It’s not a part of any strategy. I think I was fair and respectful to you previously but if you want to continue with that accusation, I’ll refrain from responding to you anymore.
There are people who don’t agree with you on this board. hell, if I’m not mistaken there is a monarchist on the board (very socially conservative) and there are libertarians.
You want to disagree, fine, but don’t turn this into a fruitless Rivera-like investigation into a conspiracy that doesn’t exist. Keep in mind, when those idiot Mobys out there disrupted conservative sites, they did so by being vile and hateful in order to make FR and other sites look bad, not by being a civil person who disagrees with a large number of posters.
You can go through my posting history. On the non-social threads, you can find what you need to find but none of it will confirm any of this bizarre fixation on some ‘grand conspiracy’ to normalize homosexuality.
It’s my opinion, debate it or move on. It’s not as if several of those with sympathy for your views haven’t jumped on me as it is.
It’s the original post that wants to cry about how HotAIr is ‘gay-friendly’ or some such, not any agenda on my part.
“You want to disagree, fine, but don’t turn this into a fruitless Rivera-like investigation into a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.”
You aren’t old enough to remember “getting clean for Gene” are you? I am not suggesting this is the present case, but please let’s not pretend this isn’t possible.
But there very definitely are "movement homosexuals" (who are themselves being wielded and abetted by Communists) in order to take down this country; even if the homosexuals explicitly deny that that is what will happen -- see my post on that other thread about social externalities.
The problem politically is that the libertarians are used by the libertines to get the camel's nose into the tent.
As you say, the problem is more complex than gay rights advocates want to admit.
The problem morally is that there is a millenia-old tradition among several major faith groups that such practices are intrinsically abhorrent to God, and demean the individuals involved and the whole society. Our culture and laws are in large part derived from that moral structure: and so by definition, to seek to overthrow the strictures on that behaviour, by definition of the word CANNOT be "conservative" since you are trying to allow decay rather than conserve.
I can often be caustically sarcastic, but not "vile" and "hateful" (and look, there you go using those liberal knee-jerk buzzwords again).
As far as debate, you seem to be one of those fine upstanding "open-minded" people who calls anyone who disagrees with them hatemongers: and who also starts debate by declaring ab initio and ex cathedra that the philisophical underpinnings of his opponents are null and void: and then explains that he is really tolerant and open-minded (your petitio principii on the other thread).
Cheers!