So it is freedom that a private company can't say who they hire or a school who it lets in? I mean it is a fairly big list including imminent domain now for private interests etc.
That is also an example and a real world example. In the end it is still my opinion vs many others and not really anything more.
Until we can see into the future, we can't know what will be the effects. So we take a guess.
True, you have to take a guess. But you need proof to actually infringe upon the rights of others with government force. So I guess we're at the stage where you can't come up with legitimate reasons why to stop it; thus we should allow it and see what happens. Once a measurement is taken, we can say more definitely.
#1 This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking gays. I don't care if someone is gay or not. I judge people by their character, not their sexual preference.
It is when you claim I'm trying to use government force to get others to accept your interpretation of what marriage should be. Which is what you said. You said, I'm trying to use government force to push acceptance. In that case, it is up to what you want. BTW, you are the one using government force to push your interpretation of what marriage should be. I'll let the individual decide for themselves what marriage should be. And if you don't think gay marriage is what marriage is, then don't gay marry. Simple as that.
#2 I did not say you have not dealt with it head on. My point is you keep saying the same things over and over again (worded differently in some cases) that I have already responded to directly in previous posts. I get bored going over the same things over and over again.
You said a deflected, deflection tactics are not addressing points head on. You have not responded DIRECTLY IN PREVIOUS POSTS my dismantling of your "proof" against gay marriage. All YOU did was to say "that's your opinion" and run away. You never ONCE addressed the points I took apart. You say the same things over and over again because all you can say over and over again is "that's your opinion" and run away. You never provide anything concrete, you never defend your arguments. You make supposition and assumption and then pretend that's a valid argument to excuse government force. That's all you've done. Don't sit there and pretend you've made some all inclusive argument rooted on the rights of the individual and through rational thought. You've done nothing of the sort.
#3 I am not saying and have not said anything about gays facing legal consequences because they are gay. Where the hell did you come up with that???
You are making them face legal consequences for them being gay. Gay people want to marry same sex, just like straight people want to marry opposite sex. There is a contract called the Marriage License which legally holds that agreement and comes with a multitude of privilege and ability because of it. People have the right to contract. You wish to infringe upon that right of contract. You wish to say gay people cannot engage in that contract the way they want because of the way they want to engage in it, i.e. same sex marriage. You think it's wrong. So you will use government force against that right, you will prevent them from legally having a recognized marriage and legally from being able to enjoy all the privilege and ability the Marriage License grants. This is because the innate way in which gay people would act and marry is a way you don't like and thus you will make them face legal consequences. Those legal consequences being the inability to have their union legally recognized. Can you not see what you even call for? At least be honest for God's sake.
I am saying marriage should not be redefined for the sake of homosexuality, polygamy or incest etc. It should not be for any reason.
Which is your OPINION, and from conversation firmly rooted in your religious beliefs. But your OPINION does not make proper basis for LEGAL LAW. Those are two different things. If you want to use your OPINION to create LAW; then you have to show PROOF. And proof is not assumption and supposition, it is factual, concrete, and measurable. Until you can produce that proof, your call for the oppression of the rights of others is a form of tyranny.
So please stop with the deflecting garbage as it is not the case.
None of it was garbage, it all came from you.
I have been a team player in one form or another all my life including a majority of governmental groups. I think I have greater incite (purely anecdotal for certain) on the affects of changes to large groups as I have seen it good and bad.
Psst...insight is what you were looking for. And no, I don't think you do. I think you have your predetermined ideals and morals and want to force the rest of us into that mold. I have seen no other indication that you desire something else.
So now you are the judge of what a "real" conservative is? Sorry can't agree with that.
Yes, real conservatives knew small government, proper roles of government, and why it was to be restrained. They didn't use socialistic arguments like "greater good". They used rights and liberties. There's a lot you won't agree with me on, but that just makes you wrong on a lot of counts.
As I said before, this comes down to resolve for freedom. Some people have it and will take the consequences. Others don't and wish to impose their own morality and definitions upon the rest of us.