First off, I'm aware there's probably no real point arguing with you. Attitude change often requires more then a teenager typing to you on an internet forum. Even more so, the sender of messages in persuasion is important, or their credentials at least, and as I'm queer, I doubt I will be able to. But just like you, most of my posts, particularly in threads like this, isn't to change direct people's opinions. Its to put across a side of an argument,

OK, I have to ask, why do assume any of us are blindly following gay-affirming ideology? I'll have you know, I use to blindly follow anti-gay ideas, because my parents told me to, without ever really feeling anything negative against gays. It's only now that I've considered more of the arguments then a very large amount of people, on both sides. It took me a year of research, religious and secular, to come to a more liberal view. And now, with two years of a degree at one of the UK's top universitys under my belt, I am positive I've tackled all these issues thoroughly, and not blindly following them.

Next... there is probably more of a liberal agenda, then a gay agenda, but that's also true for all politcal groups. If a political group didnt have an agenda... what is the point? On the other hand, I disagree with your suggestion as to what the agenda is. The church is changing, but it's largely changing from the inside, and due to increased awareness education, knowledge, and having the real world conflict with blind faith. Blind faith generally is a feature of fundamentalists. And many right-wing attitudes in the church are carried over from older generations. Here's an interesting point.... Jesus was a liberal. Ok, I have nothing to suggest he wasn't for gay marriage, but he would have considered gays equal human beings, deserving to be treated with love. He hung out with tax collectors for goodness sake! Remember the good Samaritian? Yeah, that story tells the church how to treat gays. And no, the issue with the church is NOT just about the legalisation of gay marriage. Most of the people who are against gay marriage often have at least so other prejudiced views of gays, and many have more obvious views that are prejudiced against gays. I'm not saying everyone who is against gay marriage is prejudice to gays in general, but generally they do come hand in hand. The Church has no right to treat gays in any way but love.

Oh, btw, 2000 years of Church history? Um... not really... gay marriage was never a focus in the slightest until recent years. In fact, the concept of homosexuality was only introduced in the 1800s. Before, it was just same sex behaviour, and there is a lot of academic work questionning the current interperatations on same sex behaviour in the Bible. There is also a fair amount of mystery involved in the history of gays and the church, because its only recently become a frequent topic. Oh, and btw, until modern Western society, marriage was mostly a buisness issue, about money, property, and perhaps trying to ensure a woman had a man to provide for her, in the sexist worlds of the past. That, and as conception only became effective and widely avaliable in our newer society, being married when you had sex was important, incase you had kids, in terms of resources. But I mean, look at the royal families in British history, marriage was like a treaty between nations, and on lower levels of the population, it was like this on a smaller scale. In Old Testament times, people could basically buy someone's daughter. In those days too, a brother would have to marry his sibling's widow if the sibling died. In order to support her. Oh, and don't forget the frequent polygmy in OT times. Men had more then one wife... and if they didn't they often had concubines, they were kept like wives. For example, David, from David and Goliath, was his fathers favourite son, because of who his mother was. David's brothers had different mothers to him, even though these women were still in the family. In some countries today, they marry cousins to keep wealth in the family.

But putting this aside, I like how you enjoy stressing that you are meant to have religious freedom in the USA, but then, only some people are allowed religious freedom, assuming it falls in line with specific views. Mainstream moderate Judasm, or at least some branches allow union of gays. The Quakers generally do. Some parts of Christianity. Some parts of Buddism. Pagans too, etc. Why is their religious freedom less valuable then say the Catholic Church? I'm not talking about forcing those in churches to perform marriages they disagree with, but what about those who are ok with it? That being said, I do believe if someone is working in a civil court they shouldn't get a choice, because they've choosen to do that job, in a secular institution. Their own fault. And what about freedom of religion, in the sense to choose not to have one?

One of the biggest things that confuses me about America, is that is meant to be the land of the free, but that only applies to the majority. Any minorities right to freedom is overshadowed by other. That's not land of the free, that is land of the majority rule. In terms of voting for politicians, yeah, its the only practical way to vote. But then issues involing the rights of individual groups, which really have no direct effect on eothers, should not have to be cleared by the majority. That's really implicit facism. But as someone said, our generation are on average, more progressive, the the dynamics will really change.

Why did Prop 8 pass? Probably because people are often very stuck in their ways.... it takes a lot to change your attitudes. Having to change fundamental opinions often leaves you uncomfortable for awhile.

And all this stuff about history, or whatever... um... so what? Know what else the church use to believe? There was a fairly wide view interracial marriage was wrong, they use to think left handed people were evil, so burnt them at the stake. Protestants? Burnt at stake by Catholics. Catholics? Burnt at stake by Protestants. Witch Hunts. Hitler manipulated the Christians in his country, including through the use of claiming it was inline with the faith (for the record, Hitler was not a Christian). This isn't me bashing religion, I'm actually a Christian, my point is, people, tradition, history, are not always right. We've come a long way in a short amount of time. Why? The liberal agenda? Maybe a bit... But it's more likely to be increaswe of knowledge, access to knowledge, the ideology that minorities should be treated fairly, and so on.

Seperation of Church and state is a large part of the reason the scientific revolution occured in the Western World, as opposed to anywhere else... it does bring benefits.

Ok, go find a credible source, or re-evaluate what you just said... k, thnx.

I'll make this short and simple. How? Morality is not particularly gendered based... moral development will occur with proper parenting, regardless of who it is from, and as your cognitive abilities improve.

Ok, so you are posted to give both sides of an argument, but you think its just and fair for parents to only give their kids one side of the argument, because you agree with there side? What if their kids turn out gay. You have no idea what coming from a conservative anti-gay Christian background is like, after you realise you aren't straight. And yeah, it happens... in America, it happens a lot... just out of the sheer amount of kids in general with those background.

And no Chruch should turn away gays if they accept anyone else who sins. The only time even conservative Christians Biblically can reject someone like that is if they a) hold a stance from 'traditional' Bible interperatation, b) the gay is claiming to be a brother/sister in Christ, and c) the repeatedly/intentionally engage in gay sex. This same thing applys to straights having sex outside of major, and most other sins. The idea of it, is to put them in the world, away from God, with the hopes they return like the prodigical son.

And staying away from your children? Even if they don't talk about pro-gay stuff? Yeah... no... That is discrimination, I'm sorry. Oh, and btw, parents do not own their children, they are there as guardians to raise kids, they should not be able to indoctrinate a child to have prejudiced views. Telling gay people to stay away from Churches or Children ios not simply disagreeing with their sex life due to a Biblical reading, it is attributing negative traits toward gays. And more traits, at that, then Christians people toward most sinners, maybe bar murderers and pedophiles (though many people still associate gays to pedophillia, which is obscene).

Do you not realise how much your country's morals have changed over the last few hundred years anyway? Morality changes... it always does, unless a society remains static. And of course it'd change as our whole culture and society changes.

And I don't see how the definition of a family from a 'mom and dad' to 'two parents' is a major change. And unlike with straights, gays aren't all that likely to have kids who they consider accidents, for obvious reasons, so they are actually more like to have a coherant family

First off your bold comment about religion actually is slightly more complex then you assume. Religious beliefs currently, and in the past have varied on homosexuality, depending on who you asked, and then for some, if they were against it, were only so for their followers, and not non-followers. Second point, most academic research suggest the new concepts are not really wrong, and social psychology brings to light how attitudes are made, reforced, and why they may be long lived. It also shows how the whole in-group, out-group stuff works, and quite nicely explains why its the minority or weaker groups that get the crap (e.g. women, ethnic minorities, the disababled, etc) Oh, and on the other hand, about a hundred years ago, people were less educated... they didn't question the way religion was being presented. You keep blaming the liberals... but where do you think they came from? And yeah, there is something to a lot of religious moral codes, because they have a lot of rules based in safety, liberty, order, etc. At the same time, that doesn't actually mean much. Governments have been around a long time, are they always right? I would say no.

I don't know why you are under the impression no one who supports gay rights have ever considered anything themselves.


Grow out of it? You talk of liberalism like some silly disordered phase.

Yeah, if you call that a logical explaination, you need to go back to that private school of yours. It's a circular argument, 'Itll destroy the family' "Why?" 'Because it's unnatural' "Why?" 'Because its meant to be man and woman' "Why?" 'Because otherwise it'll destroy the family"...

Actually, no, it's religious, in an institutionalised way, not in a 'Like me quote you Bible verses way'. You are essentially saying 'The Church doesnt like it, therefore it shouldnt happen, because of American history in relation to the Church'.... it IS an indirect religious argument... sorry.