LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

Stargazer said:

I had to google Buchanan, wasn't familiar with him. So that just begs a further question, what do you mean by "Pat Buchanan's type of conservative"?

Click to expand...

Basically, someone who puts social conservationism ideals above all other goals, often to the detriment of the cause they represent, and who views on the issue are hypocritical when critically examined.

Paleo-cons want to try to rewind the clock on society, and force society to revert to their 'ideal' condition, rather than adapt to changing times.

Bacle said:

Basically, someone who puts social conservationism ideals above all other goals, often to the detriment of the cause they represent, and who views on the issue are hypocritical when critically examined.

Paleo-cons want to try to rewind the clock on society, and force society to revert to their 'ideal' condition, rather than adapt to changing times.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when you referred to " the paleo-con position on LGB stuff", would you categorize the views I've expressed as such?

Stargazer said:

Ok, so when you referred to " the paleo-con position on LGB stuff", would you categorize the views I've expressed as such?

Click to expand...

Are you willing to 'live and let live', and not try to shove LGBs back into the closet, or strip our rights from us?

Rocinante said:

I want the government out of religion and religion out of government.

Click to expand...

This is really the crux of the issue.

Someone's religion is going to control government. The question is, whose?

When Christianity was the dominant cultural force, we had a flawed government, including here in the US which explicitly denounced theocracy.

When western nations have abandoned christian values as the root for their morality and their legal systems, what has that resulted in?

Bacle said:

Are you willing to 'live and let live', and not try to shove LGBs back into the closet, or strip our rights from us?

Click to expand...

Those are somewhat loaded questions. What counts as "live and let live"? What "rights" do you insist on having?

I don't support the government "shoving LGBs back in the closet" if that means keeping them from openly having sexual relations which whatever other consenting adult they please. I think it's not the government's place to dictate that, in a secular society.

Stargazer said:

Those are somewhat loaded questions. What counts as "live and let live"?

Click to expand...

Live and let live here means not trying to roll back same-sex marriage, not trying to publicly go after LGBs for religious reasons, and LGBs not trying to force people to cater same-sex weddings if they don't want to.

That really shouldn't be too hard to achieve.

Stargazer said:

What "rights" do you insist on having?

Click to expand...

The same rights hetero people have, no more, no less.

Stargazer said:

I don't support the government "shoving LGBs back in the closet" if that means keeping them from having sexual relations which whatever other consenting adult they please. I think it's not the government's place to dictate that, in a secular society.

Click to expand...

Do you support rolling back the marriage rights they have now in the US, or trying to make discriminating on the basis of people being LGB legal again?

Because part of the paleo-con plank is trying to do both of those, while trying to force their religious ideals on everyone else.

Bacle said:

down to make sure we are never under the paleo-cons thumbs, ever again.

Click to expand...

you never were unless you count Trump, the closest there’s ever been to a paleocon president. You still don’t know what the fuck a Paleo-con even is.

Bacle said:

Basically, someone who puts social conservationism ideals above all other goals, often to the detriment of the cause they represent, and who views on the issue are hypocritical when critically examined.

Paleo-cons want to try to rewind the clock on society, and force society to revert to their 'ideal' condition, rather than adapt to changing times.

Click to expand...

You are so completely and totally off lol. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about even still. You are so mad about paleocons just because A. I’m one, and I’m the first one you’ve ever met who’s said they are that. You are now obsessed with the term and are spreading a bunch of bullshit about a movement within the right you know nothing about purely over being butthurt I’m not Pro-LGBT.

the basics of Paleoconservatism are social traditionalists, who don’t believe the free market is the end all be all and put main street over wallstreet, economic nationalists who want America to maintain industry and support its people and workers, are skeptical of free trade and support tariffs, anti-immigration, and foreign policy isolationists. Have a tendency to be Catholic too. Since the post World War II era they have been a dissident ideology against the mainstream of the right, which saw a war with the National Review taking on the John Birch Society in the 50s and 60s, after that it’s influence died, the re-emerges as a small part of the Reagan administration with Pat Buchanan, who then runs for President for the GOP and reform party, but ultimately the NeoCons take over with HW Bush. Then it re-emerges in the Trump era as Trumpism is pretty damn close to Paleoconservatism and clearly draws from its legacy within the reform party which Trump was also a part of, and now is with the America First movement in particular, with there war on Gen Z and on campuses against Turning Point USA as the unofficial youth wing of the GOP.

it’s not “social conservatism over all else, and they are a bunch of meany doodoo heads who are totally just hypocrites!” Or whatever seething bullshit has been living rent free in your head for weeks.

This is slightly off topic, but IIRC the last break between the PaleoCons and the neocons wasn't social conservatism, rather, it was the neocons interventionism whereas PaleoCons / Old Right tended to be more non-interventionist, even isolationist, and neocons tend to be market purists and unilaterally in favor of free trade whereas PaleoCons are more protectionist and more open to government intervention where they see it as beneficial or necessary. neocons were and still are generally nominally in favor of social conservatism, the difference in stances is generally more that neoconservatives deprioritize social conservatism below every other issue.

Bacle said:

Live and let live here means not trying to roll back same-sex marriage, not trying to publicly go after LGBs for religious reasons, and LGBs not trying to force people to cater same-sex weddings if they don't want to.

That really shouldn't be too hard to achieve.

The same rights hetero people have, no more, no less.

Do you support rolling back the marriage rights they have now in the US, or trying to make discriminating on the basis of people being LGB legal again?

Because part of the paleo-con plank is trying to do both of those, while trying to force their religious ideals on everyone else.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier in the thread, I view marriage as a sacred institution defined by God, not a secular one. And that definition is given in the Bible as being a covenant between one man and one woman. I don't think the government, even a secular one, has the right to redefine marriage as anything other than that. I don't support politicians and policies that seek to redefine marriage.

To that end, I do think that Obergefell was wrongly decided (as do Justices Thomas and Alito), and would support it being overturned.

Under the God-given definition, "same-sex marriage" isn't a thing. Two people of the same sex don't qualify to be married, any more than five people qualify to be married all at once, or a person and their pet. Such a union by definition cannot be a marriage union.

As for this whole paleo con deal, again, it's not something I've ever identified with or even really looked into. I identify first and foremost as a conservative, Bible-believing Christian, and second as a political conservative in general and Republican. Judging from what FriedC said, I have a good amount of disagreement with paleo-conservativism, and my views on marriage don't seem to be definitional of or exclusive to paleo-conservativism. This is the first time anyone's even suggested that I'm a paleo-con in some way, so I think FriedC may be right in that you're not really clear on what paleo-conservativism even is.

FriedC takes an even bigger step into the absurd in suggesting that women's rights be curtailed as well.

Captain X said:

FriedC takes an even bigger step into the absurd in suggesting that women's rights be curtailed as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah not super relevant to this discussion. You’re kinda just throwing the convo in other directions so you can just try and mock me for whatever. I’m sorry, I just think liberalism is kinda shit. You know that like, you’re allowed to have other beliefs that aren’t liberalism and that everyone who isn’t a liberal isn’t insane right? Also why do you do this weird effeminate teenage girl shit where you talk shit about me in the thread without replying and just comment to the crowd?

Captain X said:

FriedC takes an even bigger step into the absurd in suggesting that women's rights be curtailed as well.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious to know what his stance is then, and his reasoning behind it.

Stargazer said:

As I said earlier in the thread, I view marriage as a sacred institution defined by God, not a secular one. And that definition is given in the Bible as being a covenant between one man and one woman. I don't think the government, even a secular one, has the right to redefine marriage as anything other than that. I don't support politicians and policies that seek to redefine marriage.

To that end, I do think that Obergefell was wrongly decided (as do Justices Thomas and Alito), and would support it being overturned.

Under the God-given definition, "same-sex marriage" isn't a thing. Two people of the same sex don't qualify to be married, any more than five people qualify to be married all at once, or a person and their pet. Such a union by definition cannot be a marriage union.

As for this whole paleo con deal, again, it's not something I've ever identified with or even really looked into. I identify first and foremost as a conservative, Bible-believing Christian, and second as a political conservative in general and Republican. Judging from what FriedC said, I have a good amount of disagreement with paleo-conservativism, and my views on marriage don't seem to be definitional of or exclusive to paleo-conservativism. This is the first time anyone's even suggested that I'm a paleo-con in some way, so I think FriedC may be right in that you're not really clear on what paleo-conservativism even is.

Click to expand...

You aren't a paleo-con, but you are someone who needs to understand the visceral reaction LGB folks will have to people who want to roll back same-sex marriages.

And you need to understand there are plenty of straight folks in the center who will not vote for a R that tries to roll back same-sex marriages, because they see it as infringing on the rights of their friends.

We are a secular country, with secular laws, and there is a reason no holy book of any group or religion can be allowed to dictate government policy. Marriage in the US is a government institution, whether you like it or not, and that is the reality LGB folks have to operate in for insurance, taxes, medical power of attorney, and all the little things tied to marriage.

I want to be clear, I respect religious freedom, and think nuns shouldn't have to pay for condoms or birth control. Planned Parenthood is an abomination created by a eugenicist, and I am very pro-Life. The cake baker in the Master Piece Cakeshop case should never have been targeted; he was willing to sell the gay couple a pre-made cake, but not cater the wedding.

However, I am also bi, and know damn well what it means for people like me if Obergefell is reversed. Because the 'reversal' won't have started, or ended, there.

This is why I want the Right to stop fighting or even really debating this issue, because it is undoing a LOT of the progress Trump made, and not just with LGBs alone. There is common ground we can work on, if you all can just leave this topic alone in mixed company and not actively seek it politically.

FriedCFour said:

Yeah not super relevant to this discussion. You’re kinda just throwing the convo in other directions so you can just try and mock me for whatever. I’m sorry, I just think liberalism is kinda shit.

Click to expand...

It's not just to mock you - it's to show other people what they're really dealing with, because you aren't just anti-LGBT rights, and the "tradition" you want to go back to is very old indeed.

Captain X said:

It's not just to mock you - it's to show other people what they're really dealing with, because you aren't just anti-LGBT rights, and the "tradition" you want to go back to is very old indeed.

Click to expand...

Like less than a hundred years lol, and the traditions that ran through the west for most of its history, and even then soft versions of it. And you can always dream. And “show them what they are dealing with” like I’m some kinda monster lol. Really, I just think we talk too much about women’s rights and not enough about women’s wrongs.

I would say "regressive right" fits you to a tee. You are exactly the kind of boogie-man the regressive left likes to use in all their absurd tirades.

Captain X said:

I would say "regressive right" fits you to a tee. You are exactly the kind of boogie-man the regressive left likes to use in all their absurd tirades.

Click to expand...

You sure do love the word regressive.



I don’t know, it’s bizarre to have someone ridiculously worked up and offended because someone expressed what they think. Do you react like this to everyone who’s not within your narrow liberal Overton window?

Captain X said:

It's not just to mock you - it's to show other people what they're really dealing with, because you aren't just anti-LGBT rights, and the "tradition" you want to go back to is very old indeed.

Click to expand...

Surprise, surprise, the social conservative is socially conservative! Shock and horror abound.

Unless this was brought up by @FriedCFour earlier in this thread (I admittedly haven't been following this thread too closely), this is behavior is pretty clearly bad faith tactics, and just the sort of thing the left loves to employ.

LindyAF said:

Unless this was brought up by @FriedCFour earlier in this thread (I admittedly haven't been following this thread too closely), this is behavior is pretty clearly bad faith tactics, and just the sort of thing the left loves to employ.

Click to expand...

Hootin and hollerin chimping out and a refusal to actually engage with anything, just trying to expose how awful and evil someone is for thinking something you disagree with while not actually engaging with anything. Its pretty stupid and extremely feminine behavior.

Again, I am curious to know what FriedC's views actually are. We may have some overlap, but I get the feeling he's got a significantly different worldview and set of presuppositions going on.

Bacle said:

You aren't a paleo-con, but you are someone who needs to understand the visceral reaction LGB folks will have to people who want to roll back same-sex marriages.

And you need to understand there are plenty of straight folks in the center who will not vote for a R that tries to roll back same-sex marriages, because they see it as infringing on the rights of their friends.

We are a secular country, with secular laws, and there is a reason no holy book of any group or religion can be allowed to dictate government policy. Marriage in the US is a government institution, whether you like it or not, and that is the reality LGB folks have to operate in for insurance, taxes, medical power of attorney, and all the little things tied to marriage.

I want to be clear, I respect religious freedom, and think nuns shouldn't have to pay for condoms or birth control. Planned Parenthood is an abomination created by a eugenicist, and I am very pro-Life. The cake baker in the Master Piece Cakeshop case should never have been targeted; he was willing to sell the gay couple a pre-made cake, but not cater the wedding.

However, I am also bi, and know damn well what it means for people like me if Obergefell is reversed. Because the 'reversal' won't have started, or ended, there.

This is why I want the Right to stop fighting or even really debating this issue, because it is undoing a LOT of the progress Trump made, and not just with LGBs alone. There is common ground we can work on, if you all can just leave this topic alone in mixed company and not actively seek it politically.

Click to expand...

I understand those things you think I should understand. The reality for me though is those groups are ultimately not who I am accountable for my own actions.

I recognize we are a secular country, and that's why I allow for people to do whatever they want with their own time, their associations, their bodies, etc. Redefining marriage is in a different category though, and again, I don't think the government has the right to declare marriage to be a secular institution and define marriage however it pleases.

What you're asking me to do by "stop fighting or debating the issue", in effect, is to sell out my beliefs and values for the sake of political gain. It's not something my conscience will allow me to do.