, Jesus sitting at the right hand of God have all been confirmed? I don’t think so. The stories in the Bible are placed in an historical setting and they mention a few real people like Nebuchadnezzar and Herod but all historical fiction does that. Historical fiction contains dialog, people speaking to each other in complete sentences. Like in the Bible stories. Historical narratives do not.
            Christian propagandists have gone to great lengths to conflate atheism with communism. I disagree with their claim that communism is any kind of atheistic philosophy. Communism simply replaced the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of Christianity with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent State government. The State is supposedly all good, all wise and all powerful. So communism is just as nuts as Christianity with its unrealistic utopian fantasies and pie-in-the sky promises. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were certainly guilty of many terrible human rights violations. However no atheist either one of us knows would defend this kind of political repression. Not even the current leaders, we’ll assume they are atheists too, of these nations will defend the barbaric actions of their predecessors. These human rights violations stemmed from the communist leader’s power mad political ambitions, not from some philosophical conviction that their citizens needed to be indoctrinated with an atheistic worldview or an academic conviction that religion needed to be done away with because it contradicts the laws of physics. If atheism is to be held responsible for political repression in Russia and China then Christianity is definitely responsible for the atrocities of the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, heresy hunting and the Holocaust. I’ll ask you if you think it is fair to condemn an ideology, school of thought or religion for perversions and abuses of its teachings.

          • Jim

            Why is it that atheists seem to know nothing yet profess to be so wise?
            First, the historical accuracy of the Bible has been repeatedly confirmed. The route of the Exodus has been confirmed and preserved on video along with the location of Mount Sinai in Arabia. The biblical description of Mount Sinai is so accurate that there is no doubt that the video got the right place. Archaeology has repeatedly confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible record to the extent that it is a primary source for locating and identifying dig sites. It has confirmed the existence of Kings David and Hezekiah through artifacts. It has discovered so much that your claim would be laughed at by any serious historian.
            For the record, it was the communists who adopted atheism, not Christian apologists. History seems to be a little inconvenint when you fail to learn it. The human rights violations came quite naturally from a leadership that practiced the might makes right philosopy that is the logical conclusion of atheism. And, for the record, your opinion and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
            The problem with Christianity being responsible for the evils that you want to blame it woth is that someone who acts in deliberate contradiction to the teachings of the New Testament may call themselves Christians,but they can hardly be considered to be actual followers of the teachings of Jesus or the New Testament. Even if they were acting in accordance with the tenets such as love your neighbor, the actual numbers still pale into insignificance beside the 100 million deaths your belief system caused in just 100 years.

          • Boris

            The problem with atheism being responsible for the evils that you want to blame it for is that someone who acts in deliberate contradiction to the teachings of secular humanism may call themselves atheists, but they can hardly be considered to be actual followers of the teachings of secular humanism or atheism. TOUCHE. Anyone can take your dumb arguments and turn them on their heads and use them against you.

          • Jim

            But the communists were acting in complete logical accord with the only morality atheism can claim as its own: the law of tooth and claw.
            Once again, I have shared a few of the benefits Christianity has given the world. What has atheism given to make the world a better place to live?

          • Boris


          • Boris

            Atheism only claims one thing and that is that the view that “God exists” is a false statement. That is it. Atheism has nothing to do with telling others how to live, or any moral teachings. An atheist is just a person who understands that the evidence for God is on the same level with the evidence for werewolves, leprechauns and invisible pink unicorns. So your straw man attacks on it only prove h your ignorance of the subject matter.

          • Elliot J. Stamler

            Reading many of your comments in this dialogue, I am constrained to write as one who is neither an atheist nor a Christian, that you come across as dogmatic as does Boris.
            I am a believer and reject atheism decisively but if you are going, Jim, to cite all the beneficences of Christianity over 2 millennia, you ought to willing to cite the harm that CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND PRELATES AND CLERICS have done in its name. Please note I do not write a criticism of Christianity at all but of what many prominent Christian leaders, prelates and clerics have done…and are in my view STILL doing right in our own country. It is not patriotism but religion which CAN BE (not is) the last refuge of scoundrels.

          • Jim

            I don’t deny that much evil and damage has been done by people claiming to be Christian, sometimes deliberately, sometimes in ignorance. The problem is that someone acting in contradiction to the tenets of the faith as clearly defined in the Bible may call themselves Christian, but say different by contradicting the faith itself.
            One cannot force conversions, for instance, without violating the very nature of Christianity teaches that we persuade others of the truth of the gospel. Anything else does a diservice to the text. Murdering or using the government as the enforcing arm of church discipline likewise goes against clearly taught Christian principles. Principles that were presumed to be of Divine origin and eternal.
            In spite of the things that members of churches have gotten wrong, no other force or philosophy on Earth has ever done so much good or brought so many benefits as the Judeo-Christian faith. Hospitals, nursimg homes, orphanages, universities, and schools have all been given to the world because of Christians living out their faith. Slavery was abolished by Christians who read the text without economic or racial bias and fought for the freedom of all men. Child labor was abolished, women were acknowledged as having the same rights as men, the hungry were fed, the poor were given opportunity and lifted out of poverty through monetary support and programs to teach skills. The Liberty that we enjoy as Americans was a direct result of our founders belief in and application of biblical principles and precepts.
            My point has not been that Christianity has always been perfect, for it is practiced by imperfect people who fail often to live up to the ideal.

          • Boris

            The Passover event is a complete fiction and that fact alone sinks all three major monotheistic religions absolutely and forever. No Passover no Passover lamb. Jesus never existed anyway.

          • Boris

            You if you were honest you would admit that moral codes were around long before the Jewish people or any Christians even existed. To understand Israelite law one should first place it in the context of other Near Eastern laws. In probable chronological order the collections known to us, with their approximate dates, locales and numbers of laws are as follows:

            Ur-Namma Code, 2040-2027, from Sumerian Ur, 22 laws.
            Bilalama Code, 1930, from Akkadian Eshunna; 59 laws.
            Lipit- Ishtar Code, 1864-1854, from Sumerian Isin; Approximately 18 laws.
            Hammurabi Code, 1728-1636, from Amorite Babylon; 282 laws.
            Hittite Laws, 1400-1200, from Hattusa; 200 laws.
            Middle Assyrian laws, 1114-1076, from Ashur; 116 laws.
            Neo-Babylonian Laws, 626-539, from Babylon; 9 laws. Ð2

            The Near Eastern law collections show emphatic parallels to Israel’s laws. The parallels may be explained as due to (a) a common Semitic (and perhaps partly Indo Aryan) legal heritage, conserved by the codes in varying ways, which may have been brought by the Hebrews from Mesopotamia, may have been mediated to Israel through Canaan, or may have come through some combination of these 2 processes, and (b) certain socio-cultural and legal tendencies which would affect legal materials similarly even in widely separated cultures.
            The ancient Near Eastern codes are valuable therefore, in illuminating the background process of formation, and sometimes even the details of Israelite law.

            “An atheist cannot say that anything is right or wrong with any authority.” No one can and we atheists do not go around telling other people how to live. You won’t find atheists in federal prison. Check the prison statistics. The prisons are full of believers and mostly unwanted children

          • Jim

            You are obfuscating the issue. No one denied that there were other codes of law. And whether or not atheists break the law is irrelevant to the question. The point is that atheists have no moral authority. Your morality comes from the Western, Christian background you were raised in. An atheist cannot say with any authority that murder is wrong, because, without an external source, it is only his or her opinion.
            If atheists are not filling prisons, it doesn’t mean that they are more moral than any other group since you make up just a small fraction of the population. That alone can account for low prison numbers.
            Now, back to my question, If Christianity is so evil and atheism is so great, what has atheism given society? Stop trying to change the subject and answer the question. Where are your hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes? Where are the great humanitarian programs providing disaster relief, medical care to third world or inner city poor? All you folks seem to be capable of is raiding websites and attempting to bully Christians with nonsense that a 10 minute Google search disproves and debunks. Maybe you’d be better served by proving your goodness than by attacking someone else’s.

          • Boris

            In America, as of 1999, 13% of all hospitals were religious (totaling 18% of all hospital beds); that’s 604 out of 4,573 hospitals…. Despite the religious label, these so-called religious hospitals are more public than public hospitals. Religious hospitals get 36% of all their revenue from Medicare; … they get 12% … from Medicaid. Of the remaining 44% of funding, 31% comes from county appropriations, 30% comes from investments, and only 5% comes from charitable contributions (not necessarily religious). The percentage of Church funding for Church-run hospitals comes to a grand total of 0.0015 percent. Despite being publicly funded … many Catholic hospitals refuse to provide infertility treatments, birth control, abortion, and emergency contraception to rape victims…. Catholic hospitals have … policies preventing euthanasia (whereby a terminally ill patient must be kept on life support despite the patient’s demands to end treatment)…. Mormon hospitals will refuse sterilization to women who have had less than five children or are younger than 40 years of age. Southern Baptist hospitals won’t provide abortion services. The answer to the question “How many American hospitals have atheists built?” is “All of them.”

          • Jim

            Go back to thier founding, genius.
            No, atheists have built none. Even if you counted all your tax dollars, you are such a small minority that our tax dollars are too diluted to make a difference.
            Atheists don’t build hospitals, orphanages, etc. There are no atheist disaster relief agencies. Nothing. To declare otherwise is delusional.

          • Boris

            “Every one of us… has met the criticism that in ethics we humanists live on Christian capital, that our moral attitudes are derived from Christianity. I believe this to be utterly wrong and that, on the contrary, what goes for modern Christian ethics is in fact derived from humanist values. For most of its history Christianity was red in tooth and claw… It is only in the last couple of centuries that Christian attitudes have gradually become civilized and humane. Why? [Because of] the rise of humanism and skepticism. We have given Christianity its modern face, which often quotes the very nice things Jesus is reported to have said, and carefully omits the nasty sayings such as, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast them, into the fire, and they are burned.” – Sir Hermann Bondi

          • Jim

            Sorry that you are too unlearned to understand parables.
            Humanism is a recent development which you would understand if you actually studied history instead of opinioning it. Humanistic values thus could not predate Christian morality.
            Christian values and morality were very often not followed by those who used the title of Christian for their own gain. You should actually read the New Testament and understand it before getting online and looking foolish. If you read what Jesus actually taught, you would realize how far off your assumptions of “Christian” bloodshed are.

          • Boris

            “Humanism is a recent development which you would understand if you actually studied history instead of opinioning it. Humanistic values thus could not predate Christian morality.”

            You missed the point, probably on purpose. It was the rise of secular humanism that forced Christians to behave civilized for the first time in history. If it were not for humanism you people would still be burning witches and books and heretics and acting just like you did in the past just like ISIS does today. What would have stopped you if it were not for the rise of secularism? Nothing. We stopped you and taught you how to behave.
            Christian values and morality were very often not followed by those who used the title of Christian for their own gain. You should actually read the New Testament and understand it before getting online and looking foolish. If you read what Jesus actually taught, you would realize how far off your assumptions of “Christian” bloodshed are.

            I didn’t study theology in college but I did have three years of Ancient Greek at a Christian college in Pennsylvania and the texts we learned from were the New Testament and the Greek philosophers and historians. So I will match my knowledge of the New Testament texts with anyone, especially someone like you who has no idea what they are actually reading.

          • Would it be OK if I converted a few of your comments on this thread into a stand-alone article for publication on my website?

            There is no fee, I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for Writer Beat and liked what you wrote. I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. You can learn more about the site by checking out my proffile (my email and the website address are there…intentionally vague here to avoid spamguard) or just reply “sure” and I’ll handle the rest.

          • Andrew Mason

            Jim has largely addressed your points. Your ethnic cleansing is actually moral cleansing which is quite a different thing. And while you highlight the slaughter of infants, child murder is a woman’s right in most Western nations so I’m not sure what your contention is. You contend that life is the ultimate value, and yet that’s a demonstrably false position. Worse, since life has no value without a Biblical or comparable worldview, a rational compassionate system is impossible. As Jim notes, the Holocaust and Atheistic atrocities in Russia, China etc are the product of your rational compassionate system.

          • Boris

            “Worse, since life has no value without a Biblical or comparable worldview, a rational compassionate system is impossible.”
            No nothing infinite has any value and if you believe you’ll live forever you have devalued the only life you’re really ever going to have. So sad.

          • Gerrard

            So if u value life as the ultimate value u would be against abortion??

          • Boris

            I can’t imagine what someone is going through who is considering having an abortion. Can you? It must be traumatic and I can’t judge the actions of someone like that without having walked a few miles in their shoes. I worry about my own morality, not other people’s. We don’t live in a world where good and evil, right and wrong are clearly defined even though we all pretty much base our morals on the value of human life. We live in a society in which freedom and the right to it is seen as the best way to protect and enhance life. So the question you asked me is not about morality but another aspect of reality.

        • Jim

          That might be the most ignorant statement of the year. Even the least religious understands Christian morality and complains when Christians don’t live up to it. It starts with the Ten Commandments and is expanded by Jesus and Paul as the ideal for human behavior.
          Now, what exactly would constitute an atheistic morality? First of all, without an external source, it’s all a matter of preference. An atheist cannot say that anything is right or wrong with any authority. The fact is that most of the things you would profess to be wrong are taken from Christian moral codes: theft, murder, lying, adultery, etc. If you were honest, you would admit that the only law that atheists can call their own would be the rule that Machiavelli proposed in that might makes right or do whatever you can get away with.

      • swordfish

        Empathy. Living in a society. Personal experience. Common sense. Observing laws. Innate behaviour.

        As for Christian morality, I don’t see how what people get up to in private, as long as it is carried out with consent, is even a moral issue at all.

    • Paul

      LOL, your comment is case in point to the topic

    • Jim Walker

      Wow… just wow how detsiwt your logic is.

  • Craig Clark

    I have to disagree. We have always been immoral. It’s just the focus of our sin has changed. For some reason the church is more aware alert to this and not racism for example. Today we are worst with sex but better with race. I think the problem is with the church. We have failed to love and to be salt and light. We allow some Christians to think that if the other person is wrong then it is ok to be a bigot against them. Think about what some Christians say about “all Muslims”. A Christian minister told of being taking on a gay pride march by his mother. Christians threw urine on them. The church needed leaders to show love for gay people and the holiness of G*d. Dr Brown is a great example in this area of how Christians should act.

  • Miriam G. Mahusay

    As to America being enlightened by becoming liberal in all aspects, I disagree. There has never been a period in history that tolerates the indulgence of the appetites that produces dysfunction and confusion hence people have become weak-willed, sad, sensitive and whatnot. We want people to be happy apart from boundaries. Real satisfaction and enjoyment can be attained by observing the rules that govern relationships for that matter. If we make our own rules because our appetites ( which are present in animals according to Plato ) dictate us, then we are ready for disaster. But humans love to be in chaos and turbulence, hence the deviation from what is normal – hence, discontentment and dissatisfaction creeps in that leads to hopelessness, insecurity and worse death.
    But I believe that we need to love anyone who has a different choice and to listen as well. And pray that somehow they would seek Christ.

    • Jacob Miller

      >> As to America being enlightened by becoming liberal in all aspects, I disagree.

      Although I’m a liberal, I see value in conservatism. And, like most people, I’m not strictly on thing. I have some conservatism in me.

      When the tension between liberals and conservatives works well, it allows our country (and The Church) to grow while staying rooted.

      But that is not now. We can’t even talk with each other or have shared facts.

  • Jacob Miller

    >> But there’s no question that our embrace of same-sex “marriage” is part and parcel of our slide toward sexual anarchy and away from biblical morality.

    Lots of Christians believe that treated gays as we want to be treated is biblical morality.

  • Spirit Plumber

    It is something to boast about, yes. America’s strength has histoically always been its ability to welcome the world’s best and brightest, and in order to do that, you have to be open.

    Look at LGBT contributions through history (Hint: you’re using a computer).

    • Up_Words

      Thanks for letting me know why I have to keep fighting with Windows 10, to have it do what I tell it to.

  • Spirit Plumber

    Also, whose behind did you pull the incest thing from?

  • Stephen D

    Polygamy is moving up the charts. Stand by…

  • Prayer is the key to break strongholds

  • Elliot J. Stamler

    Frankly on the very rare occasions I read the opinions of political fascist and sex-hating fanatic Michael Brown, I am more amused than angered. Age and past life experiences have taught me it is impossible to rationally argue with fanatics who are committed to fascism politically and prudery sexually, both being the consequence of an authoritarian personality much written of by psychologists and psychiatrists.
    Of course the undeniable trends Brown cites WILL continue. As usual like all fascists and prudes he throws everything into the recipe from divorce which the overwhelming majority of Americans do not regard as immoral to polygamy which only a tiny minority of people either practice or condone.
    Actually it’s funny, to me, that being in lay terms, the disturbed fanatic Brown is, he writes “even porn is becoming popular.” This, in 2018, when every statistic shows that at least 40% of Americans watch porn at least occasionally and over 60% have at least once…and when the president of the United States, a hedonistic, serial adulterer and outright woman-abuser, has sex with one of the nation’s most prominent porn stars! Moreover despite Brown’s gagging horror, at least as pertaining to what I will term “normal, heterosexual porn”, in the majority of jurisdictions it is considered not to be LEGALLY obscene (which is the statutory requirement regarding pornography) and virtually impossible for a prosecutor to get a guilty verdict if a criminal prosecution is in fact initiated under our amorphous, fog-like legal definition of obscenity.
    His neurotic (if not worse) comment about sex before marriage is even funnier…the last statistic I saw is that amongst first-time married, 96% of grooms and 92% of brides in our country were NOT virginal. (Oh how horrifying!!!!)
    Of course Brown being what he is wants to turn the clock back 50 or more years which will never happen. What it is impossible for Brown (and others like him) to appreciate is that while sexual mores have changed, sexual MORALITY has also changed definitionally. The vast majority of Americans who are moral and decent people reject the lunatic prudery of Brown and worse, his authoritarian mania for legally were it possible, changing the nation back to the halcyon days where HIS ideas were dictated by both law and practice.
    One last point I think relevant: I am a senior citizen of advanced age indeed and well remember those halcyon days the passage of which Brown so furiously laments. The vast majority of the changes I’ve seen have been good, positive, beneficial. All? No..there are a few I take issue with but the notion that we were a sexually AND OTHERWISE more moral nation back in, say, the Eisenhower-Kennedy years when I was in school, is an outrageously untruthful viewpoint.
    America does NOT need to be “made more moral again” and least of all by a neurotic political fascist and raging prude like Michael Brown who actually thinks he has the right to force 330 million other people to OBEY what he thinks is morality.

History is His Story
Dwight Longenecker
More from The Stream
Connect with Us