Social Conservatism = Extremism?

While reading about the Who's Who in California electoral politics, I found
out that a former candidate whom I had supported had worked hard to prevent
another candidate from running.

 I asked for a few reasons why. His first answer: "I don't support
extremists".

 Then I asked why he thought that the candidate was extreme. 

For the same reason that nearly everyone else who's not a social
conservative does.

 Since when has social conservatism become a strain of extremism?

 This line of argument reminds me of Saul Alinksy's "Rule for
Radicals" shame-baiting. The candidate whom I supported, whom he opposed, defined
marriage between one man and one woman. He also believed in the sanctity of
life, the essence of the United States Constitution, and the strength of state sovereignty
ahead of federal preeminence.

This liberal rebuttal, that anyone leaning right socially conservative is
intolerant or extreme, is false. Regarding marriage, the institution is defined
between one man and one woman. This reality relies on more than tradition
mores, a recognition of the truth, followed by the hard evidence from history
and biology that homosexual conduct diminishes life, wealth, and worth. The
fact that pro-family advocates have abandoned these salient (yet controversial)
remarks does not excuse judges from supporting the lifestyle.

Debate is necessary, along with civility

 On the matter of abortion, technology is exposing a new generation to
the intricacies and complexities of human life, even before the baby is
delivered from the mother's womb. The genetic information, the foundations of
life are present at the moment of conception, and these revelations are an
accomplished fact to young people. Even those individuals who were
pro-abortion at one time have changed their minds, opening their eyes to the
truth that life is not a function of what one sees, but what has been
conceived.

 The extremism today is not from those who defend life, marriage, the
importance of property, the integration of families, the primacy of choice over
mandates, and the necessity of self-protection. The extreme arguments come from
those who believe that the consensus of liberal, amoral academics can rewrite
the trends which define life and cause communities to thrive. Extremism
emanates from those who restructure tolerance to mean "I am right, and you
must accept me, or else!"

 Returning to my brief dialogue, I explained that I was not interested
in starting a fight, but I just wanted answers. He then responded:

 No worries.

I reject anyone who can't discuss immigration without sounding racist or
mean.  It's our fault the borders haven't been secure.

I found this statement particularly offensive. Am I responsible for the lack
of border security? Should public institutions shoulder the brunt of the costs,
whether in crime, health concerns or economic demand, because of rampant
illegal immigration?

Since when did debating an issue lead to charges of "racism"? And
what does "sounding mean" have to do with the soundness or salience
of an argument?

 It is not the fault of We the People that the border is not secure. Taxpayers
should not have to fund public benefits for immigrants, period. The United
States federal government should not be subsidizing or supporting illegal
immigrants, either.

The fact that borders security has been lax, that crime rates are raising,
that state legislatures have enabled mass illegal immigration, is not the fault
of "We". In 2014, the voters of liberal Oregon rejected
two-to-one drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The necessary push against
illegal immigration is not a partisan issue, but a national concern in which
Democrats and Republicans share blame and responsibility. Legal immigration and
border enforcement falls into the category of social conservatism, to some. The
argument that defending borders, life, and marriage is an extreme argument is
in itself an extreme reproach, and no one should have to suffer it.

As I pondered my former candidate’s comments, the more I realize that much
social debate has devolved into shaming the other side, rather than responding
with truth, evidence, and comparison of other options.

Social conservatives should not lie down for these unfounded attacks, but
rebut the strain of extremism with the truth. One other point: as I was
debating briefly these concerns, the gentleman tried to turn away this argument
with “I don’t want to debate this. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.”

That appeal to non-debate is not an answer. The liberal agenda to up-end
marriage, terminate life as a matter of inconvenience, or ignore the
Constitution in the name of elitist self-esteem cannot be ignored, nor
tolerated.