[prman]

Bump.

[ladtx]

My view is that, whatever the reason, homosexuality is aberrant behavior – always has been, always will be. For this reason alone, same-sex marriages should be prohibited, and children should not be raised by gay couples, regardless how well-intentioned.

Not much can be added to that statement. Too bad so many of the churches have abrogated their responsibility in opposition. Only the Catholic Church has begun to make a move, ponderous, but a move nonetheless.

[Radix]

Incrementalism.

Notice that noone ever gets to vote on anything. The gay agenda and abortion are just two examples of the left undermining the constitution and it's original design.

[mlmr]

Nicely argued. Impressive.

[CatoRenasci]

The homosexuals have learned from the failures of the French Revolution and Marxism-Leninism.

One should recall that, while not approving homosexuality, both the French Revolution and the Marxist-Leninist revolutions and coups had a radically anti-religious (other than the eschatology introduced by the revolutions) program. Attacks on marraige and the family as generally known and understood at the time were always part of the agenda.

As we know, the radical reforms of the French Revolution in religion, marriage and such did not take hold. The Marxists, in power much longer than the French radical revolutionaries, had more success. However, the institution of the family has been recovering in the former Soviet bloc countires, as have the churches.

The queers know if they force their agenda too quickly, there will be a backlash, so they've been going somewhat slowly, unitl recently.

I've always opposed persecution of gays, but I'm getting to the point where tolerance is stretched. I wouldn't be part of it, but I sure wouldn't shed too many tears if someone else ran all the gays out of the county.

[Mike Darancette]

The Churches are being put in a position of having to call their most loyal members religious nuts over the issues of homosexual marriage and church leadership.

It will soon sink in that David Geffin is not going to drop money into the collection plate, and the now absent religious nuts did.

[Question_Assumptions]

What liberals don't realize is that people view certain classes of people negatively, not because of arbitrary social rules or unreasonable hatred in many cases but often for good reason. They tried to change the name and image of "bums" and "vagrants" to "homeless people". After more than a decade of using the new term, do you have any more desire for a "homeless person" to sit next to you on a subway than a "bum" or "vagrant"? Of course not, because the thing described has not become any more desirable. The same will be true of gays. Many gays are harmless and they all certainly shouldn't be physically abused, but there is a lot of strange behavior practiced by gays (bondage, promiscuity, etc.) that is going to remain strange no matter how they spin things. Sure, they can try to put a nice face on things (as the press did trying to spin "homeless people" as out of work families and pleasant people) but the truth will eventually come out. Unless gays change how they live and behave, the negative stereotypes will reappear. If they are lucky, they won't reappear as a part of a nasty backlash but in an inverse version of the cooking frog.