I'd like to let you know straight away: what you are doing is so incredibly wrong that it cut me to the quick. I don't have any problems with people believing in God. But I do have a problem with those guys who think that they have to spread the most terrible parts of their religion all over the world.
You might think homosexuality is wrong - it's your right to do that, no matter if it's because your parents taught you, the church taught you, or because you want to repress your own homosexuality.
But you always have to think of the fact that it's your own personal view that homosexuality is a bad thing and a view which particularly comes from your religion. If you believe in the Bible, just do - but remember, that there are some people who believe in the Bible, some believe in the Torah, some believe in the Qur'an, and all claim to be the wise ones who know better than the rest.
The only problem is - you'll never be able to prove that your God exists (and I doubt that Mr. Trinity will ever come down to the world and have a little chat with the unbelievers) which means you'll also never be able to prove that homosexuality is a bad thing.
On the other hand, science has already proven that homosexuality is caused by hormone troubles in the uterus. Well, that's a fact of matter, isn't it?
In other words: you are spreading a message to all those, highly affecting their life, without even knowing if you're right (or should I rather say "knowing that you're wrong")!
Thousands and millions lesbian and gay teenagers who discover how wonderful it is to love and to be loved are punished by the church and forced to live in a way, they are not supposed to live. YOU, the priests all over the world, destroy so many teenagers' lives by telling them unproven stories about sin, penance and forgiveness and pave the way for depressions, self-hate and very often suicide. This is what the church does by telling things that are quite obviously wrong.
I really doubt that I will get an objective answer from you which doesn't contain phrases like "God told me it was my task to spread the truth over the world!". But nevertheless, I would like to ask you that one question again:
What gives you the right to spread viewpoints all over the world which affect so many people's lives without being in a position to be sure that you are right?
Best regards from a happy 16-years old boy from Germany, being truly GAY and living in monogamy with his boyfriend for more than one year,
I find it fascinating when people claim others have a right to their own opinions, but get upset when their opinions are expressed. You tell me I have a right to hold a view contrary to your own, but then you conclude that I don't have the right (in your mind) to tell other people why I hold these views. Talk about censorship!
Your guesses as to why I oppose homosexuality didn't come close to the truth.
I oppose homosexuality because it is unstable.
By the way, I oppose heterosexual relationships without marriage for the same reason. However, homosexual relationships are much more unstable than most unmarried heterosexual relationships.
"The word “promiscuity is usually used pejoratively, in such loaded statements as “The AIDS crisis is a direct result of promiscuity in the gay community.” It’s not a neutral description but a moral condemnation, and is used against gays by any group that condemns homosexuality. What constitutes promiscuity depends upon the speaker and his value system. One person will call a man who has two sexual partners promiscuous; another will reserve this condemnation for a regular frequenter of brothels. As a rule, gay men call someone promiscuous if he has a lot of sex with a lot of different guys." [Charles Silverstein, author of a book on homosexual sex].
Notice the redefinition of the terms. In the homosexual community "promiscuous" doesn't imply a monogamous relationship. As long as a person mostly sticks to one partner and only has a few side relationships, then it is considered consistent. Yet the same actions among heterosexuals would be called promiscuous. In one survey of homosexuals involved with a lifetime partner: 57% report having sex with 30 or more people; 35% report having sex with 100 or more people. That is 92% with a large number of multiple sex partners while in a “lifetime commitment”!
"Sexual relationships with multiple partners in not condemned in the homosexual community and is even looked upon as a potentially positive experience." [Larry Burtoft, Ph.D, Setting the Record Straight, A Focus on the Family Report].
"For same-sex couples who "wed" in one of the five states that allow it, many have marriage vows. But according to a stunning New York Times article, "forsaking all others" isn't one of them. Calling infidelity "a gift," several couples are brutally honest about the lack of monogamy in most homosexual "marriages." Just how common is this phenomenon? A study scheduled for release next month from San Francisco State University found that more often than not, "open" marriages aren't the exception to counterfeit marriages; they're the rule.
"The Gay Couples Study followed 556 male partners for three years, and half had "sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners." Some even had the audacity to say that heterosexuals have a lot to learn from this "evolution of marriage." On the contrary, it only exposes the mockery this movement is making of marriage. They want access to marriage only to destroy what should be its defining characteristic: fidelity! For years, FRC has argued against same-sex "marriage" on these very grounds. Now that the New York Times is confirming the trend, maybe even more people will start to listen." ["For Homosexuals, a Sad State of Affairs," Family Research Council (2/2/2010)]
You might claim your present situation is different, but you are new to sex. One year is nothing.
I oppose homosexuality because it is deadly.
"Study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone's lifespan. With all the attention on smoking, which the National Cancer Institute says takes from 7 to 10 years off someone's life, why not the same human outcry on homosexuality? Here's a behavior that's killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care." [E. Fox, "Homosexual Lifespan," this page has a long list of evidence going back to the 1800's].
I oppose promiscuous sex among heterosexuals for the same reason.
"Remove your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house, lest you give your honor to others, and your years to the cruel one; lest aliens be filled with your wealth, and your labors go to the house of a foreigner; and you mourn at last, when your flesh and your body are consumed" (Proverbs 5:8-11).
"Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding; He who does so destroys his own soul. Wounds and dishonor he will get, And his reproach will not be wiped away" (Proverbs 6:32-33).
The sad thing is that homosexual versions of sex contain an even higher risk of disease.
"Dr. Steven Wexner of the Cleveland Clinic in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, stated in a 1990 study published in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum that “up to 55% of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80% of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15% of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus.”" ["Diseases Related to Homosexuality"]
Recently the Center for Disease Control reported that AIDS rates are 50 times higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals [LifeSiteNews, "AIDS Rate 50 Times Higher in Homosexual Men: Center for Disease Control"].
I oppose homosexuality because it isn't how the human reproductive system was designed.
The human body was designed for heterosexual sex. Homosexuals must find ways to imitate intercourse by hand jobs, oral sex, or anal sex. The later is a primary reason why homosexuals have greater problems with diseases. The human body is not designed for males to couple with males or for females to couple with females.
Sex is an act to both give pleasure and to lead to reproduction.
"And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it" (Genesis 9:7).
Homosexuality is a selfish act. Its partners are in it solely for pleasure.
I oppose homosexuality because God said it is sinful.
I know you claim to be an atheist, but you admit that the evidence from the Bible does "cut you to the quick." God doesn't give laws arbitrarily. The laws He gave men are what works in this world. "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea"" (Isaiah 48:17-18). You might scoff, but history has consistently shown that the laws given in the Bible have always improved the lives of its practitioners and those around them.
Your disbelief doesn't change this one important fact. You might not believe in God or His Word, but it doesn't change the simple statement of truth: God said homosexuality is sinful. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10). See "Homosexuality" for a long list of verses condemning homosexuality.
My teaching the truth doesn't hurt the world. It just hurts your feelings because I have the audacity to tell you "No" to your choice of self-pleasure.
I oppose homosexuality because it deludes its followers.
You illustrate this well when you claim, "science has already proven that homosexuality is caused by hormone troubles in the uterus." Unlike you, I happen to have a masters in science. Because I have interests in the areas of morality, I read the studies related to moral issues, such as homosexuality. What I know is that there has been no study to date that has proven the cause of homosexuality beyond it being a personal choice. The closest any have gotten is to claim that there might be a tendency toward a homosexual disposition. Even these studies have not been able to get verifiable results. For example:
"In a summary of the biological research, Byne concluded ‘what evidence exists thus far of innate biological traits underlying homosexuality is flawed.'" [Byne, W., 1994. "The biological evidence challenged," Scientific American 270(5):26-31 (p. 26). Cited in "Creationism and the problem of homosexual behaviour," Answers in Genesis].
Actual scientific evidence isn't of interest to those who only want to seek justification for what they have already chosen to do. Anyone claiming even the most remote support is clung to and rumor is spread without any questioning of its validity.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II Timothy 4:3-4).
Contrary to your own self-doubts, I am quite sure of my position. After all, it is one based on facts -- just facts that you can't accept and would rather ignore. And you will note that the same reasons I oppose homosexuality are also applied to heterosexuals who engage in sex without marriage. The only difference is that the harm caused by homosexuality is more severe than heterosexual fornication, but they are both equally wrong.
And no, the laughable attempt at a guilt-trip doesn't work on me. I teach truth. I help people find true and lasting peace in their lives. That you don't wish it for your own is your own choice, not mine, because I do wish that you understood the beauty of serving the one true God. I hope you will remember that later when life starts to crumble around you. Perhaps, if the Lord wills, I'll still be here to talk to you.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your quick and detailed answer – even though I guess that you must be very used to writing answers to people with progressive and not 2,000 years old moral ideas.
Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that every single part of your argumentation can more or less easily be rebutted – which is what I am going to do in the following. In view of the fact that I consider a structured makeup of one's views as inevitable for an effective and objective disputation, I'd like to illustrate my point of view by responding to the points you have made one by one.
Let me start with your accusation that I support censorship by opposing the spreading of homophobic theses over the Internet. Of course the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in our modern society and it would be ridiculous to question it since it's the basis for a society whose values and viewpoints are not ruled by central institutions like the church did for example for hundreds of years.
But quite obviously, you have pretty much misunderstood the principles of this right. Freedom of speech does indeed mean that you are allowed to express your thoughts, no matter if they are accepted by the majority of our society or not. But nevertheless, everybody ought to reflect and think if his own thoughts are really well-founded or just product of blind dogmatism and mythmaking before influencing insecure minors with those thoughts.
Even though you claim having done this, I highly doubt it and so it is also my right as a citizen of a society where freedom of speech is an important value to criticize your ideas and to ask you not to preach your obviously quite crude and biased opinions – even though I can't force you to stop, of course.
Let me start my rebuttal with your first point: “I oppose homosexuality because it is unstable.”
Apart from the fact that in my opinion it is everyone's right to choose if he or she wants to live promiscuous or not – an opinion which is probably a bit too radical for a priest – your argumentation isn't really what I would call convincing.
Have you always been taking promiscuity as a predefined behavior of homosexuals that can impossibly be changed? Or have you ever thought about the question why homosexuals often have sex with lots of different partners? Obviously neither of them, because on the one hand you're warning against the promiscuous behavior of gay men, but on the other hand you're obviously assuming that as soon as gays are turned into straights, their obsession with changing partners will disappear. Why should a man who used to assassinate every guy's butt suddenly abide by his new girlfriend? Because your character makes a U-Turn as soon as you're heterosexual? Doesn't really make any sense at all, does it?
So why is it that especially homosexual men are often showing a promiscuous behavior? The answer is truly not simple. But we should at least try to find an answer instead of just saying “Well, they obviously are, so let's make them straight!”
A theory that makes sense to me is the following: thanks to the mass of ultra-conservative intellectuals respectively less intellectuals on this planet, homosexual preference still usually remains a secret in western society and in particular in the United States. Of course, under these circumstances it's more or less impossible to have a diversified, stable and fulfilling relationship – you can't even take a walk through the park holding hands with your partner. On the other hand, everybody needs to live out his or her sexual preference. Heterosexuals do that by finding a partner they don't have to hide, and homosexuals who can't come out of their closet have to find a more discreet way – so they have only one choice: having non-binding sex with other males instead of building up a relationship they can't live out as they want to.
Concluding, homosexuals are obviously not born promiscuous but made promiscuous by our intolerant society – and even if they were born with a “promiscuity gene”, they wouldn't be turned into angels when made (pseudo-)straight.
Your next point is “I oppose homosexuality because it is deadly.”
To prove this these, you're referring to a really brilliant source (http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm) which says on its homepage “Winning the Sex and Gender Wars!” - well, sounds pretty objective and reliable, doesn't it?
Anyway – the content of the link you have sent me could be considered either dubious or just ridiculous. If I may give a little quotation:
“Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners. […] Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.”
Wow! These guys must really have some strong points if they're introducing their essay in such a manner. If I may reply to their argumentation with some equally strong points: “Typical human behavior includes the inability to use showers, washbasins and clysters.“
Well, I don't want to harp too much on this laughable introduction – since the rest of the text should get some rebuttal as well.
Basically, the text is referring to two main points: the lack of old people in historical records on homosexuality and the low life expectancy of homosexuals in the 1980's and 1990's.
For both observations, you can find reasons which make a lot more sense than “God's wrathful fist”. First of all, it's really no wonder that most censuses show a small amount of old homosexuals – for the simple reason that older homosexuals grew up in a society in which homosexuality was about as tolerated as satanism, murder or being a traitor to the family. In other words, there have always existed plenty homosexuals of all different ages, but only the younger ones were brave enough to stand by their sexuality. Speculating that the lack of old homosexuals is simply caused by their deaths is totally unfounded.
Also, the essay lists the medium death age of homosexuals in the 1990's which is very low. Well, the reason for this is pretty obvious: it's because of the AIDS epidemic and I don't doubt that at all. Fortunately, some truly clever scientists have found a way of preventing AIDS to spread – it has to do with the term “condom” and I'm pretty sure you have already heard of it. A condom makes sex, no matter if between two males or a male and a female, almost completely safe. And that's a matter of fact.
Concluding, the lack of old gays and lesbians only has to do with the lower coming-out rate amongst old homosexuals. Also, homosexuals are able to protect themselves from getting AIDS by just using condoms, which was different in the early 1980's, when most people didn't know about the AIDS problem.
Your next point is very interesting: “I oppose homosexuality because it isn't how the human reproductive system was designed.”
Unfortunately, discussing about this point would pretty much mean a debate on the principles of rationalists and dogmatists.
Indeed, your religion tells you that humans are designed to have sex with the opposite sex and that everything else is wrong. Evolution studies one the other hand say that homosexuality does make a sense in the ecosystem, since homosexual members of a tribe are very often those who care for the heterosexual's children – of course I'm not talking about human tribes, but about animal tribes. And there we have another prove for the theory that homosexuality is not a choice but determined.
All over the animal kingdom, several examples of homosexuality have been found (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm) – the reason for this is illustrated in the following by Nathan Bailey:
“Same-sex behaviors—courtship, mounting or parenting—are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations. But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviors might act as selective forces in and of themselves.”
As someone who has a master degree in science, I would really expect you, to accept the facts and not to latch onto Christian creationist views even though I can't forbid you of course to remain Christian which I don't intend to do – the facts, however, are the following: Homosexuality is obviously intended, be it by “Him” or “Her”, nature or whatever.
Your next point is: ”I oppose homosexuality because God said it is sinful.”
I want to make it short: there are far more than 100 religions on this planet. All their followers claim to possess ultimate wisdom – which you do as well, and which is your right.
But as I said: as an owner of a master's degree, you should be able to face the facts: there is no evidence that the Christian choice is the right one. There could be God, there could be Allah, there could be Yahweh, there could be a guy called Bill, ruling heaven with his wife Sarah, or there could be absolutely no one.
That's a matter of fact, and by not knowing if God really exists – and you can't know that, sorry – you also can't know if homosexuality is wrong. Nevertheless, you definitely claim to know it and influence many teenager's lives, not knowing if in a good or in a bad way. And it's certainly adequate to call this behavior irresponsible.
I doubt that I have to conclude anything here – that was surely perfectly understandable.
Your last point is “I oppose homosexuality because it deludes its followers.”
And I have to admit, I have claimed something as a fact that certainly is no fact (determination of sexuality in the uterus, caused by hormones) which was definitely neither objective nor fair and I apologize for that.
Nevertheless, your arguments are definitely easily disprovable.
To prove your statement, you have been sending me another link to a pseudo-scientific essay from the website “Answers in Genesis.org”. To be honest, I neither had enough time nor enough will to fully read this text, which seems to be mainly focused on a highly biased point of view.
What I read was for example a chapter on the evolution explanation of homosexuality, criticizing the evolutionist viewpoint as “leading to a society without right or wrong because all the human behavior can be interpreted as a perfectly natural attempt to keep the human race alive”.
If I may express myself politely: this is nonsense. Of course there are several mental diseases or pure insanity, leading to behavior that doesn't support the spreading of the human race but highly damages it, for example murder, theft or malicious lying. All these are, by the way, misdeeds which the Bible condemns as well because they are harmful toward other people.
But regarding homosexuality by looking at the question if it's harmful for the society or not, there's no point in seeing it as a danger for our society – except if people consider it as immoral because of totally unproven Bible verses, in which they have a right to believe of course but which they ought not to spread all over the world, as I said.
But apart from the fact, that there's no reason to consider homosexuality as immoral, there's also no reason to consider it as a personal choice, as you said:
“What I know is that there has been no study to date that has proven the cause of homosexuality beyond it being a personal choice. ”
That's simply wrong. As I said and cited, homosexuality has already been proven in numerous arts of the animal kingdom.
Based on the Christian theory that humans are the only creatures possessing a free will, it can thus be considered as impossible that homosexuality is a personal choice. Sounds pretty plausible, doesn't it?
Concluding, I'd like to sum up the points I have just given, hoping that I will receive an answer that satisfies my liking for objective, well-funded disquisitions.
Seeing it as proven that homosexuality is not a personal choice, there are several dogmatic, but no objective points that are able to justify a negative attitude towards homosexuality.
The accusation that homosexuals are on average more promiscuous than heterosexuals can be considered to be appropriate but is no justification for the attempt to turn gays into straights, since homosexual promiscuity is mainly caused by our intolerant society and, if it wasn't a product of homophobia but natural, wouldn't change.
Dangers of homosexuality considering a higher AIDS or syphilis infection rate can easily be eliminated by making sure that condoms are used for homosexual and sexual activities in general. Studies that try to prove that there are hardly any old homosexuals are absurd because they ignore the social circumstances under which older people very often grew up.
Arguments which claim that homosexuality is against Creation and a sin in the eyes of god can impossibly be proven as long as god doesn't decide to tell us his own personal opinion by going to Oprah Winfrey or Larry King. You are still authorized to believe in Creation and homosexuality as a sin, but it's irresponsible to influence other people's lives in a more than debatable way with theses you can't even prove.
Mr. Hamilton, in the 16 years of my life there has never been any doubt for me that I only have feelings and sexual attraction towards other males and not towards females. My relationship both to my mother and to my father has always been perfectly intact and was not damaged in any way by my coming out, as my reputation at school wasn't damaged either. In view of that I can say that I'm a perfectly self-confident person who doesn't need to override any inferiority complexes by offending people who teach the cruel truth that our Almighty Father has sent to earth by a book that forbids us to cut our hair, forbids women to participate at the mass and gives us one single advice not to kill and thousands to kill – oh right, I forgot, the Bible shouldn't be taken too literally.
I'm glad about living in secular Germany
P.S. I apologize for every form of sarcasm in this text and hope that we will be able to have this correspondence on an objective level. Seriously.
P.P.S. I may add that considering me as an atheist isn't right, although I might have claimed myself as one. Basically I believe in what I see but don't necessarily disbelieve in what I don't see which is why I'd rather consider myself as an Agnostic.
"Is there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is new"? It has already been in ancient times before us. There is no remembrance of former things, Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come By those who will come after" (Ecclesiastes 1:10-11).Every generation likes to believe that their ideas are new, fresh, and original. But the truth of the matter is that people simply recycle old ideas repeatedly. The earliest mention of homosexuality is over 4,000 years ago in the days of Abraham. The arguments justifying it haven't really changed all that much.
Like most young people, you assume that people who have ideas different from your own must be less intelligent or have not spent much time in consideration of your view. What is humorous is that I have written books on sexual issues, including homosexuality which are older than you are. Those books were the result of two years of intensive study. I also continued to research the topic and have written much about what I've learned over the years. I assure you that my position is not arbitrary, imposed, or blind. That is why the arguments I make against homosexuality bother you so much.
Yes, the sources I selected all were ones with a religious bias. I did so on purpose because of your declaration of being atheistic. I wanted to see if you would consider the arguments actually presented or be caught up in shooting the messenger. You did the later and failed my little test. You fell into the typical trap of assuming that someone with a bias toward a point of view cannot have a good or accurate point to make on a subject. Therefore, you demonstrate that you are not able yet to think objectively.
What I've always found interesting is that homosexuals rarely want to admit that they are involved in same-sex relationships because they want it. When I pointed out that homosexual relationships are unstable, and provided statistics to back up that point, you did not deny the fact; instead, you want to blame societal pressure. I'm sorry, but "I'm a victim" is not a good argument.
In addition, you try to refute the same point by saying that it is difficult for a person who has focused on same-sex relationships to suddenly change. This is a different topic, and thus cannot be refutation of a point that you accept as being true. While we can address the issue of the difficulty of leaving sin (any sin has the same issue actually), it doesn't change the original point: Homosexual relationships are unstable.
In response to the fact that homosexuality is deadly, you claim that condoms are the answer. Your argument that lower than average life expectancy is because of lack of condoms is not correct. Condoms have been around for about 3,000 years (http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm). They were definitely available in the 1960's onward and have been urged to be used to stop the spread of disease all through that period. The point that the rectum contains a high number of germs is an accurate point. It could also be pointed out that the colon walls are thin and don't take abrasion well, even that of a penis moving in and out. The skin of the penis is also thin and less of a barrier to disease than the rest of the body's skin covering. That is why some disease are primarily sexually transmitted diseases. While condoms will reduce (but not eliminate) the spread of disease, it cannot prevent breaches in the rectum wall from allowing germs access to a person's own blood stream. And the sad fact is that condoms are not consistently used. You've only been at it for a year or so, but can you say that both you and your partner have always used condoms? Or that you haven't experienced the temptation to find out what sex is like without a condom? It is there that many problems lie (along with sheer laziness).
AIDS is just one of numerous sexually transmitted diseases. The information I sent points out that syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia are all more frequent problems in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. This is a simple fact that have documented reasons why this is so.
I notice that your Science Daily article qualifies its assertion by warning that what is called "homosexual behavior" isn't always as it appears nor is it expressed the same as human homosexual behavior. Thus, to balance the information, consider the points made in "The Animal Homosexuality Myth." An interesting example is what happened this summer. San Francisco has long proclaimed it had a pair of homosexual penguins. What wasn't mentioned is that the zoo kept more male penguins than females. When a female penguin lost its mate in death, people were "shocked" to find out that one of the so-called homosexual males left for the female. (No adjustment period was needed here by the way.) Therefore there wasn't real homosexuality involved, but an artificial environment produced unnatural pressure.
Besides, the animal kingdom is filled with other behavioral traits that we both would find objectionable if present in humans. It is a poor argument to pick and choose only those traits you are interested in justifying and ignoring the ones you aren't interested in having. The simple fact is humans are not animals. When humans act as animals, we think less of them. "But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves" (Jude 10).
And by the way, you shouldn't discount the Bible simply because you don't understand it. You demonstrate it by making a series of false claims about what others have told you is in the Bible. I do have about 30+ years on you in regards to a study of the Bible and every one of your claims regarding what you think the Bible says is false. That you don't want God or anyone else to tell you what to do is your own choice. But the fact that most of the world understands that God's way works, improves the world, and keeps problems to a minimum should be respected as their choice. The fact that I encourage people and influence people to follow God is a part of my religion (Matthew 28:18-20), but it is also what other people do. You yourself have spent several hours trying to convince me to change my views to match your own. Therefore, you accept this but want to condemn it when people are being persuaded away from your viewpoint. That is not equal treatment.