Ultimately, the American Family will decide this issue on a much more personal level and often their decision will be based upon face-to-face contact with gay and bisexual individuals they know as neighbors, family members, friends, co-workers, and even famous personalities.
That's certainly part of it. Still, you are forgetting some key points.
You can try to deny their existence, but the tens of thousands of former homosexuals also have a say and their numbers are growing. You say "Gays are everywhere" and I say Ex-gays are everywhere. Yes, former homosexuals exist.
You can try to change our cultures definition of perversion and you can try to ignore the dictionary definition, yet homosexuality (behavior) is perversion, both morally and physiologically. That's not an attack on a group of people, it's a fact based on our culture and the dictionary.
Knowing homosexuals and having contact with homosexuals face-to-face changes nothing as we know they exist. Knowing former homosexuals and having contact with former homosexuals face-to-face changes everything, despite the fact that so many people try to deny their existence.
Former homosexuals exist and their numbers are growing!
What a bizarre reply!
I have never once raised the topic of "former homosexuals" so how do you arrive at the idea that I am attempting "to deny their existence"?
I have no clue regarding the correct number of gay or bisexual persons whom have sought via therapy to "convert" to heterosexuality, but if they were unhappy living as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual, then I certainly support their decision to seek whatever therapy they think could help--and I wish them well.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS: How definitions are applied changes over time. In the early 20th century women who smoke or drank alcohol were considered "immoral". A woman who revealed any skin above ankle level or any breast cleveage would also have been considered of low moral character.
So, given YOUR scheme of things, I suppose you believe that someone successfully changed the prior definition of "immoral" and we should revert back to earlier definitions of "immoral" so that women with the characteristics cited above would be accurately described. Your counterparts in, say, 1900 or 1910 or 1920 could have written about their condemnation of such women: "That's not an attack on a group of people, it's a fact based on our culture and the dictionary." Similarly, racial intermarriage was considered "immoral" and prohibited by law. Let's find out what "immoral perverts" changed that definition too!
How far back do you propose that we go for correct definitions so that we can purge ourselves of all incorrect understandings? Shall we consult dictionaries from, say, 1850 or how about 1750 or perhaps 500 A.D. or perhaps we should re-adopt Old Testament prohibitions regarding diet, clothing, proper role of women, sexual rights of men in relation to their brother's widow, etc? These were portrayed as "moral" issues and there were punishments prescribed for transgressors.
The most significant part of your message (to me) is your last paragraph where you state having personal knowledge of homosexuals "changes nothing". Frankly, your ideological brain-lock is what guarantees ultimate victory for proponents of gay marriage.
Americans are a profoundly non-ideological people. We are pragmatists. We care about what ideas work and we don't care much for labels. We also are a fair-minded people. We celebrate the fact that so many diverse people can live and prosper together. We have only to look at Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq, Ukraine, and other societies to see how blessed we are. The greatest impediment in those societies to peace and national reconciliation is the efforts of ideologues to demonize ALL persons they perceive as opponents.
Here in the U.S., there is a VERY LIMITED MARKET for your type of argument, even among Americans who are currently opposed to gay marriage. Your undisguised revulsion toward entire categories of other human beings and your total unwillingness to recognize value in persons different from yourself, is what will ensure your defeat.
In many respects, this is reminiscent of the conflict between decent southerners and white supremacists...Ordinary southerners may have had serious misgivings about the rapid integration of society but, nevertheless, they despised white supremacist organizations that expoused unvarnished hatred toward not just blacks but anyone who believed in the value of an integrated society. There are always Americans who appeal to the worst in us instead of our better angels.