You just don't get it, do you? Homosexual activists long ago moved this issue well beyond what people do in their bedroom.
They introduced pride parades, making it an issue about about what they elevate as an entire movement. (And, in case you haven't noticed, movements aren't interested in small concessions).
They wanted corporations to equalize health benefits and therefore be treated on the same par as married couples. In other words, they wanted Corporate America not simply to define such a partnership as mere sex, but instead to launch an entire movement to redefine marriage and family.
Now they've moving to totally redefine marriage as any number of people who love each other, which would include 5 men and 6 women in a group marriage; polygamists; bigamists; mix & match 'em! As you can see, such an enterprising definition of marriage and family shows this is no longer simply about sex.
And what? You think that once this right is fully won, kids won't be taught about ALL aspects of social science? You are naive to think that this will remain in Sex Ed class. Nope. Movements are taught in history classes. Family configurations are taught in civics/social science classes. Just as schools celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, we'll also have Stonewall set-aside days where gay speakers will come in and share their struggle against homophobia and bigotry (anybody who doesn't share their worldview). We already have such speakers coming into some schools for such presentations.
Homosexual athletes who will be "pet role models" of certain educators will be part of the phys ed curricula. As for math, marriage will no longer be 1 + 1; but rather, since it's only about what consensual adults do in their bedroom (to use your language), what's wrong with what 4 heterosexual men, two bisexuals, and 4 mix & match women being part of a 10 polyamorist clan doing what they do in their bedroom post their 10-person marriage?
How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty?
Worldview collision...hey, either the worldview that homosexuality is unnatural is allowed to be expressed in the public square, or, as it is in Canada, it will be squelched with fines, broadcast censorship, corporate admonitions, diversity training sessions, etc. In other words, tolerance of a private lifestyle is not enough for gay activists. You MUST accept, respect and dignify their lifestyle. All people should be treated with dignity and respect--that is true. But it doesn't mean we should respect and dignify all cultural lifestyles any more than I have to dignify the bribery, polygamy, or cannibalization that's been done in other cultures in times & places in human history.
When polygamy is again legalized in this country, your opinions about polygamy--if they are negative--will be forced into the closet, lest you be openly identified as an intolerant bigot who militates vs. inclusiveness and diversity and multiculturalism, making places of employment and schools and etc. as "unsafe" for people to work and learn. Name me just one pro-homosexual marriage argument that doesn't apply to any marital arrangement.
That's why Free Republic is about liberty.
I didn't say I was pro-gay marriage. Nor do I deny that there is a slippery slope issue here. But a corporation giving benefits to same-sex or living-together-but-not-married couples does not imply an endorsement of the redefinition of marriage. It's just good business, so that they can attract the best people.
Yes, the flagrant "outing" of some homosexuals bothers me. And I don't want sexuality discussed on a regular basis in any of my kids' classes. And I agree that political correctness in government schools has gone off the edge of reason (Max just had "Explorers' Day" instead of Columbus Day).
That said, the majority of homosexuals live quiet, non-descript lives just like the rest of us. And homosexuality is at least partly biologically determined and partly determined by experiences so early in life as to be determinative.
I think how we express ourselves sexually is a choice--and as such, does not need to be addressed in school. Meaning, I don't think the reason anyone needs to be introduced to children is their sexuality.
What would be the worst-case scenario of successful gay activism, the polygamy issue aside, which I don't think would ever go anywhere? Like I said, homosexuals don't recruit members like a social club. Most of them are just folks. If the worst you can think of is that someone will try to get polygamy legalized...take a look at what has happened in Utah. Homosexuality had nothing to do with Mormon polygamy, and the church and the state both have banned it.