LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[strunkenwhite]

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.

1. Depends on what you mean by Christian nation.
2. Sure, Christianity was important to people's lives.
3. Claiming that the social structure was homogeneous across the thirteen colonies is a very bold claim that I don't think withstands pretty much any scrutiny. For example, the slavery issue. Or do you mean that there was simply (at least) one element to society that was homogeneous and that that element was Christianity? But I would think this also fails due to sharp disagreements between sects (including on slavery). Although perhaps an interesting secular comparison could be made, in that I think that in modern times American patriotism is pretty ubiquitous despite very heterogeneous expressions of the same.

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.

I'm just trying to illustrate how it seems to me that you're trying to oversimplify things into, for example, 'as long as we all agree on American Pride everything will be fine' (not actual quote) when you've hidden so much baggage into that term that it's not a very meaningful statement IMO.

 

[Zachowon]

1. Depends on what you mean by Christian nation.
2. Sure, Christianity was important to people's lives.
3. Claiming that the social structure was homogeneous across the thirteen colonies is a very bold claim that I don't think withstands pretty much any scrutiny. For example, the slavery issue. Or do you mean that there was simply (at least) one element to society that was homogeneous and that that element was Christianity? But I would think this also fails due to sharp disagreements between sects (including on slavery). Although perhaps an interesting secular comparison could be made, in that I think that in modern times American patriotism is pretty ubiquitous despite very heterogeneous expressions of the same.

I'm just trying to illustrate how it seems to me that you're trying to oversimplify things into, for example, 'as long as we all agree on American Pride everything will be fine' (not actual quote) when you've hidden so much baggage into that term that it's not a very meaningful statement IMO.

Basically, if we have nationalism and patriotism, and are willing to put aside smaller things we disagree on, in order to better the US.

 

[LordsFire]

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.

Okay, you say our values shouldn't be religious.

Who defines those values then?

What are they?

What philosophical foundation are they built upon?


And I am in no way saying Christian values make people unequal. Christian values are the most equalizing ideology in the world; I have no idea what you're going on about there.

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.

'Co-existed perfectly well with Christianity.'

Islam conquered, slaughtered, enslaved, and forcibly converted North Africa, the Byzantine Empire, Persia, Spain, and a fair chunk of SE Europe, until historical Christendom rose in power sufficiently to turn them back.

The Shinto exterminated Christianity within Japan.

Ancient Israel, when it was still a nation, persecuted Christians and tried to wipe them out, after literally killing Jesus Christ himself. (This is usually the excuse used to justify anti-semitism in culturally christian nations.)

Atheist nations are notorious for their persecution of Christianity, though to be fair, they tend to persecute every other religion, not just Christianity.

You have something of a point when it comes to Hinduism, but that probably has something to do with the fact that when Christianity came into large-scale contact with Hinduism, it was in the form of the British Empire taking over India, in many places overthrowing the ruling Muslim minority. Maybe the Hindus would have interacted peacably with Christians if they didn't have the British Army watching them, maybe they wouldn't have, at this point it's hard to know.


You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the history of religions. (And to be fair, the Catholic Church has some ugly parts of its history as well. Unlike with Islam, Shinto, and Atheism though, you can point to the sacred text of Christianity and say 'They did this in defiance of God's Law.')

Now, you do have something of a point when it comes to different doctrines existing within any given religion, but you're blowing it up to something so far from reality that it gets a little crazy. I'm not going to dig all the way into that here, because that's an entire thread in its own right.

 

[Zachowon]

Okay, you say our values shouldn't be religious.

Who defines those values then?

What are they?

What philosophical foundation are they built upon?


And I am in no way saying Christian values make people unequal. Christian values are the most equalizing ideology in the world; I have no idea what you're going on about there.



'Co-existed perfectly well with Christianity.'

Islam conquered, slaughtered, enslaved, and forcibly converted North Africa, the Byzantine Empire, Persia, Spain, and a fair chunk of SE Europe, until historical Christendom rose in power sufficiently to turn them back.

The Shinto exterminated Christianity within Japan.

Ancient Israel, when it was still a nation, persecuted Christians and tried to wipe them out, after literally killing Jesus Christ himself. (This is usually the excuse used to justify anti-semitism in culturally christian nations.)

Atheist nations are notorious for their persecution of Christianity, though to be fair, they tend to persecute every other religion, not just Christianity.

You have something of a point when it comes to Hinduism, but that probably has something to do with the fact that when Christianity came into large-scale contact with Hinduism, it was in the form of the British Empire taking over India, in many places overthrowing the ruling Muslim minority. Maybe the Hindus would have interacted peacably with Christians if they didn't have the British Army watching them, maybe they wouldn't have, at this point it's hard to know.


You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the history of religions. (And to be fair, the Catholic Church has some ugly parts of its history as well. Unlike with Islam, Shinto, and Atheism though, you can point to the sacred text of Christianity and say 'They did this in defiance of God's Law.')

Now, you do have something of a point when it comes to different doctrines existing within any given religion, but you're blowing it up to something so far from reality that it gets a little crazy. I'm not going to dig all the way into that here, because that's an entire thread in its own right.

Most equal?
Like how Gays should be unequal?
You can use it as a base, but one should add to it more social non religious values. Because if we just use Christian ones, well, there goes Anything besides the 50s style nuclear family.

 

[Wargamer08]

Most equal?
Like how Gays should be unequal?
You can use it as a base, but one should add to it more social non religious values. Because if we just use Christian ones, well, there goes Anything besides the 50s style nuclear family.

I’m curious on how setting rules for behaviour makes some people unequal in your eyes.

I mean, the nuclear family goes back much further then the fifties. It’s also been pretty well the backbone of human development for a while longer then that.

 

[Zachowon]

I’m curious on how setting rules for behaviour makes some people unequal in your eyes.

I mean, the nuclear family goes back much further then the fifties. It’s also been pretty well the backbone of human development for a while longer then that.

Making LGB people not being equal is the whole point of all of this, and how conservatives should push against them.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I really want to know the reasoning behind this one.

I already made it clear. If you pursue secularism to its logical conclusion then you end up horseshoing into the moral majority's territory albeit in a mirror image sense.

From a Darwinian sense, any relationship that isn't heterosexual or designed to pursue social and personal advancement/demonstrate your prowess is superfluous and would be seen as an act of wasteful depravity. And even the heterosexual relationships would be demonized if they were childless or didn't serve some other purpose.

there's no position where the LGBT are welcome...Except a more laid back one that acknowledges their sinful nature while not seeking to oppress them..while also preserving the spirit of the institutions by which their ability to not be thrown off buildings or stoned to death by Sharia police is guaranteed.


That involves admitting that, the state should not grant marriage licenses to anyone but Heterosexual couples, or it should fuck off from marriage all together.

 

[Zachowon]

I already made it clear. If you pursue secularism to its logical conclusion then you end up horseshoing into the moral majority's territory albeit in a mirror image sense.

From a Darwinian sense, any relationship that isn't heterosexual or designed to pursue social and personal advancement/demonstrate your prowess is superfluous and would be seen as an act of wasteful depravity. And even the heterosexual relationships would be demonized if they were childless or didn't serve some other purpose.

there's no position where the LGBT are welcome...Except a more laid back one that acknowledges their sinful nature while not seeking to oppress them..while also preserving the spirit of the institutions by which their ability to not be thrown off buildings or stoned to death by Sharia police is guaranteed.


That involves admitting that, the state should not grant marriage licenses to anyone but Heterosexual couples, or it should fuck off from marriage all together.

I'm down for marriage not being an institution.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Basically, if we have nationalism and patriotism, and are willing to put aside smaller things we disagree on, in order to better the US.

Not necessarily, as some of the smaller things are incredibly important.

For example a truly nationalistic society should demonize people who only worry about what's on netflix. A truly nationalistic country would have counter art depicting Rachel Levine and Fallon Fox gang raping the teenaged daughters of some dude in a suburb while his neighbor shakes his head and goes "Man that sucks, whelp wonder what Spinoff of SW Disney plus has for me tonight!"

@sir_fire and @Guy of Z are both fond of telling me on Discord that "Bugmen should have no rights". By that they mean people who live in major cities. Those two posters seem to be of a persuasion that Urbanites are the cause of a lot of social ills. @Gladiator May agree with them too.. and I'd love to see his input in this thread if he feels like weighing in.

I don't particularly, completely agree with that...I do believe major cities are a place where cultural decay evolves, but that's just because the job opportunities they offer for idiots means the Dunning Kreuger poster children among us congregate there and then begin feeding off each other.

A lot of innovation and wealth from trade comes from cities too..But I do think a hardcore push by Americans to a modern "Deliberalfication of the cities" is something American nationalists would ardently pursue. Hell, they did last time what with Roosevelt and his "rugged individualist" image and his rejection of his New York roots to become a man of the frontier.

So it ain't like there isn't precedent.

I'm down for marriage not being an institution.

The Tax benefits it offers, should only be offered to working and middle class couples who have at a minimum 2 children any way.

And that's really the only group of people who should be given the legal and tax protections that a marriage paper grants.

Those who have kids.

TBH I'd be fine amending the constitution and barring anyone who doesn't have at least 3 kids from holding any kind of public office. Only people who are bound generationally to having a stake in society, should be allowed to run that society. But that's a topic for another thread.

But yeah in general marriage should be a thing recognized by the state but exist solely in the demesnes of the clergy.

And then it's up to each congregation to decide if they want to embrace their LGB brethren or not.

 

[Morphic Tide]

'Co-existed perfectly well with Christianity.'

And for each of those examples of oppression, we have examples of the reverse. Again, Islam's the biggest outlier, but even there we have the treatment of Christians in much of the Muslim world after areas were conquered for centuries, especially in the Iberian peninsula (amounted to not having big public ceremonies and needing to pay a tax, if I recall correctly), and the modern states of all the others.

Now, you do have something of a point when it comes to different doctrines existing within any given religion, but you're blowing it up to something so far from reality that it gets a little crazy.

The Sunni/Shi'ite conflict, if I recall correctly, originated in a disagreement about the basis of religious authority in Islam. Modern Liberation Theology is a thing that exists which misses few, if any, defining features of Christianity. Hinduism mostly abandoned the caste system, which by extension means there's actually disagreement over this major lifestyle-defining property of "the religion". Shintoism hasn't been its own thing in a meaningful capacity for something like a millennium, thanks to ending up in a blender with Buddhism.

And of course there's the pile of Christian denominations that find no issue with gay marriage. And then you have Messianic Jews completely fucking with defining Judaism and Christianity as separate things. And the Orthodox Church's various doctrinal clashes with Catholicism. And some South American churches engaging in blatantly-heretical idolatry that the Catholic Church higher-ups feel they can't afford to excommunicate.

Religions are not neat boxes. Period, you fundamentalist lunatic.

 

[FriedCFour]

Again, there is no single "Christian" morality.

There is commonality between all mainstream faiths that runs through. There is more in common with orthodoxy and Prots and caths than there is with other religions and so on.

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.

Nah, they really haven’t, though I had no idea you were so based on European Imperialism. Intersectional global bullshit is exactly what I don’t want either lol.

And of course there's the pile of Christian denominations that find no issue with gay marriage.

Protestant denominations to be specific, and they have caused incredible rifts. They’ve also only cropped up in the last few decades. They are also dying off, those who do embrace it.
@strukenwhite

3. Claiming that the social structure was homogeneous across the thirteen colonies is a very bold claim that I don't think withstands pretty much any scrutiny. For example, the slavery issue. Or do you mean that there was simply (at least) one element to society that was homogeneous and that that element was Christianity? But I would think this also fails due to sharp disagreements between sects (including on slavery). Although perhaps an interesting secular comparison could be made, in that I think that in modern times American patriotism is pretty ubiquitous despite very heterogeneous expressions of the same.

Even with differentiation on slavery the cultural axioms and beliefs were quite similar. It was certainly more homogenous than it is now.

 

[Abhorsen]

So first, to everyone, this isn't a conversation about world religion, this is a conversation about American Conservatism, and thus their morality, and its interaction with LGBT people.

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?

Everyone (whose an adult) owns themselves, and thus violating their bodily integrity (or threatening to, etc) would be harm. And so everybody, through giving or not giving consent, becomes part, but not all, of determining if they themselves are hurt.

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.

The problem with me accepting it in God's hands, first of all, is that it requires me believing in a god. And I don't. Whether you argue that Christianity makes the world better, makes you a better person if you believe in it, or gives you access to a better morality, the central problem with the argument (I don't think God exists) still remains unfixed.

I'm not saying my morality system is complete or perfect. But it doesn't run into making everything harm (as you don't have a right not to hear things, especially not in a place you volunteered to be), and it doesn't require me to believe in God, which is untenable (unless I'm converted, but until then...).

My morality starts yelling at the level of "Large scale surgeries are good" and starts asking about consent, and also just says that everyone is free to disagree as long as they don't attack another.

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

Who's saying that? Those sentences belong together. America was founded on a few principles, one of them being ownership of property (read: capitalism).

 

[FriedCFour]

So first, to everyone, this isn't a conversation about world religion, this is a conversation about American Conservatism, and thus their morality, and its interaction with LGBT people.

Christianity is intrinsically tied to that.

I'm not saying my morality system is complete or perfect. But it doesn't run into making everything harm (as you don't have a right not to hear things, especially not in a place you volunteered to be), and it doesn't require me to believe in God, which is untenable (unless I'm converted, but until then...).

That’s exactly the issue. “My morality.” With your totally subjective values based in nothing more than your idealism, there is no shared framework or reason to agree on anything. The best you can say to literally every question is “well for me, it’s like this” and there’s no real way to even show that yours is better than another, has more meaning, or should be followed really other than subjective opinion.

 

[Abhorsen]

Christianity is intrinsically tied to that.

Certain sects of Christianity yes. But arguments over Orthodox Christianity really aren't relevant.

That’s exactly the issue. “My morality.” With your totally subjective values based in nothing more than your idealism, there is no shared framework or reason to agree on anything. The best you can say to literally every question is “well for me, it’s like this” and there’s no real way to even show that yours is better than another, has more meaning, or should be followed really other than subjective opinion.

That’s exactly the issue. “My God's morality.” With your totally subjective values based in nothing more than your God, there is no shared framework or reason to agree on anything. The best you can say to literally every question is “well for my God, it’s like this” and there’s no real way to even show that your God is real, has more meaning, or should be followed really other than any other god.

Your criticism applies just as much to you as it does to me.

 

[FriedCFour]

Your criticism applies just as much to you as it does to me.

it really doesn’t, because there is a textual framework I can have in relation to other Christians. Even when we come out at different results, we still have shared belief and value that doesn’t just come from ourselves. I can find more commonality in many ways, more understanding, more ability to come to cohesion with someone who has fairly differing opinions than myself, different political outcomes, than I can with someone who comes to like, 90% of what I believe but is atheist. We have a shared reason to believe and abide by those morals and those beliefs that doesn’t just come from ourselves and our own personal moral framework we just made up ourselves.

 

[Abhorsen]

it really doesn’t, because there is a textual framework I can have in relation to other Christians.

And there is a moral framework I share with other libertarians as well. I didn't just make this up outta nowhere here. What I said was straight out of standard Anarcho-capitalist morality: You own yourself, so that your consent largely defines harm to your body.

 

[FriedCFour]

And there is a moral framework I share with other libertarians as well. I didn't just make this up outta nowhere here. What I said was straight out of standard Anarcho-capitalist morality: You own yourself, so that your consent largely defines harm to your body.

Yeah sure but ancaps and to a lesser extent Libertarians are almost as out of touch with human nature as Communists. “Consent defines everything” just doesn’t work. Like, how do you deal with the mentally ill, mentally incompetent, the self harming? Hell, I mean you could even argue for hate speech laws under that, insults hurt feelings after all. It also doesn’t give you any actual shared meaning and seems utterly impossible to have on the culture, because you can’t have a vacuum like that. Someone will always push for theirs to be dominant. There’s just no higher reason or purpose to actually adhere to a NAP. There’s no real motivation or consequence or higher purpose it gives your life. It’s just an almost religious worship of the concept of liberty.

 

[Zachowon]

Not necessarily, as some of the smaller things are incredibly important.

For example a truly nationalistic society should demonize people who only worry about what's on netflix. A truly nationalistic country would have counter art depicting Rachel Levine and Fallon Fox gang raping the teenaged daughters of some dude in a suburb while his neighbor shakes his head and goes "Man that sucks, whelp wonder what Spinoff of SW Disney plus has for me tonight!"

@sir_fire and @Guy of Z are both fond of telling me on Discord that "Bugmen should have no rights". By that they mean people who live in major cities. Those two posters seem to be of a persuasion that Urbanites are the cause of a lot of social ills. @Gladiator May agree with them too.. and I'd love to see his input in this thread if he feels like weighing in.

I don't particularly, completely agree with that...I do believe major cities are a place where cultural decay evolves, but that's just because the job opportunities they offer for idiots means the Dunning Kreuger poster children among us congregate there and then begin feeding off each other.

A lot of innovation and wealth from trade comes from cities too..But I do think a hardcore push by Americans to a modern "Deliberalfication of the cities" is something American nationalists would ardently pursue. Hell, they did last time what with Roosevelt and his "rugged individualist" image and his rejection of his New York roots to become a man of the frontier.

So it ain't like there isn't precedent.



The Tax benefits it offers, should only be offered to working and middle class couples who have at a minimum 2 children any way.

And that's really the only group of people who should be given the legal and tax protections that a marriage paper grants.

Those who have kids.

TBH I'd be fine amending the constitution and barring anyone who doesn't have at least 3 kids from holding any kind of public office. Only people who are bound generationally to having a stake in society, should be allowed to run that society. But that's a topic for another thread.

But yeah in general marriage should be a thing recognized by the state but exist solely in the demesnes of the clergy.

And then it's up to each congregation to decide if they want to embrace their LGB brethren or not.

I see what you mean. I am just trying to say we should not say someone should be unequal because my religion says so.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yeah sure but ancaps and to a lesser extent Libertarians are almost as out of touch with human nature as Communists. “Consent defines everything” just doesn’t work. Like, how do you deal with the mentally ill, mentally incompetent, the self harming? Hell, I mean you could even argue for hate speech laws under that, insults hurt feelings after all. It also doesn’t give you any actual shared meaning and seems utterly impossible to have on the culture, because you can’t have a vacuum like that. Someone will always push for theirs to be dominant.

Ancap definitely doesn't work as a society (because anarchist systems don't last due to warlords), but it does work as a morality. As for hurt feelings, you consented to being in public where people talk, etc, so you consented to dealing with the resulting emotions. You also (generally, if you own a private forum, for example, that's another matter) don't have a right to control someone else's speech because that's their property, not yours.

Also, if we are talking about banned language, Christianity has no where to talk with the amount of times Christians have used their religion to silence others, so have fun with that. I mean you can't really complain about hate speech bans if you want to control peoples private lives and also don't want porn to be legal. If you only care about your specific freedoms, you really don't care about freedom at all.

 

[FriedCFour]

Also, if we are talking about banned language, Christianity has no where to talk with the amount of times Christians have used their religion to silence others, so have fun with that. I mean you can't really complain about hate speech bans if you want to control peoples private lives and also don't want porn to be legal. If you only care about your specific freedoms, you really don't care about freedom at all.

I mean by that logic there is only totalitarian and libertarian. There is no difference between anything else apparently, it’s all categorized into those two. Also your God edit kinda proves my point. Different moral frameworks and religions generally don’t get along without one dominating the other utterly. I think the same will ultimately occur throughout the west, as we break down under the weight of all this subjectivity and random religions in the guise of secularist frameworks.