Actually, this issue is being discussed not because of what's commonly accepted (smaller and more constitutional government) but because of what is not (homosexual sex normalcy and promotion).
The libertarian argument is an old one -the ends justifies the means. You parrot the sentiment when implying over and over again that it is critical that perverse sex be accepted IF we wish to see smaller and more constitutional government. DUH! -I am not buying such lunacy and absurdity.
There is a difference between discriminating against a person and discriminating against an activity -the first one is illegitimate as far as politics the second case is not. UNLESS something is unalienable and or guaranteed by the Constitution it is a subject open to discussion and value determination premised upon its merits alone -that is why conservative do NOT do identity politics! Other than the guaranteed and unalienable there are NO sacred cows and that includes homosexual sex!
IF the homosexual sex practitioners want to bring their sexual proclivities out on public then too bad if they are rejected -such is life -wah wah... They can ride out on the homosexual sex horse they rode on on and the libertarians that always carry water for them can wipe the tears from their homosexual sex clouded eyes while they do so.
The libertarian argument is an old one -the ends justifies the means. You parrot the sentiment when implying over and over again that it is critical that perverse sex be accepted IF we wish to see smaller and more constitutional government. DUH! -I am not buying such lunacy and absurdity.
You are putting words in my mouth, and it is not helping your argument. I am implying no such thing.
My thesis is: don't discount Brietbart's work that helps conservatives, even if he supports gays.
Even if Brietbart has sex with a big 'ol queer on a regular basis (HE HAS NOT SAID SO, btw), even so, if his organization is attacking big government (and it is), he is doing our cause some good. I am saying Brietbart is an ally in getting smaller, constitutional government. I am saying you can have allies (NOTE THE WORD, ALLIES) that you don't agree with 100%, but you have some common cause with.
In no way does my thesis above support gays, faggotry, fisting, Maryland, Jennings, don't-ask-don't-tell, Mitt Romney or the man in the moon. It stands alone. It has nothing to do with the "gay agenda", and stop pretending it does.