If it was just about individual liberties of just gay people I think it would be simpler, but it isn't. For those in opposition to gay marriage it is more involved.
Issues range from sociological to religious. To sum it all up on an internet forum is unrealistic and to decide which side of the fence your on just from a few internet posts doesn't really seem the best way to form an opinion on something.
For me the biggest reason I oppose gay marriage is the serious legal consequences and threats to religious liberty if marriage is redefined by the courts, as well as the consequences that will face future generations that stray from the norm.
We are already experiencing the consequences of the sexual revolution of the sixties that changed our societal norm from sex being for procreation and marital unity to being a a personal pleasurable experience a form of personal expression.
Yes, their have always been homosexuals and other deviations of the norm but not until the sexual revolution was sex as a personal expression, viewed as a societal norm.
Check out data from European countries that have already experimented with same sex union, when the traditional family decreases societal ills increase. You can Google the same stuff I can if your really interested.
Don't forget your country was founded by Christians that were persecuted everywhere else for their religion. It was not founded for anybody that felt like violating any natural law or societal norm they felt like. It sometimes seems to me that the libertarians would rewrite early American history as one big pagan burning man festival where drugs and sex flow liberally out of Independence Hall. It's not so.
I voted for Reagan twice though I never considered him a Conservative.
Lets face it, anyone was better than Jimmy Carter. Reagan's amnesty for 12 million illegals has led to another 20 million illegals and is not a Conservative ideal. His Iran/Conta deal was not in our best interest and Reagan left us with a huge national debt.
He was clearly the best choice twice but, a Conservative? No.
It's just the socialist nanny state of the right, not the socialist nanny state of the left.
Find me an actual conservative that will butt out of peoples business and allow the country to grow [up], and he or she will get my vote; put that actual conservative up against a libertarian, and my vote may very well go there.
For most of my voting life, however, when it's come to national politics, I've had to choose between the nannies on the right, the nannies on the left, and tossing my vote away.
I'm told I lean enough that I occasionally limp; I choose to blame arthritis in an old broken ankle... ;-)
Contrary to what many of you think - Family Values is a normal conservative issue having little to do with thumping on the Bible. I have never read the bible, the last time I was in church was to go to a funeral for a dog friend of mine - 15 years ago. I believe along with many others there are times when aborting a fetus is permissible. I am of the personal belief that what is good for a family is good for our country, with no slack for weird beliefs. It would be very hard to classify me as a Social Conservative.
As for the willingness to be open minded about the issue - the people of whom we speak are as predatory as any criminal. So if it's OK in your mind, go ahead & believe that way. I just know that if one of them harms one of mine, they will never get an opportunity to go there again.
It is a relatively recent development for the government to have any involvement in marriage at all. Rather, marriage was viewed as a religious institution and governed solely by the rules of each individual's own religious beliefs.
As you noted, marriage was embodied in law to manage property and custody issues at death and at dissolution of the marriage. In the 100-150 years in which marriage has become increasingly ingrained in secular law, it has become attached to other peripheral issues such as defining economic units for tax purposes, defining "next of kin" for assigning custodial rights when an individual is unable to act for himself, etc.
It is not clear to me how any of these issues are limited to male/female relationships; they are equally at issue for male/female and single sex relationships. For that reason, I can see no reason at all for having distinctions in civil law between the two. Let churches establish any rules they wish concerning marriage. That should not limit or be limited by what is done in civil law.
1)HIV funding? Where did I write where that was responsible?
2) Family Values? I'm all for strong families and strong small businesses.
3) Predatory Criminals? Who are we writing about here? Independents? Libertarians?
Confused by your post.
2. If you are saying that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals, I would love to see you evidence. My own personal experience suggests that opposite since homosexuals are seldom able to establish the same physical dominance over their partners that is routinely possible with heterosexuals. Homosexuality has nothing at all to do with pedophilia. They are very different and pedophiles generally don't care about the gender of their victims.
Sorry fella's, this is not a roght wing left wing thing.
I can tell you with all certainty that a HUGE left wing voting block is extremely anti-gay.
The demographics are very clear.
In fact, it was this voting block that turned out in force for Obama, and squashed the Gay-marriage amendment in CA.