• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,109
Location
Mother Roof
I'm not saying that gay people should be stopped from joining conservative organizations, but I do think it is reasonable to bar them from positions of authority, particularly positions of authority over children.
I don’t see how anal sex helps us win the culture war, and all results have generally done more harm than good, TPUSA being a prime example. There’s a tendency to end up picking one over the other, pick social libertarians to include gays at the exclusion of social conservatives who would offend them. The fight to show “actually WE are the ones who support the LGBT” “actually YOU GUYS are the real racists, we support blacks WAY more than you do” is a completely losing fight as it cedes all moral axioms and values to the left, and fights them on their own game that they have basically total dominance of. It’s much better to reassert your own values and your own beliefs rather than just play into theirs and try and say they are hypocrites.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,155
I don’t see how anal sex helps us win the culture war, and all results have generally done more harm than good, TPUSA being a prime example. There’s a tendency to end up picking one over the other, pick social libertarians to include gays at the exclusion of social conservatives who would offend them. The fight to show “actually WE are the ones who support the LGBT” “actually YOU GUYS are the real racists, we support blacks WAY more than you do” is a completely losing fight as it cedes all moral axioms and values to the left, and fights them on their own game that they have basically total dominance of. It’s much better to reassert your own values and your own beliefs rather than just play into theirs and try and say they are hypocrites.
And lose a large amount of support and never win again.
It is to late to goback to those ideals at least at this point.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,155
So...
You would rather us never win anything again?
Because, there are not enough people who agree on those standpoints to have us win with that alone.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Reaction score
675
So...
You would rather us never win anything again?
Because, there are not enough people who agree on those standpoints to have us win with that alone.
No one is saying run on that alone, but frankly I don't think whatever it is your advocating (I'm not totally clear) loses the republican party a sizable amount of support, certainly far, far less than actually trying to alienate evangelicals would.

Also, I rather suspect you could have made the same argument in favor of maintain the AWB and the advance of gun control- and look how that turned out.

I'm not totally sure what you're advocating though, but in the context of the internal rules of a conservative org- nobody is going to care. If it's formalize it might expose you to lawfare from the left, but that's not an issue of popularity.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,155
No one is saying run on that alone, but frankly I don't think whatever it is your advocating (I'm not totally clear) loses the republican party a sizable amount of support, certainly far, far less than actually trying to alienate evangelicals would.

Also, I rather suspect you could have made the same argument in favor of maintain the AWB and the advance of gun control- and look how that turned out.
This day and age? A lot more then you think
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
9,775
So...
You would rather us never win anything again?
Because, there are not enough people who agree on those standpoints to have us win with that alone.
That's complete nonsense. Homosexual marriage was not a passed law, it wasn't an executive action, and it certainly wasn't a constitutional amendment.

It was judicial fiat, just like Abortion.

Back around 2010, California-

Let me say that again:

CALIFORNIA.

Had passed a defense of marriage law via ballot option.

And it was struck down by a judge, blatantly legislating from the bench.


Homosexuality is completely normalized and socially acceptable among the ruling elite and their media buddies, but it is a much more socially contested issue in the population at large.

Partly because redefining it as not abberrant or immoral means you're also throwing out Biblical morality once and for all, and all that's left is moral relativism.

Which, those of us who are willing to look at history, philosophy, and psychology with open eyes, readily recognize as a very bad move.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,155
That's complete nonsense. Homosexual marriage was not a passed law, it wasn't an executive action, and it certainly wasn't a constitutional amendment.

It was judicial fiat, just like Abortion.

Back around 2010, California-

Let me say that again:

CALIFORNIA.

Had passed a defense of marriage law via ballot option.

And it was struck down by a judge, blatantly legislating from the bench.


Homosexuality is completely normalized and socially acceptable among the ruling elite and their media buddies, but it is a much more socially contested issue in the population at large.

Partly because redefining it as not abberrant or immoral means you're also throwing out Biblical morality once and for all, and all that's left is moral relativism.

Which, those of us who are willing to look at history, philosophy, and psychology with open eyes, readily recognize as a very bad move.
And yet, at large to the completely normal voter.
It alienates a lot of people, especially the growing generation.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
9,775
And yet, at large to the completely normal voter.
It alienates a lot of people, especially the growing generation.
Yes, it alienates a lot of people. And openly supporting it also alienates a lot of people.

I don't treat it as a primary issue, because that's a battle that needs to be won culturally and religiously, not politically, but if it comes up, I'm not going to cave on it because some people don't like it and will call me nasty names.

There are a lot of lies around the issue, especially in things that just do not get mentioned. For example, did you know that the average homosexual man lives 10-20 years less than other men?
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,109
Location
Mother Roof
And lose a large amount of support and never win again.
It is to late to goback to those ideals at least at this point.
That’s not remotely true. You don’t hardly gain any support via those means, and what you do get is something that isn’t a winning message or do anything to help the state of the country.


So...
You would rather us never win anything again?
Because, there are not enough people who agree on those standpoints to have us win with that alone.
What are you even winning by compromising on that? You also turn out and throw out more by doing so, you have more apathy and more people who don’t even see a reason to participate than you get of the handful of LGBT “conservatives” who don’t really share any of the same values. You don’t win anything, you don’t turn back the culture, there’s just no gain from it. The clear coalition out of what we have seen that gets a tremendous amount of votes for Trump is social conservatives, economic populists and nationalists. That’s who needs to be primarily appealed to. Please, explain how preaching being more tolerant of the LGBT and holding up and promoting gay conservatives purely for being gay conservatives as tokens so we can say “we love the gays more than you do!” wins us anything, and what, at that point, are we even winning? You don’t win anything at all by pandering to the LGBT. It doesn’t mean like, actively go out and find each and every one who votes red and get them to leave the party, but what do you get by pandering?


Here’s a pretty good example I’d say.
 
Last edited:

Captain X

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Reaction score
2,875
Location
The Land of Snow and Cold
I would never support any position that discriminates against gay or bisexual people, but this does not mean I support pedophilia or any of this gender fluid crap. I hate to break it to you "social conservatives," but the science is out there as far as the gay question - they have always been there an always will be, and it is not right in a country that claims to be based on enlightenment principals to discriminate against them. That does not mean caving to the regressive left, that simply means treating gays and bisexuals the same as heterosexuals under the law, which, by the way, actually also pisses the regressive left off, because they don't want equality either - they wish to be a protected class that is "more equal" than others.

Christ, shit like this really drives home how in the middle I am when it comes to politics. :cautious: It's like that "stuck in the middle" song. 🎶I got commies to the left of me, and fundies to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...🎶 ;)
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,155
I would never support any position that discriminates against gay or bisexual people, but this does not mean I support pedophilia or any of this gender fluid crap. I hate to break it to you "social conservatives," but the science is out there as far as the gay question - they have always been there an always will be, and it is not right in a country that claims to be based on enlightenment principals to discriminate against them. That does not mean caving to the regressive left, that simply means treating gays and bisexuals the same as heterosexuals under the law, which, by the way, actually also pisses the regressive left off, because they don't want equality either - they wish to be a protected class that is "more equal" than others.

Christ, shit like this really drives home how in the middle I am when it comes to politics. :cautious: It's like that "stuck in the middle" song. 🎶I got commies to the left of me, and fundies to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...🎶 ;)
I am what equates to a war-hawk but about a force on force war, not COIN. Fuck Iraq.
I am also pretty middle fo the road on nearly everything else except guns
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,109
Location
Mother Roof
I hate to break it to you "social conservatives," but the science is out there as far as the gay question - they have always been there an always will be, and it is not right in a country that claims to be based on enlightenment principals to discriminate against them.
yes so have murderers and pedophiles and thieves and people who are mean or people who aren’t very nice or people who are mentally ill or people who are liars. Just because something has been around forever doesn’t make it inherently good, you need an argument for why it’s okay to tolerate and why it should be otherwise you can make the exact same argument for all the above. And what enlightenment principles (as useless as a term that is given that Hobbes is not Locke is not Rousseau, all were enlightenment philosophers, all had a range of principles and ideas). The enlightenment principles of the day did not endorse homosexuality or gay marriage for that matter. Hell, you might as well say that to the founding fathers “if you love the enlightenment so much why aren’t you letting gays get married from the get go?” Simple. Your idea of enlightenment principles is not the same as theirs, it’s not remotely what we were founded with, and thus what you think of as enlightenment principles quite frankly aren’t.

let’s just hammer this point in even harder since you decided to invoke the founding fathers. Not only did they not remotely feel the need to enshrine gay marriage as a principle of the US, every state at the passage of the bill of rights had laws making sodomy illegal, even punishable by execution. Do you think that you are so well read and understanding of what the enlightenment truly meant and what it’s principles were that you surpass the founding fathers, the men who ran these state governments and passed these laws, that you have a far better grasp than they did and what the enlightenment meant? Let’s assume not, in which case you are left with really only two options here. Either LGBT issues have little to nothing to do with the enlightenment as it was when the enlightenment happened, or America wasn’t founded on the enlightenment principles you think it was.

Ultimately you’re just claiming that mantle for yourself as libertarians are so oft to do, that they are the true embodiment and realization of the enlightenment somehow even though none of them actually espoused libertarian ideology, and that they very often outright contradict libertarianism with their own words and actions. Somehow though, the founding fathers are your guys, not mine. And when you say “the science is out there” are you talking about the gay gene that’s never been found?


Here it claims 75% environmental, and it’s clearly influenced by it given that we’ve had societies where it is culturally accepted and becomes abundant, typically paired with pederastry as with Greeks and to a lesser extent the Romans. Oddly enough, even the Greeks, whom many city states were perfectly fine with sex with men, didn’t endorse or have gay marriage. The biggest example of that in the modern day would be that one New Guinean tribe where it’s been passed down culturally that you become a man by ingesting semen and so literally all boys are molested who then go on to molest all the boys of their tribe. Even still, just because something is genetic doesn’t make it automatically justified or good. If psychopathy is genetic it doesn’t automatically mean we need to tolerate and accept psychopathic behavior simply because it’s not a choice. You need to still explain, even if it was entirely genetic, why it needs to be tolerated and why it’s good for society.
 
Last edited:

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,155
yes so have murderers and pedophiles and thieves and people who are mean or people who aren’t very nice or people who are mentally ill or people who are liars. Just because something has been around forever doesn’t make it inherently good, you need an argument for why it’s okay to tolerate and why it should be otherwise you can make the exact same for all the above. And what enlightenment principles (as useless as a term that is given that Hobbes is not Locke is not Rousseau). The enlightenment principles of the day did not endorse homosexuality or gay marriage for that matter. Hell, you might as well say that to the founding fathers “if you love the enlightenment so much why aren’t you letting gays get married from the get go?” Simple. Your idea of enlightenment principles is not the same as theirs, it’s not remotely what we were founded with. You’re just claiming that mantle for yourself as libertarians are so oft to do. And when you say “the science is out there” are you talking about the gay gene that’s never been found?


Here it claims 75% environmental, and it’s clearly so given that we’ve had societies where it culturally accepted and becomes abundant, typically paired with pederastry. The biggest example of that in the modern day would be that one New Guinean tribe where it’s been passed down culturally that you become a man by ingesting semen and so literally all boys are molested who then go on to molest all the boys of their tribe.
I never said it was a gene....like holy shit.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Reaction score
2,875
Location
The Land of Snow and Cold
yes so have murderers and pedophiles and thieves and people who are mean or people who aren’t very nice or people who are mentally ill or people who are liars.
And it's patently absurd that this is your go-to comparison.

Just because something has been around forever doesn’t make it inherently good, you need an argument for why it’s okay to tolerate and why it should be otherwise you can make the exact same argument for all the above.
Mentioning that it has always been around is a rebuke of the "it's unnatural" argument, which is itself the basis used for discrimination against them.

And what enlightenment principles (as useless as a term that is given that Hobbes is not Locke is not Rousseau, all were enlightenment philosophers, all had a range of principles and ideas). The enlightenment principles of the day did not endorse homosexuality or gay marriage for that matter.
What part of liberty and equality are you against, exactly?

let’s just hammer this point in even harder since you decided to invoke the founding fathers. Not only did they not remotely feel the need to enshrine gay marriage as a principle of the US, every state at the passage of the bill of rights had laws making sodomy illegal, even punishable by execution.
They also thought slavery was something this country should have, but unlike the regressive left, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - I choose to stick to the ideals of liberty and equality.

Ultimately you’re just claiming that mantle for yourself as libertarians are so oft to do, that they are the true embodiment and realization of the enlightenment somehow even though none of them actually espoused libertarian ideology,
Apparently we embody it a lot better than "social conservatives" do. :sneaky:

and that they very often outright contradict libertarianism with their own words and actions. Somehow though, the founding fathers are your guys, not mine. And when you say “the science is out there” are you talking about the gay gene that’s never been found?
No, I'm talking about how homosexual behavior has been observed in everything from fruit flies on up to the great apes and is thus hardly "unnatural."

You need to still explain, even if it was entirely genetic, why it needs to be tolerated and why it’s good for society.
In this country, I do not need to explain why people should be treated equally under the law.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,109
Location
Mother Roof
And it's patently absurd that this is your go-to comparison.
why? I listed a whole lot of things ranging from really bad to not so bad.

Mentioning that it has always been around is a rebuke of the "it's unnatural" argument, which is itself the basis used for discrimination against them.
except I didn’t say “it’s unnatural” and I clearly pointed out how your rebuke is shit. Why don’t you try to defend it.

What part of liberty and equality are you against, exactly?
mostly that you don’t really get liberty or equality as it meant, and that both of these meant different things to different enlightenment philosophers. What part do you think the founding fathers didn’t get? And certainly, what the people were meant to be like


They also thought slavery was something this country should have, but unlike the regressive left, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - I choose to stick to the ideals of liberty and equality.
Said ideals didn’t mean bullshit like the NAP lol. And on equality I can pretty easily just say everyone equally has the right to marry the opposite gender. That’s the equality the founding fathers espoused clearly. And as far as slavery goes it was an incredibly contentious issue precisely because it was contradictory with many of the enlightenment philosophers positions. LGBT stuff? Not at all. With liberty and equality too you have vastly different meanings depending on who you asked on people who espoused these ideas. What you’ve done is just taken these words and applied them to the libertarian definition of it. I can just as easily say that I believe in liberty and equality, that vice is slavery and thus must be banned to preserve liberty, as addiction is not freedom. On equality we all have equal souls under God, but the rights of man are determined by government. Why are these ideas of equality and liberty automatically rejected by you but I have to subscribe to exactly what you believe they mean?

Apparently we embody it a lot better than "social conservatives" do. :sneaky:
Lol. “these guys were all religious and said religion was important and thought sodomy should be a crime and really weren’t laisse faire capitalists and thought men and women were fundamentally different and should be treated differently and have different roles in society, but I, a libertarian atheist, embody them more so than you, a social conservative”

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
How many more quotes ya need buddy? I’ve got many from all the leading figures on a variety of these issues, because like, I wanted to learn what they actually said and believed rather than just baselessly claim it to give myself some totally unearned clout and credibility based around the American mythos. I would absolutely love for you to provide the tiniest bit of evidence.

No, I'm talking about how homosexual behavior has been observed in everything from fruit flies on up to the great apes and is thus hardly "unnatural."
yeah so has rape and murder. Chimpanzees exhibit something akin to warfare. This is a silly response to an argument I’m not making.

In this country, I do not need to explain why people should be treated equally under the law.
You need to explain why and how it’s equal and especially since you decided to invoke the founding fathers and the enlightenment, how and where it actually lines up with it. It’s honesty my biggest historical issue, libertarian types who haven’t done hardly any study at all on the enlightenment or it’s philosophers or the founding fathers or what they believed, and yet believe this dumb meme history with no basis in anything at all that the founding fathers and the enlightenment espoused their ideals, and then say social conservatives don’t embody that.

Gonna give you another chance to actually like, respond to me and not just smugly say “well I embody the enlightenment and the founding fathers and not you” when you have no credibility to that claim shown and to rebut an argument I actually made and not just assume that I say “being gay is unnatural so bad.” You’re just assuming I hold a position you think everyone who opposes gay marriage does without even thinking about anything I said. I am reading and responding to everything you actually say, I’d hope you’d give me the same consideration.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom