The way I see it, a monarchy can be good or bad depending on what the monarch’s priorities are.

Naturally, if its about divine right as he says, then the monarchs priorities are just to himself and the people serve him.

But if his priorities are to be moral and is determined to serve the people, then it is by definition superior to any other for of government because he can not be bought, he can not be corrupted, he will not give into pressure, which is essential for a long lasting stable society where bad things in the country are uprooted just as soon as they gain root.

You know, as an example the West complains and moans that “Russia has banned homosexuals,” but in reality you are allowed to be homosexual.

You are just not allowed to express it in public or promote it in any way shape or form, which makes perfect sense since homosexuality isnt natural and should never be promoted because no one should have to see it period.

What people do in their bed rooms in thier spare time, I could care less about; but when they push their way of life onto others away from what is natural then that’s what I take an issue with.

The part about homosexuals where I draw the line is No — they should not be allowed to adopt children; No — they should not be able to hold hands and kiss in public and do other things homosexuals do; No — they should not be allowed to get married; and No — they should not be allowed all the same rights as heterosexuals period.