LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

The Immortal Watch Dog said:
I thought I made it clear that I was in fact giving you the benefit of the doubt?
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry, I didn't pick up what you were saying there. That's on me. Thanks for giving me that benefit.
LordsFire said:
I agree with your first part, but I have seen no evidence of the second.
Click to expand...
So we actually had a good deal of this conversation here-ish. Any issues with my statements there? I'd rather make progress on both sides than rehash old arguments, as it is fun talking with you.

LordsFire said:
I still haven't seen anyone explain by what standard homosexuality is moral, nor why the term 'marriage' should be redefined to not be a heterosexual institution (when even historically cultures that were accepting of homosexuality didn't try to force it into marriage), it looks an awful lot more like some people here are pushing 'If you don't agree with me, shut the hell up.'
Click to expand...
As for why Marriage should be redefined, I'll point out that marriage has historically had a number of meanings throughout history, including polygamous ones, so I don't really mind the US changing the legal definition. What I do kinda mind is the US having a legal definition of something that should be private.
 
FriedCFour said:
“This is right because it is right” I feel like I’m talking to a fundie right now.

You can’t follow the Bible as written and say it’s moral. We are country founded by Christians. The founders said we would be dysfunctional without it.

I’m not arguing sodomy should be punishable by death, but why can’t I hope for something along the lines of Poland? Why is it wrong now to uphold something close to traditional and foundational American ideals and identity?
Click to expand...
Let them live their lives. Show them how being a democrat is wrong.
The degenerate of the LGBT alphabet soup are the ones that have caused major issues with the current generation.
gays like @Abhorsen and Bi people like @Bacle are not the ones we should be worried about. We should focus on showing the gay community that IS on our side to help us show the normal minded LGB community how crazy the left has made their community and abused it.
Hell, Bi the B in LBGT is starting to be alienated by the left because they aren't strictly gay.

To better this country is not to regress, it is to work toward a common goal of making conservatism morality and social life the normal.The LGBT aresuch a small part i should not matter if they are treated equal.
 
Bacle said:
You are talking to someone who understand that social and political capital, like military logistics, is not unlimited.

The social and political capital burned by people like you, on this futile quest to turn back the clock, could be used for other things like protecting the 2A, or pushing for nuclear energy (conservative environmentalism does exist), or going against actual socialist polices (Critical Race Theory for example).

So that is why I am not 'debating' you on this, partly because there really isn't much to debate to non-trad cons, and partly because doing so legitimizes your false axioms.
Click to expand...
You’re just a guy on the internet. You aren’t a politician or anyone with any real power. But yeah, you’ll lose a lot more R votes if you had a candidate go up and call the Bible false axioms than you will saying i love the lgbt. Either way, it’s hilarious to me that I’m supposed to reject my beliefs that have been a massive help in weathering storms like the loss of a child, and the only reason to do so given is because they A make me a “bigot” B. Because you said so, and C. It’s not politically expedient. Fantastic arguments.
 
Zachowon said:
gays like @Abhorsen and Bi people like @Bacle
Click to expand...
I'm Bi thou?

FriedCFour said:
You can’t follow the Bible as written and say it’s moral. We are country founded by Christians. The founders said we would be dysfunctional without it.
I’m not arguing sodomy should be punishable by death, but why can’t I hope for something along the lines of Poland? Why is it wrong now to uphold something close to traditional and foundational American ideals and identity?
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with holding the beliefs. What is wrong is trying to make them laws, as that does violate the purpose of the constitution. The point of the constitution wasn't to create a Christian nation, but to make a nation where people were free to be Christian or for that matter, any other religion.
 
FriedCFour said:
You’re just a guy on the internet. You aren’t a politician or anyone with any real power. But yeah, you’ll lose a lot more R votes if you had a candidate go up and call the Bible false axioms than you will saying i love the lgbt. Either way, it’s hilarious to me that I’m supposed to reject my beliefs that have been a massive help in weathering storms like the loss of a child, and the only reason to do so given is because they A make me a “bigot” B. Because you said so, and C. It’s not politically expedient. Fantastic arguments.
Click to expand...
The false axioms I was referring to are your takes on what the Founders and US are 'supposed to be'.
 
Zachowon said:
Let them live their lives. Show them how being a democrat is wrong.
The degenerate of the LGBT alphabet soup are the ones that have caused major issues with the current generation.
gays like @Abhorsen and Bi people like @Bacle are not the ones we should be worried about. We should focus on showing the gay community that IS on our side to help us show the normal minded LGB community how crazy the left has made their community and abused it.
Hell, Bi the B in LBGT is starting to be alienated by the left because they aren't strictly gay.

To better this country is not to regress, it is to work toward a common goal of making conservatism morality and social life the normal.The LGBT aresuch a small part i should not matter if they are treated equal.
Click to expand...
They have a massive a disproportionate power over the culture and especially as it relates to sex and morality. I want men and women to live more traditionally, view themselves as such. That’s my goal because what I see as the current cultural norms are terrible and don’t make for fulfilled people, people with aspirations and goals and drive, and who are willing to improve and strive to be better than they are now.
Abhorsen said:
There's nothing wrong with holding the beliefs. What is wrong is trying to make them laws, as that does violate the purpose of the constitution. The point of the constitution wasn't to create a Christian nation, but to make a nation where people were free to be Christian or for that matter, any other religion.
Click to expand...
I have posted quote after quote saying that religion is tied to morality, and that if we lose our faith as a nation we will no longer be happy or that the government was not made for Christians. I can show quote after quote from the people who actually made the constitution and our first presidents saying as much. Even the common refrain of “what about Jefferson!?!” Can be shown to be valuing it.
Bacle said:
The false axioms I was referring to are your takes on what the Founders and US are 'supposed to be'.
Click to expand...
Except that mine has quote after quote and piles of evidence, and so far yours have nothing. You literally tried to claim American morality was “give me liberty or give me death!” Which was said by a guy who put forward a bill giving public funding to Christian teachers for the specific purpose of ensuring to inculcate and maintain Christianity in the populace. You’ve just tried to cop out of it by saying it’s fake with nothing because it’s not useful for propaganda purposes if the founding ideals aren’t your brand of libertarianism.
 
FriedCFour said:
Except that mine have quote after quote and piles of evidence, and so far yours have nothing.
Click to expand...
My side has modern reality on our side, has the Constitution on our side, and has the majority of the populace on our side, on both sides of the aisle.

The Founders also punted on slavery, so it's not like they were infallible.

Edit: As well, my side has SCOTUS rulings, yours does not.
 
FriedCFour said:
I have posted quote after quote saying that religion is tied to morality, and that if we lose our faith as a nation we will no longer be happy or that the government was not made for Christians. I can show quote after quote from the people who actually made the constitution and our first presidents saying as much. Even the common refrain of “what about Jefferson!?!” Can be shown to be valuing it.
Click to expand...
And? The fact that they valued religion, and also were religious, still runs into the issue that they specifically wrote the constitution banning religious office tests and also banning establishing religion. That's the difference. If you value them, then you are forced into valuing their choice to make America not a country with an established religion. And writing a law that establishes morality because a religion says X is moral is establishing a religion.
 
Bacle said:
My side has modern reality on our side, has the Constitution on our side, and has the majority of the populace on our side, on both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...
I mean it only has the non originalist lens of it, modern reality is pretty gay, and that is shrinking with successive generations. There is less acceptance of the LGBT which will hopefully continue. Like, politics can shift drastically in short and turbulent time frame, and it’s very clear that from the start of the constitution it wasn’t on your side.

The Founders also punted on slavery, so it's not like they were infallible.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you found actual controversy there, and significant at that. It’s also pretty easy to demonstrate how that’s wrong. How is it wrong to say that a society operates better under a more homogenous religious framework in its society?
 
FriedCFour said:
I mean it only has the non originalist lens of it, modern reality is pretty gay, and that is shrinking with successive generations. There is less acceptance of the LGBT which will hopefully continue. Like, politics can shift drastically in short and turbulent time frame, and it’s very clear that from the start of the constitution it wasn’t on your side.
Click to expand...
"All men are created equal." doesn't have a caveat in it for homosexuals, and that is why same-sex marriage is now a thing.

The US Constitution directs our laws, not any version of the Bible, and it's that way for a damn good reason.
FriedCFour said:
Yeah but you found actual controversy there, and significant at that. It’s also pretty easy to demonstrate how that’s wrong. How is it wrong to say that a society operates better under a more homogenous religious framework in its society?
Click to expand...
Because America is not a homogeneous society, never was, never will be, and nothing you do will ever change that.
 
Abhorsen said:
And? The fact that they valued religion, and also were religious, still runs into the issue that they specifically wrote the constitution banning religious office tests and also banning establishing religion. That's the difference. If you value them, then you are forced into valuing their choice to make America not a country with an established religion. And writing a law that establishes morality because a religion says X is moral is establishing a religion.
Click to expand...
Then we had religion established from the start seeing as sodomy was illegal. You can find plenty of appeals to religious morality as laws were passed in the US all throughout its history by various senators and congressman. Many arguments over the initial bills passed post civil war contained arguments around an equal soul, and the framework of natural rights is built entirely on that. You are perfectly capable of establishing a law on the grounds that you are against it or for it because of your religion. Like, by your logic any abolitionist who was coming from the position of God making us equal or of that impacting his politics had no place in American politics apparently. Religious belief has always been intertwined with secular law since the start of America, because if you have even the slightest value of religion, what your religion says is right and wrong is going to impact your politics.
 
Last edited:
Bacle said:
"All men are created equal." doesn't have a caveat in it for homosexuals, and that is why same-sex marriage is now a thing.

The US Constitution directs our laws, not any version of the Bible, and it's that way for a damn good reason.
Click to expand...
Comes from the declaration, not the constitution. You’re also skipping the part about who created them in the next bit. And once more, I think you’d be perfectly valid to take that as “men have an equal right to marry women” not “men can marry men” which puts those two things as the same when they aren’t.
 
Bacle said:
My side has modern reality on our side, has the Constitution on our side, and has the majority of the populace on our side, on both sides of the aisle.

The Founders also punted on slavery, so it's not like they were infallible.

Edit: As well, my side has SCOTUS rulings, yours does not.
Click to expand...

henry-clay-9250385-1-raw-res.jpg

And you being such a fucking coward that you have me on ignore doesn't alter the fact that you just made the same fallacious boast to bolster your foundationless posturing that the single greatest hindrance to the liberation of Black Americans and one of the most evil public servants in our nation's history made.

Congrats Bacle, you're on the "right side of history". Right along side Governor Wallace, Senator Clay, Huey Long and the big brains behind the internment camp decision.


Crawl back to whitehall.
 
Last edited:
FriedCFour said:
I mean it only has the non originalist lens of it, modern reality is pretty gay, and that is shrinking with successive generations. There is less acceptance of the LGBT which will hopefully continue. Like, politics can shift drastically in short and turbulent time frame, and it’s very clear that from the start of the constitution it wasn’t on your side.
Click to expand...
The shrinking acceptance is a slight dip at the end of a very large upward trend, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

FriedCFour said:
Then we had religion established from the start seeing as sodomy was illegal. You can find plenty of appeals to religious morality as laws were passed in the US all throughout its history by various senators and congressman. Many arguments over the initial bills passed post civil war contained arguments around an equal soul, and the framework of natural rights is built entirely on that. You are perfectly capable of establishing a law on the grounds that you are against it or for it because of your religion. Like, by your logic any abolitionist who was coming from the position of God making us equal had no place in American politics apparently.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can push a law in part because your religion believes in it, but not only because your religion believes in it, which is the problem with (actual, not leftist imaginings of) anti-gay laws. That's the difference. And there isn't logic for legislating against gay sex or gay marriage beyond religion.

Similarly, one can't enact a law demanding people take communion, or show up at church, etc. The thing is, for something to be a moral law, you need to either go outside the Bible to argue (making the law not a religious one), or ditch the appeals to the founders, as this is exactly what they were against: enacting religious laws.

FriedCFour said:
And once more, I think you’d be perfectly valid to take that as “men have an equal right to marry women” not “men can marry men” which puts those two things as the same when they aren’t.
Click to expand...
This falls to the "All people have the right to marry the same race" problem though.
 
Abhorsen said:
The shrinking acceptance is a slight dip at the end of a very large upward trend, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
Click to expand...
It’s among the youth who have more interaction and experience with them than anyone else. The more this happens and the more extreme it goes as it has been trending, the less acceptance there will be.
Abhorsen said:
This falls to the "All people have the right to marry the same race" problem though.
Click to expand...
it’s pretty close to the originalist argument that the dissenting 4 on Obergefell V. Hodges took which I’m inclined to agree with. I take an originalist lens and tend to side with them, and the argument that there was zero intention to have that or that it doesnt fall in with what rights are supposed to be in the US rings pretty strong.
Abhorsen said:
Sure, you can push a law in part because your religion believes in it, but not only because your religion believes in it, which is the problem with (actual, not leftist imaginings of) anti-gay laws. That's the difference. And there isn't logic for legislating against gay sex or gay marriage beyond religion.
Click to expand...
I’ve already put all of that forward though. There’s a non religious side, you just disagree. I mean hell, the Atheist, anti-theist communists who massacred priests had pretty hardcore anti-gay laws, things I’d disagree with even because it’s too extreme. The idea this only comes from religion is blatantly false. Hell even the idea a law needs to be totally sound logically runs totally contrary to whatever the hell the ATF and California gun laws concoct. I think my arguments are more sound than theirs.

Also an aside, you said you need gays to adopt kids but that has no basis in anything. It’s 36 households to every one child waiting to be adopted in the US.

American Adoptions - How Many Couples are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?

As you start to look for the perfect family, you might have one big question: How many couples are waiting to adopt a baby? Find the answer here.
www.americanadoptions.com
 
Last edited:
FriedCFour said:
It’s among the youth who have more interaction and experience with them than anyone else. The more this happens and the more extreme it goes as it has been trending, the less acceptance there will be.
Click to expand...
It's cause the youth have to deal with the LGBT crazies the most in college. They're still fine with basically normal LGBT people, including me. So if you want to be quiet while waiting for this to change, be my guest.

FriedCFour said:
it’s pretty close to the originalist argument that the dissenting 4 on Obergefell V. Hodges took which I’m inclined to agree with. I take an originalist lens and tend to side with them, and the argument that there was zero intention to have that or that it doesnt fall in with what rights are supposed to be in the US rings pretty strong.
Click to expand...
How about giving the argument yourself in your own words, because there are four separate dissents? Saying someone wrote my argument somewhere in this many page document isn't much help to anyone.

Also, as for law, Bostock is very textualist, and basically states that the civil rights act ban on discrimination on sex necessitates a ban on discrimination on sexual orientation, as discrimination based on sexual orientation discriminates based on sex. If in some weird ATL, it came before Obergfell, Obergfell wouldn't be needed.

For more on this:

FriedCFour said:
I’ve already put all of that forward though. There’s a non religious side, you just disagree. I mean hell, the Atheist, anti-theist communists who massacred priests had pretty hardcore anti-gay laws, things I’d disagree with even because it’s too extreme. The idea this only comes from religion is blatantly false. Hell even the idea a law needs to be totally sound logically runs totally contrary to whatever the hell the ATF and California gun laws concoct. I think my arguments are more sound than theirs.
Click to expand...
First, Communists usually didn't put much thought into laws, they barely followed their own. Second, Communism is basically a religion in and of themselves, so as Christianity once did, it adapts to its situation to fit in more. In those case, if hating gays is popular, Communism will hate gays to be popular too. Third, you still haven't stated a non-religious reason, just said that you've said them. Please at least quote where you said this.

Fourth, and most tellingly, citing communists agreeing with you is an interesting avenue of argument. Please, elaborate more.

FriedCFour said:
Also an aside, you said you need gays to adopt kids but that has no basis in anything. It’s 36 households to every one child waiting to be adopted in the US.
Click to expand...
Given that there are plenty of kids in foster homes that are waiting to be adopted, and I bet many of those looking to adopt want to do so outside the country as well (my parents did (not me, my sister)), the demand clearly isn't high enough.
 
Bacle said:
Fried, not everything is debatable, not everything has to be justified.

Sometimes things just ARE, and you need to learn to live with them.
Click to expand...

Okay.

Marriage is an institution created by God, and is exclusively between one man and one woman. That just is, and you need to learn to deal with it.

I bet you found that argument really persuasive.


Let's talk about political capital and expediency, since apparently matters to you. The Republican Party cannot win on the Federal level, period, without Religious Conservative voters. If they abandon the party, it's going to be out of power for at least a generation, and that's if the trend towards homosexual acceptance continues.

As Trump being elected demonstrated, Religious Conservatives are willing to vote for a President who is openly pro-gay-marriage, so long as he does not make that one of his primary or driving issues. I voted for him, and I think homosexual marriage is wrong, but in the political arena, it's second or third tier importance at most.

If someone with your attitude on the issue ran for president? I'd be voting third party, because you are coming across as an obnoxious, arrogant tyrant, who is either incapable or unwilling to make an argument for why something is right, rather than just doing things that are politically expedient.

And there are millions of other voters who feel the same way. So your 'political capital and expediency' argument doesn't hold any water either.


I am entirely willing to have a polite and cordial discussion about whether or not homosexuality is ethical, or even whether or not you can still call it 'marriage' after changing the definition. I am not interested in having somebody try to give me commandments on what is right and wrong, as though they were some divine prophet, especially when they refuse to justify their position, and are being a jerk about it.

If I am expected to justify my political, philosophical, and religious beliefs, then it is perfectly fair for me to expect anyone else to do the same, including homosexuals.
 
Abhorsen said:
It's cause the youth have to deal with the LGBT crazies the most in college. They're still fine with basically normal LGBT people, including me. So if you want to be quiet while waiting for this to change, be my guest.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to be quiet? Again, I don’t have much issue either with the person, it’s with the overarching culture of it and how it’s unreconcilable with tradition and religion, both of which I value highly.


Abhorsen said:
How about giving the argument yourself in your own words, because there are four separate dissents? Saying someone wrote my argument somewhere in this many page document isn't much help to anyone.

Also, as for law, Bostock is very textualist, and basically states that the civil rights act ban on discrimination on sex necessitates a ban on discrimination on sexual orientation, as discrimination based on sexual orientation discriminates based on sex. If in some weird ATL, it came before Obergfell, Obergfell wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how or why sexual orientation deserves protection. It’s this weird equation of it as if it’s “born this way” when it’s not. On the topic of changing it it’s clear that in prisons, in an all male populace men will be more likely to sleep with each other, and with women the college lesbian is a thing.
Abhorsen said:
First, Communists usually didn't put much thought into laws, they barely followed their own. Second, Communism is basically a religion in and of themselves, so as Christianity once did, it adapts to its situation to fit in more. In those case, if hating gays is popular, Communism will hate gays to be popular too. Third, you still haven't stated a non-religious reason, just said that you've said them. Please at least quote where you said this.
Click to expand...
I mean I elaborated that men and women have natural differences between one another, that it doesn’t line up scientifically as something you are born with, what the purpose of marriage societally has been for virtually everyone, that the family should be seen as the fundamental building block of society, that gay marriage impacts all of that. Do recall you set the bar stupid low in that you just need a reason that isn’t purely religious to pass a law, btw. I could also easily say that a cultish devotion to libertarianism and liberty is a religion unto itself, if we say communism is.
Fourth, and most tellingly, citing communists agreeing with you is an interesting avenue of argument. Please, elaborate more.
Click to expand...
.... that you can find atheists who are anti-gay? I also specifically made mention that I don’t agree with them?
 
LordsFire said:
Okay.

Marriage is an institution created by God, and is exclusively between one man and one woman. That just is, and you need to learn to deal with it.

I bet you found that argument really persuasive.


Let's talk about political capital and expediency, since apparently matters to you. The Republican Party cannot win on the Federal level, period, without Religious Conservative voters. If they abandon the party, it's going to be out of power for at least a generation, and that's if the trend towards homosexual acceptance continues.

As Trump being elected demonstrated, Religious Conservatives are willing to vote for a President who is openly pro-gay-marriage, so long as he does not make that one of his primary or driving issues. I voted for him, and I think homosexual marriage is wrong, but in the political arena, it's second or third tier importance at most.

If someone with your attitude on the issue ran for president? I'd be voting third party, because you are coming across as an obnoxious, arrogant tyrant, who is either incapable or unwilling to make an argument for why something is right, rather than just doing things that are politically expedient.

And there are millions of other voters who feel the same way. So your 'political capital and expediency' argument doesn't hold any water either.


I am entirely willing to have a polite and cordial discussion about whether or not homosexuality is ethical, or even whether or not you can still call it 'marriage' after changing the definition. I am not interested in having somebody try to give me commandments on what is right and wrong, as though they were some divine prophet, especially when they refuse to justify their position, and are being a jerk about it.

If I am expected to justify my political, philosophical, and religious beliefs, then it is perfectly fair for me to expect anyone else to do the same, including homosexuals.
Click to expand...
You know why I said that?

Because this is what you guys do and I don't have the fucking energy to give a damn about trying to appease the religious fringe you represent.

All I see are assholes who want to drive me back in to the closet, after I came over to try to help them when I saw how horrible the Dems have become.

So if I'm not being polite or civil, or going into great detailed faux-debates over this, consider maybe that it represents how much of a political 'third rail' you have touched.
 
Look at the end of the day we have to accept that our politics are politics of opasition.

We are a coalition of everyone that is not welcome in the insane woke world the democrats want to create which lets face it is going to be an ever growing majority of people because they have gone completely mad with power.

That means getting along with gay people or dying in the same interment camps as gay people because we are like it or not all in this together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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