Interesting piece. Also something I have been thinking about, especially with the recent protests in France.

http://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/cross-national-gay-marriage-politics-and-the-context-of-activism/

http://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/tag/gayxtremism/

Heh, the conservatives were right - Hollywood and national media have been "corrupting" America's youth. Entertainment media and celebrities have been normalizing homosexuality for the entire developmental period of anyone under 30. I know that while I can remember, in my lifetime, a mix of good and evil homosexuals characters, I can't personally think of a single good anti-homosexual character.

It's kind of an awesome thing what's been accomplished, although we obviously still have a way to go.

Americans now favor marriage equality because they don't care who gays marry, so long as attention can be refocused on the things that really concern most people, like how the #@#$ to find a job so they can have a meal and a roof over their head.

I suspect that a lot of anti-gay marriage types have just realized that they're the minority now, and they don't like it. So now they're following the crowd in the other direction.

Whatever works, I guess.

I find it hard to believe that "I know somebody that's gay" is the main reason for people changing their minds. why? unless the gay community has grown exponentially in the past couple decades then that reason would have always existed.

Really shows how strong the link is between ignorance and hate. This is why visibility is so important.

The homosexual agenda is a hostile movement that has stripped Americans of their freedom of speech. Folks are, "evolving" on this issue because they do not want to be labeled as, "haters", and "homophobes". If you ever go onto any discussion board and voice your opposition to "same sex marriage", you will be attacked and vilified as a knuckle dragging, red neck, hater, homophobe, moron. People don't like being labeled as "bigots", so they simply fall in line. Most people don't have the courage or the energy to stand up or what they believe in, so they simply conform to the "herd mentality", so as not to be trampled by the herd.

The bottom line is that, marriage is what it is. Homosexuals are capable of falling in love and being in committed, monogamous, relationships. that can be a wonderful thing, but it is not, and can never be a "marriage". Same sex unions are not a, "MARRIAGE". A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Anything else, is SOMETHING else. Does that mean that same sex unions are bad and that homosexuals are evil? No- It means they are DIFFERENT.

i am sick and tired of MORONS claiming that just want people to be, "happy". What if having 5 wives was what was required to make one happy? What if marrying their sister made them happy. What if marrying your horse made you happy? Marriage has a definition. If there were no limits or parameters for marriage, it would simply be NOTHING. You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of marriage to facilitate a fantasy in which same sex couples can PRETEND that they are HUSBAND and WIFE. The fact that this RIDICULOUS debate has gone this far is preposterous and ABSURD. This is about nothing more that homosexuals wanting Americans to validate homosexuality, and celebrate and promote sexual dysfunction. This is another case of political correctness gone amok.

Because of societal conditioning (i.e. people are sheep). One day people will approve cannibalism.

LGBT relationships have been shown as a different version of the same thing. A loving relationship, desirable as something everyone wants. I feel it has been marketed fantastically well over past decades, and GLBT's have come across as more relatable as the "common man" than before. ITs all strikingly conservative anyway.

It is ultimately very difficult to live a life fearing and disliking those who are different from you. For thousands of years it was a necessity as relatively small clans and villages demonized outsiders to protect themselves; it was truly dangerous out there. Homophobia is just another form of protection, for the majority of the in-group.

The last vestiges of the old days lie in belief systems that support religions. The major religions of the world have for the most part encouraged fear and loathing of outsiders and have therefore lost any standing to lead in the future. That paradigm is over. In much of the world, as we move away from religion we embrace diversity.

I'm curious about why the contact hypothesis seems to apply so well to certain types of prejudice (homophobia seems like a good example), but not to others. I work with issues of fatphobia, and it seems difficult to make a sound case for the contact hypothesis here -- after all, most not-fat people know fat people, and generally have one or more in their immediate or extended families as well, often knowing them well enough to be aware of the similarities between those fat persons' own behaviours (diet, exercise) and their own. The contact hypothesis would seem to suggest that, because of this, most not-fat people should be accepting of fat people and fat rights, and increasingly understanding that fatness is not usually a 'choice' or a legitimate basis for discrimination. But in spite of being in frequent and close/intimate contact with fat people, not-fat people, on the whole, have been slow (and sometimes actually regressive) in embracing social equity for fat people. So what's the missing factor here?

I believe the change is correlated to the increase in the general belief that 'people are made that way' and don't have a choice. Once you believe that then people can't be held to account for how they are made -- examples like left and right handedness are enlisted to justify the change of mind, then the issue of 'equal rights' seems to follow naturally.

Of course neither gay lobby groups, nor scientific enquiry, fully supports this now widely help belief.

To support this behavior I would have to not believe in God. I believe in God and plan to continue to do so. God condemns it, so do I.