Replies

I'm saying they aren't. So no damage done.

Major damage done. Because you are pushing away people who disagree with you on fringe topics, causing many to be turned off to the party. You are telling them, "you don't belong".

We're not talking about core issues here, that's the point.

Consider, we have 3 type of ppl in the C movement:

Those who think homosexuality is a sin, and the govt should sanction homosexuals.
Those who think homosexuality is a sin, but the govt should treat them exactly the same as everyone else.
Those who could not care less about sexual orientation period.

All are in the movement, like it or not.

So, if all 3 are interested in voting for Rs who are promising to be fiscally conservative . . . are you saying that any of the 3 don't deserve the right to call themselves 'Conservative'?

Basically, it's wrong for you do declare yourself the "one true type of conservatie" and then push others out of the movement. That's called hijacking the movement.

Dominic, a small criticism:
You seem to be viewing all this through the overly narrow lens of the 'homosexual issue'. As between Conservatives, neo-conservatives and libertarians, all three are valid and important currents of thought within the 'conservative movement'. All favor ethical, limited government and the 'good society' of our other key institutions: family, church, businesses, civic associations...

None of those three main currents are unimportant, or to be marginalized. The differences are mostly of degree and emphasis, but there's a strong core fusion.

Regarding the 'social conservatives'(as you put it) like myself, ..well, you'll find that fairly pronouncedly among all three currents. Regarding the homosexuality topic you raise, all three(Conservative, neo-conservative, and libertarian) generally oppose homosexuality as they would any other counterproductive behavior, to the extent that they think of it at all. Folks in all three currents usually regard homosexuality as being on a par with polygamy, consentual prostitution, and the sort of 'solitary vice'that often involves pornography. (All "lifestyle choices" to be sure, but none that we'd recommend.)

So, when does 'socially opposed' become 'politically opposed'? Mostly when 'organized perversion groups' start demanding public approval, money and licenses for their private neurotic behavior. When homosexual groups seek the preferential treatment of public funding (e.g.Massachusetts Commission for GBLTPDQFUBAR...) or legal standing to sue because others might prefer not to associate with them. Libertarians are against that pro-homosexual agenda. It's mostly pro-homosexual advocates masquerading as libertarians that favor it.

As for the 'normative value of law' applied but not much enforced traditionally against sodomy, etc. Well, don't be too quick to dismiss it as 'not a government function'. Communities make valid law by the representation and/or vote of their citizens. The alleged social harm of alleged 'private' behavior is often a matter of reasonable public policy concern. Many libertarians would disagree, but nearly all Conservatives, neo-cons, liberals, and a fair number of libertarians would not. Private establishments choosing racial segregation -- New Yorkers and Californians distributing obscenity -- Polygamy -- prostitution -- politicized sodomites.... these are all behaviors that most in the aforementioned philosophical camps would oppose by law.

Why? Likely negative impact on society. And, with the probable exception of 'freedom of association', none of those behaviors is a 'civil right' upon which public policy cannot rightly intervene.

Marriage licenses(i.e.'public recognition'), legal child adoption, even artificial child conception, are all matters of reasonable public policy, both because of the public concern about the social impact, and the public concern for the well-being of children who can't vote and have little power to defend their own interests.