LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

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

The religious right hasn't existed as an organized political force in 23 years dude.

Now, there is a new organized right that does have religious right wingers in its ranks.

But we ain't the moral majority and when we take power we won't make their mistakes and we will make damn sure the castrato of the right will never get power back again either.

Conservatism is dead. Long live the age of American Nationalism.

 

[Captain X]

Fucking stop speaking in sound bites

NO U

and learn a little bit about your own ideology first.

My ideology is my ideology. If you're going to try to stuff me in some conveniently-labeled box like the lefties do, you're going to fail.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

My ideology is my ideology. If you're going to try to stuff me in some conveniently-labeled box like the lefties do, you're going to fail.

You down even know what your own ideology is. You're all over the fucking place pearl clutching and getting rope a doped by a dude whose name makes me think of fried chicken

 

[Captain X]

You certainly have an active imagination.

 

[Zachowon]

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?

Why are we talking about the media and the left and communism?
We are talking about the group that fits what I say the American values are. 70 Million (Perhaps 10 million to 20 million more have joined it) stand for America first, or think that the current left is Not for America. A conservative should be someone that has Pride in the nation. Is willing to die and fight tooth and nail to defend it, and fight along side those that they may not be on the same social ideals with, but know they care for America just as much as they do.
That is America and the values that stand for it.
Pride in the nation, honor for brothers and sisters, not letting others control us. Be them gay, lesbian, straight. White, Black, Hispanic. Libertarian, Republican.

 

[LordsFire]

Why are we talking about the media and the left and communism?
We are talking about the group that fits what I say the American values are. 70 Million (Perhaps 10 million to 20 million more have joined it) stand for America first, or think that the current left is Not for America. A conservative should be someone that has Pride in the nation. Is willing to die and fight tooth and nail to defend it, and fight along side those that they may not be on the same social ideals with, but know they care for America just as much as they do.
That is America and the values that stand for it.
Pride in the nation, honor for brothers and sisters, not letting others control us. Be them gay, lesbian, straight. White, Black, Hispanic. Libertarian, Republican.

The only actual 'value' I can see in this entire post is 'not letting others control us.'

That's pretty light for an ideology or national identity.

 

[Zachowon]

The only actual 'value' I can see in this entire post is 'not letting others control us.'

That's pretty light for an ideology or national identity.

Values are generally a word and the meaning of the word.
Pride, honor, self governance.
There are more but the main one every conservative should have.
Pride in the nation. Be it an Immigrant like @The Immortal Watch Dog a bi man like @Abhorsen a Christian woman like @ShieldWife a heavily Nationalistic chrsitan like @FriedCFour , A woman like @prinCZess . ETC ETC.

We all should be proud and have pride in our nation. Not dislike others based on some preference. As long as we share the common link

 

[FriedCFour]

So you would count Deists as Christians, for example?

Deists were a fairly small portion of the intellectual elite, a small portion of the founding fathers, and most would be Christian Deists at that. Like, when digging into what some people use to say that “the founders were Christian deists” it’s that they didn’t believe the Bible was 100% literal at which point the Catholic Church has apparently always been a deist organization.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/answering-atheists/how-to-read-the-first-chapter-of-genesis.html

“It’s not a literal account of astrophysics and geography” has been the position of Church Fathers when Rome was still alive. Deists were typically literate, elite men who read and liked a very specific brand of enlightenment philosophy very much.

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.

It didn’t lol. Chattel slavery that continues to children doesn’t fit anywhere in, to say nothing of how it says to treat slaves. Even then there’s no intrinsic doctrine that says you need to keep slavery.

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.

I don’t think so and you can see you “need” it, but what you’ve described is the fight between America first and TPUSA among the Gen Z right and America First came out with a resounding victory last year that has paved the way to build its own PAC and network within more established speakers, to get money and organization going to push for candidates.

In your case that's the continued insistence on the US being a Christian nation based entirely on Christian morals, et. al.

I know Poland is a nation of Polish people because it’s population is almost entirely Polish, it’s a Polish Nation. It’s nation is also almost entirely Catholic, it’s a Catholic nation. When America was founded it was almost entirely Christian, it was a Christian nation. I also never said it’s only Christian morals that it was founded on either, just that it dominated our social framework.

 

[FriedCFour]

Pride in the nation.

Yeah but we can’t agree on what to have pride in or what’s valuable. Progressives can find pride in the nation in how much they’ve for destroying the original social order as well as having open borders again under Biden or pride in the removal of the right from the public square. A neocon can have pride in how many wasteful and destructive foreign wars we’ve fought and our world police status. A hedonist can have pride in how utterly decadent we’ve gotten. What you have pride in, what you see as the nation, and what direction you want it to go in are all incredibly important.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah but we can’t agree on what to have pride in or what’s valuable. Progressives can find pride in the nation in how much they’ve for destroying the original social order as well as having open borders again under Biden or pride in the removal of the right from the public square. A neocon can have pride in how many wasteful and destructive foreign wars we’ve fought and our world police status. A hedonist can have pride in how utterly decadent we’ve gotten. What you have pride in, what you see as the nation, and what direction you want it to go in are all incredibly important.

We are talking about conservatives.
We can all have different things, but we should have Pride in the nation. Not different aspects and what we all strive for. In the end what brings us together.
The pride ofbeing in the best damn country in the world.
Your argument is not them having pride in the nation. It is them having pride in other means, that make them focused on something else.
Do you think everyone has to have the same ideals to have pride in the same country?
They do not. The thing is, what bugs me about your argument and multiple others, you focus on how people live their lives, and how THAT is what makes America the America of today. Yes, there issues, yes people are not the brightest.
We as conservatives should accept any that want to be on the same side as us, but at the same time, put into the minds of those that do, that we all share a pride in the nation. A pride that we stand for the freedoms everyone has. The Pride in having the best military in the world. Pride in everything good about our damn country. A distaste for the communist/socalist side of it. A push to help bring prosperity back to the country by less government internvetnion.
THAT is what we as conservatives should expect from each other. That is what we should do. We shouldn't disqualifypeople because of anything but their political beilifs in such a way that it harms American pride and causes us not to be the best damn country in the world.

One should love America, have pride in the achievements, and not care about what someone does behind closed doors, or something that does not directly impact their life.

I get it. Christian values yadda yadda yadda. Do you know what the country was founded on besides chrtisian values? Freedom of Religion, freedom of speech. I get what you are saying, and hell, in the perfect Conservative US, we could say anything we want about anyone and not get feedback besides a fuck you or something.but because of the Dems, always being the Anti-American assholes they have been, have made all these things seem like they are taking down America, because they will do what ever it takes to win. If the right was willing to abide by the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and not strike down peoples beliefs in say, sodomy being something normal in it, maybe we would not be in the situation we are in currently in the US.

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

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?

Yes it does, thank you for clarifying.

 

[strunkenwhite]

in its purest form homosexuality doesn't even have a place in a secular society.

I really want to know the reasoning behind this one.

When America was founded it was almost entirely Christian, it was a Christian nation. I also never said it’s only Christian morals that it was founded on either, just that it dominated our social framework.

If your claim is restricted to, "When our country was founded, Christianity was the socially dominant religion including dominance over non-religion," I think there would be very, very few people who disagreed.

Pride in everything good about our damn country. A distaste for the communist/socalist side of it.

People are saying that, for some people, these two sentences would contradict each other.

 

[FriedCFour]

If your claim is restricted to, "When our country was founded, Christianity was the socially dominant religion including dominance over non-religion," I think there would be very, very few people who disagreed.

Ie, we we’re a Christian nation, and there is clear evidence that this was important to the people, who both lived here and who founded the country, and having a homogenous social structure is beneficial as well. Not having that is an issue.

 

[Morphic Tide]

I'm going to assume, especially coming from a catholic country and living around plenty of Christians that not every Bible thumper is as lapsed as the average American.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality. It’s doctrinal to oppose it, you go against doctrine if you support it, ie its heretical to endorse such. Liberation theology dates to the 60s and is tied to KGB operations too lol, and is also condemned by Catholicism.

You seem to completely miss the basic concept of what denominational differences mean. When I said "Liberation Theology types that preceded Communism", I'm referring to historic movements dating back into the 1300s that gave religious justification for virtually every Communist talking point, which is generally regarded as being where the ideology eventually codified by Marx came from.

The claim made was that the whole of Christendom was on your side by giving the 2.6 billion figure. We are at the point where this is not a certainty for Catholics to the point of the fucking Pope being a counter-example, no matter what the doctrine says about that, because that's what the 2.6 billion figure is using. Of course Bible thumpers will tend to agree on the issue, but they're a small minority of Protestants in the US. Mostly Evangelicals, to my understanding.

From my own knowledge, this rests on a single verse saying "a man shall not lie with another man", or something along those lines. That's the entirety of homosexuality in its own right being "un-Christian", with another in the definition of marriage. By that bar, we can tell you that you're being "un-Christian" by demanding the state enforce your morals. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and such, a greater degree of separation than you're assuming the Founders had.

and having a homogenous social structure is beneficial as well. Not having that is an issue.

Where along the line is it deemed necessary this be explicitly religiously Biblical? A shared ethical framework performs the job perfectly well, even if you have a third of the population be Muslim, half Christian, and the remainder evenly split between Hindu, Jewish, and Shinto. The aspect that matters is a shared morality, not the justification of that morality. "Because the Founders said it" and "Because Jesus said it" are no different in this function, even if the former came from the latter.

 

[FriedCFour]

From my own knowledge, this rests on a single verse saying "a man shall not lie with another man", or something along those lines. That's the entirety of homosexuality in its own right being "un-Christian", with another in the definition of marriage. By that bar, we can tell you that you're being "un-Christian" by demanding the state enforce your morals. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and such, a greater degree of separation than you're assuming the Founders had.

A multitude of verses. The creation of Adam and Eve and Romans as well. Sex is to be in marriage, marriage is man and woman, you’re called to create children consistently, etc. It’s abundantly clear in far more than just Leviticus. And with the Pope he’s never said homosexuality isn’t sinful or endorsed gay marriage or women priests for that matter. What you have is a lot of poorly read, lead and catechized Catholics.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and such, a greater degree of separation than you're assuming the Founders had.

That was about taxes specifically, and under any kind of democratic framework where you have a voice and a say or are in leadership, rendering your political power towards God is pretty clearly a part of it.

You seem to completely miss the basic concept of what denominational differences mean. When I said "Liberation Theology types that preceded Communism", I'm referring to historic movements dating back into the 1300s that gave religious justification for virtually every Communist talking point, which is generally regarded as being where the ideology eventually codified by Marx came from.

I have high doubts on that.

Where along the line is it deemed necessary this be explicitly religiously Biblical? A shared ethical framework performs the job perfectly well, even if you have a third of the population be Muslim, half Christian, and the remainder evenly split between Hindu, Jewish, and Shinto.

There would be no shared ethical framework and such a split sounds worse than Yugoslavia. Like, this whole point is straight nonsense. “Suppose you had this massive, split, multi-ethnic and cultural conglomerate picked out all over the world but they ignored all their own beliefs and history and identity and subscribed to a purely secular ethical framework they all agreed on and everyone put aside their own groups interests, well they’d be peaceful!”

 

[LordsFire]

From my own knowledge, this rests on a single verse saying "a man shall not lie with another man", or something along those lines. That's the entirety of homosexuality in its own right being "un-Christian", with another in the definition of marriage. By that bar, we can tell you that you're being "un-Christian" by demanding the state enforce your morals. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and such, a greater degree of separation than you're assuming the Founders had.

It's actually a series of verses throughout the Bible that say that homosexuality is immoral. Particularly in Levitical law and a couple places in the New Testament.

Where along the line is it deemed necessary this be explicitly religiously Biblical? A shared ethical framework performs the job perfectly well, even if you have a third of the population be Muslim, half Christian, and the remainder evenly split between Hindu, Jewish, and Shinto. The aspect that matters is a shared morality, not the justification of that morality. "Because the Founders said it" and "Because Jesus said it" are no different in this function, even if the former came from the latter.

You're showing that you don't know what you're talking about here.

Muslim morality is not the same as Christian, Jewish, Shinto, or Hindu Morality. Shinto morality likewise is not the same as the others, and neither is Hindu. Jewish and Christian morality have a lot of overlap, because the one is an outgrowth of the other, but even then there are significant clashes.

Should we be living in a caste-based society, where what family you are born into determines what your social standing and profession will be? Where if you are low-caste, you deserve it because of your sins in a past life? Where if you are high-caste, you deserve that privilege for your virtue in past lives? Where burning the widow of a dead man alive on his funeral pyre is acceptable?

Should we be living in a society where honor killings are acceptable? Where it is virtuous to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam?

Should we be living in a society that looks like Japan pre-Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Should we be living in a society with an atheism derived morality, like those famous exemplars of virtue, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez?

Or should we live in a society where we are not only supposed to love our family, but also our neighors, and even our enemies?

Because let me tell you, of the religions listed, only one teaches that, and it's Christianity.

I get it. Christian values yadda yadda yadda. Do you know what the country was founded on besides chrtisian values? Freedom of Religion, freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech and freedom of Religion are Christian values. They aren't exclusively Christian, but Buddhism is the only other world religion that professes anything like such, and it has some very substantial other issues.

 

[FriedCFour]

It's actually a series of verses throughout the Bible that say that homosexuality is immoral. Particularly in Levitical law and a couple places in the New Testament.

Also, if you read between the lines on literally all the sexual morality throughout, it’s pretty clear the LGB stuff is contradictory.

 

[LindyAF]

You seem to completely miss the basic concept of what denominational differences mean. When I said "Liberation Theology types that preceded Communism", I'm referring to historic movements dating back into the 1300s that gave religious justification for virtually every Communist talking point, which is generally regarded as being where the ideology eventually codified by Marx came from.

This is slightly off topic, but dating liberation theology to the 1300s seems pretty inaccurate at best. The movements name comes from a book written in 1971. CELAM was created in 1955, and the movement more or less developed in the 1960s after Vatican 2. I'm sure they shoehorn their stances into earlier writings, and to some extent were even genuinely influenced by earlier movements, but I don't think you can claim they're part of the same movement, any more than you can claim, say, feminism originated in Themiscyra.

 

[Zachowon]

I really want to know the reasoning behind this one.

If your claim is restricted to, "When our country was founded, Christianity was the socially dominant religion including dominance over non-religion," I think there would be very, very few people who disagreed.

People are saying that, for some people, these two sentences would contradict each other.

I like how EVERYONE seems to not understand this thread and my argument. This is a about LGBT and the Conservative movement, if any Conservatives think communism and socliaism are good for the country, they don't share American pride. They aren't even conservative.

It's actually a series of verses throughout the Bible that say that homosexuality is immoral. Particularly in Levitical law and a couple places in the New Testament.



You're showing that you don't know what you're talking about here.

Muslim morality is not the same as Christian, Jewish, Shinto, or Hindu Morality. Shinto morality likewise is not the same as the others, and neither is Hindu. Jewish and Christian morality have a lot of overlap, because the one is an outgrowth of the other, but even then there are significant clashes.

Should we be living in a caste-based society, where what family you are born into determines what your social standing and profession will be? Where if you are low-caste, you deserve it because of your sins in a past life? Where if you are high-caste, you deserve that privilege for your virtue in past lives? Where burning the widow of a dead man alive on his funeral pyre is acceptable?

Should we be living in a society where honor killings are acceptable? Where it is virtuous to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam?

Should we be living in a society that looks like Japan pre-Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Should we be living in a society with an atheism derived morality, like those famous exemplars of virtue, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez?

Or should we live in a society where we are not only supposed to love our family, but also our neighors, and even our enemies?

Because let me tell you, of the religions listed, only one teaches that, and it's Christianity.



Freedom of speech and freedom of Religion are Christian values. They aren't exclusively Christian, but Buddhism is the only other world religion that professes anything like such, and it has some very substantial other issues.

I am basically saying that you shouldn't tie them to be religious. Using the excuse that they are Christian values to be able to make it so people aren't equal is not giving people freedom.

 

[Morphic Tide]

There would be no shared ethical framework and such a split sounds worse than Yugoslavia. Like, this whole point is straight nonsense. “Suppose you had this massive, split, multi-ethnic and cultural conglomerate picked out all over the world but they ignored all their own beliefs and history and identity and subscribed to a purely secular ethical framework they all agreed on and everyone put aside their own groups interests, well they’d be peaceful!”

Muslim morality is not the same as Christian, Jewish, Shinto, or Hindu Morality. Shinto morality likewise is not the same as the others, and neither is Hindu. Jewish and Christian morality have a lot of overlap, because the one is an outgrowth of the other, but even then there are significant clashes.

Again, there is no single "Christian" morality. Nor is there a single Muslim one, or Hindu one, or Shinto one. This scale of religious affiliation does not actually have solid bounds in modern time, period, because we've so long passed the point of integrity in all sorts of fashions, because there are simply too damn many people with too much exposure to too many ideas to have any strong lines. No different from Buddhism bleeding into every other Asian religion so many times that things are practically a spectrum over there.

The Catholic Church of 1066 did not have the same positions as the Catholic Church of today. Hinduism has a lengthy history of adapting to being conquered and is provably an amalgamation of dozens of local faiths roughly bludgeoned into a single shared framework, no different from all the pagan figures turned into Saints under Catholicism to cut down on the amount of war involved in removing the various Pagan traditions.

Religion is not the broad cultural definition you are insisting it is. Culture does not operate on neat little boxes like that. Japan did not stop being Shinto when America bludgeoned some basic ethical touchstones into it. India did not stop being Hindu when it banned the caste system. Because people do not operate on neat little boxes like that, they put the variety of influences in their life together into something that makes sense for them.

My example is not a farcical nothing, because each of the others has co-existed perfectly well with Christianity. The biggest outlier is Islam, by a long shot, but all the others have long held sizable portions perfectly amenable to the Western doctrine of equality. Mostly because of export of that very doctrine at one point or another by force of arms, but still, forging a common ethical code alongside religious diversity is not remotely something pulled out of my ass, it is how intersectional bullshit got global.

This is slightly off topic, but dating liberation theology to the 1300s seems pretty inaccurate at best.

The key is "dating back into", which is to say the chain of reasoning can be traced to those times with the work of John Ball of Colchester, who instigated the Peasant's Revolt of that century by laying out an interpretation of the Bible as supporting equality of individuals and lacking justification for hereditary nobility.

"Liberation Theology" was just the term I recalled for it first, as I couldn't quite recall the Diggers in particular and knew it went back long before the English Civil War the Diggers were participants of.