I am socially liberal sure, but I'd argue that any classical small-government republican should be.
While I will agree with you in your premise above, it's only because you do represent a certain portion of society where, from what I can tell, anything goes in the support of your 'socially liberal' ideas. If a people have that kind of thinking, a kind of thinking that is not naturally bounded by a communal, cultural unity of beliefs (morality) such as what religion provided to the people at the time of our country's birth, then, yes, if the government is 'socially liberal' it will logically save itself a potload of effort to make rules that approximate the bounds that religion gave the people before.
What will be the result of this process? Anarchy? Will the society even survive the change to find out?
The government given to us by the Founding Fathers was, in the words of John Adams, "...meant for a moral people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
So if you believe that the morality which has historically come from religion is all bad, and you therefore prefer to follow your own religion of being socially liberal, no matter how far away from previous standards that pendulum swing takes you, then according to Adams' definition this government will not work for you. That said, while social liberals are naturally radical, as you are, this country was indeed founded upon a radical idea. The difference, as I see it, is that the American revolution was a radical idea based in the conservative values of life, liberty, and property. And religion was an important glue that held it all together.
What holds your revolution together? If no one in your world believes in religion and the morality that it has given us, what is it that will ever unite them? What bonds do they have? Are those bonds strong enough to unify them for a common defense?
Without any morality how much agreement among people will you even have? For one example, will the majority of even those in agreement with you on socially liberal things will be as insensitive to offensive language as you are? You always find insidious pleasure in wordplay that skates across, around, and straight through norms that you are obviously aware of, just for the effect. You elevate clever above proper...hang any offense it may cause...because the attention that you get from it--that you crave from it--amuses you.
What quibbles will your left have with itself?
While I am certainly not a Trump Republican, I am by no means a Sanders (or insert other "radical-left" politician) supporter either. Other than believing the government should let consenting adults live their lives, what views have I expressed that are far-left?
To attempt to separate out your social liberalism from your political views is not possible. They are Siamese twins.
Besides, what leftist views remain past your social liberalism? I would submit that only one is that of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of course, fiscal irresponsibility can't be lain solely at the feet of Dems, but aren't they the champions of it? If you disagree with Bernie and his form of socialism, and Trump and his form of conservatism, then that pretty much leaves you voting Libertarian since you're no moderate. And while I would claim attraction to certain of their ideas, I think some of them are just plain nutty. But Libertarians are generally for leaving people to their own devices, sans government interference, and so that sounds like what you are espousing.
Interestingly, perhaps, I've heard it stated a few times that the far left and the far right often meet in surprising places. Maybe it's true. Lonello and I agreed back when that we both liked Ron Paul, and today I will agree with you that the problems of race and discrimination are extremely serious for the country. I just wouldn't equate the same level of seriousness to the matter of sexual orientation.
You can justify your anti-science beliefs any way you'd like, I am not interested in debating you on them.
However, nearly every scientist, and by scientist I mean people with advanced degrees who work in scientific fields, fully reject Creationism.
Ah, onto another topic.
Any debate between Evolution and Creation is a debate between two untestable views. Since neither can be tested, neither qualifies as true science. That said, one has to decide which view fits better with the facts that we do know. Evolutionary theory holds to a long, slow progression upward from amoeba to man. But the reality of the catastrophism in the geologic record speaks of a much different story than the Darwinian/Lyellian uniformitarian one.
Evolutionary belief is like a tall tower in a Dr.Seuss story. It's very rickety and will eventually come tumbling down for all to see. While the adherence to it still controls the vast majority of scientists today, that number is dwindling. It's only a matter of time before everyone recognizes the evolution story for the fiction that it is.
There is a different between hate and dislike. I get why you are the way that you are and why someone like Trump appeals to you. Hell, I do not blame you for voting for him, he speaks to a lot of your prejudices.
The only difference between 'dislike' and 'hatred' is in degree. Since you have so publicly derided me over the past few years, I think it's reasonable to say your dislike for me has at least risen to hatred at times. And what's this about that loaded word 'prejudices'? Let's clarify one thing. If I have prejudices, so do you. Just because mine (conservative) are different than yours (radical left) doesn't disqualify yours from the same label.