What makes people change their mind? Purposefully or not, children pick up on their parents’ beliefs and tend to follow them for the beginning of their life. Occasionally, around the teenage age, some kids transition into a revolt stage and completely change their views on the world. I believe this is mostly due to frustration in something which their parents believe; they have always taken it for granted but now that they have become more educated, they begin to question their beliefs and if unable to come up with an answer that they can rest upon, they choose to find their own way. My civic issue this semester will be gay marriage. I believe that by the time a child reaches his mid-teenage years, he will have picked up on his parent’s reaction to gay marriage. My curiosity about what makes a person change his mind sparked from an article I read from the Los Angeles Times titled,“Obama’s family influenced his gay-marriage shift.” The article explains that even when Obama’s position was in an early state of evolution, Michelle Obama “went out of her way to invite gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual couples to the events she sponsored for military families.”

Obama writes,“There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents, and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective,” I thought it interesting that when Barack Obama, our president, was thinking about his position on gay marriage (one of the most controversial topics currently in our nation), he thought of his young daughter. In a way, their thoughts are the most valuable—bear with me, but they are not “corrupted” by society. They are clear and pure; they see their friends and their parent’s just as normal families. To them, a man a woman, two men, or two women in love with one another are perfectly capable of raising a loving and healthy family. Sometimes I think it amazing how much we can learn from kids.

To begin my blogging over the semester I chose to look into some of the arguments that others use in order to opposite same-sex marriage. Most of quite similar and repetitive; the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was formed to “resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” They argue that marriage is naturally a covenant between a man and a woman and that it violates natural law. While biologically it is true that a man and a woman are needed to produce children, if children can not understand why gay parents would be treated differently, it is really that “natural?” It definitely is not built into us—rather, picked up from society. Also, for the matter of nature, Bruce Bagemihl, a distinguished Canadian biologist and linguist, shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. The TFP also write that “it is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother.” As for that matter, I urge all to watch Zach Wahls address this issue (Speech). The people writing this article never had experience being raised by gay parents. They have no basis behind their thoughts, they are simply unsupported beliefs.

Thanks for reading this! Looking forward to what you have to say.
One remark. The TPF is a Catholic organization, and Catholics are against any form of artificial birth control and abortion as well as gay marriage. The quote below is from their web site:

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) is an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization.

I find it interesting that they use the word "remnants." European (and to some extent, American) society has been secularizing, as a continuation from the Age of Enlightenment. What science has learned in the past few hundred years, and is continuing to learn about the observable "natural" world (natural = of nature) just continues to challenge much of what these interpreters of the Christian Bible claim about the "natural" world. I wish that they would seriously listen to one of their own greatest scholars:

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.” ― St. Thomas Aquinas
AlpheccaStarsthe remnants of Christian civilization. I find it interesting that they use the word "remnants."
I just stumbled across your post today. I had to laugh when I read "remnants". And then I saw your comment on it.

That one word choice seems to be a coded admission that they're fighting a losing battle!

Go, Tom!

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I could say many things about this matter, dear Anonymous, but what can I say right here? You posted as anonymous to talk about such a delicate subject and even so I'm not sure you said something about what YOU think about this.
As for me, I try not to 'judge' considering myself the right person to say yes or no, fair or unfair. And anyway, there will always be someone against something and obviously there will always be someone pro that something. Opinions. Which is easier? What would you choose: for or against something? I choose none of them. Some people say it ( pro or against, it doesn't matter now ) because they really believe that. Could be this considered right or wrong? Some other are influenced by what they see, what they are told. That is not an opinion. Some other have to say it that way.
What violates " natural law " is not very clear to me though.

All the best,
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
CalifJimThat one word choice seems to be a coded admission that they're fighting a losing battle!
No, it's not lost. They have just taken marbles and moved elsewhere - South America and Africa.
By the middle of this century, there will be three billion Christians in the world... But at that point, only one-fifth of the worlds (sic.) Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. The typical Christian will be a woman living in a Nigerian village or in a Brazilian shantytown. And these changes will be more than demographic. Jenkins points out that who he calls "Southern Christians" -- those living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia -- are far more conservative, theologically and morally, than their counterparts in the West.
AlpheccaStars"Southern Christians" ... are far more conservative
Hmm. In what other context have I heard this? Emotion: thinking