The problem with your argument is that the conservative position is completely consistant with the desire for small government.
If you give government the power to recognize gay marriage you have given them power. You have given them the power to interfer in homosexual relationships and regulate them.
Using your argument, the govt "interferes" in hetrosexual relationships through the institution of marriage. That is OK, but not for homos? It is a pretty thin argument, because the govt has had very little input into my marriage other than me paying the tax in the form of a marriage certificate. Hardly interference....
Right now if a gay couple wanted to get together and say vows to each other and be in a monogomous relationship then the government would have no power to stop them. The government wouldn't recognize them so they could do whatever they wanted. If you wanted to leave your property to your partner you could. If you wanted to give them power of attorney, you could. if you wanted to split up, you could and you wouldnt have to run anything by the government.
Recognizing gay marriage changes all that. The goverment governs when you enter into a "marriage" as well as when and how you may leave. If you split up the government has complete control on who gets which of the assets you have shared during your life if you disagree who owns what.
That's a very thin agrument, too. Once again, you are stating that it is OK for the govt to interfere with hetros but not homos. What gives you, or the govt for that matter, the right to pick and choose?
I fail to see how you can advocate for a process that will exponentially increase the courts involvement in relationships and claim that those who oppose that involvement is for big government. Your argument makes no sense.
The govt's role is very minor, and it is only if people go to Splitsville. Just to clarify though, this "conservatives want small govt, but really want big govt" isn't just limited to homos, it is other things as well such as the military (I bet you all want huge govt involvement there right, as in where your tax dollars go), abortion issues..the list goes on. You only want small govt as long as all the current laws fit into your world view. It ain't that simple.
Also, for the natural/choice debate. It's completely irrelevent. Because say it is natural, that doesnt make it right. Lying is natural. Violence is natural. Intolerence and hatred is natural. Simply being natural doesnt mean anyone should stop teaching and advocating good common sense values.
You are absolutely right, but every example you have given would impact on others in a negative fashion. Two homos get married and move next door to me. How does my life change? Hint it doesn't. Someone hates me because I'm white. Someone hits me over the head with a baseball bat. How does my life change? Hint, it does. See the difference? And whose common sense values are they? Yours? You can have your values, just don't try and foist them upon me in the form of legislation. The key to me will ALWAYS be the impact of one's actions on others. Until people can prove beyond a reasonable doubt how civilisation is going to hell in a handbasket due to homos, I'll stick with my opinions and take the moral high ground.
Personally, I tend to think one of the greatest insults is to tell someone they have no choice in what they do. We have alot of control over what we do. Especially when it comes to sexual activity. Simply because I am attracted to a woman doesnt mean I have to have sex with her. If it did, I would probably be the father of about 800+ kids by now or in jail for rape, cause i highly doubt every woman im attracted to would have been willing.
Of course there are choices in the world. Who are arguing against that? What we are arguing about is that my choices should be your choices. I'm saying unless they have a negative on anybody else (which rape undoubtably would), then who gives a shit? Not I. You find the idea of two guys banging each other distasteful. So do I. Thing is, it's none of my business.
Which is exactly why people have mentioning pedophilia. The fact that its consented to is irrelevant. The justification "I was born with it" is exactly the same. And I don't know how you can possibly say one person who cant control themselves because we are born with certain urges is justified while another faces a criminal charges for engaging in other urges they were born with because their actions werent consented to. If you can't help it, then the consent is irrelevant because you have no power to stop it if its not consented to. To be a crime you have to have the power to choose whether you do it or not.
It's easy to say because a child doesn't have the life experience or the wherewithal to know about such behaviours and any civilised society sees this. Of course consent is relevant. It is totally relevant. I have always used the term consenting adult. Note the adult part. That is important..
