Woman sues all of the gay people on earth

[StatGuy2000]

So, I wasn't going to reply since this starts heading off topic, but since someone else did:

I'm not really sure if this qualifies as "social conservative". Typically, social conservativism is equivalent to classical liberalism, which is about personal freedom and personal responsibility (in keeping with "small government"). Social liberals can claim something similar. The reality is that both favor government intrusions, just different types.

Next, "fiscal" and "social" overlap substantially, particularly for anything that costs money to the government (social security/medicare).

I would call this issue "religious conservativism" and say that it actually contradicts social conservativism by increasing scope of government.

This distinction is important to me, because as a nonreligious conservative I disagree with almost every religion-motivated position of the party (I'm pro choice, for example). But I do still follow the party line on nonreligious social issues (strong anti-drug/crime policy, for example).

You might say that republicans have a bit of a split personality in that way and I'd agree. In the US, unfortunately, the religious element has a lot of the power.

Both sides of the spectrum preach freedom because that's the root of modern democracy, but both have certain pet issues on which they want conformity, not freedom.

I also agree with Rick. Nothing to see here, don't mind the crazy lady; they'll cart her back to the home soon enough.

Russ, it's interesting that you define social conservatism as such as bolded above, because it contradicts the tendencies that I've observed among social conservatives in both Canada & the US. From what I've observed, social conservatives in the US & Canada tend to have the following tendencies:

(1) An insistence that governments, whether at the national or local level, take active political measures to essentially legislate morality. This has been exhibited throughout history including measures such as Prohibition (in that example, aligning themselves with social reformers at the time), limiting free speech (in particular, railing against nudity in film or in aggressively pursuing obscenity laws against certain musicians or porn producers -- consider the case of Larry Flynt), aggressively opposing abortion, opposing all forms of sex education that doesn't insist on "abstinence only", etc.

(2) A general fear or discomfort toward any social innovation, and insistence on following established traditions.

Neither of the tendencies of (1) and (2) above to me is consistent with the notions of classical liberalism or personal freedom or responsibility, or even with keeping of "small government". You do define this as "religious conservatism", and I agree with you that religious conservatives contradict your definition of what a social conservative is, but at least in the US and Canada, there really is no distinction between social and religious conservatives, at least as far as I can see.

If anything, your definition as bolded above can more properly be the definition of libertarianism, because the core libertarian beliefs are about personal freedom and responsibility in both the social and economic fronts.

 

[Czcibor]

This is just so...ugh, I can't find the words.

Honestly I try, I really try, to understand the world view of very socially conservative people. Again and again, I fail.

I understand how fiscally conservative people see the world, the type of conservative the media calls "hawks", and "small government" conservatives. I understand them, and appreciate their views as valid. I even find some common ground with them sometimes...not much but that's OK .

It's the social conservatives that leave me perplexed. It seems the core of their worldview is, "Fear people different from you, and squash them!". It's frightening.

Divide views into two cathegories:
-sacred values;
-subject of cost benefit analysis.

You understand those which are subject to cost benefit analysis, even though you may personally reach a different conclusion. Treat sacred values as something which is a subject of faith.

Don't worry. Righ wing people face often same challenge when seeing left wing. For example it is hard for right wing in the EU to understand, why left wing which supports secular state, homosexual rights, women rights and so on let in so many Muslims who try to undermine such "depraved" state.

 

[Czcibor]

I certainly hope that this is tossed out. But I've seen crazy things like some of the propositions in California.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/68342454/woman-sues-all-of-the-gay-people-on-earth

Maybe judge should ask her letter of credence? She claims being ambassador after all... If she fails to produce such one signed by Jesus, then to trash the case because of technical reasons.

Anyway - looks like a mental case.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The case has been thrown out and was obviously stupid, no need for further discussion here devolving into political finger pointing.