LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

Morphic Tide said:
Do you really want to turn into the very same purity-spiraling nonsense as the Intersectional crowd? Where being out of line on any one thing is cause to be thrown out entirely? Do you seriously want to just flip the table on Pit Politics that are giving the Republicans their first breath of fresh air in decades because you can't stand that the United States never was an explicitly Christian nation?

One of the first things the Federal government did was assume power over what a valid marriage was, because the varied denominations sequestered in the colonies refused to recognize eachother. This is also why Freedom of Religion is in the Bill of Rights, because quite simply the "good Christians" of the time were split between denominations that had literally waged wars against eachother and led to states refusing to accept marriages conducted by other denominations in other states.

There is no one "true" Christianity anymore, and the founding laws of the nation specifically demand the exclusion of such. Because they needed only look a mere few decades back to see active warfare over such things. Do not try to cast LGB into a pit. This space exists entirely because of us being on the receiving end of such ideological hegemonizing, and the Bill of Rights specifically tries to disallow such being public policy for very good reason.

US conservatism is founded on a secular practice. The ethics are founded in Christianity, but could not be tied to it because there wasn't a usable definition of "Christian" at the time without defeating many of the points by establishing Catholicism or spinning off the Anglican Church. It was only with the "Moral Majority" phase of the Republican machines that "Christian" actually became a determinant in the US. Bitter shitflinging between Protestants and Catholics is still in living memory in the US, as we have seen on this very board.

Before that push for big-tenting religious views, people considered their denomination quite important and regularly argued over the details that separated them, leading to "Christians" being utterly politically irrelevant for decades. If you want to go back to that by pushing for adherence to doctrine that is already quite spotty with trying to backtrack to the Stonewall days, then have fun rapidly returning to the sectarian pit responsible for the feds being able to tell you to fuck right off on marriage.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with religion or purity circles though? What most of us are saying is simply that catering to 10% of 2.7% at the expense of 13% and 37% and 5% is, purely from a political perspective suicide.

America's changing demographics won't actually lead to a prog shithole, it'll lead to something just as bad and with similar trappings if there is a dedicated and aggressive attempt to force assimilation but one thing most of us immigrants have is a natural dislike of the alphabet soup.

Some of us are fine with the LG and B but most hate all of them all the time and if you want to get their vote showing weakness is not how you do it.

From a cynical perspective its just suicide
 
StormEagle said:
*rolls eyes*

Very few of us here care that you want the dick, Bacle. I certainly couldn’t give less of a shit, as long as you do it behind closed doors like a civilized human being.

What we are saying is that the right is never going to have this wellspring of LGB love and acceptance that you seem to want us to have. The best you’re going to get from us, or at least those of us not particularly concerned about what bits go with what other bits, is a certain level of tolerance.

Conservatives aren’t, by and large, going to be waving the rainbow flag. Especially because the LGB are an inherently unreliable demographic and its extremely vocal political arm are basically sworn enemies of what we understand to be traditional American society and values.
Click to expand...
Except 'a level of tolerance' is not what we are seeing now; desire for backslide to pre-Trump GOP LGB politics is what I am seeing more and more.

In the wake of the stolen election, an alarming number of people on the US right decide that maybe if they just attack LGBs more, they can get more latino or black vote, and some actually seriously campaign on trying to undo same-sex marriages.

This pisses me the fuck off, not just because of my personal situation, but also because it shows a lot of the Right are not that far from the parodies the Dems use as boogeymen.

Luckily for now it's mostly just random kooks pushing that shit, and it's not being seriously thought about by the actually effective GOP politicians like DeSantis, Rand Paul, or the like.

So for now, go ahead and knash your teeth at LGBs having pull and influence on the Right; it's mostly the impotent flailing that gets ignored by the parts of the GOP that actually have power and pull.
 
King Arts said:
Do you think that was helpful in any way? That’s my question don’t deflect yes in this instance it did not lose us the war directly but it certainly did not help and would have caused headaches and problems for our guys.
Click to expand...
I answered the question, it literally didn't fucking matter anymore than what we do with guns. And I got to admit, I had thought that leftists claiming that the religious right wants America to be more like the Taliban was a ludicrous strawman.
 
Largo said:
I answered the question, it literally didn't fucking matter anymore than what we do with guns. And I got to admit, I had thought that leftists claiming that the religious right wants America to be more like the Taliban was a ludicrous strawman.
Click to expand...
Nope; it's a truth the Right tries to ignore or down play. Shit, even specifically pointing out a certain poster's behavior and how it compares to the Taliban can get you a TOS violation here, for all the talk about protecting free speech.

There are parts of the Right that actually do seem to share a lot of views and ideals in common with the Taliban, and a lot of the Right hates when you point this out.
 
Bacle said:
I have that jackass on Ignore, and I thought he had me on Ignore as well, from what he's said in the past.
Click to expand...

Im not a coward, so no I don't I've never put anyone on Ignore ever. What I said is that I would mock the shit out of you for being a fence sitting low key socju while refuting your points and I've totally done that.

KilroywasNOTHere said:
@Bacle @The Immortal Watch Dog was this whole thread seriously created because you two can't be bothered to take this fight to the PMs?
Click to expand...

I don't even think I was on the site when this thread was created.

Edit- yep that was when the old staff made shit up about me and banned me for said nonsense so I was not here for that. Fucking neocon slugs
 
Last edited:
Bacle said:
In the wake of the stolen election, an alarming number of people on the US right decide that maybe if they just attack LGBs more, they can get more latino or black vote, and some actually seriously campaign on trying to undo same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...
That argument can easily be turned against you.
In the wake of the stolen election, big tech power grabs, ascendent China and far left insanity, an alarming number of independents think that the most pressing threat in US politics is... GOP taking the country back to the dark, grim and luckily forgotten era of... early 2000's, at least on few socio-cultural issues.
 
The thing too is if you're a regular gay man or lesbian or a bisexual guy you understand pragmatism and are able to make an alliance with people who may hate your lifestyle but won't enact any laws that'll seen you jailed for going to dinner with your partner or someshit.

But the rest of the soup has so utterly ruined the national discourse to where you've been pigeonholed into Groomer town which is a town you spent half a century trying to burn down and the others demand large swaths of the sane side of the aisle violate their own principles to accommodate to you when they actually stand to gain more by your alienation...putting you and a historically successful coalition at risk because of the vanity of a few.

Worse you can't go back to the other side because those bastards want to make child rape part.of the LGBT in a legal sense which again is something you and those before.you fought against.


I honestly feel empathy for people like that. To be so throughly undermined by everyone who claims to represent you or be your moderates has to be as infuriating as it is maddening.
 
Marduk said:
The obvious question is, what appeal to them, and how much will it cost in support lost in other groups?
Click to expand...
You don't need to appeal to them, just be basically tolerant. Trump improved with very basic outreach.

What you do need to do is not directly blame them for everything. Obviously, hate on shit like groomers and such, but be careful enough to separate concerns. Don't touch civil marriage rights, but do attack the government forcing people to participate in marriages.

Most people, including gays, can easily see the difference between these two things: hating on people who latched onto the movement; and hating gays. This won't be the first time pedos tried to hop aboard the gay train, and it won't be the last time they were kicked off (though hopefully faster this time).
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
In my experience theyre all over the place politically. TBH the loudest voices on the alt right used to be LGBT. I dunno if you remember those guys from 2025/2016/2017 who were hardcore right wing and nativistic. Part of that was "I don't want habeeb bringing Sharia to America because I don't want to be thrown off the nearest building".

Then the Trad movement sort of overtook those guys...though I'm convinced most of those are closeted men any way.

Point though is that I wonder if we are looking at a social pressure type deal or the extinction of our species as huge swaths of fertile people suddenly collapse into orientations and mentalities that reject families and family life.
Click to expand...
As for all over the place politically that's mostly true. The only reason there is a gay culture was that government and societal oppression basically caused it, and it is rapidly dying. Having added marriage allowing for stable families, the LGB population is rapidly ending up creating fairly normal 2 parent households with adopted or IVF kids.


Honestly, I'm not too worried about the population decline. It is a little rapid for my tastes, but most of the people not reproducing are woke leftists (a lot of research backs this up (one example), so honestly that's a win.
 
Abhorsen said:
Honestly, I'm not too worried about the population decline. It is a little rapid for my tastes, but most of the people not reproducing are woke leftists (a lot of research backs this up (one example), so honestly that's a win.
Click to expand...

It's a win if we keep having more kids and I include based LGB people in that bracket. And if we also start home schooling and pushing for charter schools more. Certainly be more involved with our kids.

We need to get the kids away from the danger haired borg or I dunno illegalize public sector Unions or something to stop them from poaching our kids.

And that is an issue that effects everyone in this thread no matter who they wanna fuck.

Edit- honestly @Abhorsen I think rolling back gay marriage would be retarded but I also think it's something that, at least federally is an inevitability . Even in Cali gsy marriage lost every time it got put to a vote and even the SCOTUS that passed it had dissent saying that the ruling was illegal.

It should be a states rights issue I think and let each state put it to a vote and that might be the best way to protect it. Because going forward? All it takes is a few more MTGs winning in the house and it might actually be all she wrote.
 
Last edited:
Abhorsen said:
You don't need to appeal to them, just be basically tolerant. Trump improved with very basic outreach.

What you do need to do is not directly blame them for everything. Obviously, hate on shit like groomers and such, but be careful enough to separate concerns. Don't touch civil marriage rights, but do attack the government forcing people to participate in marriages.

Most people, including gays, can easily see the difference between these two things: hating on people who latched onto the movement; and hating gays. This won't be the first time pedos tried to hop aboard the gay train, and it won't be the last time they were kicked off (though hopefully faster this time).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for as long as the modern intersectional activism exist, the very idea of "outreach" to such group will have baggage, and that baggage will recognizably belong to a certain political movement.
And the same goes regarding the rest, this remains a hot button political topic because plenty enough media and politicians continue to make it one, and some of them have an interest in this.
Ideally, they would be treated the same way, say, the left handed are (how often do you hear of outreach to the left handed form any national politicians?), but with the ongoing organization and politics around it, pushes, provocations and manufactured scandals around the issue are inevitable, and the association in public's eye between the demographic, the movement who claims to represent it, and its subculture is intentionally being reinforced at every opportunity.
 
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
Edit- honestly @Abhorsen I think rolling back gay marriage would be retarded but I also think it's something that, at least federally is an inevitability . Even in Cali gsy marriage lost every time it got put to a vote and even the SCOTUS that passed it had dissent saying that the ruling was illegal.

It should be a states rights issue I think and let each state put it to a vote and that might be the best way to protect it. Because going forward? All it takes is a few more MTGs winning in the house and it might actually be all she wrote.
Click to expand...
No, it's stuck. No way they are bothering to overrule it, even if it is bad law. Too many people would get their marriages invalidated, it would be the worst thing.

And the SCOTUS did rule that it was unconstitutional both federally and then incorporated that on the states, so only they can undo that.
 
Abhorsen said:
No, it's stuck. No way they are bothering to overrule it, even if it is bad law. Too many people would get their marriages invalidated, it would be the worst thing.
Click to expand...

Korumatsu and the ruling about sterilizing retards and dreadscott all say hello.
Abhorsen said:
And the SCOTUS did rule that it was unconstitutional both federally and then incorporated that on the states, so only they can undo that.
Click to expand...

It can be done by new law or by a constitutional convention and while I don't think people would call. CC over gay marriage alone I could see it coming up during one.

Never underestimate normies once they snap. That's how you end up with all manner of stupidity becoming law.
 
Marduk said:
Unfortunately for as long as the modern intersectional activism exist, the very idea of "outreach" to such group will have baggage, and that baggage will recognizably belong to a certain political movement.
And the same goes regarding the rest, this remains a hot button political topic because plenty enough media and politicians continue to make it one, and some of them have an interest in this.
Ideally, they would be treated the same way, say, the left handed are (how often do you hear of outreach to the left handed form any national politicians?), but with the ongoing organization and politics around it, pushes, provocations and manufactured scandals around the issue are inevitable, and the association in public's eye between the demographic, the movement who claims to represent it, and its subculture is intentionally being reinforced at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
Trump did it just fine. Just say "I'm gonna solve AIDS in the US (which isn't that difficult, if one defines it as stopping spread to new people by getting almost everyone on PrEP)."

The gays don't need much outreach at all. Just a hand to say 'you matter'. And that doesn't generally piss off other groups as long as they get their acknowledgement too.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:
Korumatsu and the ruling about sterilizing retards and dreadscott all say hello.
Click to expand...
It's very unlikely though. So first, dred scott never got overruled, a constitutional amendment was passed. Korumatsu and the steriliztion law was overruled, but that's because Korumatsu was considered bad law almost immediately after WW2 (basically citing it would be a bad sign for your case, and thus no one did), and the sterilization was overruled because people kept challenging it.

But gay marriage is getting less challenged the more people deal with it. It's acceptance (not LGBT acceptance, but gay marriage) is on the rise, and has a majority of even Republicans for it. Then Trump called it settled and basically killed any chance of it being overruled in the US. Gay marriage is over.

As for Bostock, that, unlike gay marriage, was good law, but bad in effect, as people should be able to discriminate (and thus get punished by the market). Fortunately, the huge religious hole in the ruling means that it currently can't force cake baking.
 
Abhorsen said:
Korumatsu and the steriliztion law was overruled, but that's because Korumatsu was considered bad law almost immediately after WW2 (basically citing it would be a bad sign for your case, and thus no one did), and the sterilization was overruled because people kept challenging it.
Click to expand...

While this is somewhat tangential, I have to step in here and point out that no, the courts never actually did overturn the precedents on involuntary sterilization. Contrary to popular misconception, Skinner v. Oklahoma did not actually overturn the infamous Buck v. Bell decision; it only held that it was unconstitutional for states to order the compulsory sterilization of criminals if the state treated crimes of similar severity differently. The context for this was that the Oklahoma law which was being challenged in that case allowed courts to order the involuntary sterilization of "habitual criminals", but exempted white-collar crimes from this penalty.

The only major court decision on sterilization since then was Stump v. Sparkman (1987), in which the Supreme Court held that judicial immunity still applied in a case where a blatantly corrupt judge ignored clearly written due process requirements and issued an ex parte order for a fifteen year old girl to be sterilized based solely on her abusive mother's allegation that she was "somewhat retarded". SCOTUS ruled that even though the judge's actions violated the legal requirements set forth under state law, it was still an official act of the court and therefore fell under absolute immunity. Because the decision hinged on immunity, the legal status of sterilization orders never even came up.

In other words, sterilization of criminals and disabled persons ceased because changes in public attitudes led people to start believing that it was morally wrong, but those changes came in the form of states simply phasing out their sterilization programs. There was no court action, and technically speaking it would be perfectly legal for states to resume involuntary sterilization, subject only to the Skinner requirement that it cannot be enforced as a criminal penalty for blue-collar crimes only.
 
I’m one of the last people to say that right wingers should moderate themselves for political expediency, they right has been doing that for far too long and it’s been the death of us in many ways. But honestly, what purpose is served by being anti-gay? What is the end goal if the right goes with that agenda? Outlaw gay marriage? Legalize discrimination against gays? Pass a bunch of sodomy laws so people can be arrested for being gay, or more precisely for having gay sex? Honestly, is getting any of those policies passed going to help to save Western civilization or save conservative politics?

I honestly don’t think so.

It‘s not as though a straight couple who are about to get a divorce are going to stop and say “Wait, gay marriage is illegal, we better try to save this marriage.” Or maybe that straight wife will sit down one night and say “Hey, gay men get arrested for buttsex, maybe I should quit my job and stay home with the kids.”

No, none of that will happen. Even more foolish to think that by being a anti-gay that non-whites will suddenly give up their racial agenda and then we can just let the black and brown hordes flood our country and they be 100% American flag waving, apple pie eating, fag bashing patriots.

The trans issue is a bit more significant, since the left is essentially forcing us to say that the emperor has beauty clothes. As Sam Dickson as said, the truth will set you free but lies will make you a slave. But even in that case, it’s probably more a matter of principle than pragmatic importance. Whether or not women’s weightlifting events get overtaken by trannies doesn’t really matter to our continued civilization.

So I would say the principle here that social conservatives should stand on is that discrimination should be allowed. Anybody should be able to associate with, do business with, or NOT, anybody that they desire as a right individual freedom. That is a right that matters and would extend to bakeries that don’t want to cater gay wedding as well as sporting institutions that don’t want trans athletes.

Opposing gays isn’t a winning issue for us, even if we won it wouldn’t matter.
 
ATP said:
Or take old polish approach - old Poland do not cared about pederast or lesbians,as long as they were adults.
Well,rich magnate with private army could rape girls if he wonted,so pederast magnate could rape boys.
That kind of behaviour i would not advocate - it ended poor for our state./for those who do not knew - we cease to exist/
Click to expand...
Is that when the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth still existed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top