I mean I’ve been called all three for disagreeing lol, but haven’t said that about the others.
LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
TyrantTriumphant
Well-known member
Gays need to decide whether they want the right to live as they wish or the "right" not to be criticized for doing so.
One of these can result in a distrustful but functional coalition.
The other results in further fracturing.
Christians will never like homosexuality or stop condemning it. If they did they would no longer be Christian. But they can tolerate its existence much as they tolerate but dislike adulterers and drunks.
Much like how the evangelical wing voted in Trump in droves despite not being a paragon of Christian virtue.
One of these can result in a distrustful but functional coalition.
The other results in further fracturing.
Christians will never like homosexuality or stop condemning it. If they did they would no longer be Christian. But they can tolerate its existence much as they tolerate but dislike adulterers and drunks.
Much like how the evangelical wing voted in Trump in droves despite not being a paragon of Christian virtue.
And honestly, in all this my main goal is more so in killing this idea that libertarianism is the foundation of America, asserting that we were founded as a Christian nation, and especially this nonsense about “enlightenment principles”. An absolute despotic monarchy and a near anarchist democracy are both based in enlightenment principles for fucks sake.
I mean by that logic, we can make Yogi Bear king of the United States with a constitutional amendment. But no, this isn't likely to be overturned anymore than Brown v Board is. So dealing with the constitution as is interpreted by the Supreme Court seems like a reasonable place to start. Or alternatively, give up on it and admit that the constitution endorses gay marriage. I'm not picky.
No, I said there isn't logic for making an antigay law, not that no one did. Here's the quote:
Then what you gave me is:
Right there in bold, you cite commies, never providing any of the logic requested for. My best reading here is that you somehow assumed that commies had logic, which is always a big assumption to make. As for your ATF/California stuff, your defense for your proposed law was that laws don't have to make sense. I'll just leave that there.
... Then don't use them as an example? I mean, all I did was this:
I'm not invoking guilt of association on you if you decide to drag commies as an ally into the debate and I invite you to continue doing so. That's just you being incompetent.
And I'm asking you to do it here, because I can't find it other places. Regardless, the "meaning of marriage" is yet again a religious argument, and saying that men are not women still falls to the textualist argumentations of Gorsuch.
Yes, because the gays had such social power in the early 2000, where the study (that again, you cited) comes from. If you make a positive claim, like LGB's come from molestation, you need to have evidence.
Um, but that's either partially true or just wrong?
So in order, first, gay relationships are trending more monogamous as time goes on. For example, this study shows 30% of couples are nonmonogamous, down from 50% a few years ago. And I expect this to improve further, up until it come against the hard barrier of approximately the weirdo% of gays. So that is increasingly family oriented. On top of that, Pride Parades are barely a big deal, that's like telling me that the Saint Patrick day parades are getting boozier. It's once a year, and anecdotal evidence as well. Third, where did you point out about the stonewall orgies, because you have no idea what your talking about if you think they are still going strong.
So yeah, wrong on every point here as well. Cite sources, for gods sake, as well.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Given the literal Pope is downright memetically pro-Leftist shenanigans to the point of making "Is the Pope Catholic?" stop being hyperbole, assuming the full populace of avowed Christians is harshly anti-LGBT is entirely farcical. Even setting aside the Liberation Theology types that preceded Communism, and the insane scattershot that is American Protestantism.
Do note that the latter is why the Constitution forbids discrimination on religious grounds. Outright wars were waged over theological differences that survived in the US. Several states were founded as de-facto prison colonies on the basis of "voluntary" exile of dissidents to the latest on-high imposition. Quite a bit of it was contradictory in basic lifestyle, which is why the wars happened.
The reason the US government holds power over marriage is because, at the founding of the country, this was not a fixed process. There were polygamists in good standing. There was harsh separations on opinion of arranged marriage. There existed quite considerable differences of opinion on parental permission. The government was given control over marriage because it would not have worked as a religious institution, because there wasn't one institution of marriage.
And by rendering recognition of marriage a governmental function, it becomes beholden to all the same protections as any other act of governance. Gay marriage became a forgone conclusion with women's equality under the law, because it rendered legally enforced heterosexuality impossible because discriminating on sexuality is logically identical to discrimination based on sex, because it is discrimination for something that would not be an issue if they were the opposite sex.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Okay, this is close enough to get going, I suppose.
So, there's several assumptions based in your assertion here:
1. Meaningless sex is also either amoral or moral.
2. There is no harm to homosexual sex.
Can you support either of these assertions, or are they treated as axiomatic?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I’ll repeat slightly what I think the best government position should be on homosexuality: people having freedom. Gay people should be able to have sex with each other, get married, advocate for their interests, and so on. Likewise, people who oppose homosexuality shouldn’t have to hire them or work for them, should have the right to openly express their opposition or even say bad things about gay people as a whole. It’s the libertarian position really, and though I’m not a libertarian in every regard, on this issue I am with one caveat: some of these issues (like gay marriage) should be decided by individual states, which is in keeping with the US Constitution.
The so called “religious right” doesn’t like that people now can’t discriminate against gays or have to bake gay wedding cakes and that sort of thing. Which, in part, is justified because no one should be forced to associate with people who they don’t want to. But the religious conservatives are hypocrites in this topic, because they have spent decades supporting the left wing agenda regarding discrimination. They have already taken the position that people don’t have the right to free association and that the government can and should force businesses to hire people that they don’t want to hire, to force professionals to work for people that they don’t want to work for, and that those who don’t comply should be ruined by the raw violence of state power. If religious conservatives thought it was wrong to force bakeries to make lesbian cakes, they should have stood up for the freedom of people and businesses to not hire or work for women or black people. But they made their Faustian bargain with the left and the chickens came home to roost, to mix proverbs.
I would say another way which a strong opposition to homosexuality is hypocritical is that there are numerous kinds of behaviors that are prohibited and/or condemned in the Bible and which are endemic in Western nations, yet that religious conservatives don’t really seem to care about. Jesus very strongly condemned divorce, he also condemned wealth and materialism. He said that people should give everything that they own to the poor. I haven’t heard nearly as many conservative Christians condemn the accumulation of wealth as who have condemned gays. I haven’t seen nearly as much effort being put into prohibiting divorce as I have seen put into prohibiting gay marriage, yet Jesus himself condemned divorce and never mentioned homosexuality.
Could it perhaps be that conservative Christians like having money and that they want money? Might a lot of conservative Christians find divorce to be convenient when they believe that they have married the wrong person? It’s seems like homosexuality actually has a minor effect on society in comparison to other vices which most Christians never seem to talk about at all. It’s really convenient to rail against a “sin” that you personally feel no inclination or temptation to commit and to ignore or downplay those sins which you are highly tempted by and commit regularly.
Greed and materialism has likely caused far more harm to the western world and our moral fabric than all of the alphabet soup people could in a thousand years.
But, people want to take a stand on homosexuality, not greed, not violence, not heterosexual relationship misdeeds (like divorce) for the most part. I think that there seems to be a major element of hypocrisy here. The American family does need help, family values are important, but what gay adults do in the privacy of their homes or whether or not they have a sheet of paper that says “marriage” on it has little to do with that.
The so called “religious right” doesn’t like that people now can’t discriminate against gays or have to bake gay wedding cakes and that sort of thing. Which, in part, is justified because no one should be forced to associate with people who they don’t want to. But the religious conservatives are hypocrites in this topic, because they have spent decades supporting the left wing agenda regarding discrimination. They have already taken the position that people don’t have the right to free association and that the government can and should force businesses to hire people that they don’t want to hire, to force professionals to work for people that they don’t want to work for, and that those who don’t comply should be ruined by the raw violence of state power. If religious conservatives thought it was wrong to force bakeries to make lesbian cakes, they should have stood up for the freedom of people and businesses to not hire or work for women or black people. But they made their Faustian bargain with the left and the chickens came home to roost, to mix proverbs.
I would say another way which a strong opposition to homosexuality is hypocritical is that there are numerous kinds of behaviors that are prohibited and/or condemned in the Bible and which are endemic in Western nations, yet that religious conservatives don’t really seem to care about. Jesus very strongly condemned divorce, he also condemned wealth and materialism. He said that people should give everything that they own to the poor. I haven’t heard nearly as many conservative Christians condemn the accumulation of wealth as who have condemned gays. I haven’t seen nearly as much effort being put into prohibiting divorce as I have seen put into prohibiting gay marriage, yet Jesus himself condemned divorce and never mentioned homosexuality.
Could it perhaps be that conservative Christians like having money and that they want money? Might a lot of conservative Christians find divorce to be convenient when they believe that they have married the wrong person? It’s seems like homosexuality actually has a minor effect on society in comparison to other vices which most Christians never seem to talk about at all. It’s really convenient to rail against a “sin” that you personally feel no inclination or temptation to commit and to ignore or downplay those sins which you are highly tempted by and commit regularly.
Greed and materialism has likely caused far more harm to the western world and our moral fabric than all of the alphabet soup people could in a thousand years.
But, people want to take a stand on homosexuality, not greed, not violence, not heterosexual relationship misdeeds (like divorce) for the most part. I think that there seems to be a major element of hypocrisy here. The American family does need help, family values are important, but what gay adults do in the privacy of their homes or whether or not they have a sheet of paper that says “marriage” on it has little to do with that.
It won’t. Conservatives would have far more luck appealing to gay voters.
The pope is a vile heretic and the guy leading the charge to depose him is an African.
I'm going to assume, especially coming from a catholic country and living around plenty of Christians that not every Bible thumper is as lapsed as the average American.
And considering huge swaths of Eastern Europe and South America still believe heresy trials and excommunications are excellent ways to counter progressive thinking?
Yeah I feel comfy in saying Bacle is talking out of his ass.
But then again that is to be expected.
It is Tuesday after all
I’d need to go digging more into everything to make a competent argument there.
The fact you call them an ally of mine is what’s ridiculous and in grossly bad faith. I might as well just say you’re a progressive because you both support gay marriage.
Yes, laws obviously don’t. I was just saying “I think I have more basis here than these do and these are laws.” I was just saying that laws don’t have to be. That’s a factual statement, which stemmed from you saying you CANT make a law just based on religious morals. All laws have some semblance of logic to them lol. That much is obvious. You don’t make a law for literally no reason, and looking into it a little it stems from Marx who saw homosexuality as bourgeois degeneracy.
No, no it fucking isn’t. It stems from the societal basis present among humanity and this institution that virtually everyone in isolation from each other came up with built along lines of man + woman or man + women, and never was it man + man or woman + woman. It’s an argument stemming from the fact that this idea is clearly natural in basis if people in total isolation from one another came up with it, and what it was used for primarily.
Their allies certainly did. Long March through the institutions happened in the 60s. And with the evidence I mean it’s really basic. If we conclude that it’s influenced by environmental factors, than environmental factors that largely affect the LGBT in youth and not heteros is probably a factor. To say that something that can find such a massive differential between both in a highly impactful life experience in their development, and then say it has no factor what so ever, that just seems absurd to completely discount it.
I said that the stonewall orgies have been replaced by businesses providing the same, by apps that can coordinate mass casual sex easily. Also read that study, it says it’s actually 42%. Hasn’t changed much at all. It’s also hardly anecdotal evidence. I brought up the largest one which sees hundreds of thousands of attendees. It’s a significant proportion of the LGBT population of America in attendance and it’s purely depraved and debaucherous. It’s nearly every single LGBT org, it’s nearly every LGBT event. You call it “anecdotal” but how else do you describe the culture?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality. It’s doctrinal to oppose it, you go against doctrine if you support it, ie its heretical to endorse such. Liberation theology dates to the 60s and is tied to KGB operations too lol, and is also condemned by Catholicism.
The Paleocons didn’t and still don’t, and that’s the movement I subscribe to.
disagree with all that too. Materialism is terrible, most billionaires are awful, rampant free market worship is a terrible religion.
So push a religion instead of having Religious freedom that we are given.
Let people do what ever the fuck they want aslong as they are in support of being Pro-america and want to better America as the bestcountry in the world.
For 1, I don't really require the assumption for my central point (that homosexuality isn't innately immoral). I just need meaningless gay sex to be equally moral (or immoral) to meaningless straight sex, which basically still depends on 2.
As for 2, I would first rephrase that. There can definitely be harm to homosexual sex, just like there can be with straight sex. More accurate would be there is no innate harm to non-participants with gay sex, and for partners, their is an elevated risk to males of physical harm (disease), while a lower rate for females.
As for moral harm, no, I don't see any that is unique to gay sex unless gay sex itself is to be taken as a moral harm, so that is an assumption that needs to be axiomatic, but it is open to challenge. I don't know that it is possible to prove, as it would be proving a negative.
As for the chance of disease based harm to participants with gay sex is elevated, this a) doesn't apply to lesbian sex, so it's not an indictment of homosexual sex as a whole, b) isn't because of the sex itself but because of diseases that can be spread (i.e. in a magical world without STDs, this wouldn't matter), and c) has largely been solved. To elaborate on c, for most of the problems, use a condom, take PrEP, and worst comes to worst, there are treatments as well, which will have you live a near normal life expectancy. Or better yet, wait till marriage.
So as an axiom (that is again, open to challenge) I would take that gay sex is no more morally harmful than the in context equivalent straight sex.
@ShieldWife I’d completely agree with everything you laid out in its entirety, and hold every one of those positions as well. I like distributist economics and believe that if you divorce and marry another barring sexual immorality you have done wrong, and think the religious right has made a lot of missteps and subscribes to things they shouldn’t, like allowing divorce outside of what is outlined in Matthew and embracing the free market and materialism far too much. Im only “spending too much time on this” because it’s the thread topic. So seeing as I subscribe to the sector of the religious right that holds literally all of that including freedom of association, do you still find hypocrisy?
I think part of that is bringing back the Christian framework though. That’s part of what made us great, and I want us to be great again, and greater than ever before.
Fine, then also remember LGBs can survive without the help of the Right, and have for a long time.
The Evangelical/fundie Right has nowhere to go; that simply isn't true with LGBs, who can move parties without to much problem. They may not all go back to the Dems, but they will not forget what happened when they tried to ally with the Right.
If more people like Fried become major forces on the Right, do not be surprised if the inroads Trump make with LGBs is undone and the Right loses even more swing voters long into the future.
See, you aren't wrong, but at the same time. We have to adjust to the times. You can bring those morales back, but not make it strictly to the Christian religion. Make them the American Values and Morales. They don't have to be the Exact chrstian ones, they can be made to encompass Amercians, more then just chrtisians.
It is unequivocally tied to the Christian religion, and religious principles shouldn’t be updated for the times. If you can acknowledge their value, impact, and benefit on western civilization and America and want to uphold that, I’m fine with you as an ally on that cause. But given enough time that’s how you also probably end up converting if you are more intellectually minded. Either way I’m confident that once a lot of people start hitting the wall on hedonism being the driving force in their life, their bodies break down more, they can’t drink like they used to, the sex isn’t doing it for them like it did, the dopamine doesn’t hit as hard, many will turn to something that gives them more purpose, meaning and drive in life.
The goal is building up physically strong, intelligent men and having them take positions of power and influence in order to hold more sway over the public, and it’s doing better and better with Gen Z. If the left can do this in a few decades in a hostile take over and radically shift American politics left, I don’t see why we can’t do that on the right.
Simple, because they already know your game and know how to counter it.
They did it slowly behind the scenes, without widely announcing what they were planning.
You have already given the game away.
Edit: Or are you naive enough to believe the Left isn't very well aware of the methods you wish to use?
Not everyone is like that Fried.
I am not saying the religious values, but the American values. America should have values tied to it. Technically, we do. We have the Constitution and the Bill of rights. Those alone set Values to belive in. We can add in basic common sense values, a lot which are seen within Chrsitianity.
No, you chose to cite them (hence use them as an ally, I was being figurative here). Seriously, anytime you want to stop digging this hole is fine with me. And given you then go to cite Marx below, well... I don't think it'll be soon.
So the funny thin is, there's a thing called rational basis review, which says that every law has to at least have some logic to it (by which it means that it has rationally relate to some legitimate government interest). That's what I'm talking about. But because gay rights hits sexual orientation and the fundamental right of marriage, either of which would make it hit strict scrutiny, which requires a lot more to survive.
... Or Man + woman + woman + woman. Or Man + woman + woman he took against her will. Or Man + sister. I mean, there's a lot of historical societal definitions of marriage. The modernish one of willing Man + willing Woman only is based on religion.
Look, again, you have no evidence. Shocked_face.jpg. First, by environmental factors and such, they usually mean things at a very young age, well before 10. What I'm saying is that it is the reverse. Basically, kid is gay, doesn't know what this is but knows their different, and are noticed and exploited because of this.
First, that 42% number is from an older study, from 2013, that's the news article on the new study, which does list 30%. An even older one from 2010 had 50%. This shows a definite downward trend.
Also, as for the mass casual sex that apps are coordinating: first, you have interesting apps, and I want some. Second, that you think that all the organizations exist to organize orgies is just wrong. Again, cite your sources. Next time I won't bother to type a nice reply, just quote everything that hasn't been cited and write failure to cite under it.
Christianity is a foundational value for America though. We were 97% Protestant Christian at our birth, it runs through so much of what our founders had to say about the nation and what the idealized it as.