The solution to the fag experiment is to ban extramarital sex, along with crap like anal sodomy because it's comparable to smoking.

we've done the fag experiment for 50 years and here we are. You can't deny that being permissive and accepting has enabled things to get worse, much much worse.

But you're still doing it backwards despite what you said initially:

Consenting homosexual relationships are a symptom of a sick society

Regulating the symptom doesn't effect anything. The point is that the Christians gave social regulation to the government, and (as would always happen) the government not only failed, but is now attacking them.

Criminalizing the behavior will not stop the behavior. You have to fix the social failure first.

Now consider the sexual abuse of children and you see where the homosexuals come from.

Never sexually abused and still sexually attracted to the same sex. Of course, I fully expect you to cope and seethe with the usual "YOU MUST BE LYING" line because losers are predictable like that.

Legal same-sex marriage is a reasonable political concession, but I'm actually more along the lines of "keep government out of marriage" altogether.

I'm not saying don't allow private businesses to pair bond, but I just don't think that the conservatives really thought through the idea of having the government play this game of subsidizing and regulating families and relationships. Clearly, the government isn't to be trusted with any of it.

Creating a binary of "the best possible outcome" and comparing it to the "worst possible extreme" to make one side seem totally fine is such a Leftist Manipulation Tactic that its below your intelligence level to use. Come on man.

I was going to say something about his example as well, but I'm glad you addressed it.

I'm painting a stark contrast on purpose to identify the problem with the concept of "ought" as "legally required". The two shouldn't be conflated.

This is because "ought" is the optimal outcome, and "legally required" is the absolute minimum standard of conduct to be tolerated by society.

Consenting, happy, private, homosexuals fall well within the minimum requirements of society, even if they "ought not" be the standard relationship.

Whereas, heterosexual relationships "ought" to be the norm within a society, but not when they have already failed in other major ways.

The issue is not the homosexual or heterosexual distinction. The issue is the pathological behavior which needs to be regulated.

Put it like this: Matt Walsh wants to ban Pitt Bulls because they are generally dangerous to society and can maul people. He gets shit on for that because it is entirely possible for pitt bulls to be owned without harming anyone; but he's trying to point out that the state should enforce what "ought" to be the case through coercion, as if it were the minimum standard.

If he was taken seriously, we're not just talking about banning pitt bulls. We're talking about rounding them up and executing them. But not just pitt bulls, wolf-dogs, Dobermans, most if not all rescue dogs, large reptiles, snakes, falcons, all poisonous or venomous animals (like frogs), basically all spiders, many poisonous fish, etc, etc. And not just from private home owners, but from anyone, including businesses, because they are too dangerous to be allowed to potentially break free.

Walsh wants the government to create an affirmative vision of the future. A lot of conservatives do. That is not what the word "ought" means. The government CAN NOT build an affirmative vision of the future. It can only steal social responsibility to enforce "ought" form society, and use that as a weapon to coerce and destroy. The government can't keep Pitt Bulls from killing babies. All it can do is kill every pitt bull, every aggressive dog, every aggressive dog breed, and most exotic animals within it's jurisdiction purge all of society of a potential threat. Those are not the same thing, and shouldn't be considered the same.

Criminalizing Homosexuality is the same problem. As others have said, it is a symptom of a larger social failure. The government can't solve social failures. Killing, imprisoning, or castrating gays isn't going to solve the underlying social problem. Conservatives struggle to understand that the government can't solve that social problem, and that they have to do it themselves.

Does that make more sense?

It's not unreasonable at all. The state shouldn't be pushing any efforts at "family control". I think the conservatives are being tempted by a powerful weapon that they've used successfully in the past, that is currently blowing up our faces. You give the government the authority to protect children, and now it's talking about how it has the authority to protect the state's children from their parents. We can't trust the government with public schooling as it is: the Progressive education system failed 50 years ago, and isn't being replaced.

That's kind of my problem with the Conservatives trying to turn what "ought" to be done optimally, into a minimum legal standard. It's kind of like with marriage: hell yes, society would be better off if people were forced to stay married permanently with some kind of enforcement mechanism. However, the Family Court system is criminal in it's conduct most of the time, is horrifically unjust, supports abusive parents, enables child abuse, and there clearly does need to be an out for destructive co-dependent families.

It's kind of like with abortion. No one actually treats abortion as murder, in the same way we don't treat a miscarriage as manslaughter. Even in more paleo-conservative time, women weren't going to be executed for having an abortion, or imprisoned for 30 years for asking for one as "conspiracy to commit murder". Clearly, people understood that infanticide should be aggressively avoided, but we include exclusions for rape, incest, and threat to mother's life for a reason: the life of an unborn person isn't the same as a 6 year old child, even if it 'ought' to be.

You 'ought' not be gay in an optimal environment, but we are in a fallen world (and a burning civilization) so 'ought' really isn't something we can demand be enforced with the government's gun.

"Normal relationships" effectively don't exist at this point. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess. The boomers don't even understand how to have adult relationships, and Zoomers are 3 generations away from anything they could actually use to keep themselves steady. The world that the Boomers grew up in was crafted by the Greatest Generation, who are now almost all dead. The Boomers were the last generation to grow up under nearly "normal" healthy family conditions.

Broken families are entirely the norm at this point. When I was in college, I'd tell you that 30-40% of my physics lab contemplated suicide at some time in their life. 45% of white women have a diagnosed mental illness. This song came out 25 years ago, and it was already speaking of a problem that was apparent. Society already degenerated and collapsed. It's been dead for over 30 years. That's why Michael Knowles was blown away by a woman saying she knew women who slept with over 300 men. He, and many other conservatives who grew up in """"normal"""" families were protected from the total collapse of civilization, and think there's still something to save, as if it's 1968. It isn't. There's nothing left to save and it has to be re-built from scratch.

Michael Knowles and everyone like him is the exception. Most families are broken, most relationships are broken, most people are emotionally under-developed, most people are intellectually stunted, and most people are fucking lost with how to address anything, because every single institution without exception is giving them misguided, wrong, bad, or actively damaging/predatory advice.

An emotionally underdeveloped, and confused child with a vague sense of morality, raised by similarly under-developed parents who have no idea what they are doing or how to address life's concerns is perfectly normal. A broken child from a broken home filled with broken people is still within the first standard deviation. A happy child from a happy homosexual home is within the 2nd standard deviation because it's a happy home and a happy child. A happy child from a happy home is always the 2nd standard deviation at best. It is never within the 1st.

People are removed from reality, but so are you. Yes, they are degenerate from what ought to be; but fucking everyone is. If you have a normal and happy family, you're the fucking lucky one. Instead, we have protestors screaming "I wish I was aborted!". Two layers of degeneracy is where the actual mean is. I will take a happy child from a homosexual relationship as an absolute victory because it is one. His neighbors are probably straight, and more fucked up than he is.