I'm quite socially conservative in my own life, but I think that politicians who thump on "social conservatism" and moral issues often sound like fools.
Imagine a Presidential candidate running on a campaign where he promises to fight adultery in the United States. You don't have to approve of adultery in the slightest to recognize that such a politician is a fool and a half, because it simply isn't the job of a President or any elected official to enforce marital fidelity. My eyes glaze over in much the same way when I hear some politician obsess over homosexuality or pot smokers. I don't "approve" of dope-heads or sodomy any more than I approve of adultery, but I also recognize that most of the time people thump on these issues as distractions from the sorts of things elected officials do and should have power over.
“I’m quite socially conservative in my own life, but I think that politicians who thump on “social conservatism” and moral issues often sound like fools.”
IF you really think a “social/moral conservative” politician sounds like a “fool.” Then you ARE NOT a social/morale conservative and you should STOP calling yourself one. You are “ashamed” of what you claim you hold true.
The nonsense you spout is what I have been hearing on the abortion issue for years and it makes me sick to my stomach. I.E. “I am pesonally “pro-life” but I don’t think I should force this on others.” That is NOT being pro-life. Pro-life means you think abortion is MURDER...thus one cannot take a “well this only applies to me” attitude and be trully pro-life.
The same is true about homosexuality (and adultery for that matter). You cannot straddle a fench and say you are conservative. IF it is really wrong...then it is wrong for all. While we may want to use a little restraint and not become draconian. Taking a “let’s do what we can to discourage adultery and homosexuality.” One way to discourage adultery is to make the adulterer to come out badly in a divorce proceeding. A unfaithful spouse needs to pay dearly when a marriage dissolves as a result of this. In regards to homosexuality, we need to make it “uncomfortable” to be one. Definitely they should in no way be a “recognized and protected” group. They should NEVER be recognized by ANY level of government as a legitimate “couple.” It is NOT too late to reverse this downward slide on this issue.
IF you are NOT a social/moral conservative first, then the others “forms” on conservatism are useless. Get the social/morale issue right and the rest WILL fall into place.
I fully believe (know actually) that 95% of the fiscal problems of this country come from liberal views on the social/morale issues that result in bad fiscal policy.
Politicians like Obama who think government is in the business of promoting and subsidizing 'LOVE" as long as it's the right kind of love, the politically correct love like homosexual sex premised love but not sexually void sibling love or multi sex partner premised polygamy? What about the politicians in black robes who proclaim that government has no rational basis to exclude procreatively null homosexual sex premised unions from the same societal recognition, privilege, & benefits of heterosexual sex premised unions?
Social conservatism is all about limiting government from imposing upon society. The Constitution limits government fiscally & socially e.g. the 2nd Ammendment is not a fiscal issue.