LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

I see what you mean. I am just trying to say we should not say someone should be unequal because my religion says so.

Mind ye, I'm saying "This is how a fully nationalist society should act in accordance with those principles and tenants" not necessarily that it's a good thing. And I agree from a legal standpoint, the issue is the definition of marriage and how the Supreme Court did it. Arguably eroded more rights by precedent than it affirmed.

At least that's how I've always seen the gay marriage issue. Not that I'm against it, but the manner in which it was achieved opened a door that really should have kept closed.

Ancap definitely doesn't work as a society (because anarchist systems don't last due to warlords), but it does work as a morality.

Ancapistan would degenerate into what communism invariably degenerated into. Feudalism on some form of crack.
 
The key is "dating back into", which is to say the chain of reasoning can be traced to those times with the work of John Ball of Colchester, who instigated the Peasant's Revolt of that century by laying out an interpretation of the Bible as supporting equality of individuals and lacking justification for hereditary nobility.

"Liberation Theology" was just the term I recalled for it first, as I couldn't quite recall the Diggers in particular and knew it went back long before the English Civil War the Diggers were participants of.
you’re talking about a man who at the time was excommunicated for heresy. A man in one country does not Catholic doctrine make. At that point you might as well say that Lutheranism is Catholic because Luther was a Catholic priest too lol.
 
Mind ye, I'm saying "This is how a fully nationalist society should act in accordance with those principles and tenants" not necessarily that it's a good thing. And I agree from a legal standpoint, the issue is the definition of marriage and how the Supreme Court did it. Arguably eroded more rights by precedent than it affirmed.

At least that's how I've always seen the gay marriage issue. Not that I'm against it, but the manner in which it was achieved opened a door that really should have kept closed.



Ancapistan would degenerate into what communism invariably degenerated into. Feudalism on some form of crack.
I think marriage should have never been a matter of the state, and if it has to be, make it only occur in later parts of life or for things like Military and that
 
I mean by that logic there is only totalitarian and libertarian.
I'm just saying that given that you advocate banning speech, you don't have much ground to complain about your banned speech.

What there is are people who care about free speech, equality before the law, and other such principles, which many Christians do, and people who just want freedom for themselves. From what I've read you saying (including being against women voting), is that you fall in the later category.

More evidence of this:
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?
Your objection to sodomy laws is just the harshness of the punishment, and also advocate for speech laws like Poland has. Yeah, a supporter of freedom you are not.

Ancapistan would degenerate into what communism invariably degenerated into. Feudalism on some form of crack.
I agree that Ancapistan would end here, but communism is worse, as you are happy when the feudalism finally takes over. Again, I'm morally Ancap, but definitely don't support or hope for a completely Ancap future.
 
I hate to be that guy that pees in everyone's cheerios but has anyone ventured outside of a tourist trap? Cities are concrete jungles and rural areas are so sparsely populated it's impossible for government to exist beyond a bare bones. Nations exist so that the ruling class can pat themselves on the back while living off the backs of the actually productive merchants and Laborers. the idea of national identity is much like unicorns a fairy tale. It's funny how the elite thought that jan 6th was "A threat to civilization" yet it wasn't even a noteworthy as a riot. more people probably got killed in Dallas that morning for Pete's sake.
 
I hate to be that guy that pees in everyone's cheerios but has anyone ventured outside of a tourist trap? Cities are concrete jungles and rural areas are so sparsely populated it's impossible for government to exist beyond a bare bones. Nations exist so that the ruling class can pat themselves on the back while living off the backs of the actually productive merchants and Laborers. the idea of national identity is much like unicorns a fairy tale. It's funny how the elite thought that jan 6th was "A threat to civilization" yet it wasn't even a noteworthy as a riot. more people probably got killed in Dallas that morning for Pete's sake.
Is this the right thread?
 
I'm just saying that given that you advocate banning speech, you don't have much ground to complain about your banned speech.
Not really. One I think falls under obscenity and the other doesn’t. One is directly about politics and political expression and the other isn’t. I’d also say it’s more fitting as a health epidemic.


Your objection to sodomy laws is just the harshness of the punishment, and also advocate for speech laws like Poland has. Yeah, a supporter of freedom you are not.
Nah, I don’t agree with sodomy laws. And Poland is doing more for political expression in America than our own government. That also wasn’t in reference to speech laws in Poland but rather what they had in terms of marriage.
What there is are people who care about free speech, equality before the law, and other such principles, which many Christians do, and people who just want freedom for themselves. From what I've read you saying (including being against women voting), is that you fall in the later category.
i disagree with universal suffrage. I am fine if I do not have suffrage. More of a Hobbes fan than a Locke fan.
 
seemed like there were one or two people here trying to use national sovereignty and identity as an argument in regards to this subject so I thought I'd throw a firebomb in there and kill that.
Ah, I getcha.

Nah, I don’t agree with sodomy laws. And Poland is doing more for political expression in America than our own government. That also wasn’t in reference to speech laws in Poland but rather what they had in terms of marriage.
Okay then. I had thought your objection was to the level of punishment rather than the law existing itself, but I was wrong. I retract that then. But Poland has some real problems with political expression, so a bastion of free speech they are not. They've instituted basically blasphemy laws:

i disagree with universal suffrage. I am fine if I do not have suffrage. More of a Hobbes fan than a Locke fan.
So, do you not agree with democracy, or not agree with every citizen having an equal vote?
 
Even with differentiation on slavery the cultural axioms and beliefs were quite similar. It was certainly more homogenous than it is now.
Nope.
Who's saying that? Those sentences belong together. America was founded on a few principles, one of them being ownership of property (read: capitalism).
No one here. In the end I suppose I was being a bit dumb because Zach already kind of gave a summary of what he meant by being proud of the nation. But it seemed hard for him to get that his dealbreakers were different from other people's dealbreakers.
 
Okay then. I had thought your objection was to the level of punishment rather than the law existing itself, but I was wrong. I retract that then. But Poland has some real problems with political expression, so a bastion of free speech they are not. They've instituted basically blasphemy laws:
Neither are we. I don’t see much distinction between an oligarchic corporate cartel controlling speech and being rendered unhirable for your status and opinions and a bunch of elites who can destroy your life for speaking out about it, but it’s not government, and the government doing that. Again, even with that Poland is doing better than ostensibly those who uphold speech in the US at trying to protect our speech.


So, do you not agree with democracy, or not agree with every citizen having an equal vote?
Democracy is absolutely cringe but definitely not universal suffrage. I like anti-democratic measures like the constitution and courts. Monarchy and Republics aren’t so bad really, I just know I don’t really like the current strain of liberal democracy and would rather have something else.


Based on what?
 
I'm down for marriage not being an institution.
The problem with that comes with certain legal issues, like, for example, being able to be informed about the medical status of a loved one, and being able to make decisions for them when they are incapacitated. And that's just one example. In order to take care of everything that just getting married takes care of for a couple, they'd have to spend an awful lot of money on multiple lawyers to set up all kinds of different legal contracts. So I'm very much in favor of keeping marriage as a state institution.
 
The problem with that comes with certain legal issues, like, for example, being able to be informed about the medical status of a loved one, and being able to make decisions for them when they are incapacitated. And that's just one example. In order to take care of everything that just getting married takes care of for a couple, they'd have to spend an awful lot of money on multiple lawyers to set up all kinds of different legal contracts. So I'm very much in favor of keeping marriage as a state institution.
There should be a way to make it happen without it.
 
On a practical level, slavery vs. no slavery is a pretty big deal to me; on a theological level, deists rejected revelation entirely—for starters.

I'm not convinced by your blithe assertion that Christian sects' axioms and beliefs were "quite similar" compared to today's.
With mainline Protestants things are more different, as many of them have chosen the current social feelings and worked to conform and twist their Bible and doctrine to mainstream social liberalism, and to an extent the American USCCB has done something similar. However, I think you’d be hard pressed to say the adherents of TLM and evangelical Protestants have less in common with their religious beliefs with their predecessors than they do more. Slavery is so far the only thing you brought up, and it’s not like all the faiths in America were like “American slavery is totally great and there’s nothing wrong with mistreatment of slaves and you can do whatever you want!”

All of this also misses my point which isn’t that religion has remained unchanged but rather that the American people of the 18th and 19th century had vastly more in common in their values and beliefs and view of the world than Americans of the 21st century and that’s not good for the social cohesion of the nation, especially with an increasingly powerful federal government and vastly differing opinions on virtually everything the country should be and should look like and said voting forcing the other side to go along with what they detest.
 
you’re talking about a man who at the time was excommunicated for heresy. A man in one country does not Catholic doctrine make. At that point you might as well say that Lutheranism is Catholic because Luther was a Catholic priest too lol.
Where did I call it Catholic? This is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to hammer into your head. You, LordsFire, and The Immortal Watch Dog have not actually defined common moral features one can safely assume of Christians as a whole. You keep engaging in what is essentially the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by simply asserting this is the case and implicitly denying any of the counter-examples as being Christian without a word of why they don't count.

It does not matter if the pro-gay-rights denominations are near-exclusively American Protestantism. That is still Christian, and quite relevant to the thread topic. And there's far more than just full-bore flaming pride parade bullshit peddlers, there's plenty of "Live and Let Live" takes on the matter, and those who are in favor of gay rights just in the capacity of "let them make a living with the public knowing" which was pointedly not the case before Stonewall.
 
Okay then. I had thought your objection was to the level of punishment rather than the law existing itself, but I was wrong. I retract that then. But Poland has some real problems with political expression, so a bastion of free speech they are not. They've instituted basically blasphemy laws:
Ok, and?

I'm tired of assholes insulting and defiling christian symbols, so stuff like this is a good thing in my eyes.
 
Neither are we. I don’t see much distinction between an oligarchic corporate cartel controlling speech and being rendered unhirable for your status and opinions and a bunch of elites who can destroy your life for speaking out about it, but it’s not government, and the government doing that. Again, even with that Poland is doing better than ostensibly those who uphold speech in the US at trying to protect our speech.
The difference is that the government has greater reach, and greater ability to punish. That law can jail someone for two years, much worse than what social media can do
Ok, and?

I'm tired of assholes insulting and defiling christian symbols, so stuff like this is a good thing in my eyes.
If you like freedom of speech as a principle, you must oppose blasphemy laws, or you become a massive hypocrite . So if you back this, then complain that youtube or twitter is censoring so and so, I'll just laugh at you.

Back on the topic of LGBT and the US Conservative movement, I haven't seen much comment on how the LGBT liberation movement was ultimately conservative in its goals, so I'll repost this here:
So this will sound weird, but what the average LGBT person wants out of the LGBT political movement is ultimately conservative. Here me out. We want basically 3 things:
1) The right to marry, form a family, and be less bothered by the government in private life.
2) The ability to work and have a house without being fired or kicked out for who you are.
3) The desire to fulfill gender roles without shame, albeit different to birth gender roles.

Now admittedly 2 is a little iffy on the conservatism, but the goal (have a job and a house) is a conservative, self reliant, good goal.

What you are about to say is that the LGBT movement haven't wanted this, point out how gays have tons of sex, and how all the non-binaries aren't wanting the gender roll, and that this is what the movement is now. But this is not the average LGBT wants, and as LGBT gets more and more rights, LGBTs were able to integrate more and more into society, and become a normal functioning part of it. And you are right, the LGBT activists hate these things. Some of them were against gay marriage because it would ruin gay culture, not realizing that gay culture exists for the same reason that Irish Cuisine exists: you made due with the shit you had, and pretended it was good. Now that we have a choice, we keep the good bits, and forget about the rest.

I mean just look at Gay culture, then vs now. In the 60s, if you were outed as gay, you got supercanceled. Not just your job and society, but also your family would exile you. You'd frequently end up living in one of the few gay 'Meccas' which were really Gommorahs. The squalor was horrific, and people would have constant meaningless sex because they had no way to set up lasting relationships. If you think now is bad, you just have no concept of how bad it used to be. They were denied renting, denied jobs, denied loans denied anyway out of poverty. Slowly, gays managed to change this by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and now gays are having families. Raising children, who would otherwise have been raised by the state. This is a huge conservative win in substance. A whole 5% of society cut down on rampant sex and began becoming contributing members of society.

The problem is the same problem that black culture has. There are activists who won't take the win, and think there's more to fight. There's about 3 types of this. Grifters, who want to make money off of being woker; college activists, who missed out on their opportunity to make a difference because they were born to late, and just refuse to accept that we already won; and finally the worst of all, true believers, who think that gay bathhouses are to be celebrated, and hate the idea of gay marriage. Fortunately, gay culture doesn't really maintain itself well, because it's not inheritable, so gay culture won't be taught to LGBT children, so this would normalize. But LGBT activists hate this, hence drag queen story hour, etc, and try to teach this to children (in an ultimately futile way). It will die anyway, as public schools are shit at everything, but it will take a lot longer.
 
Where did I call it Catholic? This is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to hammer into your head. You, LordsFire, and The Immortal Watch Dog have not actually defined common moral features one can safely assume of Christians as a whole. You keep engaging in what is essentially the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by simply asserting this is the case and implicitly denying any of the counter-examples as being Christian without a word of why they don't count.
Well I mean a word of why would be that guy being excommunicated and declared heresy. Since Vatican 2 Protestants have been more officially acknowledged as Christian brethren outside of the communion with the Catholic Church, but either way, with that guy specifically it was a fairly isolated sentiment in one rebellion in one country. It’s not like “this is a Christian belief that ran throughout.” And with common Christian morals, I think where the disconnect is coming from is that we know the book just fine and what it outlines as moral and immoral, and that much of that runs through Christianity. To sum some of the bigger points up, the starting point would be that humans are naturally inclined towards sinful behavior since the start, that we have a negative nature overall. We have sin, we all sin, we need to be absolved of our sins via faith and prayer and adherence to the ideals. On sexual morality it’s that it’s between men and women in marriage, and that you are meant to have children and you should have children. This was essentially universally true until again, fairly recently. Is there other stuff you want me to go over, because on much of what is and isn’t sinful or that all are sinful there’s pretty widespread agreement there. Again, more in common than not.

It does not matter if the pro-gay-rights denominations are near-exclusively American Protestantism. That is still Christian, and quite relevant to the thread topic. And there's far more than just full-bore flaming pride parade bullshit peddlers, there's plenty of "Live and Let Live" takes on the matter, and those who are in favor of gay rights just in the capacity of "let them make a living with the public knowing" which was pointedly not the case before Stonewall.
I think with a live and let live it makes some sense, and that’s not really what I have a ton of issue with if you believe that. It’s if you believe that churches and your churches should have gay pastors or gay leaders or gay marriage within the church. That’s where I think you will find no biblical basis whatsoever and is just liberalism in the dead skin of a church, which given the utter decline of these churches who do take a positive approach to these issues while those who oppose them grow, it makes sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top