That response ignores the attempts to rationalize gay marriage within the context of the Bible, right here in this topic, at length. (Again, see the last two topic pages)

To say nothing of the wider attempt to rationalize this mindset (that gay marriage is compatible with Christianity), across the country.
If a Christian ( or others, who believe marriage is clearly one man and one woman, a heterosexual union exclusively) voices objection, however clearly and logically, in defense of their traditional beliefs, they are stereotyped as closed-minded.
It seems to me the opposite, that gays and liberals choose to close THEIR minds to the facts of irreconcilable inconsistency of a gay/Christian merging in the concept of gay marriage.

It is gays and liberals who choose to ignore the inconsistencies of logic inherent in gay marriage. And choose to ignore that it won't stop there, that gay marriage will keep pushing for further concessions, until even reading Bible verses condemning homosexuality will be called a "hate-crime". Or in other ways force an unwilling Christian public, and also an unwilling NON-Christian public, to accept something they know to be wrong. A gay/liberal movement that will push to undermine the truth, and to eventually prevent the truth from being said.

Even the above left-leaning Mother Jones article gives some token acknowledgement to the truth, even as it tries to portray conservatives negatively:

quote:
Mother Jones article on Vermont court ruling, on gay civil unions:

The tall white steeple of the Cambridge United Church has been standing watch over the rural community of Cambridge, Vermont, for more than a century. The church graces the valley beneath Mount Mansfield, Vermont's highest peak... Reverend Craig Bensen ... the bearded clergyman extends a friendly greeting.

Bensen has been pastor of the Cambridge United Church for 23 years. He is also co-founder and vice president of Take It to the People (TIP), a group formed in 1997 to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont. So strongly does Bensen feel about the issue that he renounced his congregation's affiliation with the United Church of Christ, which he claims supports same-sex marriage. "Our congregation is about 98 percent solidly pro-traditional marriage and believes in no special rights for homosexual individuals," he asserts.


I ask Bensen how allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry or form domestic partnerships will affect heterosexual couples. He acknowledges that same-sex marriage may not affect individuals who are married, but it undermines the institution of marriage. He contends that same-sex marriage "removes any distinction for traditional marriage as the fundamental unit of society. And society will ultimately suffer because of that." He insists that "one man and one woman is the building block" of civilization.

"Gay unions given the status of law means that the state of Vermont says that motherless or fatherless families will not have an adverse effect on children." ... "That, from a developmental-psychology point of view, is a lie."
He also believes that 90 percent of gay men were sexually abused as preadolescents. I ask if he feels that same-sex marriage is an issue of civil rights. He says dismissively, "Civil rights talk is political cover for politicians who don't want to listen to what people have to say."

It is the contention of Bensen and Take It to the People that changing the rules of marriage should be the subject of popular referendum, not judicial fiat. "Being cut out of the process makes the people angry," he warns.

A February poll showed that Vermonters were about evenly divided on whether or not to allow gay couples to form "civil unions"; another poll in late April concluded that 52 percent of Vermonters opposed the new law, while 43 percent supported it. But Bensen and TIP are confident that if it were put on a ballot, voters would disapprove of civil unions. TIP, along with Vermont Catholic Bishop Kenneth Angell, suggested a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman -- thereby negating the Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The proposed amendment was killed in the state Senate in a 17-13 vote.


Once again proving that a few well-positioned liberals can undermine a majority, and corrupt what a majority believe, right out from under them.