LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Zachowon]

Christianity is a foundational value for America though. We were 97% Protestant Christian at our birth, it runs through so much of what our founders had to say about the nation and what the idealized it as.

And yet they made the country free for religious freedom.
They allowed for other values to be added. American Values are not necessarily Christian. The Values of America are Freedom to be who you want to be, as long as you love the country and keep it to allow for such things

 

[Bacle]

Christianity is a foundational value for America though. We were 97% Protestant Christian at our birth, it runs through so much of what our founders had to say about the nation and what the idealized it as.

And the Irish Catholics who made up a large portion of the 3%, assuming that figure is even close to true, were fellow Christians that Protestants treated like shit till JFK became president.

And yet they made the country free for religious freedom.
They allowed for other values to be added. American Values are not necessarily Christian. The Values of America are Freedom to be who you want to be, as long as you love the country and keep it to allow for such things

His appeal to 'Christianity' are actually only appeals to a specific brand of WASP Christianity prevalent among the fossilized mindset paleo-cons he is a part of.

 

[FriedCFour]

No, you chose to cite them (hence use them as an ally, I was being figurative here). Seriously, anytime you want to stop digging this hole is fine with me. And given you then go to cite Marx below, well... I don't think it'll be soon.

As an example of atheists who didn’t like gays dummy, which i explicitly condemned in the cite as being extreme. The point which you continue to ignore is “these guys were anti-gay and atheist.”

Also, as for the mass casual sex that apps are coordinating: first, you have interesting apps, and I want some. Second, that you think that all the organizations exist to organize orgies is just wrong. Again, cite your sources. Next time I won't bother to type a nice reply, just quote everything that hasn't been cited and write failure to cite under it.

Grindr bro. It’s well known for that lol. I didn’t say they all exist for it, it clearly still is a part of the culture. And there you go, showing how you aren’t actually this “normal upstanding totally traditional just gay”.

So the funny thin is, there's a thing called rational basis review, which says that every law has to at least have some logic to it (by which it means that it has rationally relate to some legitimate government interest). That's what I'm talking about. But because gay rights hits sexual orientation and the fundamental right of marriage, either of which would make it hit strict scrutiny, which requires a lot more to survive.

So on rational basis, all I gotta show is that it’s not the dumbest law on the books? So my ATF thing was sensible then.

. Or Man + woman + woman + woman. Or Man + woman + woman he took against her will. Or Man + sister. I mean, there's a lot of historical societal definitions of marriage. The modernish one of willing Man + willing Woman only is based on religion.

Covered that with man + women. What I find deeply fascinating is that despite like, controversy over incest, polygamy, even culturally acceptable homosexuality, you still find marriage as between opposite sexes. And what that fundamentally shows is that everyone valued it for its purpose of procreation, which shows that despite all these other differences, that commonality has a basis in the nature of humanity and how that institution developed. It’s the common factor in all of it.

Look, again, you have no evidence. Shocked_face.jpg. First, by environmental factors and such, they usually mean things at a very young age, well before 10. What I'm saying is that it is the reverse. Basically, kid is gay, doesn't know what this is but knows their different, and are noticed and exploited because of this.

And even if that occurs, which I can grant, I don’t think that covers literally 100% of it. I think both can be at play.

First, that 42% number is from an older study, from 2013, that's the news article on the new study, which does list 30%. An even older one from 2010 had 50%. This shows a definite downward trend.

Forty-two percent tell their primary partners about other sexual contacts, while 33% operate under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Literally directly under the headline dude.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Gays need to decide whether they want the right to live as they wish or the "right" not to be criticized for doing so.
One of these can result in a distrustful but functional coalition.
The other results in further fracturing.

Christians will never like homosexuality or stop condemning it. If they did they would no longer be Christian. But they can tolerate its existence much as they tolerate but dislike adulterers and drunks.

Much like how the evangelical wing voted in Trump in droves despite not being a paragon of Christian virtue.

It seems to me that what conservative gays most likely want (I am not one) is assurance that social conservatives will let them live as they wish without turning on them at the first opportunity. If social conservatives want to condemn them all the live long day, well, that's not very fun but sticks and stones right? Well sticks and stones is metaphorically exactly what I think gay conservatives are worried about, with good cause.

At least they're being upfront about it. It reminds me of a quote from The Last Unicorn: "I will kill you if you set me free. Set me free."

 

[FriedCFour]

And the Irish Catholics who made up a large portion of the 3%, assuming that figure is even close to true, were fellow Christians that Protestants treated like sh

Yeah it’s unfortunate. I love my Catholic brethren.

One possibility is simply that the Founders identified themselves as Christians. Clearly, they did. In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics.[3]

Did America Have a Christian Founding?

Abstract: Did America have a Christian Founding? This disputed question, far from being only of historical interest, has important implications for how we conceive of the role of religion in the American republic. Mark David Hall begins by considering two popular answers to the query—“Of course...

www.heritage.org

Here’s where that comes from.

His appeal to 'Christianity' are actually only appeals to a specific brand of WASP Christianity prevalent among the fossilized mindset paleo-cons he is a part of.

Not at all. Actually, it’s got a pretty solid coalition of catholics and most of the leaders I like are Catholics. Those are the ones leading the charge on it. They’re also predominantly in their early to mid 20s. The only old one I like is a black preacher, and the biggest, old guard Paleocon Pat Buchanan is also a Traditional Catholic. Hardly a fossilized movement, hardly wasp. Thinking about it, one of the specific cores that I do things like write with and help with on making memes to spread and general work on politics with, I’m pretty much the only one who fits all of WASP. In actuality, I’m one of the few WASPs in a movement full of Irish, Italians and Hispanics lol. You’re just making weird and unfounded lines of attack against a movement you know little about but hold passionate hatred for.

 

[Abhorsen]

As an example of atheists who didn’t like gays dummy, which i explicitly condemned in the cite as being extreme. The point which you continue to ignore is “these guys were anti-gay and atheist.”

No, I was asking for logic behind an antigay law. I obviously know there are antigay atheists. But when I asked for logic behind an antigay law, you cited Commies, so yeah, I'll keep laughing.

Grindr bro. It’s well known for that lol. I didn’t say they all exist for it, it clearly still is a part of the culture. And there you go, showing how you aren’t actually this “normal upstanding totally traditional just gay”.

Um, lotta things wrong here. Like a ton... Let's start with: My title which says local degenerate? Never claimed to be pure as the driven snow here. Second, I was also joking, I have no real interest in mass orgies, my kinks lie in other places. So somehow you ended up double wrong there. Second, Grindr isn't being used nearly enough for the mass orgies to match what was happening decades ago.

So on rational basis, all I gotta show is that it’s not the dumbest law on the books? So my ATF thing was sensible then.

Slightly higher than that. The legitimate government purpose means, among other things, not establishing a religion, and the ATF's law should still get tossed as it should hit strict scrutiny. Also, you have to hit

Covered that with man + women. What I find deeply fascinating is that despite like, controversy over incest, polygamy, even culturally acceptable homosexuality, you still find marriage as between opposite sexes. And what that fundamentally shows is that everyone valued it for its purpose of procreation, which shows that despite all these other differences, that commonality has a basis in the nature of humanity and how that institution developed. It’s the common factor in all of it.

21 varieties of traditional African homosexuality

At least 21 cultural varieties of same-sex relationships have long been part of traditional African life, as demonstrated in a report that was designed to dispel the confusion and lies that surrounded Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2014 (which has since been overturned). The following...

76crimes.com

:

Similarly in Uganda, amongst the Nilotico Lango, men who assumed ‘‘alternative gender status” were known as mukodo dako. They were treated as women and were permitted to marry other men.

Or from Nigeria, by a famous Nigerian (reprinted, couldn't find original source):

Tradition of Same Gender Marriage in Igboland, Nigeria | Black Agenda Report

by Leo Igwe Black homophobes often invoke “African” culture to buttress their arguments against gay rights, including the right to marry. But, according to the author, a native of southern Nigeria, the Igbo culture has long nurtured same-sex couples consisting of "woman-husband" and...

www.blackagendareport.com

The examples aren't as frequent, but they do definitely exist. My guess for why they aren't more frequent is that in mostly accepting societies there was no need to challenge tradition, and in not accepting societies, challenging tradition was dangerous.

And even if that occurs, which I can grant, I don’t think that covers literally 100% of it. I think both can be at play.

Again, no source cited.

Forty-two percent tell their primary partners about other sexual contacts, while 33% operate under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Literally directly under the headline dude.

That's 42% out of the 30%. So that would be .3*.42 = 12.6% are in open relationships where they tell their partner who they had sex with, and .3*.33 = 10% are in open relationships where they don't tell their partner who they had sex with, while I presume the remining 7.4% out of the 30% with open relationships are cheating, aren't partaking, committed poly relationships, or didn't answer, IDK. But the remaining 70% are in monogamous relationships.

 

[FriedCFour]

Slightly higher than that. The legitimate government purpose means, among other things, not establishing a religion, and the ATF's law should still get tossed as it should hit strict scrutiny.

That’s enough validity for me and I’m kind of tired of this for the most part. I’m mostly just going to see what other smears Bacle has for me, because he is on an incredible personal vendetta with so little to show for it and it’s really amusing. Either way you brought up a decent amount of interesting stuff and more work has to be done to refine the argument on my end. But getting “it has some basis to it that can’t just be dismissed as your religion” is a good start for me that I’m on the right track with it.

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

At least they're being upfront about it. It reminds me of a quote from The Last Unicorn: "I will kill you if you set me free. Set me free."

Are you suggesting that I am not being honest in my beliefs?

 

[LordsFire]

For 1, I don't really require the assumption for my central point (that homosexuality isn't innately immoral). I just need meaningless gay sex to be equally moral (or immoral) to meaningless straight sex, which basically still depends on 2.

As for 2, I would first rephrase that. There can definitely be harm to homosexual sex, just like there can be with straight sex. More accurate would be there is no innate harm to non-participants with gay sex, and for partners, their is an elevated risk to males of physical harm (disease), while a lower rate for females.

As for moral harm, no, I don't see any that is unique to gay sex unless gay sex itself is to be taken as a moral harm, so that is an assumption that needs to be axiomatic, but it is open to challenge. I don't know that it is possible to prove, as it would be proving a negative.

As for the chance of disease based harm to participants with gay sex is elevated, this a) doesn't apply to lesbian sex, so it's not an indictment of homosexual sex as a whole, b) isn't because of the sex itself but because of diseases that can be spread (i.e. in a magical world without STDs, this wouldn't matter), and c) has largely been solved. To elaborate on c, for most of the problems, use a condom, take PrEP, and worst comes to worst, there are treatments as well, which will have you live a near normal life expectancy. Or better yet, wait till marriage.

So as an axiom (that is again, open to challenge) I would take that gay sex is no more morally harmful than the in context equivalent straight sex.

1. 'Meaningless' sex isn't meaningless. If it was meaningless, people wouldn't bother with it. It is misusing something and cheapening it though, which is destructive. You can layer on additional levels of destructiveness if you want.

2. Even with drugs, condoms, etc, homosexuals still have higher rates of disease, and more complications therefrom compared to heterosexuals. The statistical evidence aside, I can make an unassailable argument within Christian ethics why it's immoral (because you're misusing sex in a harmful way, instead of the way God intended), but I want to understand the ethical system you are using, because I know you probably care little if at all about Christian ethical systems.

 

[Abhorsen]

1. 'Meaningless' sex isn't meaningless. If it was meaningless, people wouldn't bother with it. It is misusing something and cheapening it though, which is destructive. You can layer on additional levels of destructiveness if you want.

Sure, what I meant by meaningless is that it was lacking a 'higher' meaning. It's not important for my argument how you rate it morally, just whether it's at morally the same level as similar gay sex, which would be covered by axiom 2.

2. Even with drugs, condoms, etc, homosexuals still have higher rates of disease, and more complications therefrom compared to heterosexuals. The statistical evidence aside, I can make an unassailable argument within Christian ethics why it's immoral (because you're misusing sex in a harmful way, instead of the way God intended), but I want to understand the ethical system you are using, because I know you probably care little if at all about Christian ethical systems.

So as for the illness, again, that's not a moral harm inherent to gay sex, any more than "don't go skydiving" is a moral argument. It could be dangerous, so avoid it, isn't where I'd make a moral claim. But I get this is small compared to the moral argument.

As for morality, most of mine is contained in a basic libertarian philosophy, NAP, etc, and ensuring that others get access to similar rights as well. So very roughly, a Utilitarian maximizing freedom according to the NAP, rather than pleasure or something else.

As for Christian ethics, I do find it interesting, having been raised Catholic and having gone to Catholic school for years, so I do care about it in the intellectual sense, but not in the sense that Christian ethics binds me, unless I get converted to Christianity (the big road block there being that I don't seem capable of honestly believing in God, though admittedly I haven't given it much attempt).

EDIT: But as a thought experiment, let's assume that instead, that a person X has some morality that doesn't explicitly condemn gay sex, nor mandate no non-procreative sex. Under what circumstances would they come to follow axiom 2?

 

[LordsFire]

Sure, what I meant by meaningless is that it was lacking a 'higher' meaning. It's not important for my argument how you rate it morally, just whether it's at morally the same level as similar gay sex, which would be covered by axiom 2.


So as for the illness, again, that's not a moral harm inherent to gay sex, any more than "don't go skydiving" is a moral argument. It could be dangerous, so avoid it, isn't where I'd make a moral claim. But I get this is small compared to the moral argument.

As for morality, most of mine is contained in a basic libertarian philosophy, NAP, etc, and ensuring that others get access to similar rights as well. So very roughly, a Utilitarian maximizing freedom according to the NAP, rather than pleasure or something else.

As for Christian ethics, I do find it interesting, having been raised Catholic and having gone to Catholic school for years, so I do care about it in the intellectual sense, but not in the sense that Christian ethics binds me, unless I get converted to Christianity (the big road block there being that I don't seem capable of honestly believing in God, though admittedly I haven't given it much attempt).

EDIT: But as a thought experiment, let's assume that instead, that a person X has some morality that doesn't explicitly condemn gay sex, nor mandate no non-procreative sex. Under what circumstances would they come to follow axiom 2?

Here, we get to another crux.

In throwing out Christian ideology, it becomes not just necessary to throw out the immediately-visible moral laws...

It also becomes necessary to find a morally meaningful definition of 'harm.'

Okay, so you follow an ethos of 'there's nothing wrong so long as nobody gets hurt,' or some similar wording thereof, Who gets to define 'hurt?'

Does the meth addict get to define it?

Does the heroin addict?

Does the 'minor attracted person' get to define it?


Part of the issue I have with secular moral systems, is that they aren't just taking God's place in defining morality, they also have to take God's place when they define hurt.

And as we very, very quickly saw, 'homosexual sex isn't harmful, because those taking part in it say it isn't,' was then replaced with 'large-scale surgical modification of bodies is helpful, not harmful, because transsexuals say so.'

...and yet at the same time, as we have seen in some of the attitudes in this very thread, just disagreeing with homosexuals about the ethics of their lifestyle is seen as 'harmful,' and some people think it's not just acceptable, but virtuous to try to silence the voice of dissent.


These things cannot be separated from each other. By the same movement where you reject God for the source of moral law, you also are moving the definition of 'hurt' from being in the hands of God, and into the hands of men. And as we have already seen not just in theory, but acted out repeatedly in our society, specific people will seize this power, and use it to destroy the lives of others.

Examples: The Covington Kids, women who have been kicked out of various orgs for objecting to 'trans-women' being in the womens bathrooms, women raped in prison by 'trans' women, Anita Sarkesian's victims, etc, etc.

 

[strunkenwhite]

In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian.

So you would count Deists as Christians, for example?

Are you suggesting that I am not being honest in my beliefs?

No, but you do not speak for all social conservatives. Let me clarify my thoughts: I don't think anyone here is advocating to kill gay people; I think some people here (not including you, as far as I know) are advocating to kill gay marriage.

The book quote is of a being who is being very honest and forthright.

Does that help?

 

[Captain X]

Then we had religion established from the start seeing as sodomy was illegal.

And slavery was perfectly legal. Most of the founding fathers had them themselves. Slavery was justified at the time using religious reasoning as well, as it actually is defined as being perfectly okay in the Bible provided it meet certain criteria, which the US's "peculiar institution" did at the time. Of course currently, most Christians, except for the really racist ones, choose to ignore that part of the Bible, along with other things here and there, like not eating pork, or wearing cloth made of more than one type of fiber, stuff like that. Yet curiously, people like you still want to stick to the parts against gay people. Incidentally, I can't recall anything specifically against lesbians, but it has been a while since I studied it - I only seem to remember things against men sleeping together.

In any case, it's pointless to really debate you on anything - that much is obvious. It reminds me of trying to explain why communism is bad to a communist, or why the regressive left are racist and sexist to a member of it - they just redefine it in a way to fit within their framework. In your case that's the continued insistence on the US being a Christian nation based entirely on Christian morals, et. al.

After spending a lovely 10 hours at work today and therefore having plenty of time to think on it, I think it's obvious that what's really needed is a moderate/centrist party which emphasizes individual liberties and equality under the law, while advocating for a more limited/restricted government. Naturally marriage equality would be part of that, though an emphasis would be in a return to a more nuclear family as that has been shown to be best for raising children. Religious conservatives would simply have to decide if it is worth it to align with such a party and get most of what they want, or risk losing everything. That's really what it would come down to.

 

[Zachowon]

An issue we are all having is we keep trying to argue someones beilifs are wrong. Something we should not argue. Perhaps argue how one could incorporate the argument into how they should be incoprated int the American Values. Perhaps argue that the Christian morals have been tainted over the years, and one should look at the time of the bible itself.
Etc etc.

 

[Captain X]

I'm not sure that's possible given that we not only have people arguing that homosexuality is "wrong" and therefore want them to not have equal rights, but there are also apparently those who really want to turn the clock back on women's rights as well. One of the frustrating things about both the right and the left is that they both seem to like stereotypes and essentially forcing people into them.

 

[LordsFire]

An issue we are all having is we keep trying to argue someones beilifs are wrong. Something we should not argue. Perhaps argue how one could incorporate the argument into how they should be incoprated int the American Values. Perhaps argue that the Christian morals have been tainted over the years, and one should look at the time of the bible itself.
Etc etc.

I'm sorry Zach, but you're showing a lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of thinking here.

Not everyone's beliefs can be right. Something cannot be both true and false.

And someone's beliefs on an issue are going to carry the day. Trying to say that we shouldn't argue that, is basically saying 'Let whoever controls the media establishment determine all policy forevermore.'

Because those who control the media establish not just will use it to set a narrative, they already have, and then they will try to browbeat everyone into agreeing with it. Not just shutting up either, but they will try to force you to actively celebrate their ideology, whatever you do or don't believe.

 

[Captain X]

Which, ironically, is how I view the religious right as well.

 

[Zachowon]

I'm sorry Zach, but you're showing a lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of thinking here.

Not everyone's beliefs can be right. Something cannot be both true and false.

And someone's beliefs on an issue are going to carry the day. Trying to say that we shouldn't argue that, is basically saying 'Let whoever controls the media establishment determine all policy forevermore.'

Because those who control the media establish not just will use it to set a narrative, they already have, and then they will try to browbeat everyone into agreeing with it. Not just shutting up either, but they will try to force you to actively celebrate their ideology, whatever you do or don't believe.

Okay, how about this. We we live in a country where people are supposed to be free right?
We should all live under the idea that if they are willing to be proud Americans, and adjust and assimilate to the culture, be they immigrants, or otherwise.
That is the idea we should live under. Race, sex, who you love, should all not matter in the end.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I'm not sure that's possible given that we not only have people arguing that homosexuality is "wrong"

We literally only exist to compete with other people to vindicate and proliferate our genetic material. We literally only have one purpose to our existence which is to assert our will on the universe and reproduce.

Whether scripture or Darwinian homosexuality is objectively "wrong".

That you have spent a dozen pages dishonestly strawmanning multiple posters from a secular position when in its purest form homosexuality doesn't even have a place in a secular society.

You are too ignorant to debate this guy and by doing so you repeatedly legitimize his points.

And don't even bother calling me a homophobe I've made how little of a fuck I give about whether or not a guy who wants to join me in finding a way to completely destroy the American left and disenfranchise its followers via generational attainder perfectly clear takes it up the butt and you would be a first rate fool to try that.

Fucking stop speaking in sound bites and learn a little bit about your own ideology first.

 

[LordsFire]

Okay, how about this. We we live in a country where people are supposed to be free right?
We should all live under the idea that if they are willing to be proud Americans, and adjust and assimilate to the culture, be they immigrants, or otherwise.
That is the idea we should live under. Race, sex, who you love, should all not matter in the end.

But what does it mean to be a 'proud American'?

Some people right now think that means 'Racist,' and that's bad. Some people think that means 'Racist,' and that's good. Some people think that white people in this country owe black people in this country handouts from cradle to grave. Some people think that it means Libertarianism, some Conservatism, etc, etc, etc.

What values actually define our nation?