Validity of Left-Right Divide Concerns

GoldRanger said:
We first need to establish what stances each side even holds. I, personally, am all for LGBT marriage. Not sure how well I represent the Republicans on this issue though. The right and center hold many differing opinions on various things.
Click to expand...
By and large it's a dead issue basically no one cares besides a few cranks. It's a fight that LGBT won and either wont or dont see it.
 
Aaron Fox said:
No, they've got the recognition, the fight now is to ensure it stays that way.
Click to expand...
Who's pushing against it in a serious manner? I havent seen any political moves against gay marriage in quite awhile. Now the bathroom thing for trans isnt really settled but that's a separate issue. Can you show me actual attempts to get rid of gay marriage in the last say 3 years?
 
Aaron Fox said:
No, they've got the recognition, the fight now is to ensure it stays that way.
Click to expand...
It will stay that way, because most people are fine with gays/lesbians marrying.

Now trying to force more trans stuff on society...that could undo it if the backlash is bad enough.

So the LGBs would do well to reign in and make the T's understand they need to stop trying to push their shit on kids, because the LGBs will not have their back on that.
Lanmandragon said:
Who's pushing against it in a serious manner? I havent seen any political moves against gay marriage in quite awhile. Now the bathroom thing for trans isnt really settled but that's a separate issue. Can you show me actual attempts to get rid of gay marriage in the last say 3 years?
Click to expand...
Yeah, at this point the only real worry LGBs should have is basically that the T's are burning the social bridges that LGBs built to get gay marriage accepted.

It's not a huge issue yet.

However, unless the LGBs either disassociate from the Ts, or get them to reign in their shit so they stop trying to convince kids to transition, it might cause them problems down the road.
 
Lanmandragon said:
Who's pushing against it in a serious manner? I havent seen any political moves against gay marriage in quite awhile. Now the bathroom thing for trans isnt really settled but that's a separate issue. Can you show me actual attempts to get rid of gay marriage in the last say 3 years?
Click to expand...
Have you been under a rock? That's been one of the GOP's planks since LGBTs got effectively legalized.
 
Whole LGBT idea is about liberalization of sexuality. Personally, I inherently see it as a bad thing (the concept of liberalization of sexuality, that is), but specifically I do not think it will ever stop. You see, "progressive" or "radical" ideologies need to stay that way, lest they become conservative; so when gay marriage and transsexuality are accepted, natural next step is pushing for acceptance of pedophilia. And once that is accepted, then I guess next will be bestiality?

EDIT: And above shows the issue with left/right divide, especially when right is defined as conservative. You see, conservatives are incapable of serious pushback - you need traditionalists for that. But this means that yesteryear's progressives are today's conservatives, which means that today's progressives need to be even more radical / even more to the Left than those of yesteryear, which leads to things I described in the first paragraph.
 
Aaron Fox said:
Have you been under a rock? That's been one of the GOP's planks since LGBTs got effectively legalized.
Click to expand...
No it hasn't, that is pure Leftist gaslighting.

The GOP as a whole has accepted gay marriage is here to stay and moved on.

A few fringe nuts still think it can be turned back, or that it's a slippery slope to pedos and bestiality being accepted (like below), but no one in power listens to them.
Aldarion said:
Whole LGBT idea is about liberalization of sexuality. Personally, I inherently see it as a bad thing (the concept of liberalization of sexuality, that is), but specifically I do not think it will ever stop. You see, "progressive" or "radical" ideologies need to stay that way, lest they become conservative; so when gay marriage and transsexuality are accepted, natural next step is pushing for acceptance of pedophilia. And once that is accepted, then I guess next will be bestiality?
Click to expand...
 
Lanmandragon said:
Shouldn't be hard to show a prominent member of the GOP pushing it in the last 3 years then should it. Go ahead Aaron show me the law or bill that aims to do this.
Click to expand...
The thing is, most of them would be killed in committee at the national level, and their LGBT hate is why they've been trying to get a fully-partisan justice into the supreme court.
 
Aaron Fox said:
The thing is, most of them would be killed in committee at the national level, and their LGBT hate is why they've been trying to get a fully-partisan justice into the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Cop out show the laws dude. If it's so common that "I've been under a rock" then it shouldn't be hard to show. Also demonstrate that any of the Justices intend to repeal gay marriage.
 
Aaron Fox said:
The thing is, most of them would be killed in committee at the national level, and their LGBT hate is why they've been trying to get a fully-partisan justice into the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Again, that simply isn't true, and is Leftist gaslighting.

They want more conservative judges, because they want people who follow the actual text of the Constitution, and not simply use it to justify progressive ideology cooked up in Gender or Racial studies departments.
Lanmandragon said:
Cop out show the laws dude. If it's so common that "I've been under a rock" then it shouldn't be hard to show. Also demonstrate that any of the Justices intend to repeal gay marriage.
Click to expand...
He can't, he's just relying on Leftist gaslighting rhetoric to try to fear monger about it, and acting as if the few fringe who are trying to undo it have any actual power in the GOP.
 
Bacle said:
Again, that simply isn't true, and is Leftist gaslighting.

They want more conservative judges, because they want people who follow the actual text of the Constitution, and not simply use it to justify progressive ideology cooked up in Gender or Racial studies departments.
He can't, he's just relying on Leftist gaslighting rhetoric to try to fear monger about it, and acting as if the few fringe who are trying to undo it have any actual power in the GOP.
Click to expand...
Oh I know that's why I'm demanding specific laws or Justices saying such.
 
Aaron Fox said:
The thing is, most of them would be killed in committee at the national level, and their LGBT hate is why they've been trying to get a fully-partisan justice into the supreme court.
Click to expand...

No, Conservatives want SCOTUS justices who actually read the bloody Constitution, for two primary reasons; gun control and abortion.

A third one added this year, is protection of religious freedom, since the Democrats now feel confident enough to start moving against that.

Trump was the first president to enter office as a supporter of homosexual 'marriage.' I don't even agree with him on the issue, and I know that. To pretend that the Republicans are intent on overturning homosexual marriage as a major campaign issue is exactly what others here have said, gaslighting.
 
Lanmandragon said:
Shouldn't be hard to show a prominent member of the GOP pushing it in the last 3 years then should it. Go ahead Aaron show me the law or bill that aims to do this.
Click to expand...

Lanmandragon said:
Oh I know that's why I'm demanding specific laws or Justices saying such.
Click to expand...

The evidence you’re demanding goes considerably past the claim he actually made. He said it’s a Republican plank, and that is absolutely factual; it is literally a plank item in the official Republican Party national platform, as well as most (if not all) of the individual state GOP platforms. The 2020 and 2016 platforms continue to explicitly condemn marriage equality and to explicitly call for repealing it.

LordsFire said:
To pretend that the Republicans are intent on overturning homosexual marriage as a major campaign issue is exactly what others here have said, gaslighting.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not gaslighting. His claim was that it is a plank item, and the 2020 and 2016 national GOP platform directly shows that to be accurate.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
The evidence you’re demanding goes considerably past the claim he actually made. He said it’s a Republican plank, and that is absolutely factual; it is literally a plank item in the official Republican Party national platform, as well as most (if not all) of the individual state GOP platforms. The 2020 and 2016 platforms continue to explicitly condemn marriage equality and to explicitly call for repealing it.



No, it’s not gaslighting. His claim was that it is a plank item, and the 2020 and 2016 national GOP platform directly shows that to be accurate.
Click to expand...

Here is the official Republican Party Platform document for 2020, which appears to be largely the same as 2016.


By jove, you're right. It is in fact listed on there as a campaign issue. It's funny, because I cannot find anywhere that Trump has made an issue out of this. I had actually thought this had been abandoned as a platform issue, because I haven't heard any Republican politicians talk about it for years.

But you're right, it is still officially in the platform.
 
Aaron Fox said:
The thing is, most of them would be killed in committee at the national level, and their LGBT hate is why they've been trying to get a fully-partisan justice into the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Two republican-appointed justices, including Gorsuch, the guy that was such an unqualified ultra-partisan threat to the republic blah blah blah that the dems tried to filibuster his appointment and the congressional vote tally on his appointment to the court was the most partisan in history at that point, just voted in a 6-3 decision to extend LGBT rights on a massive scale, with the 3 disstenting votes being variations on "I have no problem with LGBT people, but this is really a job for congress, not the courts, and the majority is stretching terminology to reach a predetermined outcome". If the right's goal is overturn LGBT rights via the courts, they've been doing a rather shoddy job of it.
 
LordsFire said:
Here is the official Republican Party Platform document for 2020, which appears to be largely the same as 2016.
Click to expand...

The 2020 platform is literally a reprint of the 2016 platform with a new preface. This was officially since COVID meant they couldn't hold a full convention, but given that the new preface includes an angry denunciation of Republicans who wanted to change or update the platform in any way, it's also a very clear "take that!"

Further research shows it's been a national GOP plank since 1992.

Edit: Even the Log Cabin Republicans declared that the 2016/2020 platform was the most anti-LGBT version ever adopted, going substantially beyond the 2012 platform and all preceding versions. This is a pretty firm indicator that the Republican position on LGBT rights is far from the dead issue claimed; it's an active and bitter dispute within the party, with the hardcore anti-LGBT crowd remaining firmly in control of the platform.
 
Last edited:
Eh, maybe....
2012 Platform said:
Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country's constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.
Click to expand...

2016 Platform said:
Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

The First Amendment: Religious Liberty

The Bill of Rights lists religious liberty, with its rights of conscience, as the first freedom to be protected. Religious freedom in the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to practice their faith in their everyday lives. As George Washington taught, “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to a free society. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Ongoing attempts to compel individuals, businesses, and institutions of faith to transgress their beliefs are part of a misguided effort to undermine religion and drive it from the public square. As a result, many charitable religious institutions that have demonstrated great success in helping the needy have been barred from receiving government grants and contracts. Government officials threaten religious colleges and universities with massive fines and seek to control their personnel decisions. Places of worship for the first time in our history have reason to fear the loss of tax-exempt status merely for espousing and practicing traditional religious beliefs that have been held across the world for thousands of years, and for almost four centuries in America. We value the right of America’s religious leaders to preach, and Americans to speak freely, according to their faith. Republicans believe the federal government, specifically the IRS, is constitutionally prohibited from policing or censoring speech based on religious convictions or beliefs, and therefore we urge the repeal of the Johnson Amendment.We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control. We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This Act would protect the non-profit tax status of faith-based adoption agencies, the accreditation of religious educational institutions, the grants and contracts of faith-based charities and small businesses, and the licensing of religious professions — all of which are under assault by elements of the Democratic Party. We encourage every state to pass similar legislation. We likewise endorse the efforts of Republican state legislators and governors who have defied intimidation from corporations and the media in defending religious liberty. We support laws to confirm the longstanding
We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control.

American tradition that religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door.Our First Amendment rights are not given to us by the government but are rights we inherently possess. The government cannot use subsequent amendments to limit First Amendment rights. The Free Exercise Clause is both an individual and a collective liberty protecting a right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Therefore, we strongly support the freedom of Americans to act in accordance with their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their everyday lives.We support the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and condemn public officials who have proposed boycotts against businesses that support traditional marriage. We pledge to protect those business owners who have been subjected to hate campaigns, threats of violence, and other attempts to deny their civil rights.
Click to expand...


The fundamental point that stay the same between the two platforms is that the decision of what constitutes marriage is a not a matter for courts to decide, and the 2016 platform largely shifted away from the DOMA stuff or calls for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The main change was the additional section about religious liberty, which reads more like a shift from "you can't get married, and we'll fight to stop you" to "you can get married but not like that, and you can't make us like it". I don't think you can honestly say the 2016 version is the more hostile/confrontational of the two.
 
LordsFire said:
I had actually thought this had been abandoned as a platform issue, because I haven't heard any Republican politicians talk about it for years.
Click to expand...

Mike Pence, who is very much a current Republican politician, played a huge role in cementing the hardcore anti-LGBT elements of the 2016/2020 GOP platform. The fact that he'd rather talk about it in the figurative smoky back room rather than campaigning to the public about it, doesn't make it a dead issue at all.

Trump didn't make a major campaign point of it, but he *did* talked about opposing marriage equality -- notably, in January 2016 he explicitly stated that he would "strongly consider" appointing conservative SCOTUS justices in order to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, although after being elected he soft pedaled that and said he didn't think it was a priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top