Can it? Social changes like this rarely yield results quickly. However, we can look at nations that have exclusively embraced homosexualism such as the Netherlands for clues; we see an increase of out of wedlock births in the last 15 years to the tune of 50%. In other words, marriage, as it was in Holland, doesn't seem to mean what it used to. Holland's population, like many European nations is being propped up by Muslim immigration. ironic, eh?History speaks for itself, it's not a matter of opinion. Marriage like we see in the last few hundred years is much different than it used to be. Your "tradition" has changed and it can survive other changes.
So? How does opposing it make someone a bigot?If allowing gays to marry somehow affects your marriage, you have issues in your marriage.....Furthermore, Churches are free to deny gays based on their dogma, but your church cannot block gays from societal or marriages in religions that accept gays....
I want you to picture the red "X" from Family Feud. Wrong again. I'd take the time to provide evidence to this fact if I thought, for one second that you could be convinced to the contrary....Instead I'll settle for just telling you're categorically wrong.
Convenient, and how thoughtful of you, but frankly, I've forgotten more about the topic of homosexuality both scientifically, and psychologically, than you'll ever know. All you can do is exactly what I stated which is point to studies that are methodologically flawed as to be mostly useless, and scientific hypothesis' that are not reproducible, rest mostly on conjecture, and assumptions, and as of yet, entirely 100% unverifiable. Next?
Yet another unqualified assertion.....The most important thing is that a child has parents that love them and nurture them. Two moms or two dad that love and care for their child, is better than 1 mom or 1 dad....Or a mom and a dad that are abusive or neglectful.
Yes, that's why I qualified my statement with all things being equal.. I am aware and I agree that a loving parent, or parents that truly care for their children are better than those that don't, but isn't that stating the obvious. I try not to be pretentious when making assertions, as not to be impolite to my audience.
And heturosexuals don't have similar seedy subcultural lifestyles?
The difference in that our seedy side doesn't define us as a group.
I'm not aware of "institutionalization" of homosexuallity in schools. Feel free to point out what your talking about.
And yet you come at me as if I'm some ignorant knuckle dragging know nothing, and yet, you're barely aware of what's actually happening right now in many states. Indoctrination by presenting a singular rosey viewpoint of homosexuality without a qualified alternative opinion is institutionalizing by definition.
What non-Christian sponsored, peer reviewed evidence do you have to offer to support this claim? (the sponser is less important than peer review).
Peer review by an APA sponsored group or publication with skin in the game is as equally meaningless when attempting to unveil the truth. You're psychological peer review is as equally religious as any Christian opinion. They both rely on a faith in their opinions and speculation.
Your walk'in a fine line.....
No, you and others that knee jerk into anyone that disagrees with you are the ones walking the line, and I'd wager that I've proven that in regards to calling people bigots like dishing out candy, you've crossed the line, and I am here to put you back over it.
Sure, can you please offer evidence to the avalanche of assertions you just made?
All available evidence, on BOTH sides of the issue is haphazard, flawed, poorly misunderstood, and based on one's belief that they really wish it to be true. Whether it is true or can be verified as true doesn't seem to matter to those with skin in the game. I have no skin in the game, I am not a homosexual, nor do I care what they do on their own time, and I believe they have a right to be left alone as long as they're not hurting anyone, but I can't stand when the left attempts to brow beat those in opposition if nothing other than their own belief system, because under it all, and if you take the wrapping off, it's all just really a wanting to believe what they want to believe, but no authoritative reason to do so.