"Okay, a simple 'wrong' would've done just fine."

Brace yourselves, men of the internet — you are about to be told to “grow up” by a dude who shoves people and then cries when one punches him in the face.
Yes, it is Fox News person Steven Crowder, he of the taking candy from children video, which was hilarious. He got married back in August, you see, and now that it has been five or six whole months he is ready to tell us how balls-out awesome it is, and how immature us men are being for not getting married. And, because listicles are all the rage with the kiddos these days, it’s called “A man’s top 5 reasons to grow up and get married.” Women, you do not really have a say in this one, sorry, back to the cookie-baking.

Sadly, marriage has become a punchline in today’s society. From referring to the wife as “the old ball and chain” to nearly every poorly written sitcom that we watch, the message we’re sending to today’s generation is clear… Marriage = no fun. […]

Ever see a commercial with a wife and husband shopping together? Yeah, we always play the idiot.

He is not saying anything wrong yet, which is surprising but fine. He could mention that a man playing the idiot goes hand-in-hand with the woman playing the mother, with all its creepy patriarchal implications and whatever, but let’s focus. You’re supposed to feel judged here, and you’re just not feeling it yet.

I know plenty of people my age that will never get married because they genuinely believe the false cultural meme that marriage has sadly become. There’s only one problem. It’s completely untrue.

There we go! Hey, you don’t think marriage is such a great deal? It’s not because you have genuine feelings and experiences, it’s because King of Queens tricked you! GROW UP.

Now, where’s that list?

1. You’ll be richer – Yes. Not only do married couples make more, save more, have a higher net worth and qualify for more benefits/financial incentives than lonely, single folk… but your kids will be richer too. Which brings me to my next point

Wait wait wait. Before your next point, we have to check this one out. What’s your source on this thing? Ah, it’s, a website dedicated to proving that marriage is great and way better than not-marriage. And hm, what’s that little notice at the bottom? “©2013 The Heritage Foundation”? This is surely an objective source of information. Especially with front-page headlines like “The Picture of Health: Husband and Wife. Nearly nine in 10 married adults report being in good or very good health, a greater share than non-married peers.” Surely, the website does not just cherry-pick studies that support the stance in the URL.

Also, this first fact proves nothing, because, maybe, people who make less money are less likely to get married. Seems as plausible an explanation as “getting married makes you richer,” right?

2. Would somebody please think of the children!! – The single biggest indicator of child poverty is whether both original parents are still together. Not only that, but children in married households get better grades, are less disruptive in class and less likely to develop behavioral disorders than children from non-married households.

The first link in there is to the Family Research Council, which, in case you are somehow unfamiliar with their material, their main goal is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as being “to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” So yes, let’s go to the gay-haters for objective reasons marriage is good and Other Stuff is bad.

But what about the thing about how not getting married is ruining your kids? Actually, Professor Andrew Cherlin kind of answers that one for us on his blog, by pointing out that is obscuring a considerable amount of research — his research — to the contrary of what it is saying about childhood behavior. But this is getting too serious. What’s next?

3. You’ll have more sex… A LOT MORE SEX […] Statistically, not only do married people have more sex, they have better, more satisfying sex. If the two of you should hold off on sex until marriage, those statistics become even more promising.

Let’s ignore that his first source links to a PDF of a book review on a dating website, of a book that allegedly says married people are more satisfied. And that the second source links to a webpage that does not exist. Sex is obviously another thing Steven Crowder is an expert on, having started having it five months ago. It’s better when you’re married, he tells us, even though he has absolutely no idea. But we should believe him! Marriage is just better. It is. Shhh.

4. You won’t be such a pathetic sloth – Married people are more productive. Married men in particular, have higher employment rates, work longer hours and receive better wages. It’s time to stop wading through puddles of your own filth as you reach for the hotpockets and have a dame whip you into shape. You’re welcome.

Slowly but surely, we are rebuilding the Puritan continent: Marry a woman, and work longer hours!

Thankfully, he does not link to any literature in this one. He just says married people make more money, which makes all the sense in the world when you consider all the times you got a pay raise for having a wedding. Also, you need to “have a dame whip you into shape,” because, duh, all dames want the same thing: to be married, obviously, and to take away all your fun (even though earlier Crowder says that’s just not how it is).

The pattern in all of these is pretty simple: Ask married people a question, ask single people a question, compare. If one’s better, it’s because they’re married, even though that is clearly not how anything works ever.

The fifth reason is “Don’t die sick, miserable and alone,” but we cannot spare any more space in the Wonkette print edition for further commentary on this junk. Well, except that while marriage does indeed lead to better health outcomes for men (maybe), for women it’s only true if the marriage is a happy one. (Also, Crowder seems to believe there will be less domestic abuse if women just suck it up and marry their abuser.) Besides, this whole thing is just a lead-up to the casual observation that Crowder believes marriage is unconditionally better — for your health, for your children, for your sex life, and for your wallet — but he still thinks gay marriage is so stupid that he’ll make a leprechaun video about it.

So grow up, men! And get married. You’ll love it. Unless you’re gay, in which case SUCKS FOR YOU, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

If it sounds like we are against marriage here at Ye Olde Wonket, we are not! (Although it does now occur to us that we are all spinsters.) We are against sanctimonious asses dropping knowledge bombs about sex that they got from Maggie Gallagher for fuck’s sake. Also: adult babies who do something for 45 minutes and then loftily proclaim their wisdom to the world.

Also also: “Now add sex and sandwiches.”

[Fox News]

Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Chet Scarn Halpert

    He’s still happily married

  • athrillofhope

    It is not Crowder hitting your nerves. It is that he has an opinion that does not comport with your secular-humanist worldview. And since your secular-humanist worldview does not comport with reality but is the residual emotional angst from your childhood that your refuse to let go of like a child refusing to release a cookie, your only option is to personally attack him.

    You had it correct: you need to grow up.

    • Paul Adrian

      ” And since your secular-humanist worldview does not comport with reality”


      • athrillofhope

        Define secular-humanism. Then explain how it comports with reality.

        Please do not forget to discuss the secular-humanist “mood = gender” ideology and contrast that to the genetic determinism of gender viewpoint. Here’s a hint: one is rooted in sound science (NOT YOURS) amd one is mythology and superstition (YOURS).

        Please also discuss the “abortion is not murder” mentality of secular-humanism, and be sure to attempt to contrast that to the Nazi philosophy of genoicide. You see, you will find that Atheistic National Socialism’s (Nazism to you) rationale for genoicide is identical to Secular-Humanism’s rationale for infanticide.

        And both are thoroughly anti-science as they deny genetic realities of what constitutes a human being. Rather, they fabricate phony concepts of anti-science such as “personhood” to replace genetically concrete standards of species and DNA.

        Both Nazism and Secular-Humanism have successfully eradicated science as the standard for defining human rights as mandated by the Declaration Of Independence (where it mandates that all have been created equally and share equally in Natural Rights and Natural Law, i.e., natural= genetic). That now allows organizatuons to form and file legal suits against the government petitioning for Equal Personhood Rights for Animals.

        This shows you just how anti-science your Secular-Humanism is.

        But please, go ahead and fill me in on how attuned to reality your Secular-Humanism is so I can fully appreciate just how much of a “moron” I am.

        • Paul Adrian
          • athrillofhope

            The Third Reich were atheists. Some dabbked in the pagan satanic occult and in fact the swatiska is a symbol of demon worship.

            Hilter hated Christiantiy and Christians as muchbas he hated Jews. But he was a master propagandist who understood he was ruling over the land of Martin Luther where the people believed that to be German was to ne Lutheran. So Hitler PUBLICLY made Christian references, but behind closed doors he loathed Christianity amd called it a religion “for retarded people”–just like your ilk does.

            National Socialism was the ideological antithesis of Christianity. It worships the State and Fuhrer as “god”, just like the Romans did with Caesar worship. No different. It posited that there is no god, and no rights exist apart from the human state.

            So anti-Christian was National Socialism that Hitler openly wished that Germany had any other religion than Christianity and mentioned specifically Hinduism or Buddhism (both are atheistic ideologically) because these pagan faiths teach to accept human rule as divine while Christianity would never allow any authority lofted up higher than the One True Living God.

            “Positive Christianity”: your own link you provide makes a far better case against you tban I evee could. Here is a quite from it showing how “Positive Christianity ” is anti-Christianity:

            i1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained “Positive Christianity” as not “dependent upon the Apostle’s Creed”, nor in “faith in Christ as the son of God”, upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: “The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation”, he said.[3] To accord with Nazi antisemitism, Positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible. In such elements Positive Christianity separated itself from Christianity and is considered apostasy by Catholics and Protestants.

            I read you link AFTER I wrote the above paragraphs and was amused as the irony that jt was saying exactly what I had just written: that “Positive Cbristianity” was a clever propaganda invention by the atheistic Nazi Party to hoodwink a largely Lutheran identified German populace into believing that “to be German was to be Nazi” in the same manner they felt that to “be German was to be Lutheran”.

            So the Nazis cleverly used the word “Christian” in its title of this invented faith but gitted everyrhong Christian about it and replaced it with Fuhrer worship–the exact opposite of what Christianity is.

            Your referenced article goes on to say: Hitler was supportive of Christianity in public, yet hostile to it in private. Hitler identified as a Christian in an April 12, 1922 speech.[4] Hitler also identified as a Christian in Mein Kampf. However, historians, including Ian Kershaw and Laurence Rees, characterize his acceptance of the term “Positive Christianity” and involvement in religious policy as driven by opportunism, and a pragmatic recognition of the political importance of the Christian Churches in Germany.

            Again, I read all of this AFTER I wrote the opening of this post.

            The only thing you have accomplished here is to confirm you ignorance on these topics. You have the temerity to call me a “moron”, and yet you exemplify the term in eveey way, including providing the gun and bullets to shoot yourself in the foot, neck and temple. I only have to quote your own material to prove your ignorance.

            But I will not lower myself to you and call you a moron. That is not what this is about.

          • Paul Adrian

            “The Third Reich were atheists. ”



            “The Nazis were not favourable toward religious institutions but they did not promote or require atheism on the part of their membership. By the decree of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 26 November 1936, this religious descriptor was officially recognized on government records. It was last recognized in the 1946 census of the French Occupation Zone.”

            Ooopps! You’re LYING AGAIN…



            “Lower down the state hierarchy, Ernst Biberstein, as commander of SS Einsatzgruppen C , was responsible for the murder of 75,000 Jews in late 1941. Biberstein could somehow reconcile such work with his profession as a Protestant pastor and theologian. German clergy also served as Nazi Jew-hunters in their role as Sippenforscher, i.e. tracing Jewish heritage through parish records.”

            OOOPS! Looks like you’re WRONG AGAIN!


            “Despite the open antisemitism of this statement and its linkage between confessional “freedom” and a nationalistic, racialized understanding of morality, many Christians in Germany at the time read this as an affirmation of Christian values.”

            Oh wow, not looking good for you, MORON!

            You lose again!

            Wow destroying your desperate and ignorant knowledge of history is SURPRISINGLY TRIVIAL!



          • athrillofhope

            Hitler started National Socialism in Germany. His views are the defining standard for what it is. The following os taken from http ://www.doxa .ws/social/Hitler.html

            The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

            All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

            Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

            National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

            10th October, 1941, midday:

            Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

            14th October, 1941, midday:

            The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

            19th October, 1941, night:

            The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

            21st October, 1941, midday:

            Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
            13th December, 1941, midnight:

            Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

            14th December, 1941, midday:

            Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

            9th April, 1942, dinner:
            There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

            27th February, 1942, midday:

            It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)

            Hitler admits public statements are hallucinated to persuade and have no bearing on truth.

            these are private statements Hitler made. Atheists quote his public statments which sound Chritian in places. But I argue there were political lies callculated to hoodwink the masses. What did Hitler believe about public statments and propaganda? He tells us:

            “To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it’s soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result”. (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)

            Hitler’s Lies in action

            From Webstie Adolf Hitler, Christian, Atheist, or Neither?

            “As an example of Hitler’s honesty, consider the following from a letter by Hitler to the French fascist Hervé and published in the Nazi Völkischer Beobachter on October 26, 1930 (Heiden, Der Fuehrer, p. 414)” :
            “I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude… The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers… And I regard the maintenance of peace in Europe as especially desirable and at the same time secured, if France and Germany, on the basis of equal sharing of natural human rights, arrive at a real inner understanding… The young Germany, that is led by me and that finds its expression in the National Socialist Movement, has only the most heartfelt desire for an understanding with other European nations.”

            Obviously he was lying, here’s an even bigger lie.


            In a similar vein, consider this, from a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939: “Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration: 1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted…”

            No one is going to persecuted for his/her religious views in Germany? Its’ well documented that Hitler persecuted any many groups for their religious views, including Protestants, and Catholics(more on that latter)

            Nazi party ant-Christian and motivated by Neo Paganism

            Overy,Why the Allies Won,(W.W. Norton, 1996) 284.

            Italy was the home of Roman Catholicism; Germany’s population was one-third Catholic. Religion in both states lived in uneasy proximity with regimes that were strongly anti-clerical in outlook peddling new secular religions of their own. The same month that the Papacy condemned communism, a second encyclical was published, “Mit Brennender Sorge” (“With Burning Anxiety”), which condemned the Nazi persecution of the churches, Nazi racism and Mussolini’s deification of the state. Though Hitler often invoked God or Providence when he spoke, he was a thoroughly lapsed Catholic. Hitler considered Christianity incompatible with with the new National-Socialist age–it was “merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics”. He deplored the survivalof religious observance among German ministers and generals, “little children who have learnt nothing else”. He regarded Christianity and communism as two sides of the same coin, sharing in St. Paul a common Jewish ancesteor. Hitler took the German nation as his religion. This did not make him a pagan as was widely believed, although paganism was practised under the Third Reich. The German Faith Movement, under the banner of the golden sun-wheel, with the “Song of the Goths” as their anthem, indulged in pagan festivals and invoked the gods of pre-Christian Germany. Heinrich Himmler’s SS generated a pagan theology, a pagan litury, even a pagan credo.

            The following points are from Bede’s Library an article called “Hitler and Christianity by an agnostic and an amateur historian of 20th Century German history, Edward Bartlett-Jones.

            (1) The Attitude Instilled in the Hitler youth

            A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:
            We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel, Away with incense and Holy Water, The Church can go hang for all we care, The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

            (Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

            (2) SS was very anti-Christian and Occult bassed

            The SS were particularly anti-Christian, and officers and men were encouraged to leave the Church, although those that refused to renounce their Christian faith were not visibly punished, perhaps because their otherwise faithful adherence to SS codes of behaviour gave the lie to any claim of true Christian affiliation. The SS also brought in its own neo-pagan rituals for marriage ceremonies and baptisms

            (3) Himmler was deeply into the occult, Hitler dabbled.

            In the debate about his spiritual leanings, Hitler is also sometimes alleged to have flirted with the occult, although in fact it was far more a passion of Himmler’s. For instance, Hitler loathed astrologers. Others close to him, such as Goering, were also dismissive of Himmler’s obsession with the supernatural and Hitler would no doubt have enjoyed Goebbels’ joke, during one clampdown on eccentric religious types, that it was “odd that not a single one [of a group of arrested clairvoyants] predicted he would be arrested”. Goebbels would later try to rally Hitler in his bunker at the end of the war with astrological charts predicting victory but Hitler was still unmoved.

          • Paul Adrian

            You claim was that the Nazis were Atheists!


            But JUST FOR YOU… MORON!!!


            “Atheism is the only world-view or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS.”

            -Heinrich Himmler, in a letter to a paster in 1937 (from Peter Longerich’s Heinrich Himmler, cited from



            You want more? MORON???

            “Our worldview is not directed against Cathoicism or Protestantism, not against Christianity, but rather based on Christianity and against cultural bolshevism, against the false liberalism of the Enlightenment, and against materialism. ”

            -Rudolf Buttmann,Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Jan. 1931, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

            “This war was a religious war, finally one sees that clearly. A war between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and Antichrist. ”

            -Dietrich Eckart Auf gut deutsch (1919) [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

            “When today a clique accuses us of having anti-Christian opinions, I believe that the first Christian, Christ himself, would discover more of his teaching in our actions than in this theological hair-splitting.”

            -Joseph Goebbels, Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in Berlin, 2 March 1934: Hamburg, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

            “A verbal confession cannot suffice; we require an active confession. Christianity to us is no empty form, but rather a continual action.”

            -Joseph Goebbels, in a speech from 1935, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

          • athrillofhope

            The Nazis understood that they had to appeal to a galvanized LUTHERAN Germany.

            It is plain knowledge that the Nazis said whatever they had to in order to appeal to the Christian minded Germans.

            I also said that Hitler–NOT HIMMLER–was an atheist. Himmler was heavily involved in Satan worship and the occult. Re-read the posts. Himmler hated and denounced the Bible, the Jewish/Christian God, etc…

            But Satan worshippers (which is what the occult is) know there is a God, as they know there is Satan who rebels against Him. These are spiritual beings.

            Hitler did not like Himmler’s “spiritual obsessions” but tolerated them as it inspired Himmler to accomplish the Jewish genoicide with passion and swiftness.

            But National Socialism is a decidely anti-Christ, anti-God ideology. Atheist.

          • Paul Adrian

            ” also said that Hitler–NOT HIMMLER–was an atheist.”


            You said NAZIS WHERE ATHEIST!

            And i have proven you WRONG!

            OVER AND OVER!

            “Atheism is the only world-view or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS.”

            -Heinrich Himmler, in a letter to a paster in 1937 (from Peter Longerich’s Heinrich Himmler, cited from

            And the German Clergymen who murdered jews!

            YOU DUMB FUCK!

          • athrillofhope

            You are truly triggered.

            Again, Chowder hit a nerve and you have never recovered.

          • Paul Adrian



            YOU ARE DESTROYED!


            0 for 10!

            CLEAN SWEEP!

          • Paul Adrian

            Crowarder is a another hypocrite fascist cunt…

            JUST LIKE YOU!



          • athrillofhope

            Being called a moron by someone who spews this level of hate and irrational ignorance is making me feel good about myself. I literally scare the hell out of you.

            You have much to fear if you fail to change your ways, repent, and turn to Jesus Cbrist as your Lord and Savior.

            I pray that you do.

            Good bye.

          • Paul Adrian





            0 for 11!

            CLEAN SWEEP!

          • Paul Adrian

            athrillofhope… HAHA

            you should change ur name to



          • athrillofhope

            Nazism is based on atheism. Both Darwinism and Social Darwinism are atheistic philosophies at their core.

            Just as Marxism is. Atheistic National Socialism hates Atheistic Marxism (perhaps because Atheistic Marxism murdered 200 million innocents in the 20th Century while Atheistic National Socialism murdered only 20 million during the same time period).

            Atheism is hate. Period. There is no morality, no love in Atheism. That is why two atheistic philosophies can be enemies of each other–when hate is all you can do, you will hate everything and every one.

            There are indivuduals who call themselves “Christians” who murder, who abort, wbo hate, who liex who reject the inerrancy of Scripture and mock God.

            Just because they call themselves Christians does not mean they received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Just because they believe they are Christians does not redefine what Christianity is.

          • Paul Adrian

            YOU LOST!




          • Paul Adrian

            I have proven you WRONG!

            NAZIS where CHRISTIANS!

            They were FUCKING PRIESTS!


          • athrillofhope

            The Nazis prayed to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and were born-again?

            Christ said that this is the only way a person can become a follower of Christ, what we call a “Christian” today.

            And there is zero evidence that any of them were born-again into Jesus Christ.

          • Paul Adrian

            Proved you wrong OVER and OVER!



          • athrillofhope

            I will take that as your inability to demonstrate that Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels or any other of the leaders of the Third Reich prayed to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, becoming born again.

            The only way to become a Christian is the pray to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, becoming born again.

            Therefore, you do not know at all that the head of the Third Reich were actually Christians. Actual Christians do not say the things that these men said about God, Jesus Christ and Christianity.

            Furthermore, you have no idea, really, what Christianity actually is, nkr what Secular-Humanism is, kr even whar Atheism is. You have a demonstrated ignorance in all of tnese concepts and ideologies. You confuse a fanatical aversion to Jesus Christ as knowledge on the topic.

            You give atheism a bad name. You come across as fanatical, irrelevant and irreverent, irrational, ignorant, and stereotypically bigoted against Christians–and probably Jews.

            Sadly for atheism, you are the norm.

          • Paul Adrian

            More Nonsense, Backtracking and Dithering.

            Christian intellectual Dishonesty in its PUREST FORM.

            You made a statement and now you are scurrying to qualify your statement.



            I have quoted Himmler himself!


            YOU LOSE MORON.


          • athrillofhope

            So let’s see: I have quoted Hitler–the founder of National Socialism in Germany–as making clear that he and it are anti-Christ, anti-God, and anti-religion.

            How is this any different than atheism?

            Explain that to me. You can not, so you will just ignore it and spout off in your gyrations of emotional fits. Perhaps an exorcism is in order here.

            If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it does not matter what anyone does or does nkt call it–it is still a duck.

          • Paul Adrian

            Exactly! You Quack like MORON, ERGO YOU ARE A MORON!

            Your statement was that “NAZIS WERE ATHEIST”

            I have provided you with evidence that






          • athrillofhope

            See my posts, just above, as a response to your assertions.

            Atheistic Social Darwinism is the inception of the Third Reich.

            Himmler and Hitler waged a war against Christianity and regarded Christianity as their “greatest threat” to accomplishing their goals. Do you really put it past them to not infiltrate the Church with their stooges to destroy the Church from within?

            Get real.

          • Paul Adrian

            “Himmler and Hitler waged a war against Christianity and regarded Christianity as their “greatest threat””


            “The majority of the three million Nazi Party members continued to pay their church taxes and register as either Roman Catholic or Evangelical Protestant Christians”

            — The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945 By John S. Conway p. 232; Regent College Publishing


            Destroyed… AGAIN!!!

            HAHAHA! MORON!

          • athrillofhope



            According to Himmler biographer Peter Longerich, Himmler saw a main task of the SS to be that of “acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a Germanic way of living” as part of preparations for the coming conflict between “humans and subhumans”. Longerich wrote that, while the Nazi movement as a whole launched itself against Jews and Communists, “by linking de-Christianisation with re-Germanization, Himmler had provided the SS with a goal and purpose all of its own.” Himmler was vehemently opposed to Christian sexual morality and the “principle of Christian mercy”, both of which he saw as a dangerous obstacle to his planned battle with “subhumans”. In 1937, he said that the movement was an era of the “ultimate conflict with Christianity” and that “It is part of the mission of the SS to give the German people in the next half century the non-Christian ideological foundations on which to lead and shape their lives.”

            “… This [war against Christianity] did not however represent disbelief in a higher power from either man nor did it deter them on their ideological quest. In fact, atheism was banned within the SS as Himmler believed it to be a form of egotism that placed the individual at the center of the universe. All SS men were required to list themselves as Protestant, Catholic or Gottgläubig (“Believer in God”).[52] Himmler preferred the neo-pagan “expression of spirituality”. ”

            So we see that Himmler never mentions belief in any God nor deity. Himmler only mentions a “higher power” which is what many atheists do, as well, in the form of meditation or some cosmic force of life, et al …

            Himmler does not define National Socialism, and his occultic and neo-pagan rituals and rhetorical banning of atheism was tolerated but nit accepted by the larger brass of the Third Reich.

            Furthermore, Himmler’s banning of atheism was more clerical than germane. Himmler only used pseudo-ideology like this to shape SS staff into a submissive state–not to foster anu real belief in any deity beyond the Fuhrer and the Third Reich.

            Again, the roots of the Third Reich are atheistic Social Darwinism, again, quoted from Hitler himself in his autobiography. Focusing on a single man who used a faux ban on atheism in order to force people into submission and worship of occultic demons and who, along with Hitler, waged a war on Christianity, is not indicative the Third Reich held any real belief in a personal God–let alone the God of Mercy Who offers us His Plan of Salvation.

          • Paul Adrian


            “”higher power” which is what many atheists do”

            NONSENSE! LIES! MORON!

            The ONLY reference an atheist would EVER make to a higher power would be when adapting a 12 step program!!!


            And the higher power WOULD BY DEFINITION NOT BE A DEITY OF ANY KIND!

            DESTROYED AGAIN!


            DESPERATE MORON!

            HAHA! You are SO DESPERATE!



            PROVEN FACT!






            HAHA! PATHETIC!


          • Paul Adrian

            Already demonstrated you fucking MORON!!!




            You are DESTROYED!

            0 for 12!

            CLEAN SWEEP!


            THE TRUTH – 12
            athrillofhope – 0





          • athrillofhope

            Furthermore, if the SAME people are documented as having said “pro-Christian” statements in PUBLIC SPEECHES and anti-Christian statements IN PRIVATE, which statements are the ones truly representative of their beliefs and which ones are for propaganda purposes o ly?

          • Paul Adrian

            You can’t even keep your lies straight.


            CLEAN SWEEP!

          • athrillofhope

            You have yet to cite a single lie of mine. I explain everyrhing quite plainly.

          • Paul Adrian

            YOU ARE A LIAR!



            YOU LOSE MORON!!!

          • athrillofhope

            Has it ever occurred to that atheistic political movements have murdered over 200 million innocent people in the 20th centurt alone (Marxism, Fascism) and can be tied directly to the teachings of these atheist secular-humanists?

            Yet not a single murder can be tied directly to the teachings of Christ?

          • athrillofhope

            >>> Prove it is a “mentality” [pro-abortion] of the secular world?

            From the official website of the Council of Secular Humanism:

            Secular humanists hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority.

            https ://www .secularhumanism .org/index.php/3260

            This is precisely how the Nazis “justified” abortion (abortion as an industry was pioneered in Nazi Germany) and the Holocaust. Hitler was intimately inspired by Social Darwinism–a secular-humanist creed that blended secular-humanism with Darwinism.

          • Paul Adrian

            You failed to support your claim.

            Your citation is a non-sequitur to your claim.

            You are a delusional and irrational christian.

            You are desperate. Christians like yourself do not think critically, you simply through everything you have at the wall in the hopes that something sticks.

            “This is precisely how the Nazis “justified” abortion”

            Nonsense. You failed again.

          • athrillofhope

            Hitler referenced Social Darwinism in his autobiography as his inspiration of racial purity. Racial purity would involve exterminating undesriables, the unborn, the infirm, the mentally retarded–all for the quest of survival-of-the-fittest as posited by Darwin.

            This is common knowledge.

          • Paul Adrian

            Another non-sequitur to your argument.


            Back to the drawing board MORON!

          • Paul Adrian

            Wow, someone clearly never taught you how to write an essay, propose an argument and prove a syllogism with evidence.

            Your family could only afford to send you to a Christian clown college?

          • Paul Adrian

            So i have PROVEN YOU WRONG on the Nazi atheist christian baseless and false claim.

            MAYBE you should try to cut your losses and try to answer my questions about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and free will in the animal kingdom.

            Because if you can’t address those points,

            ITS A CLEAN SWEEP!

            YOU’RE DONE!


          • athrillofhope

            Now you are merely amusing.

            My, how some people react to discovering they have no rational comeback to a challenge to their faith. …

          • Paul Adrian

            No argument? Ahh i see…

            So you are accepting defeat, good for you.

            Maybe put some more thought into your nonsense in future.

            This was too easy.

            You have been decimated here.

          • athrillofhope

            I am NOT accepting defeat. Try re-reading our exchange and explain to me how you are doing anything other than disguising your intellectual humiliation with a pompous display of faux superiority and assumption of victory.

          • Paul Adrian

            Haha you have failed completely.

            YOUR MYTHICAL GOD created homosexuality in the mammalian animal kingdom.

            You just admitted it yourself. Your god created homosexual mammals.

            OR did he give them free will?

            Will you try to explain it way with your free will trickery?

            Haha you lose again.


            Your god created homosexuality.

          • athrillofhope

            YOUR MYTHICAL GOD created homosexuality in the mammalian animal kingdom.

            No, not true.

            God created all things PERFECT.

            Mankind rebelled and sided with Satan and are born enemies of God.

            God cursed the creation because of this. The animals got messed up along with the Fall of Mankind.

            But it was not the original design nor creation. Animals are twisted and sick, line humans are.

            Homosexuality is an unnatural, pwrverse condition and choice.

          • Paul Adrian

            “God created all things PERFECT.”



            “The animals got messed up along with the Fall of Mankind.”

            HAHAHA! NONSENSE!!!

            You are making that shit up!

            YOU PATHETIC LIAR!!!

            0 for 8!

            YOU LOSER!

          • Paul Adrian

            Wow ok,

            So a little recap here of the LIES you have been proven wrong about.

            1) Nazis were atheists. FALSE
            2) Humanists are ALL pro Abortion. FALSE
            3) SOCIAL DARWINISM came from DARWIN. FALSE
            4) Homosexuality is not natural. FALSE
            5) Hitler “founded” Abortion. FALSE

            I can’t even keep track.

            You have failed to make a SINGLE claim that could not be obliterated within a few minutes.

            My work here is DONE!

            You lose you delusional sadist.

            You are a FASCIST LIAR!

          • athrillofhope

            >>> So a little recap here of the LIES you have been proven wrong about.

            1) Nazis were atheists. FALSE
            2) Humanists are ALL pro Abortion. FALSE
            3) SOCIAL DARWINISM came from DARWIN. FALSE
            4) Homosexuality is not natural. FALSE
            5) Hitler “founded” Abortion. FALSE

            Re-read the posts. You are being dishonest.

            I already documented Hitler was an atheist, how Himmler (head of running the Holocaust engines) worshipped in the occult, and the main tenents of National Socialism reject “religion” and namely Christianity.

            So you are incorrect here.

            I never said ALL humanists are pro-abortion. I said that abortion AS AN INDUSTRY, A NATIONAL POLICY, was kick started by Hitler along with eugenics.

            Stop putting words in my mouth. Re-read the posts before spouting off in your emotional unstable tirade. You come across far more religious and irrational than an Islamic jihadist, quite frankly.

            Likewise, I never said Social Darwinism came from Darwin. RE-READ THE POSTS. I said Social Darwinism was a separate sociological theory inspured by Darwinism. That is it. And it is true. AND atheistic and secular-humanist Social Darwinism directly inspired Hitler, who says as much in his autobiography.

            Homosexuality is unnatural, and nothing in science suggests otherwise. Cite your sources or be quiet on this. It is getting old.

            Finally, I never said Hitler founded abortion. RE-READ THE POSTS. I said that abortion was nationalized and institutionalized under Hitler and perfected with medical science advances under the Third Reich. Hitler also inspired the field of eugenics with his Social Darwinistic racial purity and ethnic cleansing ideology and practices.

          • Paul Adrian

            “Atheism is the only world-view or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS.”

            -Heinrich Himmler, in a letter to a paster in 1937 (from Peter Longerich’s Heinrich Himmler, cited from


            WRONG AGAIN MORON!


          • Paul Adrian

            “Finally, I never said Hitler founded abortion. RE-READ THE POSTS. ”

            YOU DID MORON!!!

            ” abortion’s founding leader and co-founder of eugenics: Hitler.”

            YOUR WORDS MORON!!!


            0 for 10!

            YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!


          • athrillofhope

            >>> ” abortion’s founding leader and co-founder of eugenics: Hitler.”

            In the context of an INDUSTRY IN GERMANY.

            Re-read the posts.

            I fully understand that humans have been terminating pregnancies, sacrificing their children to demons, for centuries.

            Use some sense and understand context.

          • Paul Adrian

            YOUR DITHERING!




          • Paul Adrian

            HAHA CONTEXT?



            lets recap the destruction you have suffered.

            1) Nazis were atheists. FALSE
            2) Humanists are ALL pro Abortion. FALSE
            3) SOCIAL DARWINISM came from DARWIN. FALSE
            4) Homosexuality is not natural. FALSE
            5) Hitler “founded” Abortion. FALSE
            6) Homosexuality in animals is only for dominance. FALSE
            7) GOD created all things perfect. FALSE
            8) ATHEISTS believe in a higher power. FALSE
            9) ANIMALS were “messed up” after the fall of man. FALSE


            Quit an impressive list of




          • Paul Adrian

            YOU ARE PATHETIC!


            ONE SINGLE CLAIM!

            I have DECIMATED YOU!.


          • Paul Adrian

            So now you are conflating Darwin with Huxley’s coining of the phrase Social Darwinism?

            You are a MORON!

            “For Darwin, change is random and must be so. For a social Darwinist, it is managed by human decision-taking.”

            — Leif Jerram, Professor, University of Manchester

            “But it is, I think, true that Darwin accepted Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest” as a simple soundbite (as we would say now) to get the idea across. But Darwin was interested in NATURAL selection, not conscious manipulation of breeding opportunities to favour traits thought by the proponents of “social Darwinism to be superior. I think there is evidence that Darwin was opposed to the slave trade, and his close companion, T. H. Huxley said that human morality should be framed by finding out what natural selection might do and then doing the opposite.”

            — Robert A D Cameron of The University of Sheffield, Evolutionary Biology

            You FAILED AGAIN. MORON!

          • athrillofhope

            So now you are conflating Darwin with Huxley’s coining of the phrase Social Darwinism?

            No. I never blurred the lines between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. One is a failed non-scientific hypothesis, and the other is a failed SOCIOLOGICAL theory inspired by propositions of Darwinism.

            The subject was that abortion is a secular-humanist ideal. And I answered in the affirmative by connecting secular-humanist thought to Social Darwinism, and Social Darwinism to abortion’s founding leader and co-founder of eugenics: Hitler.

            This is really common knowledge.

            This has nothing to do with Darwinism itself.

          • Paul Adrian

            “The subject was that abortion is a secular-humanist ideal”

            Prove it.

            “abortion’s founding leader and co-founder of eugenics: Hitler.

            Wow, so your argument is that Hitler “founded” abortion?

            So abortion is what? A social club? An ideology? FAIL!

            How many seconds do you think it will take for me to find evidence that abortion was happening long before hitler.

            Wow. 2 SECONDS!

            “The earliest known description of abortion comes from the Ebers Papyrus (ca. 1550 BCE), an ancient Egyptian medical text drawn, ostensibly, from records dating as far back as the third millennium BCE. The Ebers Papyrus suggests that an abortion can be induced with the use of a plant-fiber tampon coated with a compound that included honey and crushed dates. Later herbal abortifacients included the long-extinct silphium, the most prized medicinal plant of the ancient world, and pennyroyal, which is still sometimes used to induce abortions (but not safely, as it is highly toxic). In Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, Calonice refers to a young woman as “well-cropped, and trimmed, and spruced with pennyroyal.””



            HAHA! MORON! 0 for 6!

          • Paul Adrian

            “Christianity is not defined by what its adherents believe. Christianity is defined by the FOUNDER’S teachings.”

            BULLSHIT! Christianity is defined by whatever the QUOTIDIAN INTERPRETATION IS!…

            This is just more fucking christian bullshit rhetoric to avoid the reality that shit like the CRUSADES happened or the fucking INQUISITION…


            “And the same goes for Secular-Humanism: simply because you can find humanists whi are pro-life does not change the reality of what secular-humanism is and its history fostering infanticide in the form of abortion.”


            There is no bible or manifesto or LAW set in stone for Humanists.

            You are WRONG AGAIN!

            Humanism is not an INSANE CULT like Christianity!

            “history fostering infanticide in the form of abortion.”

            NONSENSE! Prove it!

            YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!

          • Paul Adrian

            The reality is…


            Christianity is the MOST dehumanizing evil force to EVER exist on this earth.

            You are a sadistic brainwashed fucking lemming!

        • Paul Adrian

          “Please do not forget to discuss the secular-humanist “mood = gender” ideology and contrast that to the genetic determinism of gender viewpoint. Here’s a hint: one is rooted in sound science (NOT YOURS) amd one is mythology and superstition (YOURS).”

          Here is my answer to this nonsense.

          Firstly, i am not a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, and i don’t have a personal understanding about what transgender stuff is about.

          And unless you have some kind of evidence to back your claims…

          ” Here’s a hint: one is rooted in sound science (NOT YOURS) amd one is mythology and superstition (YOURS).”

          Firstly you are assuming you know my opinion. Which is silly, and secondly you are not citing any evidence or credentials.

          So you are basically a garden variety zealot frothing at the mouth with the knowledge of a typical religions dilettante.

          But my comment would be, that
          1) science has unequivocally found instances of homosexuality in mammals.
          2) Your mythical god’s creations.
          3) So obviously he created homosexuality, unless you are also claiming he gave all mammals free will… or you are disputing what the biologists say.

          Are you claiming he gave animals free will?
          Are you disputing what biologists say?

          4) Personally, i have less of a problem accepting transgender behaviour or homosexuality than i have with,

          disgusting christian sadists, who will claim that babies deserve childhood leukemia, or malaria, or progeria,

          given to them by a supposedly loving god,

          who is blaming them for his prototype man disappointing him by getting tricked by another of his creations the snake…

          The god you believe in is not omniscient?
          It was not not a setup all along?
          He did not create the players and the stage for this original betrayal? And did not see it coming?

          And tha’ts why he gives babies childhood leukemia?
          Or lets them die of dengue fever or malaria?

          Because they are sinners?

          • athrillofhope

            This is the only section of your above post that makes a point–the rest of it is, ironically, frothing at the mouth secukar-humanist angst:

            But my comment would be, that
            1) science has unequivocally found instances of homosexuality in mammals.
            2) Your mythical god’s creations.
            3) So obviously he created homosexuality, unless you are also claiming he gave all mammals free will… or you are disputing what the biologists say.

            Are you claiming he gave animals free will?
            Are you disputing what biologists say?

            There is no connection in any species between DNA and sexual preference. Same goes for religious preference and food preference. We are molded by our experiences to forge preferences.

            So clear is the admission that there is absolutely no genetic determination for homosexualty that the scientific community has quietly moved off of genetics and onto a whole new area in their desperate political non-scientific quest to find any determing factor for perverse sexual behavior other than the person simple PREFERS it.

            And that new area of study is “epi-genetics”. That means “external to genetics” or “peripheral to genetics”. In short: NOT genetics.

            So, I do not care what a biologist says or the Pope. If what they say does not comport to empirical science, they are incorrect and to be dismissed.

            Science finds nothing. PEOPLE do. Do not continue confusing the opinions of a person with science. Science is a tool, a method of measurement, the results of which is objective and open to all to see truth for themselves.

            Any instance of supposed homosexual behavior in animals has always been the result of dominance or extreme trauma. For instance, when a male wishes to subdue another male for dominance of a pack or den or pride, the most humiliating method is to place that male in a position of a female and basically hump him without ever killing him. That defeated male becomes a constant reminder and symbol of the victorious male’s dominance.

            My dogs–both of whom are female–do this to establish pecking order. Ot has nothing to do with sexual attraction nor proclivity.

            Furthermore, animals’ mating is strictly INSTINCTUAL. There is no consent, no preference. It js strictly non-consentual hormonally driven robotic behavior. There is no choice in the matter.

            So using the animal kingdom as “evidence” for homosexuality beong “natural” is anti-scientific.

          • Paul Adrian

            HAHA you FAIL again!

            Did YOUR MYTHICAL GOD create all mammals? ???

            Is there homosexual mammalian behaviour? YES!

            ergo, YOUR MYTHICAL GOD created either GAY or BISEXUAL mammals!

            Instinctual? HAHA! As opposed to what?

            They got turned onto it at a,

            YOU LOSE AGAIN!


            This is getting embarrassing for you.

            Oh wow.

            Clean SWEEP!

            You are 0 for 5!

          • athrillofhope

            Is there homosexual mammalian behaviour?

            No. Just dominance strategies. Emasculation is not sexual–it is about power.

            Homosexuality is sexual attraction for the same gender. That is not what is going on in the animal kingdom.

          • Paul Adrian




            “Homosexuality in bonobos is not cultural. When primatolgist Frans de Waal first saw the outlandish sexual acts of bonobos, other scientists remarked that the behavior must have arisen because those bonobos were locked in a zoo. But data gathered from the wild — and wild-born bonobos in captivity — over the past two decades has demonstrated that bonobo sexuality is just part of who they are.

            The two bonobos Lodja and Mwanda were part of a study we conducted at Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary in Congo. Like many bonobos at the sanctuary and in the wild, these individuals practiced g-g rubbing, where two female bonobos rub their clitorises together, penis fencing between males, and a myriad of other socio-sexual behavior.”


            DESTROYED AGAIN!


            “African and Asian males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other’s mouths. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general herd, often form “companionships”, consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger males with sexual behavior being an important part of the social dynamic. Unlike heterosexual relations, which are always of a fleeting nature, the relationships between males may last for years. The encounters are analogous to heterosexual bouts, one male often extending his trunk along the other’s back and pushing forward with his tusks to signify his intention to mount. Same-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity.[83]”

            –Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin’s Press. ISBN 978-0312253776. pp. 427–430.




            omg this is getting RIDICULOUS!




          • athrillofhope

            Animal sex is non-consensual and instinctual only. There is not sexual preference for animals, so therefore homosexuality is not possible in the animal kingdom.

            Care to cite any more Leftist Liberal Political sources posing as “science websites”?

            Where are the methodologies listed uoon which they drew their phony conclusions? Where is the raw data.

            These are not studies, but jokes. And you fall for it because you are looming for a pre-determined conclusion.

            God cursed the earth during the Fall of Mankind.

            But on your own level of Darwinian Evolution: what would be the survival purpose of same-sex bonding? It does not perpetuate the species. So how would Natural Selection ne able to continue to select traits that are no longer being perpetuated?

            IF this were natural, i.e., genetic, homosexuality would be dead by now.

            Where is the scientific evidence for this? And do not give me quotes from atheistic scientists who have a political agenda to “prove” that homosexuality is “natural”. Science is not the opinions of someone with a degree. Science is a tool, a methodology, recurring results of verification.

            Let me save you the time: there is not any science to what you or.they are saying. Review the link you provided–it fantastic fairy tale woven by the imaginations of well-meaning practitioners with an agenda. No methodology is demonstrated that meets the qualifications for the scientific method.

          • Paul Adrian

            “Animal sex is non-consensual and instinctual only.”

            WRONG AGAIN MORON!




            “Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.”

            HAHA KABOOM!!!

            DESTROYED AGAIN!!!



            FUCKING DESTROYED!!!




          • athrillofhope

            “Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought …

            So in response to my request to NOT post OPINION PIECES masquerading as “science”, you do exactly that.

            These are unsubstantiated. No peer review. No citation of any scientific methodology that can be falsified.

            Anyone can publish anything at any time.

            Only the gullible swallow it whole without question.

            Again, cite the scientific methodologies used in any of the articles you are posting. You can not because none were used. They are not listed in the articles because they do not exist. Not a single sentence in any of the articles you posted is substantiated, corroborated nor are anything other than wishful thinking to forward a political agenda.

            Prove me wrong with evidence.

            The only thing you demonstrate is your blind religious zeal without any knowledge or wisdom. If I were you, I would stop and just let it alone. You are sharing your religious faith with me–not empirical evidence.

          • Paul Adrian


            HE LIKES TO WATCH!

            Oh LOOK!


            “These results indicate that 5-HT and serotonergic neurons in the adult brain regulate mammalian sexual preference.”



            AND GUESS WHAT!

            ITS PEER REVIEWED!


            DESTROYED AGAIN!!!!



          • Paul Adrian

            “So in response to my request to NOT post OPINION PIECES masquerading as “science”






          • Paul Adrian

            Time to recap your ABSOLUTE HUMILIATION!

            1) Nazis were atheists. FALSE
            2) Humanists are ALL pro Abortion. FALSE
            3) SOCIAL DARWINISM came from DARWIN. FALSE
            4) Homosexuality is not natural. FALSE
            5) Hitler “founded” Abortion. FALSE
            6) Homosexuality in animals is only for dominance. FALSE
            7) GOD created all things perfect. FALSE
            8) ATHEISTS believe in a higher power. FALSE
            9) ANIMALS were “messed up” after the fall of man. FALSE
            10) Animal sex is non-consensual, instinctual only. FALSE



            YOU MORON!

            YOU ARE PATHETIC!

            YOU ARE A DESTROYED!



            HAHAHA! MORON!













          • athrillofhope

            You are hilarious. Do you think this behavior of yours is anything other than tragic?

            I have tried to have an intelligent, cogent discussion with you, yet you continue to spew your hate and intolerance and you keep arguing the same debunked talking points.

            There is no hate in my heart for you. I understand your passion and your zeal for your belief system and your need to squash any challenge to your personal convictions.

            However, it is this exact atheistic intolerance that you demonstrate here that has resulted in 220 million murdered innocents at the hands of atheistic regimes during the 20th Century alone. There is a lot of blood on the hands of anti-God ideologues who dismiss science and empiricism in order to weave a Marxist political narrative to control the dialogue of the masses.

            You are a victim. A WILLING victim. But still a victim.

            I will have to leave you to your world where you have to be the “victor” who has “vanquished the enemy” of opposing ideologies and thought.

            This is a useless and pointless venture.

            I will no longer be responding to your repetitive rhetoric. You are not open to discussing openly any diverse views.

            I wish you the best. And this is truly GOOD BYE.

          • Paul Adrian



            PEER REVIEWED…


            Not a choice! Not a preference!!!


            YOU WANT A TISSUE? MORON?!!!!!


            YOU LOSE AGAIN!

            OMG EPIC!…

            YOU ARE 0 for 14!?

            14? omg i can’t keep track…

            We should just say “0 for x”

            Because you can win ONE SINGLE FUCKING ARGUMENT!

            you cannot




          • Paul Adrian

            HAHA YOU LOSE MORON!


            CLEAN SWEEP.


          • Paul Adrian


            I just utterly destroyed you AGAIN!!!

            You are like

            0 for 16 now…

            Christianity has not BEEN DEFEATED THIS BADLY


            HAHAHAH! MORON!


    • Paul Adrian

      Consider yourself DESTROYED.

      My work is done here.

      • athrillofhope

        ….said the little child in his dreams.

        • Paul Adrian

          The child who just destroyed your pathetic worldview with Logic and evidence.

          You are pathetic.

          A waste of resources on this amazing planet.

          The pigs we slaughter for fucking sandwich meat contribute more to society than you do!

  • Jonathan David Farley

    Women being portrayed on TV as mothers has “creepy patriarchal implications”? And is equivalent to husbands being portrayed as idiots?

    Is this writer insane?

    • athrillofhope

      Not insane. Just really pissed that someone reminded him just how miserable his self-serving lifestyle actually js.

  • athrillofhope

    Love is never having to say you’re sorry?

    Have you ever been in love?

    And you and your ilk have the temerity to criticize Chowder when you are taking marital cues from an early 1970s Hollywood schmaltz-fest of a movie called “Love Story”?

    Has it ever occurred to any of your obviously failed lives that it does nkt matter how long anyone is actually married to have wisdom on a subject? Folks who have been married 6 months have more wisdom and maturity and ability to love than some folks married 60 years.

    And this is no better exemplified than you quoting a fairy tale Hollywood piece of crap of a movie on marriage.

  • athrillofhope

    OR it may be that his points hit such a nerve with the folks so bothered by his views on marriage that YOU are medicating each other via blogging.

    I mean, WHO bothers to take seriously, let alone bother themselves with actually writing an editorial and blogging about, a viewpoint that is as hideously delusional as those on this blog are pretending it to be?

    No one does this. But people who have been hit in the face with why their relationships are miserable and unfulfilling because they are self-serving and therefore not built on love and trust DO get angry and bothered enough to write this editorial smear piece and these extended comments .

  • athrillofhope

    More AND better.

  • athrillofhope

    Did you know that if someone is a jerk, driving a Benz does not change them? Theybare just jerks driving a really nice car.

    Same goes for marriage. If you are a self-serving slut (male or female) before marriage, getting married will not change that fact. You’ll just be a self-serving slut whose married.

    There is a difference between someone who gets married in law only, and someone who gets married where the legal status is a formality because they are married in spirit, mind and body (not just body).

  • athrillofhope

    Cite your sources.

  • athrillofhope

    No–you participated in a legal formality. Being married refers to first and foremost unity of spirit, then of mind, and least of all body.

    Sounds to me you only got married on the bodily level. Well, dogs can do that, which is why dogs do not get married. It js the unity of spirit and mind that must come first before the unity of the body for actual marriage to occur.

  • athrillofhope

    Ooooo, name-calling. Just like in third grade.

    Which explains the immaturity here by you folks and why your relationships seem to be so failed and miserable. Immature people always fail at relationships because relationships, and especially marriage, require sacrifice and giving–things immature people refuse to do.

  • Jessica Aimee Taylor

    Pretty sure if 2 people have separate incomes and they combine said incomes they would be richer.. you don’t need to site a web search to tell you that. It should be common sense.

    If you’re entire point is that he doesn’t know being single and sexually active is better than waiting till you get married: you don’t know ether cause no one can do both. All he’s saying in that article is that he’s happy, he’s healthy, he’s richer and if he accidentally gets the girl he’s sleeping with pregnant, it’s a good thing rather than a nightmare and if you get married their are statistics that prove you will feel the same way. I think the writer is anti-marriage and doesn’t realize that, that too is a bias.

Previous articleLegal Genius Stacey Campfield Finds Way Around Getting His Garbage Written About
Next articleNational Review: Only A Monster Would Say The Nazis Didn’t Make Sense