And it's patently absurd that this is your go-to comparison.
Taking a Devil's advocate position on this, since I don't really care about homosexuality. Except that any conservative who calls him or herself ta conservative and claims to stand for the Protestant derived and heavily religiously influenced (For god sakes, the reason why so much of Asia and Africa are Christian is due to American evangelists and tambourine shakers. Billy Graham may as well be remembered as the man who converted a continent...) values upon which the United States of America was founded
and doesn't vehemently oppose the lgbt isn't conservative at all and should just join me on the New Right Wingthat's forming in America. Because one of the biggest reasons there's such a push for new and more aggressive, conservative free versions of an America right isn't because Americans are progressive socially...nahhh
It's because
conservatives are failures who surrendered this country to deconstructivist thought.
Any way...back to my devil's advocate argument. That is not an absurdity, the bulk of Child sexual abuse and domestic violence occurs in LGBT households and some of the most recent, public examples of pedophiles with power have been homosexual men. Epstein, Hunter Biden and the Podesta brother's aside.
Simply put. The alphabet soup has a profoundly serious problem with grooming and sexual assault. It's why Gen Z's defacto response to militant LGBT people on twitter is "Okay Groomer" christ you even see gay and lesbian Zoomers saying this.
This a problem that isn't going away and it's utterly incompatible with conservative thinking. And honestly, its at odds with nationalism to a degree as well. Point is..you're stawmanning
@FriedCFour and doing such a poor job of it, you're proving his overarching point and accentuating the theme of his argument.
On a personal level...My stance is this
"Do you hate Cultural Marxism, deconstructivist thought and cultural decay?"
"Are you a supporter of the American Culture? Do you believe that the west and its values should be preserved above all else? Are you willing to fight tooth and nail to forever remove the left from power for the sake of future generations of America?"
If the answer is Yes....I don't care who you fuck, welcome aboard!
But I don't call myself conservative.
I'm right wing.
But I ain't an Egyptian priest trying to mummify a corpse that's been ravaged by buzzards.
They also thought slavery was something this country should have, but unlike the regressive left, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - I choose to stick to the ideals of liberty and equality.[
This is a dog whistle not a response.
Apparently we embody it a lot better than "social conservatives" do.
Bruh...You guys can't even muster up the courage to defend Pedro Eugenio Aramburu and Agosto Pinochet despite the founders of Libertarian ideology being totally okay with the idea of throwing Marxists out of Cargo Planes.
You can't even follow your own ideology, don't try and coopt the Groypers and the Paleocons...
Also, Michelle Malkin is sexier and crazier than you'll ever be..so you ain't beat'n that.
But you probably should also avoid that with a ten foot pole
Said ideals didn’t mean bullshit like the NAP lol.
Now, now don't confuse modern Lolberts for Libertarians. The rough draft for the original concept behind the NAP involved being able to point your own personal nuclear ICBM's at your local city hall if you felt they went too far. The founding fathers of Libertarianism were amazing..They were basically mad Max villains and they were based as shit.
The pale imitations that followed them..are...well a tragedy.
And on equality I can pretty easily just say everyone equally has the right to marry the opposite gender. That’s the equality the founding fathers espoused clearly. And as far as slavery goes it was an incredibly contentious issue precisely because it was contradictory with many of the enlightenment philosophers positions. LGBT stuff? Not at all. With liberty and equality too you have vastly different meanings depending on who you asked on people who espoused these ideas. What you’ve done is just taken these words and applied them to the libertarian definition of it. I can just as easily say that I believe in liberty and equality, that vice is slavery and thus must be banned to preserve liberty, as addiction is not freedom. On equality we all have equal souls under God, but the rights of man are determined by government. Why are these ideas of equality and liberty automatically rejected by you but I have to subscribe to exactly what you believe they mean?
Equality under the law has never meant "the law should be used to force social egineering" the law is supposed to recognize agreed upon social tenants..and protect the common man but little else.
Anyway, gay people should be free to live as they like as long as they don’t force themselves in others. Along the same lines, I think that if a business wants to bar gays or anything like that, they should be able to. Error on the side of freedom, leave people alone, those things should be the default position.
There is merit in this approach. People forget, a lot of the sodomy laws on the docket made it illegal for a husband and wife to engage in oral sex as much as it made it illegal for two men or two women to do it.
In their own homes no less...
That they were applied and enforced only one way, tells you how disastrous it is when a bunch of bureaucrats legislate morality.
It's just bad business to let the least of us, dictate how we should live. Especially, when most of those public servants are either Low IQ or sexual depraved any way.
