That's because I believe in individual, not group, rights. The interests of society concern me very little.
And as the degree of rejection is lifted, a large chunk of the population will decide it is not hetero at all.
And all this is a compelling societal interest how?
This outcome is based on the assumptions of social conservatives, not mine.
I believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality, and to discriminate
against people for what they are is wrong. Allowing gay marriage is no where
near the catastrophe being posited.
My motivation is keeping government out of the private
lives of consenting adults, while granting every American
the full complement of citizenship and its responsibilities.
Oh, then you'd never run for public office, return a survey questionnaire to county government, or serve in a constitutional ratification convention?
The interests of society brought the Framers together.
This outcome is based on the assumptions of social conservatives, not mine.
Social conservatives are not required to theorize why society shouldn't accept a change. A vast change in the institution of marriage, particularly a deracinating and morally corrupting one such as is now on offer, requires its advocates to argue the reasons for its adoption, not the other way around.
It's telling that the Canadian court that passed that decree law allowing homosexuals to pretend to marry people of the same sex couched its argument in the same terms you do: asserting rights nobody has ever claimed over the interest of society, and pretending to see no compelling reason why their decree shouldn't be promulgated. Classic intellectual dishonesty, and very well done as one would expect from trained jurists.
What social conservatives expect is that more boys will grow up educated to be gay. More preteen and teenaged boys will be deflowered by pederasts and trained to be practicing homosexuals themselves. Gays have always replenished their tribe with acculturated, victimized, and heedless straights (ego-dystonic homosexuals in the jargon of DSM III, before even that phrase was taken down by propaganda-sensitive gays), and this is what they have in view.
Gay men are male first and foremost, and they don't care about the orientation of someone they want to have sex with. They just want the sex, and as long as they score, they'll tell society anything they think people will put up with. Right?
I believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality, and to discriminate against people for what they are is wrong.
Essentialism. "We're like black people. We yam what we yam and that's all what we yam." Yeah, well, we don't let pyromaniacs run around loose with matches, either.
Teenaged boys think they need sex with teenaged girls. That doesn't mean we don't impose draconian arrangements to make sure they don't have sex with teenaged girls. Social constructs. Rulesville.
Allowing gay marriage is no where near the catastrophe being posited.
Again, the argument is backward. Onus yours to prove the benefit. I said prove it, not just claim it.
Discrimination is the very essence of freedom. But apart from that, what if there is a genetic component to homosexuality. How can that possibly justify making a mockery of the concept of marriage--the sanctification of the biological mating process for humans. To call a ceremony between two people who are biologically incapable of consummating a marriage--that is mating--a marriage, is to fall down the rabbit hole with Alice, and not even appreciate that you have done so.
This is so obvious, that it scarcely needs further explanation. But consider, also, the fact, that in most jurisdictions, the inability to consummate a marriage has been considered grounds for annulment--for assuming that the marriage was void from the first. Why would anyone make a cause out of promoting such a travesty?
My motivation is keeping government out of the private lives of consenting adults, while granting every American the full complement of citizenship and its responsibilities.
You keep Government out of private lives, if you respect the Fourth Amendment and the equivalents in virtually every State Constitution. You keep Government out, by not breaking down doors to catch people, who have enough respect for their neighbors to keep their private acts private.
You are hardly keeping Government out of private lives, when you use Government to tell people they can not discriminate against other people, who offend them, in their own lives, on their own property, in their own businesses. That is intrusive Government of the worst order.
And you certainly are not keeping Government out of private lives, when you ask that Government make a farce out of traditional marriage, which is the pillar of traditional Society. When Government licenses an absurdity, it has an effect, if nothing else, it legitimizes and thus promotes, as well as confuses;--and if you cannot see that, you are blinded by the rhetoric of those promoting the deliberate breakdown of our cultural heritage, as well as every form of traditional morality.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site