You are letting the left take more control because you are not willing to let people live thier life without getting invovled
LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
1 & 2 we agree on.
But what I don't want to see are camps where kids are sent that isolate and abuse kids.
And if we accept that the government has to be religiously neutral, then if the government does anything regarding marriage, then it's obligated to do so in an equal way. If it just stayed out, I would be fine, if it called them all civil unions I'd be fine. But if the government offers rights to some and not others, that's not right. I would put forward that the government marriages are civil marriages, or religious ones not done according to your religion, and it doesn't affect your life, any more than another religion defining marriage in it's own, odd way.
Oh, sure, if you don't want to vote for them, that's fine. But they should be able to run for office, that's all.
Sure, that's fine (well, legally, personally I disagree with it, but it's not my kid, so I shouldn't have a say). But there's basically an organized abuse that pretends at being therapy that needs to stop. Basically, there's camps that advertise that they do this that should be banned, and stuff like that. A pastor telling someone that being gay is sinful I'm fine with. I'm even fine with a pastor one on one trying to teach someone that being gay is a choice (though it isn't) if they aren't doing it on the regular as a business basically.
But what I don't want to see are camps where kids are sent that isolate and abuse kids.
Eh, I have some faith that the religious exception will hold. I mean, hobby lobby went through, for example. The current supreme court is pretty decent at it. But yeah, if it fails, that'll lead to a lot of conflict I don't want to see either (and I'll probably be on your side).
This is a fair point, I don't claim to know much about Christianity (other than some Catholicism from catholic school). What if they do accept Jesus into their lives, though, but stay in a gay relationship? Or would you hold that this is impossible?
No, that’s exactly how they take control. You cede that ground in putting forward “this is how you should live your life” which every society has to it, which will always happen, and then you have nothing to put forward. And why should you put that forward? Why should you accept someone’s “decision” to be a prostitute, online or in reality? Why should you say it’s fine to be a drug addict, that this isn’t something you should do? To not be a present father in the home, that it’s not good to abandon your responsibilities to your children? To value having children, having a family? To have meaning to your life? It reminds me of this girl I met, who lived her life as a cry of attention and victimhood, was with my buddy and complained about the fact we were just trying to hang out and play games, and not just go out to the club even as she said she was sexually assaulted multiple times. I don’t see how or why you should say that’s equally as valid as trying to start up and raise a family. Not that clubs should be illegal, but that both are equally healthy and valid lives to live. And really I can’t believe both in God and the Bible and then also believe that these are equally valid or good. It goes against something that’s a core part of me and my beliefs, and to back down on that is to submit entirely.
From a religious perspective, this would still be sinful, and Christians are called to holiness (that is, living as God wants them to); however, Christians acknowledge that even when saved they are still fallen and prone to sin.
It would likely be understood in a similar manner to a person with a negative addictive or similar constant sinfu; behavior (IE, most forms of addiction violate calls to moderation, AKA the Sin of Gluttony, though porn addiction, for example, would violate both gluttony and calls to chastity, thus indulging in both Lust and Gluttony).
Note that under a Christian understanding of sexual morality, people with same sex attraction are called to the same standards as people with opposite sex attraction: chastity. Sadly, they are given a harder path in some respects, since within Christian morality there is an outlet for sexual urges in a chaste* manner (being married), whereas for same sex attraction there is not. This may seem unfair, but what sins people struggle with are never evenly given. Consider, some people do not have much of a struggle maintaining their temper, they are always cool and collected. Other people have fiery tempers that they struggle to control. The first person may never struggle with the sin of wrath, while the other constantly struggles with it. Some people are more biologically inclined to addictions, some are not.
Does that make sense?
------------
* A sidenote: "chaste" and thus "chastity" does not actually mean "never having sex" it means "innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse", thus sexual intercourse within the a marriage bond is, in fact, maintaining chastity.
Yep, thanks for the explanation!
Would it be a bigger problem if they didn't view it as sinful?
So you are willing to let the left get a larger and larger base and most likely never win another election because "Letting LGBT people have equal rights is horrible idea!!"?
Yes? But not because it's about being gay.
Consider the framework of Christianity, within that idea who defines Sin is not Christians or even the Church, but God.
So they would be, functionally, saying that they know better than God what is and what is not Sinful. Which well, means that they're committing one Sin, minimally Pride, but may even rise to Blasphemy in the literal definition: "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God" or "the act of claiming the attributes of a deity" (being able to define what is and is not a sin is an attribute of a deity), to justify another Sin.
Now, to note, none of these Sins are Unforgivable or end up causing a person to lose Salvation, but they would definitely be living in continual sin. And, as I noted, this applies to ANY Sin where a person decides they know better and decide what is defined as a Sin is no longer a Sin.
Fair enough, I started a separate thread for this discussion.
What do you mean by "religiously neutral"? I generally support what the first amendment says about not establishing any particular religion or suppressing the free expression of any particular religion (with extreme exceptions - in particular, the recent attempts by Satanists to say abortion is part of their religious practice in response to states making laws restricting abortion strains how far I'm willing to go with freedom of religion).
This all depends on how you define marriage. If you define marriage as "a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman for living together, exclusive sex, raising children, etc", then as long as the government allows any man to marry any woman, and any woman to marry any man, it's being done in an "equal way". I think that definition is established by God, and I don't think I have the right to change that definition, nor does the government.
As for not affecting my life, I don't believe that this life is all there is. I believe there is a life after this, and in that life I will be called to account for all the actions and decisions I made. If I was to support redefining marriage as something other than how God defined it, I would be called to account for that.
I don't think you're being consistent here. You say, "It's not my kid, so I shouldn't have a say". Does that apply to parents sending their kids to these camps as you describe? Do you think the government should step in and prevent that? If you do, then you do actually think you have a say at some point in how parents treat their kids who experience same sex attraction, which again begs the question of where you draw the line.
A regular part of a pastor's job can be counseling his church members. He's not necessarily paid directly by a member who meets him for counseling, but he is reimbursed by the church for his service. And there are dedicated Christian counselors whose job is to counsel from a basis of Biblical morals. Parents may want to send their child to such a counselor, potentially against their will, for counseling on essentially suppressing that same sex attraction. Again, not to "cure" it, but certainly to help prevent them from acting on it. Do you think that should be permissible? Can you see the potential conflict if there are laws against "conversion therapy" on the books? I'm actually not even sure of the answer myself. I draw a distinction between that and conversion therapy, and I do think conversion therapy with things like ECT is supremely harmful, but that distinction may be hard for a legislature or court system to see.
I think that S'task answered this pretty well. I would add that I think you haven't properly framed the question. It's not a matter of "accepting Jesus into their lives". It's kind of common phraseology for modern evangelicals, but I actually think it's incorrect. I believe the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit works to convict a person of his or her sin, to open their heart to the Gospel, moving them to faith in Jesus Christ and thus receiving grace and salvation for their sins. It's monergistic, and it all comes from the Holy Spirit moving in a person. If a person claims to have faith in Christ, but rejects what the Bible clearly teaches to be sinful and continues openly in a sinful relationship, that's a clear sign to me that the first step of the Holy Spirit convicting them of their sin hasn't happened, and everything that follows thus can't have happened.
So, tl;dr, I'd rephrase the question, "What if someone professes faith in Jesus Christ, but stays in a gay relationship?" I would say that calls their profession into serious question, and signifies that they have not yet received salvation. A Christian who is convicted of their sin would be moved to leave such a relationship.
Last edited:
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
this.
I don’t think that’s remotely an assured thing and have shown how you can make up those votes, and have massive doubts LGBT shilling would help. But again, it’s also a question of if you sacrifice everything you actually want to “win” did you actually do so?
Yes because they’re just deciding for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong based entirely on their own proclivities and what they feel and not what they e
I'm not saying to shill.
Just dont make it an issue. Let them live thier lives.
Just dint restrict them and make them vote against you
Plenty voted R when it was restricted, and I’ve already explained to you why it’s intrinsically an issue. I have serious doubts that if you gave up that plank that you’d get zero votes, because guess what, it’s still a GOP position in their stated goals to remove gay marriage and they still get votes! Like my position here doesn’t even involve doing anything except maintaining one status quo part of the platform. It’s pretty clear it’s not “making them vote against it” even now. It’s not some third rail of politics, it’s not some “if you even go there you are guaranteed a loss”. I have confidence that LGBT issues will continue to drop in popularity in the right with successive generations, because the LGBT vote isn’t even what matters so much here, it’s the “allies”.
I am for getting rid of the state owning marriage personally so eh.
I am just saying let them live. They may still vote R, btu a smaller amountandit will shrink the more people push for it
And I think there’s potential to make up for that with populism that appeals to more socially conservative minorities and surpass the LGBT voting pool. And “let them live” well I’m not saying murder them lol.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
what other conclusion is there then? good luck with a "mostly peaceful banishment" or a "Mostly peaceful forced conversion" cause that's what will end up happening. Nobody will stand for being an untouchable and somebody will end up saying "If i'm going to Hell I'm dragging you with me." revolutions happen because people feel like they have nothing left to lose. you talk about how people are society builds them and yet somehow you seem to think revolutions and political genocides occur in a vaccum or "just happen" as you so elegantly put it.
Because all those countries that didn’t have gay marriage which was literally all of them except for the modern west in the last few decades faced LGBT revolutions when they didn’t have gay marriage and all of them murdered or banished people. Those are the only two options, allow gay marriage or have genocide, or whatever the gay equivalent to that is.
Honestly this just underlines the comparisons I've always made between the regressive right and the regressive left - neither of them can just live and let live. They can never just leave well enough alone. They can never tolerate others being different from them. Everything must be according to their ideological views, and if it doesn't conform, they will just re-frame it so it does. Any compromise is compromise with evil, so it's all or nothing.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
hmm in terms of ones that accepted gay marriage, Greece, Rome, Egypt,
In terms of punishable by death or rotting in prison: all Islamic country's , medieval Europe, Nazi Germany, modern England and the US
saying that some of these societies "let them live" is like saying that Nero "Let Christians live" he let them live so long as they didn't get caught. Just like how Progressives will let conservatives "Live" as long as we don't get caught.
“Regressive right” and “regressive left” being all ideologies and nations ever except for Libertarianism and real Libertarianism has never been tried. No one has ever done “live and let live” ever to your specifications. There’s always an Overton window of acceptability, there’s always standards, there’s always who will be taught what, there’s always narratives about right and wrong. Tolerance also only means “permit the existence of behaviors and opinions you don’t agree with.” You can have a society that has a highly negative view of X but as long as it’s allowed to exist it’s still tolerant, and that’s in large part what I want. You’ve literally been ranting and fucking raving about how you hope that your ideology takes over the party that still is closer to my beliefs than yours and that I get zero political representation, how is that any more tolerant than what I want? I mean for fucks sake I think my ideal proposed solution is more tolerant than anything you came up with, a hope that I could have my state with gay marriage illegal and you could have your state with it legal. The issue is with the expansive federal government and bureaucracy we are all forced to deal with each other playing a game for the entire nation and how we want the laws to be over it all.
No, no, and no. There was no gay marriage permitted or accepted, just gay sex, mostly sex between men and boys particularly in Greece, though Egypt I can’t say I’m as familiar with unless you mean Ptolemaic Egypt.
still not all countries ever, as shown by the above.
Good thing I didn’t say that lol. Just saying there’s more options than gay marriage or mass murder. You seem to seriously be thinking everyone who opposes gay marriage wants to kill every last gay.
Last edited:
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I'm not saying anyone who opposes gay marriage wants to kill every last gay. I'm asking what's the alternative when people won't accept being treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens. You don't seem content living and let live. You don't seem content letting the states/cities handling the issue, and if you think you can just plug your ears and ignore them, clearly you've not been paying attention the last 50 years let alone the past 10.