Forty five years of homosexual history in a libertarian America is much broader and realistic a topic than the city ordinances that you were trying to use, if they even passed.
The homosexual agenda and it’s gains, and effects, versus traditional, conservative, America is where the rubber meets the road, people can understand it, and measure it.
You don’t like it because you are on a conservative web site, and you know that such clap trap of defending their agenda is not even allowed on such a conservative site.
You just admitted in your post that you join the left on the homosexual agenda, yet you want to try and convince us that actually, it is the homosexual movement that is conservative, and freerepublic is nannyStaters on it, and that freerepublic’s stance on the homosexual agenda is “not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position. It is the position of a not very bright reactionary imbecile.”
I don’t see that you differ from the libertarian platform at all.
Your fixation upon homosexuals is charming, really! But not all who oppose nannyState regulations support homosexuality. That is a strawman argument - quite indicative that such an emotional reactionary stance is your ONLY argument.
Don't try to tell me what I like and don't like. You are not a mind reader.
Your stance is typical of reactionary idiots without any respect for a Government of limited and enumerated powers or knowledge of our Constitution - you support any and all such legislation so long as you agree with its aims - and do not support any and all such legislation if you disagree with its aims.
This is not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position - it is a reactionary one based upon “us” and “them” - thus your only argument is that if I oppose such nannyState regulations CONSISTENTLY based upon the Constitution - I must be ‘one of them’.
Rather pitiful - but when that is all you have - I guess you have no choice but to go with it.
I hope you come to grips with your homofixation soon. It has clouded your reasoning. You would apparently be fine with curtailing every notion of individual liberty so long as it stamped out individual licentiousness.
The only difference between you and your typical nannyState liberal is what you think is right and wrong - your philosophy of governance is identical - that the government needs to enforce morality.
Law only enforces compliance with the law. Morality is enforced by the self upon the self.