Yes, in the same way silverware is responsible for people being fat.

Overexposure to gays was responsible for my negative attitude. At age 30 I liked all my gay acquaintances. By age 40 I was bored because I had grown up and they were still mostly obsessed with pop culture. By age 50 I could only tolerate their narcissism in brief encounters.

No, not really. Militant, In-You-Face activist Gays are responsible for people having negative attitudes toward gays.

Churches no, militant in your face and f you gays, yes. I really have no interest in anyone´s bedroom, bedfellows, or bedroom antics. Some things are better off unsaid.

Maybe God is responsible since He says sodomy is an abomination.

As an adult, I am not a church goer. As a child, my parents took me to church/ I have never heard homosexuality discussed in any church setting.

I never had a negative attitude about gays in my youth simply because I actually didn´t believe they existed. First, I couldn´t fathom why someone would be gay. Moreover, they laid low and I never saw evidence of them in person or in the media. The only overt sexuality I observed growing up was on daytime soaps I would perchance see amorous embraces as I flipped the channel.

Then at some point, the gays started shoving their perverted behavior in my face, mostly in the media, but some in person. I formed my own negative attitude from their over-the-top, in-our-face, completely-un-called-for flaunting of their "differences".

Add to that the fact they are all associated with the dimocrat party, and I have enough reason to have a negative attitude without ever setting foot in a church.

A condemnation of the behavior has been an historical reality for more than 6,000 years. The people themselves may be loveable in and of themselves, but the behavior is not.

Regret buying this schmucks book.

What part of "love the sinner, hate the sin" did he not understand?

My negative attitude toward homosexuality (not people who suffer from this malady) stems from the same sentiment that makes me have a negative attitude toward birth deformities, disease, or anything else that is negative. My attitude toward negative things is negative.

How about human biology? That has more to do with my opinion than anything. Yuck. And I´m a church going Catholic!

Gay rights activists are largely responsible for these negative attitudes. They are the biggest bullies in America.

Darn. #3 stole my thunder. That´s what I was going to say

Absolutely right, 3.

been in church all my life...now i am an organist so i dont miss many sundays....gay people.....never ever heard it discussed.......warren is full of it

I agree with several of the above posters: I´ve been a church-going Christian for well over 40 years. I´ve never heard homosexuality discussed in church, nor in private fellowship.

On the other hand, it does get negative mention in the Bible. Perhaps the homosexual activists should blame God...

Well, up until certain "churches" at whose head is a female, went pro-sodomy, sodomy, and its practitioners were not elevated de rigueur, but eschewed as not being in the best interests of the tribe.

Today, sodomites are considered by certain "churches" and promoted by sodomite priests and its "leader", as elevated de riguer considering that sodomite reproduction is by recruitment and alas certain "churches" are actively engaged in same both directly and indirectly.

Oddly enough, African churches find sodomy beyond the bounds of the tribe and teach against same and condemn certain American "churches" causing certain American "churches" some degree of discomfort and loss of pew members. But they, like Bow-Boy, don´t care.

Selah.

#9 has it exactly right. Haters don´t hang out in churches. They frankly are a lot more comfortable with anarchists or OWS folk. What generates anger is not that there are homosexuals, its that they insist on tearing debasing Marriage by insisting that it cover them. But even in that case the anger is directed at the activist, not the gay.

Churches did not routinely discuss homosexuality 50 years ago because few people were stupid enough to pretend it wasn´t a perversion. It is also so nasty a subject that it is a blot in the sunday morning sermon to talk about it, like, you need to wash your hands and face after the sermon point about homosexuality. The Bible condemns homosexuality, and practicing homosexuals are explicitly stated to go to hell. That is the root of Christian opposition to homosexuality. Rick Warren is a deluded man.

Some preachers preach the meat of the Word, some preachers preach the milk of the Word, Rick Warren preaches the chocolate milk of the Word. Joel Olsteen apparently went to the same seminary.

In the past three decades we have redefined homosexuality 180 degrees. Does that worry anyone? Is it worrisome that we could redefine a sexual deviation to acceptable ( or even as a demand ) from something that was deplored only a short time ago? And celebrate it?

It should shake us to our foundations. Can anyone explain why we shouldn´t expect other deviations to be explained away as "discrimination"? How about lowering the age of sexual consent to twelve years old? Impossible, you say? Why? How about marriage to a mother or a father? How about sex with the recent dead? Ridiculous you say? Why? None are any more ridiculous than the acceptance of the use of the male alimentary canal as a sexual oriface 30 years ago. Think about it.

And virtually anything that has a significant political constituency will be heralded by liberal Democrats. Who knows what sexual perversion will be the Democrat´s next crusade? Just give it time. Animal lovers unite; beastiality may be just around the corner if you can get enough of a political following. Go ahead, just come out of the closet and give Obama and Democrats a shout out.

Um, I would say my "live-and-let-live" attitude changed at Disney one year when it was gay pride week (unbeknownst to us) and gays were tongueing each other while waiting in line. Try to explain that to a 7-year-old!