Quote:

---

changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot.

---

Quote:

---

Some Christians fear that opposing homosexuality could cause them to lose their jobs and “haunt them forever,” Carter says.

---

Quote:

---

There was a time when a person could publicly say homosexuality was wrong and people could consider the statement without anger, he says. Today, people have reverted to an intellectual tribalism where they are only willing to consider the perspective of their own tribe.

---

Quote:

---

Sprigg, from the Family Research Council, says his condemnation of homosexual conduct does not spring from intolerance but a desire to protect gays from harmful conduct, he says.

Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the council, wrote in a council pamphlet that homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are straight men. He also wrote that gay men are also afflicted with a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness as well.

Sprigg says he does not believe homosexuality is a choice and that “personal testimonies" and "clinical experience” show that some people “can and do change from gay to straight.”

“Maybe we need to do a better job of showing that we are motivated by Christian love,” Sprigg says. “Love is wanting the best for someone, and acting to bring that about.”

---

Quote:

---

it should be difficult for any Christian to unequivocally declare that the Bible opposes homosexuality because the Bible doesn’t take a single position on the topic. It's an assertion that many scholars and mainline Protestant pastors would agree with.

---

Quote:

---

Newt Gingrich Slams ‘One-Sidedness’ Of Gay Rights, Citing Services From Which Catholics Are ‘Outlawed’

In light of NBA player Jason Collins coming out as gay, David Gregory invited a Meet the Press panel to discuss the gay rights movement. Newt Gingrich was among the panelists — and chose to highlight the “one-sidedness” of the gay rights debate, pointing to the way Catholics are “outlawed” from having adoption services.

GINGRICH: "What I'm struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights. There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts. They're outlawed. There are no rights in DC for Catholics to have adoption service. They're outlawed. This passing reference to religion, we sort of respect religion, sure, as long as you don't practice it. I mean I think it would be good to have a debate over, you know, beyond this question of, 'Are you able to be gay in America?' what does it mean? Does it mean that you have to actually affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that, and therefore, you're now going to have a secular state say to a wide range of religious groups, Catholics, Protestants, orthodox Jews, Mormons, frankly, Muslims, 'You cannot practice your religion the way you believe it, and we will outlaw your institutions.' ... Let's just start with adoption services. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to have an adoption service in Massachusetts that follows Catholic doctrine.

JOY-ANN REID: But didn't the Catholic Church, particularly Catholic Charities in Boston, they affirmatively decided to withdraw adoption services. No one said they are not allowed to provide adoption services.

GINGRICH: No, they withdrew them because they were told, "You could not follow Catholic doctrine," which is for marriage between a man and a woman.

REID: I think the point is, is that you don't have the state attempting to tell religions what to believe. People, if they oppose the idea of gay marriage within their religion, have the absolute right to do so. The question is whether or not religious institutions can make public policy, whether they can enter the public policy. http://www.towleroad.com/2013/05/mtpgingrich.html#ixzz2SWbeyANX

---

Quote:

---

Furthermore, when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage by overturning Proposition 22 (the predecessor to Proposition 8), the court decision specifically stated that religious institutions would not be required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, citing a precedent. Bending over backwards to not interfere with the practice of religion is not good enough for these people - they want a theocracy, with only one sect in charge.

---

Quote:

---

Newtie's colossal blind spots aside, we've all seen clinical homophobes concoct a vast array of justifications for their bitter neuroses and sad delusions. Crying "Victim!!" is one of their favorites. Personal and institutional beliefs are not relevant here, fair and equal treatment of people is the one and only requirement. If an agency cannot or will not fulfill it, they cannot engage in business.

---

Quote:

---

Newt also lied because the laws requiring equal adoption rights for LGBT human beings were passed at least a decade BEFORE marriage equality in MA and Catholic Charities in Boston placed a baker's dozen children with same-sex couples in the 10 years before marriage equality. When the new head of the Church, Sean O'Malley, found out the allegedly secular charity was treating gays and lesbians as human beings, he insisted that they stop. In response to this unprecedented interference, 20% of the charity's BOD quit in protest.

---