LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

LOL, I'm not offended! I just call a spade a spade, which is why I use the term regressive - you and the regressive left both want to undo what has been gained in terms of equal rights and achieving meritocracy.

LindyAF said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh, but he did bring up taking away the right to vote from women and forcing them into "traditional" roles again, all on his own in a discussion about LGBT rights. I'm just highlighting that again, because it seems like people missed that or are trying to ignore it.

Stargazer said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think feminism as a whole was a mistake, that it’s results are a natural flow from its tenants and that along with mass importation of immigrants has been a total disaster for how we function in the economy, and the loss of the women’s sphere of labor and just shoving them into the male workforce while also all society encouraging women to be sluts and men slut makers have all been terrible, and the nation in the last sixty years and across the west is dying. We’ve gone from weak men to hard times. And the founding fathers should have read more Hobbes and less Locke.

Captain X said:

regressive left both want to undo what has been gained in terms of equal rights and achieving meritocracy.

Click to expand...

Yep. What can I say, I’m just not a feminist of any wave.

Captain X said:

Oh, but he did bring up taking away the right to vote from women and forcing them into "traditional" roles again, all on his own in a discussion about LGBT rights. I'm just highlighting that again, because it seems like people missed that or are trying to ignore it.

Click to expand...

Well you asked and I don’t like bitching out and hiding things because it’s not “acceptable”.

Stargazer said:

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.



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 in the name of political gain. It's not something my conscience will allow me to do.

Click to expand...

How about looking beyond your own religious beliefs to the reality all religions share in the US, and understanding that continuing to try to fight this battle is actively detrimental to your other goals.

I assume you are pro-Life, correct? Are you willing to hold your tongue on LGB stuff if you get their help dealing with Planned Parenthood and ridiculous trans-trender crap?

What ideals from your holy book matter more to you; speaking out against LGB stuff, or saving the unborn?

FriedCFour said:

Yep. What can I say, I’m just not a feminist of any wave.

Click to expand...

I'm not a feminist either, but I am egalitarian.

Well you asked and I don’t like bitching out and hiding things because it’s not “acceptable”.

Click to expand...

And I didn't ask you the first time you brought it up. I asked you later on because I couldn't remember if it was you or one of the others who had made such an absurd statement.

Captain X said:

I'm not a feminist either, but I am egalitarian.

And I didn't ask you the first time you brought it up. I asked you later on because I couldn't remember if it was you or one of the others who had made such an absurd statement.

Click to expand...

Yeah it’s totally insane to take serious issue with the fact that across the west and developed world we are fucking dying out and it started immediately post feminism, and connecting those two and wanting to reverse the declining birth rate.

FriedCFour said:

I think feminism as a whole was a mistake, that it’s results are a natural flow from its tenants and that along with mass importation of immigrants has been a total disaster for how we function in the economy, and the loss of the women’s sphere of labor and just shoving them into the male workforce while also all society encouraging women to be sluts and men slut makers have all been terrible, and the nation in the last sixty years and across the west is dying. We’ve gone from weak men to hard times. And the founding fathers should have read more Hobbes and less Locke.

Click to expand...

That's...a rather confusing response. Possibly because you're mostly defining yourself by what you're against rather than what you are for. What causes and policies do you support, and why?

Bacle said:

How about looking beyond your own religious beliefs to the reality all religions share in the US, and understanding that continuing to try to fight this battle is actively detrimental to your other goals.

I assume you are pro-Life, correct? Are you willing to hold your tongue on LGB stuff if you get their help dealing with Planned Parenthood and ridiculous trans-trender crap?

What ideals from your holy book matter more to you; speaking out against LGB stuff, or saving the unborn?

Click to expand...

The overriding reality for me is that we all live in God's world, and will have to stand before him and account for our actions after this world has passed.

I am "pro-life", yes. And I'm pro-life because of the same worldview that defines homosexuality as sinful. I am morally obligated to oppose both. It's not a matter of choosing between the two, because I believe that God is sovereign over all and his decree will come to pass whether or not Christians have the help of LGB individuals. Again, my moral duty is first and foremost to be faithful to God in my own actions and in the things I support.

Bacle said:

I assume you are pro-Life, correct? Are you willing to hold your tongue on LGB stuff if you get their help dealing with Planned Parenthood and ridiculous trans-trender crap?

What ideals from your holy book matter more to you; speaking out against LGB stuff, or saving the unborn?

Click to expand...

This matter IMO is worth it's own thread, but from what I've seen, right-wing issue groups like to separate, stress that the extent to which they are not related, and try to outreach to the left. This is particularly true of pro-life groups and only somewhat true of gun rights groups, which are the primary RW issues with big activist groups. This generally hasn't worked out well for them.

In contrast, left-wing issue groups all network, share members, regularly turn out for each others' protests, etc. Which has generally been pretty effective for them.

Stargazer said:

That's...a rather confusing response. Possibly because you're mostly defining yourself by what you're against rather than what you are for. What causes and policies do you support, and why?

Click to expand...

Paleocon because it’s the closest and most viable, but really everything I listed when I explained what paleocon is. Massive reduction of immigration, being much more isolationist in foreign policy, traditionalism being present in society, economics that lean distributist as an ideal, though not necessarily a model. And policies that reverse the decline in births, families, and mass glut of single mothers. I used to just repeat the same tired talking points as Captain X but I ultimately found them extremely wanting and it doesn’t seem remotely viable for the long term.

FriedCFour said:

Paleocon because it’s the closest and most viable, but really everything I listed when I explained what paleocon is. Massive reduction of immigration, being much more isolationist in foreign policy, traditionalism being present in society, economics that lean distributist as an ideal, though not necessarily a model. And policies that reverse the decline in births, families, and mass glut of single mothers. I used to just repeat the same tired talking points as Captain X but I ultimately found them extremely wanting and it doesn’t seem remotely viable for the long term.

Click to expand...

Ok. Now, why do you support all of this? Why are the outcomes something you view as desirable? Why are you a paleo-con?

Stargazer said:

The overriding reality for me is that we all live in God's world, and will have to stand before him and account for our actions after this world has passed.

I am "pro-life", yes. And I'm pro-life because of the same worldview that defines homosexuality as sinful. I am morally obligated to oppose both. It's not a matter of choosing between the two, because I believe that God is sovereign over all and his decree will come to pass whether or not Christians have the help of LGB individuals. Again, my moral duty is first and foremost to be faithful to God in my own actions and in the things I support.

Click to expand...

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

The cold hard reality is sometimes you have to compromise some principles, to save others. Because you cannot get everything you want, political/social capital is not unlimited, and you have to decide what fights you can actually win. You have read the Bible a lot, but I doubt you've given Sun Tzu his due, and it shows.

So I will ask again, which ideal from your holy book matters more to you; shaming LGB folks for 'sinful' behavior, or protecting innocent lives in the womb?

LindyAF said:

This matter IMO is worth it's own thread, but from what I've seen, right-wing issue groups like to separate, stress that the extent to which they are not related, and try to outreach to the left. This is particularly true of pro-life groups and only somewhat true of gun rights groups, which are the primary RW issues with big activist groups. This generally hasn't worked out well for them.

In contrast, left-wing issue groups all network, share members, regularly turn out for each others' protests, etc. Which has generally been pretty effective for them.

Click to expand...

And this is yet another way the Right has failed to evolve with tech and times.

Adapt or die is true of the political world as much as it is for evolution or warfare.

FriedCFour said:

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.

Click to expand...

FriedCFour said:

@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?

Click to expand...

That's good to hear. I may be an atheist, but I have a lot of respect for Paleo-Cons and associated movements. In fact, I identify as a Paleo-Con in many regards.

I don't think that you're a hypocrite. It's the nature of such forums that people sometimes end up spending lots of time debating one issue and no time discussing something they care about even more. I do think that conservatism as a whole, which I must admit include a lot of people who aren't really conservative in any meaningful sense, doesn't seem to care much about divorce or greed - to list only two important examples.

Bacle said:

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

The cold hard reality is sometimes you have to compromise some principles, to save others. Because you cannot get everything you want, political/social capital is not unlimited, and you have to decide what fights you can actually win. You have read the Bible a lot, but I doubt you've given Sun Tzu his due, and it shows.

So I will ask again, which ideal from your holy book matters more to you; shaming LGB folks for 'sinful' behavior, or protecting innocent lives in the womb

Click to expand...

I disagree that is the reality. I believe that God's decree will come to pass, no matter what any individual human chooses to do. It's not on me to "get everything I want". It's not my job to win. It's on me to be faithful to what God has commanded me, and to do it to the best of my ability.

All the values established by God matter to me. I refuse to engage in cold political calculus by actively working against one value in order to advance another politically. To do so would violate that duty to be faithful to what God has commanded.

Why does any of this matter to you?

Bacle said:

And this is yet another way the Right has failed to evolve with tech and times.

Adapt or die is true of the political world as much as it is for evolution or warfare.

Click to expand...

I don't really think this is failure to evolve- rather it's single issue people trying to jump on board the winning team.

My point, though, was that single issue groups trying to throw every other part of the right under the bus in order to appeal to the left hasn't been beneficial. Similarly, I think it's wrong to suppose that right-wing positions are in a tradeoff, that sacrificing one would benefit the other.

Stargazer said:

Ok. Now, why do you support all of this? Why are the outcomes something you view as desirable? Why are you a paleo-con?

Click to expand...

Well that goes back to the TPUSA Groyper war. At the time I was a TPUSA member and didn’t really watch much of it, but I eventually caught Nick Fuentes coming on to another Podcast that I liked and talking about it and what was going on. I then dug into a whole lot of the different Q&As and background and just saw as these guys miserably failed to death with actual conservatives, and that they were libertarians masquerading as conservatives. I also saw more and more that the Radical Left isn’t the issue, it’s the Washington establishment. I also came around to the conclusion that live and let live simply isn’t viable, because ultimately all the cultural and social institutions are stacked against and inculcating values that go against what I believe in, and we are also importing people that generally vote blue regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. All of those seemed like existential threats that “live and let live” and “our first priority is getting a tax cut passed” politics just simply can’t deal with and that there needs to be a push to actually utilize the government in order to survive, because the way things are really looking now, the right is facing an absolutely existential threat that comes from various things that need to be absolutely rolled back otherwise it will just be liberalism forever and America won’t be anything like America any longer.

there’s also that I stopped just listening to what Pundits appealed to as the founding fathers and read what many of them had to say and saw that they weren’t a bunch of deist libertarians, the fact that every time in my life I went and stopped being traditional and engaged in hedonism it was short highs followed by misery and just how many people I saw who were just broken and toxic from that shit. And with being more socially conservative I tried faith and prayer and opted to read the Bible again, and literally within a couple weeks my wife was pregnant, but then lost the child around 9 weeks in, and really both creating and losing life puts a lot of things in perspective, like how valuable and important relationships are and how important religion is in your own life and for society as a whole, because without that it would have been pretty hard to deal with.

On women’s rights it’s how feminism directly ties into declining birth rates and the sexual revolution and I detest both those things. It’s also the experience of getting an X girlfriend pregnant who said she wanted a family with you, pleading with her to keep the child and then you being able to do basically nothing about it as she killed it. I think that’s totally fucked and really just isn’t right any way you cut it.

Bacle said:

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

The cold hard reality is sometimes you have to compromise some principles, to save others. Because you cannot get everything you want, political/social capital is not unlimited, and you have to decide what fights you can actually win. You have read the Bible a lot, but I doubt you've given Sun Tzu his due, and it shows.

So I will ask again, which ideal from your holy book matters more to you; shaming LGB folks for 'sinful' behavior, or protecting innocent lives in the womb?
And this is yet another way the Right has failed to evolve with tech and times.

Adapt or die is true of the political world as much as it is for evolution or warfare.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the new comer to the group asking everyone else to make accommodations for them while they make none themselves. You sound like someone fleeing the crazy nonsense of California for a red state only to insist your new home adopt all the stuff you liked in California without understanding that those policies are part and parcel of what made it so crazy.

You demand that the existing political group made huge sacrifices to keystone policies. What do you bring to the table to warrant that other then threatening to be as fair weather as people warned?

Wargamer08 said:

Ah yes, the new comer to the group asking everyone else to make accommodations for them while they make none themselves. You sound like someone fleeing the crazy nonsense of California for a red state only to insist your new home adopt all the stuff you liked in California without understanding that those policies are part and parcel of what made it so crazy.

You demand that the existing political group made huge sacrifices to keystone policies. What do you bring to the table to warrant that other then threatening to be as fair weather as people warned?

Click to expand...

What could people like bacle and I do, as a quid pro quo?

Say you lighten up on gay marriage.

What can ex lefties do, in your opinion, that would be a trade off?

Rocinante said:

What could people like bacle and I do, as a quid pro quo?

Say you lighten up on gay marriage.

What can ex lefties do, in your opinion, that would be a trade off?

Click to expand...

I want first amendment rights, second ammendment rights, the right to due process restored, and while were at it for the press to hold the democratic party to the same standard the republican party is held to.

But if that isn't possible then I am gladly willing to accept having any cheating at the ballot box eliminated with the cheaters put into federal prison for the attempt.

Rocinante said:

What could people like bacle and I do, as a quid pro quo?

Say you lighten up on gay marriage.

What can ex lefties do, in your opinion, that would be a trade off?

Click to expand...

That’s what I asked. All Bacle has offered so far is that if the literal core values of a significant chunk of the party aren’t altered they would go back to the left. That screams fair weather friend to me, why bother going through the massive reorganization of the party that kind of change would need for someone who threatens to leave if not appeased? So my question is what policy sacrifice he and him are making/willing to make as to have that be worth it. I’m not asking on what policies they agree on, they are asking people to massively twist a fundamental value, I’m asking if they are willing to do the same.

Cherico said:

I want first amendment rights, second ammendment rights, the right to due process restored, and while were at it for the press to hold the democratic party to the same standard the republican party is held to.

But if that isn't possible then I am gladly willing to accept having any cheating at the ballot box eliminated with the cheaters put into federal prison for the attempt.

Click to expand...

I don't think the ex lefties have the power to do that. That would be the current lefties.