Since the central mission of these organizations is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that is, to lead people into the kingdom of God) and since the Gospel tells us that homosexuals can not enter the kingdom (and thus will burn in hell) then encouraging them to stay trapped in that lifestyle (say by subsidizing their sin through spousal benefits) is directly opposed to the mission of the church
All 'gays' have an agenda. and they are all mentally ill
Right now, there's a giant group of heterosexuals who are temporarily uncomfortable with giving marriage rights to homosexual people, even though they wouldn't be overtly prejudicial against them.
And every one of them recognizes deep down that 'homosexuals' aren't quite right in the head. Most people know that 'homosexuals' are ill, they're just too polite to say so.
Comments like the one above are fairly certain to push these "mushy middle" folks, as I like to call them, squarely into the camp of the pro-gay-marriage forces.
Never happen. And if it did then they were liberals to start with. The truth will set you free unless you want to stay enslaved. Most liberals keep looking for ways to stay enslaved
It's not just flaming liberals who are willing to accept the fact that there are gay people in this world. Many people who are squeamish about homosexuality are not willing to enshrine their discomfort in law, because when they get down to it, they feel they have no basis on which to base the discrimination.
Conservative Christians also accept the fact that there are people trapped in homosexual behavior in this world. We just know the truth about it and are determined to show the squeamish why the behavior should be discouraged. (I've led quite a few to the light on this topic myself. Facts are amazingly powerful things)
Well then, this is the crux of the difference between us. You firmly believe that people can be shamed out of homosexuality, and I believe that it could only happen to a relative few. The amount of coercion required to "convert" even some of them is potentially appalling to the kind of people who are deeply upset right now over the pictures from Iraq.
...every one of them recognizes deep down that 'homosexuals' aren't quite right in the head.
I think its just that they're not used to open homosexuality. When I was in high school, I didn't know anyone who was openly gay, at the ten year reunion, I was aware of a couple of fellow students who were. And this was at an upscale suburban high school that was quite liberal in its outlook and practices. Now, my stepdaughter knows a few gay students in her senior class, its a third of the size of mine, and we live way out in the boondocks. As straight people know more gay people, they become more tolerant of them. The "too polite to say so" will increase, just as most people are uncomfortable with a racial joke these days, whereas they might not have been forty years ago.
If gay marriage gets a major setback, such as being shut down in Massachusetts, whether before or after November 2006, you'll see a lot of gay people coming out, and will make their friends, families, neighbors, co-workers and others quite aware of their prescence. I predict a lot of shock if it gets to that point, and I strongly suspect a lot of the anti-gay people here at FR will be among the most shocked.
Never happen. And if it did then they were liberals to start with.
Interesting use of sour grapes. The handling of the Vietnam War changed this whole country. If we had gotten in, done the job, and gotten out, we would have not seen the rise of liberalism in the late 1960's. A lot of people decided their politics based on their feelings about Vietnam, and decided that anything conservatives were for, they were against. The President's smart enough to know this could happen again. A vitrolic, hateful reaction towards gays would make him and his party completely unelectable, and he's quite careful to avoid overplaying his hand. I wish I could say the same of many of the conservatives who post to this forum.
We just know the truth about it and are determined to show the squeamish why the behavior should be discouraged.
That's certainly your right. But don't be surprised if bashing people over the head with ancient holy books drives them into the other camp. I've said it before, there is a brief window of opportunity if conservatives really want to stop or slow the advance of gay marriage. They have to come up with reasons that appeal to the opening that exists in the minds of the people in the middle who are uncomfortable with gay marriage, but cannot really figure out any rational reasons to ban it. Those people will see gay couples who proclaim to be married, or in a civil union, and when they see the sky is not falling, they'll get over it.
I'm a conservative, and nobody's convinced me why I should oppose gay marriage. Being as I'm unencumbered by a religion that condemns homosexuality, somebody would have to find reasons that appeal to something other than the sake of tradition, or a religious person's discomfort at having to deal with the fact that there are gay people in this world.
If you can't convince me, then I'd say that anti-gay-marriage conservatives have very little chance with the folks I call the mushy middle. By November 2006, it will be too late, if a reason other than tradition or religion does not arise, then I predict the Massachusetts marriage amendment will not pass.