Seems like a perfectly reasonable grievance if being homosexual can count as a disadvantaged family, than being objectly against it would be one as well.  

You need to make your posts more clear, so I can see what was your post and what was mine. I didnt even see what you said until i read the page again

Oh, my apologies. So because a Christian institution was against slavery, slavery didn't happen when christianity became dominant in Europe. I guess the Atlantic slave trade is a total myth then. 

You didnt really read the whole page, did you? Atlantic Slave Trade had little to do with Europe. The slaves were caught / sold by Africans to Americans on West/Northern African soil and were shipped to American continent to work for colonialists. Christianty had little to no influence in North/Western Africa and couldnt stop slavery there. Atlantic slave trade was out of Roman catholic jurdistiction. And slavery in America was absolutely nothing like the one In Ancient Europe before Christianity. Slaves back then had it a lot worse. What I said was that Christianity ended slavery in Roman Empire and mainland Europe, or has at least decreased it almost completly. Let me copy paste some points from the article that point towards that

• 441 A.D. (censuring slavers)
• 549 A.D. (church buildings as refuges for escaping slaves)
• 566 A.D. (excommunication-of-slavers proviso)
• 583 A.D. (church issuance of freedom papers)
• 585 A.D. (use church property to free slaves)
• 595 A.D. (freeing entrants to monastic life)
• 616 A.D. (liberty restoration proviso)
• 625 A.D. (ban new slaves, use church property to free current slaves)
• 666 A.D. (ban shaving slaves)
• 844 A.D. (use church property to free slaves)
• 922 A.D. (defines slave-trade as homicide)
• 1102 A.D. (ban slave trade)

And theres waay more where this came from :) You can clearly see that Christian Church had a lot to do with ending slavery in Christian Europe. And we should thnak God and his apostles that it was brought to our continent. It did waay more good than bad :) 

As for pedophilia...it wasnt brought there by Christianity, nor it was a christian problem. If pedophilia was actually supported by christian message and The Bible then you'd have a point. Even so, pedophilia among catholics is a farily new thing and its still very rare. It was a non issue before because priests were allowed to have wives before. So its more of a corrupted priest's problem that they cant contain thier lust than Christian, really.

hope it was worth it :)

Not in my country thank God :D I couldnt care less if Scandinavians or Dutch have a gay president or military general as long as my people's country doesnt :P Thats just my personal preferance, you dont have to feel insulted by it. And where did I compare homosexualty with anything in that post and when did I call it evil ??? I think your progressive prejudice and bigotry sense is tingling

No, i am the one who feels reeeeally sorry for you.

Where to even begin?

The Church initially accepted slavery as a social institution in antiquity and even into the Early Medieval period. Some Catholics such as Saint Bathilde, Saint Anskar, Saint Wulfstan and Saint Anselm campaigned against slavery and the slave trade. By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been largely abolished throughout Europe, although enslavement of non-Christians remained an open questionAlthough Catholic clergy, religious orders and even popes owned slaves, Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.A number of Popes issued papal bulls condemning enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials; however, these were largely ignored despite the threat of excommunication. In spite of a resounding condemnation of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, the American Catholic Church continued to support slaveholding interests until the abolition of slavery.The Church has maintained its teaching against slavery and continues to campaign against it in whatever form it takes around the world.

Early Christian thought exhibited some signs of kindness towards slaves. Christianity recognised marriage of sorts among slaves,freeing slaves was regarded as an act of charity, and when slaves were buried in Christian cemeteries, the grave seldom included any indication that the person buried had been a slave.

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), archbishop of Constantinople, preaching on Acts 4:32-4:33 in a sermon entitled, "Should we not make it a heaven on earth?", stated, "I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they set at liberty...

Nevertheless, early Christianity rarely criticised the actual institution of slavery. Though the Pentateuch gave protection to fugitive slaves, the Roman church often condemned with anathema slaves who fled from their masters, and refused them Eucharistic communion.

Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century regarded slavery as consistent with Christian theology For example, the Protestant Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts owned the Codrington Plantation, in Barbados, containing several hundred slaves; all slaves in the plantation were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organisation - the Church of England has since apologised for the "sinfulness of our predecessors" with this instance in mind. Today, nearly all Christians are united in the condemnation of modern slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will.

It is contended that as slavery fell into moral disfavor, some Biblical translations began to translate references to slavery using softer language, and often replacing the word 'slave' with the word 'servant.' Others say the word "slave" carried with it a different meaning at the time the Bible was written, and that while the key aspect of slavery is ownership by another, sometimes "servant" better conveys to a contemporary audience what the text originally meant.

^^These are mostly from wikipedia, but lets go a bit deeper and look what more educate schooars and historians had to say about christianity and slavery:

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

This is probably the best source on the matter as it has sources from both historical texts, actual Bible and tons of schoolars and historians. I suggest you read it, as theres tons of information there.

I really don't care that much, if they want to get married then let them. That is their business and I should have nothing to do with what they want to do with their relationship.

I posed a hypothetical as a comaprison and you go down that road?? Really? I think you may be not be seeing point I was trying to make as well as not understanding the term 'bigot'. If we follow your logic, it could be considered bigotry to teach our children that any behavior is wrong because somebody, somewhere might think that behavior is ok. If he taught his kids to treat homosexuals badly, or that homosexuals are somehow evil people, that would be bigotry. If he teaches his kids not to do homosexual acts, he's just attempting to teach them his views on morality (just the same as if he told them sex outside marriage is wrong, or any other moral belief).

I'm not presenting an argument that homosexuality is directly harmful, never said that, I was talking specifically about views on morality, never about levels of harm. I'm also not interested in forcing my own views of morality on you or anyone else. I was just saying that, if a parent tries to pass on to their child a belief of right and wrong as they see it, that does not make them a bigot. You clearly are very emotionally charged about this subject, so I'm not sure if it's possible to have a meaningful conversation with you.

Again: MY ONLY POINT WAS THAT THE TERM BIGOT WAS BEING MISUSED IN THIS CASE. Now that you've called one person a bigot, then called me a lemming and lazy... I'm not sure you have the ability to debate in a calm and reasonable manner.

EDIT: In an attempt to put my point in a short, clear synopsis. Teaching your child that an action is wrong is not the same as being bigoted towards individuals or groups who do those actions.

You have just earned a shit ton of respect from me :D If only bigots like fordy could have a perspective on society and people like you do :)

Marriage IS a religious institution. You saying to argue without mentoning religion is like asking me to argue why the sky is blue without mentioning qny colors.

Marriage IS A religious institution!

civil marriage?