Actually, I think your problem is the opposite. Conservatives do think for themselves. The dominant message in the culture is that homosexual men are just like anyone else, except with a better dress sense - and they really know how to get in touch with their emotions! An element in the organized gay political movement is pushing that line. But those of us who actually think for ourselves know that it isn't the case. Relations between gay men, on average, are far more promiscuous and short-term than heterosxual relations. Furthermore, there are many in the gay community who question things like age of consent; who are honest enough to admit their own sexual experiences came at a young age with much older men, and who want to rewrite sexual and social relations for both sexes.
I don't think homosexual men are intrinscially more promiscuous. I do think that abandonment of extrinsic moral codes in favor of 'if it feels good, do it;' in the sexual arena leads to a similar ethical laxness in the non sexual arena - he that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little. Men, in general, are far more promiscuous than women, and when you remove the complementary elements of selectivity and desire for long-term commitment that women bring to interpersonal relationships, you end up with glory holes and bathhouses and all the tacky details of gay sexual life.
Andrew Sullivan would have us believe that if we let gays marry, they'll settle down just like heterosexuals. If his own escapades weren't public knowledge, this might be a bit more credible. but it also presumes that it's the institution of marriage that makes heterosexual men behave themselves (those of us that do, mostly). It's not. It's the fact that heterosexual relationships necessarily include women.
As conservatives, aside from our personal moral codes, we look at the stability of contemporary society and what it depends on. And it depends on, to a great extent, the stability of the pair bond between the sexes. Personally, I could give a good goddamn about how homosexual men conduct themselves - I really, really don't want to know, in fact - laying aside the fact that it costs over $10K a year to treat HIV infection, a preventable illness a large part of whose incidence is a result of gay sexual behavior, and a large fraction of which is born by the taxpayer. But when gay organizations intrude on parts of society, like the educational system, like marriage, which are essential to stability, with the goal of radical transformation, then the contract implied in live-and-let-live is violated. I say, keep 'em fighting sodomy laws, and they'll have less time to devote to 'queering elementary education'.
You're wasting your time here. You may have a few libertarians with you - libertarians, in general, are not known for the depth of their social thought - but you're trying to get us to admire the emperor's clothes, when we all can see for ourelves, and more important can confirm others' observations - that the emperor is buck naked, except for a few pecuilar piercings.
It's part of a well planned and well funded strategy that has been used by the homosexual community for years. Homosexual authors Marshall K. Kirk & Erastes Pill wrote in The Overhauling of Straight America:
"The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion...
The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that the public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch...
And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere! ...
(5) Make the victimizers look bad. At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights -- long after other gay ads have become commonplace -- it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified."
I think this part needs to be said a lot louder and a lot more often - and not only when addressing SADs. Homosexuality isn't the early stage of our moral sickness, it's the final stage. The early stage was entirely heterosexual. It's the confusion of sex with recreational activities. It begins with winking at adultery and fornication, then progresses through no-fault divorce, abortion, homosexuality, bestiality, and finally self-destruction.
It begins when we start worshipping the created (sex) instead of the creator. And the heterosexuals need to get their own houses in order if we ever hope to combat the SAD problem.
Shalom.