What kind of question is that? "What is the basis for this? (besides religion, eg. public welfare, safety, health, etc.)". Are religion, public welfare and health concerns trivial reasons to oppose homosexuality?
Marriage has NEVER had a Butt Crack Mountain meaning. It has always been male+female. The burden of persuasion for a change in the meaning of marriage falls squarely on those who would change it, and it is not the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary to cram homo-marriage up the American people's brokebacks.
I sense a zotting in your future...
Good one.
You're lost as a bat in a blizzard if you're serious.
1. Are people (here, GOP, Conservatives in general,etc.) opposed to "civil unions" and/or any legal recognition of rights between homosexual partners (hospital visitation, property, etc.)?
I can only speak for myself but here is my point of view: In the eyes of the state, marriage is noting except a contract between two adults - no different than a business partnership. My church, on the other hand, see marriage as a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. Because there is a "separation between church and state" the contract of marriage is perfectly legal. Furthermore, I personally don't care what kind of partnership two consenting adults enter into.
2. What is the basis for this? (besides religion, eg. public welfare, safety, health, etc.)
See above
Furthermore, much like the spoiled child acting up to get attention, many high profile gay men and lesbians want the whole "marriage" ceremony to get attention.
As with most areas of my life, if it doesn't directly effect me, I don't concern myself too much with it.
("Not that there's anything wrong with that..." "No, not at all.")
To Explorer24:
Here are my views on the gay rights movement. I cannot speak for other people here.
I oppose gay marriage because I believe that children are best off with a mother and a father. This is a major argument among those of us who oppose gay marriage for non-religious reasons.
When a boy is raised by two lesbians, not only will he not have a dad, but the majority of his teachers will be female, especially in elementary school. This is not fair to the child, whether he grows up rich or poor. We hear all the time from the inner city that boys need fathers. Two lesbians are not the same as a mom and a dad.
I am old enough (55) to remember that in the 1970s, people argued that easy divorce would be good for children. Children would not have to hear parents fight; they would get two rooms, more toys and more brothers and sisters to play with. Well, it didn't turn out that way... We're getting the same types of excuses in connection with gay marriage. We haven't had enough time to develop a really solid body of evidence about the impacts on children of gay marriage/adoption. Wait another 30 years. There has to be a reason why it has never before existed in recorded human history.
In connection with civil unions, I oppose them because they, too, would erode traditional marriage. I'm sure there would be abuses. College roommates could "marry" in order to get benefits, for example. Also, why should heteros marry when they can get the same benefits with less hassle and less commitment?
Also, do homosexuals want marriage benefits in order to finance the costs of AIDS?
I know less about hospital visitation. I have no objection to hospital visits by anybody.
In 1989, Kirk and Madsen wrote a highly influential marketing manual for the gay rights movement. Called "After the Ball: How America Will Overcome Its Fear and Loathing of Gays in the 90s," it called, among other things, for opponents to be smeared with terms like "homophobe", "hateful", "racist", etc. This way, opponents are silenced. The idea is to try to make opponents feel ashamed in order to "reprogram" society's thinking about homosexuality.
A lot of what we hear about the gay rights movement in the press follows the suggestions of this book. The gay rights movement has done a magnificent job of marketing itself to the general public.
We don't hear much about the physical dangers of the homosexual life style, for example. We're also told that the Catholic Church sex scandal was not a homosexual problem; it was a pedophile problem. But the majority of those abused were young teenage boys. Pedophilia does not apply to kids who have reached puberty.
Hate crimes legislation has been used to silence Christians in Canada and Sweden. There are freedom of speech issues connected with this type of legislation.
These are some of my reasons for opposing the gay rights movement.
If you want more on the conservative side, you can also go to the website of Concerned Women for America, http://www.cwfa.org