What frustrates me abou the gay marriage debate is that there is never any thought, discussion, or attention paid to what the end results of all these great changes will be.

Gays, liberals, and progressives are always pushing for "change" and demanding significant and fundamental alterations to key elements of our society.  They do so because they, in their infinite (read woefully limited) wisdom, think the changes will make them feel better.  There's no thought on their part as to what the world will be like one these changes are widely adopted.  They have no evidence whatsoever that their changes will be a positive good for society as a whole in any objective sense.  They tear down what is, simply because they don't like it, with no thought as to why these societal structures exist, and no thought or concern as to what society will be like without those existing structures.  On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that the changes already made have wrought havoc on our society, and there's some evidence that in particular, the open acceptance of homosexual behavior has been associated (I'm not stating a causative relationship, just an association) with the collapse of every great civilization in human history.  That alone would give us pause if we had any kind of historical sensibility or understanding.

My concern over gay marriage is not a phobia, nor is it irrational.  It is based on a healthy, rational distaste for the 100 years of supposedly unintended consequences progressivism has already given us, which in many ways have not benefitted our society nor made this country a better place to live.  To extent I'm afraid of gay marriage, I think there's a good argument that my fear is far more rational than your hope that your desired changes will bring about some sort of utopia.  Progressivism doesn't have a great track record on that so far.

Some of us like things the way they are (or were) and we need to stop apologizing for that. Most of us have good reason to like things the way they are, even if we don't.

We have a great country and a good and fair society that has provided more freedom, justice and fairness, more life, liberty and the ability to pursue freedom, to more individuals than any society in human history.  We have our flaws, and we made our mistakes, but we should stop apologizing, especially when in the face of demands that supposed injustices be redressed, we put at risk all the good that has been done. We are not a horribly unfair, unjust, mean, nasty society.  We certainly aren't that just because we don't allow gay marriage, regardless of what narcissistic morons like Perez Hilton think.

All of these cultural changes should be fought tooth and nail without concrete evidence that society as a whole would really benefit.  The risk of losing the good is too great.

The people who argue for these fundamental changes should be taken seriously, to the extent that they have so much in common with vandals, both the common kind and the kind that paid Rome a visit in 455 AD.

On this and every other article about Mitt, the debate about theology arises. I've read hundreds of posts that go on and on about mormons this and mormons that, as if it had any bearing on the real issues at hand.

Theology aside, I think those critical of Romney need to take another look, and look less at theology and more at how the man has led his life.

First, in all the criticisms of Romney, there has never been any hint of scandal, either in his personal life or in his business dealings. And I can't imagine there hasn't been a lot of digging by his opponents to find anything at all. I think from that it's safe to say he is a man of character. He has been true and faithful to the most important commitments he has made in his life: to his family and to those who have hired him to represent their interests. There is no suggestion at all that he has not kept every commitment he has ever made to the absolute best of his obviously exceptional abilities and a lot better, I would venture, than many of his critics have done in their lives. That's not to say he is perfect, but he's certainly made an effort to live his life according to his principles. (And those who argue he has none are making the worst kind a shallow, superficial, thoughtless and unjustifiable personal attack.) He has also sacrificed countless hours in his church assignments in uncompensated service, where there is no allegation that he did anything other than serve well.

I'm not going to argue whether Mitt is a Christian or not (or whether Mormons are Christians are not). Any answer depends on the definition used by the party trying to answer the question, and I am satisfied that there will never be agreement on the definition, much less its application. However, as I understand the teachings of Jesus (the practical, pragmatic example he set to show us how to live our lives), Mitt seems to making as good an effort to follow that example as anyone I've ever been aware of. He's arguably making as strong an effort to do so as anyone seeking the presidency since Washington and Adams.

We are always wondering why we can't get people of character, commitment and ability to run for office (and why Democrats don't wonder that even more than Republicans is beyond me, but apparently those aren't the usual Democrat criteria). Now someone of high caliber does run, and he's attacked because of theological differences that have no bearing whatsoever on personal character as evidenced by action and accomplishment, and certainly no bearing on how an individual should conduct himself as President of the United States.

Isn't it enough that a man has been true to his most sacred promises, is willing to sacrifice his time for his fellow man without thought of reward, that he is humble enough to pray (and at least in name to same God that his critics also approach in prayer) and that he strives to follow the same commandments? Isn't that what we've always wanted in a man who would be President? That we should be offered that from someone with the proven record of success and ability as is obviously the case with Mitt Romney, is a cause for gratitude and relief.

As a Mormon myself, I honestly hadn't been aware of the low regard in which Mormonism is held in the evangelical community. I've come to accept that many evangelicals consider us as different from evangelical Christianity as Islam. I've accepted that as the case, even I struggle to comprehend why. Again, we obviously have significant theological differences (even calling them significant is a significant understatement), but is there any meaningful difference at all between how evangelical Christianity and Mormonism understand and apply Christ's basic teachings about honesty, humility, faith, repentance, charitable service and other principle of daily living? You may believe we are coming unto a different Christ, and that we are damned as a result*, but isn't the end result in terms of how we live our lives here on earth exactly the same? Can't that give us enough common ground to put the other differences aside long enough to elect a president?

Just my thoughts.

*We appreciate the concern by the way. It wouldn't be very Christian of you to feel otherwise, and we do believe credit should be given where it's due. It would just be nice to have the whole "credit given where it's due thing" work in both directions once in awhile.