Yes it is. I never said anything about animals or whatever else. You brought them up as a way of proving that homosexuality is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’, even if you didn’t use the last word yourself, because animals do it.
I used an example to prove my point. This does not in any way translate into advocating for anything else animals do. That's just a bullshit arguments that Leftists like to use, too. Like it or not, homosexuality and bisexuality are "normal" in the sense that they have always existed in both humans and other animals, no matter what your religion might have to say on the matter.
If you consider "society is conservative, but the government leaves people alone" to be "just as dystopic as a leftist regime", I think the issue here lies with your viewpoints.
The issue is that I caught the end of the '80s/'90s moral crusading and moral panics and lived through the early 2000s. I've seen for myself what the Religious Right is, and yes, they very much are every bit as horrible as the Regressive Left. That was the entire reason I started hating on the Regressive Left to begin with, actually, because I saw the same kinds of attitudes and actions from them, and that was well before the current bullshit.
The only thing you've concretely objected to when it came to my view is that you apparently think it's bad that religious communities (e.g. churches) would be able to kick out people whose values don't line up with those of the church in question. What's next, are you going to tell me to "bake the cake, bigot?" -- because, yeah, that's the kind of secularist bullshit that I'm trying to get rid of. If that's what you'd prefer to keep, then we're not going to agree.
No, what I object to is the idea that everyone would be expected to be church-going to begin with. Also, if you're going to argue, at least try and pay attention to the things I actually say:
My ideal would be for a limited, secularist government that leaves people alone unless they represent an actual threat to other people, and does not pick any kind of favorites when it comes to religion.
Oh, look, I advocated for exactly the opposite, how about that? Oh, right, your false dichotomy can't handle the existence of anything other than the two extremes.
You've demonstrated that men are imperfect, and that ideals are hard. I never claimed conservatives are perfect. I said that we can see clear evidence that conservatives have, time and again, gone out of their way to establish freedom from state interference.
And I showed that you are arguing from a false premise. "Conservatives" fought hard against repealing blue laws, and a lot of them still whine about them being repealed. There is literally nothing keeping them from observing their own day of rest, so what the real problem is has to do with forcing it on everyone else as well.
Could you give me a few examples of secularist regimes that actually refrained from being intolerant busy-bodies? Because that's what you say you want. If you have so mch evidence that your idea is better and more realistic, I'm sure you have great scores of historic examples of all this.
I stated what my ideal was.
You have been the one trying to say
your ideal actually existed, and all I've done is prove that wasn't the case. You are looking back through tinted glasses and then basing an argument off of it. And you only really started doing that after you stated what
your ideal was, and I disagreed with it and stated what
my ideal was. So I have a better idea - how about you explain how my ideal represents a dystopia to you the way yours does for me?
A small government that respects religion but is secular and won't force religion on others? The horror...
Your response looks like a case of not-an-argument to me.
It is. Because all you're doing is looking in a mirror and pretending the reflection you see there is me.
What
@DarthOne said. That's the crux. The great myth of the so-much-better secularism exclusively relies on imagination and hypotheticals. It's not actually real. If your strongest argument is "
I bet that if they had our power, the other guys would be just as abusive as we are"... then something's gone very wrong!
The thing is, we actually have seen what the Religious Right does when they do have power. I don't have to make any kind of hypotheticals - all I have to do is look back at history, and not even all that far back at that. Also, they'll gladly tell you what they'd do with power if you ask them, and even if you don't, really, kind of like vegans going around telling everyone how they're vegan.
Nah, nah.
If the religious right gets any power they will be as bad or worse than leftists now.
Cracking down on crime and degeneracy. Following the rule of law. Promoting personal freedom and responsibility. Believing in charity and helping their fellow man. Denouncing those that abuse their power and position. Encouraging strong families and communities.
It will be horrible. I'm kept up at night worrying about it. I'll keep what we have now thanks. As long as they keep those monstrous Christians away.
What a wonderful fantasy world.