Let me get this straight, Milo is of foreign-descent, homosexual, and has inter-racial relationships, but is a hardcore conservative? Why people take him seriously, I will never know.
You'd be amazed how many Neoreactionaries are gay guys from foreign countries. I've never known what to make of this phenomenon, but it's fascinating to watch.
They don't, but homophobia, denial that sexuality is mutable, denial that homosexuality exists, and racism are all driven by conservatives.
There have been times when liberals were racist (e.g. some, but not most, eugenicists), but generally speaking, conservatives want to preserve the past, and the past is incredibly racist.
Conservatives fought the abolition of slavery, and to this day they support laws that marginalize or infringe upon the rights of homosexuals. A gay conservative is someone acting against his/her interests, and a pro-equality conservative is an oxymoron.
I really doubt so, even if you might be thinking of "conservatives" in the very narrow sense of US southern republicans.
I would admit that I do not have that many gay friends, but the few friends, coworkers and acquaintances I have met over the past 10 years very across the political spectrum just like everyone else.
Not all of them are liberal, not all of them were even on the same page as far as things like "gay marriage" went, doesn't mean any of them opposed it, but it doesn't mean that they were active supporters of it either.
Not everyone defines themselves by their sexual orientation.
You can be "conservative" (or right wing if you will) on many things like national defense, economics, and public spending while being gay, claiming that somehow you have to accept everything that the "left wing" stands for just because you like individual of the same sex as you are is quite telling, oddly enough this level of framing and bias is almost synonymous with the PC crowd - "but you are 'x' how can you be against 'y'", you call it by different names for it but I've seen way too many "liberals" act like authoritarian douchebags and call people of various "minority" groups what can effectively be analogous to a "race traitor" when they don't share their views or buy into their entire agenda.
You can be an african american and not support BLM, you can be a gay man or woman and believe be against state laws that allow or disallow gay marriage simply by believing that it is not upto the state to police marriage, and you can be a gun toting 2nd amendment defender while being a gay pro abortion pro legalization woman.
Stop trying to infantilize people and stick them into camps, if anything you should take from the recent US election (especially bernie vs trump) is that there are considerably more "opinions" out there than you might expect.
The logic (agree with it or not) is that the biggest threat to homosexuals in 2016 is Islam and Sharia. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, at least half who want homosexuality banned. And Muslim countries are much more likely to legislate religious doctrine than Western countries right now.
Conservatives tend to be more combative with Islam than liberals are, so the thinking is it's logical to be Conservative now if you want to push gay rights forward. Especially since the Orlando massacre which saw a Muslim terrorist kill 50 unarmed gays.
Except Christian areas are just as likely to legislate religious doctrine. All of the gay marriage bans in the US were driven by Christian groups, and mostly enacted in Christian heavy states. The countries in Africa which are outlawing homosexuality are doing so largely lead by Christians. And there is no way you can tell me Russia is a Muslim country.
Being anti-gay rights and anti-Muslim are both conservative viewpoints, but almost no one is 100% conservative or 100% progressive.
When you say it's logical to "be Conservative" to move gay rights forward, I'd suggest changing it to, "be Conservative regarding Islam", which makes the assertion less fraught.
They do. I wasn't telling anyone what their interests are. I was describing what conservatives think based on the definition of the word.
If people are pro-gay rights or pro-equality, they are no longer "conservative" on those issues. They are progressive. They are pro-change instead of pro-tradition.
If that was the case, the circus that is US politics wouldn't exist.
Doesn't really matter which side you're on. If you're on the left it's obvious that more than 99% of the conservative voters are voting against their own (at least economic) interests. If you're on the right the democratic voters are sheeple and slaves to the lamestream media. I'm not trying to hide my affiliation, but the phrasing on either side is obviously pointing to the same logic. The vast majority of voters are followers, determining votes by proxy of affiliation of people they trust, rather than the complete platform of their candidate.
You seem to be painting with a very broad brush, friend. Perhaps you don't know as much about conservatives as you think. Just because some conservatives hold antiquated views doesn't mean it's true of all (or even the majority) of conservatives.
I'm using the definition of "conservative", which Wikipedia describes as:
> political and social philosophy [that] promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization
Everything I said is consistent with the definition of conservative. If you think conservatives are pro-gay rights or pro-equality, you are actually defining the word differently than the rest of us, and we're having a pointless semantic argument.
Milo has joined Team Conservative in the left-right culture war, but that doesn't make him a conservative. Left/progressive and right/conservative seem to be identities rather than ideologies. They're pretty much just two opposing tribes waging an endless, annoying war, mostly on the internet.