LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

ShieldWife

Marchioness
I’m all for conservatives sticking to their guns and not compromising on issues that they think are important. Though I myself have no moral issues with homosexuality, don’t want homosexuals to be persecuted, and would rather the conservative movement focus on issues that I think are important.

That isn’t to say that social conservatism isn’t important, it absolutely is. Marriage is important, families are important, but I don’t think that gay people are the problem with straight marriages breaking down.

Anyway, gay people should be free to live as they like as long as they don’t force themselves in others. Along the same lines, I think that if a business wants to bar gays or anything like that, they should be able to. Error on the side of freedom, leave people alone, those things should be the default position.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
That isn’t to say that social conservatism isn’t important, it absolutely is. Marriage is important, families are important, but I don’t think that gay people are the problem with straight marriages breaking down.
Its not so much that they are the only cause of straight marriages breaking down but rather that it’s one part of the destruction of the meaning and purpose of marriage. The others would be the changes to how you can have a marriage that binds you both and can make up prenups and different restrictions, removal of the church as the entity that is involved in it, people losing the purpose of marriage which is to build a stable home for the purpose of having a family, children, the changes to divorce, the commodification of sex and the replacement of its primary function as making children to instead pleasure. Gay marriage is just one of the latest among many to the institution of marriage in the west over the last hundred or so years, not the only or even necessarily the biggest.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
why? I listed a whole lot of things ranging from really bad to not so bad.
And your choices kind of say something about you.

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.
Because I made a point based on a common argument, which was not directed at you specifically, and in response you made a nonargument. I have no need to defend anything.

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?
Apparently the part about that applying to everyone.

Said ideals didn’t mean bullshit like the NAP lol.
You think a gun nut like me follows the NAP? I actually had to look up what that even was. :LOL:

And on equality I can pretty easily just say everyone equally has the right to marry the opposite gender.
Which would not be equal.

That’s the equality the founding fathers espoused. And as far as slavery goes it was an incredibly contentious issue precisely because it was contradictory with many of the enlightenment issues. LGBT stuff? Not at all.
Only because you refuse to see it that way.

Lol. “these guys were all religious and said religion was important
Most of them were deists. Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible that removed any reference to the supernatural. They were hardly religious in the same way that you are.

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”
Apparently on the important parts, I do. And I'm not an atheist.

How many more quotes ya need buddy?
:rolleyes: I could quote mine, too, I just won't, especially not at 4:30 in the morning.

yeah so has rape and murder. Chimpanzees exhibit something akin to warfare. This is a silly response to an argument I’m not making.
Yet you keep responding as if you were and keep having some of the most absurd takes on it.

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.
No, I really don't. It's sad, really, that anyone should demand to know why they can't treat someone who was born differently from them as lesser than themselves.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Its not so much that they are the only cause of straight marriages breaking down but rather that it’s one part of the destruction of the meaning and purpose of marriage, the others would be the changes to how you can have a marriage that binds you both and can make up prenups and different restrictions, removal of the church as the entity that is involved in it, people losing the purpose of marriage which is to build a stable home for the purpose of having a family, children, the changes to divorce, the commodification of sex and the replacement of its primary function as making children to instead pleasure. Gay marriage is just one of the latest among many to the institution of marriage in the west over the last hundred or so years, not the only or even necessarily the biggest.
I’d say that feminism has done far more to damage heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage has, which is actually a recent thing. The acceptance of promiscuity has done a lot to cause marriages to break down, giving women what amounts to financial rewards for ending marriage has helped too. I doubt that acceptance of homosexuality has had any influence on the straight divorce rate, though the rise in tolerance for homosexuality certainly correlated with rise in divorce rates, because both result from increased social liberalism.

Though I guess the question is this: what should be the legal policy regarding homosexuality? I would say that persecuting gay people is wrong, harmful, and ultimately counter-productive. I support the rights of people who oppose homosexuality to express that opposition and the freedom to associate (or not) with who they like.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Its not so much that they are the only cause of straight marriages breaking down but rather that it’s one part of the destruction of the meaning and purpose of marriage. The others would be the changes to how you can have a marriage that binds you both and can make up prenups and different restrictions, removal of the church as the entity that is involved in it, people losing the purpose of marriage which is to build a stable home for the purpose of having a family, children, the changes to divorce, the commodification of sex and the replacement of its primary function as making children to instead pleasure. Gay marriage is just one of the latest among many to the institution of marriage in the west over the last hundred or so years, not the only or even necessarily the biggest.
It's a shame that government and secular life are just so tied up in marriage, or you might have more of a point. If it was a strictly religious affair, I'd side strictly with the separation clause, but that just isn't the case. Of course, it doesn't help your case that for so much of history that marriage just wasn't what you seem to imagine it was, which is to say it had a lot more to do with making alliances than anything else. That kinds of stuff still goes on today. In any case, allowing gay people to get married does not cheapen it in any way - that would be the fault of things like no-fault divorce and the law basically punishing men for getting married.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
And your choices kind of say something about you.
I chose not being very nice and lying. What do my choices say?

Because I made a point based on a common argument, which was not directed at you specifically, and in response you made a nonargument.
it’s not a nonargument to point out that natural =/= good, that you still have to assert why it’s good outside of just being natural.

Apparently the part about that applying to everyone.
Okay, so they didn’t share those enlightenment values then? We weren’t founded on that? So will you stop appealing to them and claiming you embody them more?

You think a gun nut like me follows the NAP? I actually had to look up what that even was. :LOL:
a whole lot of gun nuts do, it’s very popular among libertarians / an-caps. But either way I said like it. Most libertarians idea of liberty that aren’t religious tend to be around the NAP

Which would not be equal.
How so? Each person has the exact same equal right there.

Only because you refuse to see it that way.
.... because we are talking about enlightenment principles and the founding fathers and I have yet to see absolutely anything from the founding fathers or the actually written principles that suggest that it’s a value. This isn’t even an argument of what I believe, this is an argument about historical record and what actual men who existed wrote down and believed.

Most of them were deists. Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible that removed any reference to the supernatural. They were hardly religious in the same way that you are.
utterly and blatantly false. Jefferson is the most extreme example of that, Benjamin Franklin would be another. Washington is often claimed to be but he’s an Anglican, who also had this to say.

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation." - George Washington

Yeah clearly not someone who values Christianity here and was totally a Deist who didn’t believe in anything supernatural. He only prays for the nation and says that the Bible was a work of God and that we will never be happy as a nation unless we follow it. They mainly saw it fairly similar to how I do really.

Apparently on the important parts, I do. And I'm not an atheist.
based on what, please, please let me know. I’m still waiting for basically anything. Also glad to hear you found faith since 2019.

:rolleyes: I could quote mine, too, I just won't, especially not at 4:30 in the morning.
quote it later then. I’d love to go in depth more on just how many of the founding fathers I can pull up and just how much of their writing and beliefs and ideas I can bring up from a multitude of them.


Yet you keep responding as if you were and keep having some of the most absurd takes on it.
It’s not an absurd take.


It’s the basic response to the appeal to nature fallacy you are using.

No, I really don't. It's sad, really, that anyone should demand to know why they can't treat someone who was born differently from them as lesser than themselves.
Did you miss the bit where I posted that it’s only about 25% genetic according to studies? That even among genetically identical twins there are mass studies that have shown as low as a thirty percent likelihood of both twins being homosexual? Born this way is a meme, it’s not totally genetic, it likely isn’t even majority influenced by genetics. I made a whole point on it you glossed over, but I don’t really see how I’m treating them as lesser than myself, or in what sense you mean.
 
Last edited:

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
I’d say that feminism has done far more to damage heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage has, which is actually a recent thing. The acceptance of promiscuity has done a lot to cause marriages to break down, giving women what amounts to financial rewards for ending marriage has helped too. I doubt that acceptance of homosexuality has had any influence on the straight divorce rate, though the rise in tolerance for homosexuality certainly correlated with rise in divorce rates, because both result from increased social liberalism.
most of what I said is a consequence of feminism so I would agree. Categorizing the two feminism has definitely done more.
Though I guess the question is this: what should be the legal policy regarding homosexuality? I would say that persecuting gay people is wrong, harmful, and ultimately counter-productive. I support the rights of people who oppose homosexuality to express that opposition and the freedom to associate (or not) with who they like.
I just don’t really think it should be the ability to be married or all that accepted to have pride parades. I think Poland does it very well overall.
It's a shame that government and secular life are just so tied up in marriage, or you might have more of a point. If it was a strictly religious affair, I'd side strictly with the separation clause, but that just isn't the case. Of course, it doesn't help your case that for so much of history that marriage just wasn't what you seem to imagine it was, which is to say it had a lot more to do with making alliances than anything else. That kinds of stuff still goes on today. In any case, allowing gay people to get married does not cheapen it in any way - that would be the fault of things like no-fault divorce and the law basically punishing men for getting married.
you know that like, the peasant farmer or the middle class wasn’t quite so much making an alliance, and that most human beings who were born and got married weren’t kings or lords? That what you just said boils down to one purpose of marriage within specifically the royalty and nobility, who by the way, had securing the existence of an heir as one of their absolute top priorities? If it came down to a secured alliance via marrying someone known to be infertile, or marrying someone who didn’t bring an alliance but was, even a lot of kings would likely choose the fertile woman because not doing so would be choosing to end your dynasty. The most famous and probably also extreme example of this would be Henry the Eighth who destroyed a number of alliances and relationships with nations as well as the Catholic Church in an attempt to get a son.

It also absolutely does cheapen it, because again, it breaks down the fact that it undeniably was about having children, and suggests that two men being married and a man and a woman being married is the same. It cheapens the distinction between man and woman, and calls the two unions equal when they are absolutely not.
 
Last edited:

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Most of them were deists. Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible that removed any reference to the supernatural. They were hardly religious in the same way that you are.

This shows me that you subscribe to revisionist histories.

Yes, Jefferson was a Deist. There was one other (I think it was Franklin) who flirted with Deism, but every single other founding father was a Christian.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to rewrite history to better suit their cultural revolution.

And even Jefferson, was so into Christianity and understanding the importance of the community and morality that he taught, that he attended church every week based on the principle that as a leader, he should do as he believed others ought, even if he did not actually believe Jesus was divine.

I have yet to see you actually respond meaningfully to any of Fried's arguments by the way, which is not doing your position any good as far as credibility goes.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
He did pretty damn close to what the guys who get picked up on To Catch a Predator did. He talked to a 14 year old sexually for 4 years and then got more explicit as soon as he hit 18, textbook child grooming.
Oh, that is pretty pedo then. From a quick read through of the article I didn't see it.
I don't know that's true, and I don't really see how in the current environment political we could reliably know if it was true. Both the fact that only slightly more girls are abused than boys are- despite sexual predators being overwhelmingly male and that being abused as a child is correlated with both homosexuality and with being an abuser, might indicate that there is a difference in likelihood, although it doesn't prove there is one either.

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.

While it's tempting to treat this as just a Never Trump thing, I would not be terribly surprised if there were similar revelations in the future regarding members of people in TPUSA or similar.
First, I would put forward that female sexual abuse of children is vastly undercounted, because it isn't considered abuse (South Park has a great episode on this). Studies have shown that about 60% of males in prison were molested by women.

Second, studies have shown (for example, this one from 1978, and before any cultural force on LGBT's part) that men that molest boys are almost always straight in their adult lives (the sample taken of 175 pedos found 0 that were gay in their adult lives, and about a third assaulted boys).

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.
No, it's normalized nearly everywhere. I'm openly bisexual down in Alabama, and haven't gotten a word against it. Moreover, it's not just a ruling elite thing. 70% of Americans believe in Gay marriage, including a majority in every state other than Alabama and Mississippi (as of 2017, that might have changed). A majority of every religious affiliation believes in gay marriage except for white protestants. Finally, Trump effectively came out in support of it, basically ending it as a political issue.

The issue is that some of the LGBT hate being normalized, and are trying to screw it up for everyone by adding pedos, or making up sexualities/genders, etc.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
A majority of every religious affiliation believes in gay marriage except for white protestants.
So the biggest section of Christians then. I’d also imagine as you checked those who like, valued and read the Bible more that would probably increase.

No, it's normalized nearly everywhere.
The generation with the most LGBT exposure and interaction doesn’t like interacting with them.


The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
This shows me that you subscribe to revisionist histories.

Yes, Jefferson was a Deist. There was one other (I think it was Franklin) who flirted with Deism, but every single other founding father was a Christian.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to rewrite history to better suit their cultural revolution.

And even Jefferson, was so into Christianity and understanding the importance of the community and morality that he taught, that he attended church every week based on the principle that as a leader, he should do as he believed others ought, even if he did not actually believe Jesus was divine.

I have yet to see you actually respond meaningfully to any of Fried's arguments by the way, which is not doing your position any good as far as credibility goes.
Yeah, I really can’t find all that much to substantiate the deist claims made. As I said, they claim Washington was one, but he attended Anglican Church his whole life and I am looking through other speeches, and it’s not just like an offhand mention of God but he usually devotes an entire section to specifically God.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Here he is saying you need to be religious and moral to be a good patriot, politicians should be religious and moral, that judges should be religious. George Washington also saying that we can’t be moral and atheist in his farewell speech, which is something that is almost certain to get you called an intolerant fundie now. Hell there’s a swathe of people who would call that theocracy, insisting that all politicians be religious and that religion should guide their politics.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
And when you say “the science is out there” are you talking about the gay gene that’s never been found?
The science has nothing to do with genes. It has to do with noting that it exists from a very young age (so it might be a bunch of genes, it might be early enviromental, it might be a mix of things), and that repeated studies have found that it is not possible to
change one's sexuality.

So the biggest section of Christians then. I’d also imagine as you checked those who like, valued and read the Bible more that would probably increase.
This is definitely true, as those who attend church weekly are generally opposed.

The generation with the most LGBT exposure and interaction doesn’t like interacting with them.


The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016.
This is a quite different question. I'm talking about people being okay with gay marriage, which is normalized everywhere. You're talking about dealing with people personally, which is clearly on the decline because of radical leftists poisoning everything. I care about the first much more than the second, as the second doesn't affect me nearly as much.

As for the Acceptance report, my guess for the reason is that people are associating LGBT with the weirdest, loudest elements of them, and not the vast majority who aren't in your face about it. Like I have people at work who I know would be generically wary of an arbitrarily chosen LGBT person, but are fine with me, as I'm not shoving it down people's throats constantly, demanding acceptance.

It also absolutely does cheapen it, because again, it breaks down the fact that it undeniably was about having children, and suggests that two men being married and a man and a woman being married is the same. It cheapens the distinction between man and woman, and calls the two unions equal when they are absolutely not.
I would argue that it very much doesn't cheapen it. There is a difference between civil marriages, which LGBT people like me have a right to, and religious marriages, which we don't unless that particular religion allows that. Your religious marriage services stay intact, and I would fight for their right to stay intact.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
I’m all for conservatives sticking to their guns and not compromising on issues that they think are important. Though I myself have no moral issues with homosexuality, don’t want homosexuals to be persecuted, and would rather the conservative movement focus on issues that I think are important.

That isn’t to say that social conservatism isn’t important, it absolutely is. Marriage is important, families are important, but I don’t think that gay people are the problem with straight marriages breaking down.

I'd agree that a socially conservative stance on homosexuality shouldn't be the leading or the forefront issue of social conservatism. While I disagree that it's the albatross social liberals here seem to think it is (opposing homosexual marriage is still a plank of the GOP platform, it's not like this is a change), opposing homosexual marriage probably is at least slightly unpopular with the population as a whole. The focus should be on other issues, particularly issues that generate support or a loyal constituency, the best candidates probably being pro-natal and pro-homeschooling measures, and policies that could reduce the two-income-trap incentives.

That said, I don't think it's an issue that can or should be dropped, either. "Dems are the real homophobes" is never going to get any more traction than DR3, and we're never going to be the more homosexual friendly party. On this issue, the things most worth pressing and most able to be pressed are biological men in women's restrooms- that is unpopular, especially with parents, and biological boys in women's sports- unpopular, maybe especially with a suburban constituency that would be useful to win over more. But that's kind of unrelated to this thread.

To be honest, I was raised in a fairly moderate liberal family and used to have much the same opinion on the matter. Then we got the tumblr vexiollogy enthusiast stuff which I thought was stupid but ultimately not too harmful. Then we got the James Younger stuff and the drag queen kid performing in a gay bar stuff and the story hour stuff and I saw what every June looks like in a left wing city. It might have been more inescapable for me than it was for others, as I was going to university in a very left wing city. And I just thought, if this is where this leads, we've got to rip it out by the roots. A tree is known by it's fruit, and this is poison.

Though I guess the question is this: what should be the legal policy regarding homosexuality?

I think arguing about what should be done if any of us were dictator is kind of pointless.

I do think that limiting homosexuals from positions of authority within IRL conservative organizations is possible and valuable, though. In my (limited, although I'm guessing more than some other people on this site) experience with IRL conservative activism and conservative organizations, they were as a general rule more moderate, much more socially liberal. Some of them get what seems to me to be probably disproportionate promotion on the basis of "look, we have a gay guy who agrees with us." I didn't see any, but I would assume they generally face discrimination on the basis of sexuality as well. Additionally what I am involved with is university-linked, and the while I was (thankfully) never harassed, there are some open homosexuals within conservative activism who hang around for the university activism scene, who at least in my and the other students subjective view seemed somewhat sketch. Nothing I am aware of was even a fraction as bad as what Weaver did, the worst that happened that I'm aware of was one of them Instagram stalking one of my friends, but he was pretty skeeved out and I think rightfully so.

All of this is an issue, in my opinion when it comes to IRL activism. As someone who isn't very moderate, I think they hold organizations back, somewhat. Just on the basis of having naturally different incentives and political proclivities, they form something of a natural fifth column. And there's enough creepiness in general that good people probably do get scared off or leave.

Obviously NAXALT, and there probably are homosexuals worth an exception. But I do think it's reasonable if there's a bit more scrutiny, if a detriment that needs to be counterbalanced somehow for positions of authority and particularly positions of authority interacting with children or those much younger.

Born this way is a meme, it’s not totally genetic, it likely isn’t even majority influenced by genetics.

I agree with you on most of what you've said, but I just want to point out that "not genetic" doesn't necessarily mean it was a choice, either. Not that you said it was.

First, I would put forward that female sexual abuse of children is vastly undercounted, because it isn't considered abuse (South Park has a great episode on this). Studies have shown that about 60% of males in prison were molested by women.

Second, studies have shown (for example, this one from 1978, and before any cultural force on LGBT's part) that men that molest boys are almost always straight in their adult lives (the sample taken of 175 pedos found 0 that were gay in their adult lives, and about a third assaulted boys).

That's interesting. I'd be surprised if that explained all of the disparity. Do you know what percentage of males in prison were molested by men (prior to prison- obviously confounded once they're in prison)?

With the 1978 study, that's interesting as well but seems likely to be confounded to me in the other direction to me- I assume many gay men in 1978 were also straight in their public lives. The big question here seems to me to go back to one of @FriedCFour's points- are male pedophiles who abuse boys gay in the same way that ones who don't are gay? Do they prefer adult men to adult women or not? Are they a subset, or are many something else entirely? I'd concede that the 1978 study is evidence that they might be something else entirely, but I don't think it's overwhelming evidence.

The John Weaver and Kevin Spacey things are both relevant here. Both were publicly straight, Weaver was married with kids, I don't know about Spacey. Spacey abused kids, Weaver at minimum groomed them. Both "came out" as gay after allegations.
 
Last edited:

Laskar

Would you kindly?
Founder
And it's patently absurd that this is your go-to comparison.
Actually, it's philosophically consistent. "This exists in nature, therefore there is nothing wrong with it" is a pretty weak argument. You could make the same excuse for schizophrenia, cuckolding, infanticide, etc, but you wouldn't. Therefore you are looking to another factor to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, and appealing to nature is a waste of everybody's time.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
would argue that it very much doesn't cheapen it. There is a difference between civil marriages, which LGBT people like me have a right to, and religious marriages, which we don't unless that particular religion allows that. Your religious marriage services stay intact, and I would fight for their right to stay intact.
And I would contend you have no right to civil marriages, unless by right you just mean whatever the government says you can do.

As for the Acceptance report, my guess for the reason is that people are associating LGBT with the weirdest, loudest elements of them, and not the vast majority who aren't in your face about it. Like I have people at work who I know would be generically wary of an arbitrarily chosen LGBT person, but are fine with me, as I'm not shoving it down people's throats constantly, demanding acceptance.
it’s not the weirdest, loudest elements. It’s the entirety of the culture of it,
It’s virtually every single LGBT organization, it’s the celebrities, it’s the fact that it’s being made a sin to even be perceived as anti-LGBT by the domineering progressive identity, and I believe some level of natural repulsion and disgust at the very act or thought exists too among heterosexuals. With changing sexuality that’s another one that’s also heavily politically motivated and about definitional changes. What someone is attracted to can very obviously change later in life and change dramatically based on environmental factors as evidenced by all kinds of fetishistic attraction, and the entire Kinseyan theory of sexuality would also suggest that more tolerance of the LGBT equals more people engaging in that and less tolerance would mean less do.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
That's interesting. I'd be surprised if that explained all of the disparity. Do you know what percentage of males in prison were molested by men (prior to prison- obviously confounded once they're in prison)?
I don't have this, but I will look for it.
With the 1978 study, that's interesting as well but seems likely to be confounded to me in the other direction to me- I assume many gay men in 1978 were also straight in their public lives.
This sounds somewhat true to me, but (confounded as I can't read the study, just the abstract), I doubt these people (given that they are all convicted molesters) care much about their public lives, so I don't think this explains much of it. There is one other detail that needs to be noticed though: These are convicted pedophiles, which means it might not be a completely representative sample of practicing pedophiles.

Also, another thring from the abstract is that there are basically two types of pedophiles. FIrst, fixated pedophiles, who are attracted to kids only, and regressed pedophiles, ones that were in adult relationships, then regressed to kids.

They found no evidence of gays regressing to kids, though that isn't horribly surprising, just based on sample size.

Also interesting is this study:
It had a scientific measure of arousal, so we can ignore what the people said about being gay, as they used erection length after viewing pictures to determine it. I would have issues with the ratios they found, as again, these are convicted pedophiles which might not be representative, and also there's a low number (21) of people in the study. It only looked at abusers of male children, and split them up by arousal to adult males vs adult females. The ones that were attracted to adult males were attracted to 15 year olds, while the ones attracted to adult females weren't attracted to adult males, but instead attracted to about 11 year old males, but not a lot older.

These two studies seem to combine to state that regressed homosexual pedophiles do exist, but not fixated ones.

And I would contend you have no right to civil marriages, unless by right you just mean whatever the government says.
Given that civil marriages are entirely invented by government, it does matter what they say. If the government gives out some sort of benefit, they are obligated to give it out in equally, so all can benefit. Personally, I'd rather they give out no benefits, but if they are going to do it, they should do it equally.

it’s not the weirdest, loudest elements. It’s the entirety of the culture of it, it’s the celebrities, it’s the fact that it’s being made a sin to even be perceived as anti-LGBT by the domineering progressive identity, and I believe some level of natural repulsion and disgust at the very act or thought exists too among heterosexuals.
I agree that one of the chief problems LGBTs have been facing is the unification of the LGBT rights movement with wokeism. One of the chief causes of this was all the moderating influence leaving. Once we won our rights, there was no longer a purpose for GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, etc. But now it keeps going as all that are left are career activists looking for the next thing to champion (but there's nothing left), and grifters.

With changing sexuality that’s another one that’s also heavily politically motivated and about definitional changes. What someone is attracted to can very obviously change later in life and change dramatically based on environmental factors as evidenced by all kinds of fetishistic attraction.
No, it's really not. We have a lot of evidence that sexuality is pretty fixed after a while, and that it cannot be purposely changed. This is in contrast with some fetishes, which are different than sexuality.

Actually, it's philosophically consistent. "This exists in nature, therefore there is nothing wrong with it" is a pretty weak argument. You could make the same excuse for schizophrenia, cuckolding, infanticide, etc, but you wouldn't. Therefore you are looking to another factor to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, and appealing to nature is a waste of everybody's time.
The argument about it existing in nature is only good when used against the argument that homosexuality is some sort of construct or choice, not about whether it is good or bad.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Given that civil marriages are entirely invented by government, it does matter what they say. If the government gives out some sort of benefit, they are obligated to give it out in equally, so all can benefit. Personally, I'd rather they give out no benefits, but if they are going to do it, they should do it equally.
And I’d contend it’s perfectly equal to let all people marry people of the opposite gender, and that it causes plenty of harm to allow same sex marriage as evidenced by everything since it’s passage.
No, it's really not. We have a lot of evidence that sexuality is pretty fixed after a while, and that it cannot be purposely changed. This is in contrast with some fetishes, which are different than sexuality.
Only because again, it’s sort of been arbitrarily changed, so as to make LGBT an identity that is deserving of rights whereas a fetishitic identity doesn’t. Give it twenty years, it probably will be decided that fetishitic groupings deserve rights and protections too based on their fetishes, and have it lumped in with sexuality. I’d also contend that whatever environmental factors cause it should be found and efforts should be taken to reduce these and their impact.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
And I’d contend it’s perfectly equal to let all people marry people of the opposite gender.
That's the same as the government allowing all people to marry people of only the same race, which wouldn't be considered equal rights. Or only allowing people to marry people of the same gender. The only argument against same sex marriage is really "my religion forbids it", which isn't an argument that the US government can use, as it can't establish a religion. Also, a gay civil marriage doesn't affect you any more than someone having a different religion than you, so I don't see your objection to gay civil marriage having any basis here.

Only because again, it’s sort of been arbitrarily changed, so as to make LGBT an identity that is deserving of rights whereas a fetishitic identity doesn’t. Give it twenty years, it probably will be decided that fetishitic groupings deserve rights and protections too based on their fetishes, and have it lumped in with sexuality.
Your argument doesn't address at all that being gay is fixed at a very young age, and isn't possible to change.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
I don't have this, but I will look for it.

I'll do some searching and if I find anything on this I'll post it here as well.

This sounds somewhat true to me, but (confounded as I can't read the study, just the abstract), I doubt these people (given that they are all convicted molesters) care much about their public lives, so I don't think this explains much of it. There is one other detail that needs to be noticed though: These are convicted pedophiles, which means it might not be a completely representative sample of practicing pedophiles.

Homosexual activity in general was illegal in much of the US in 1978. Even if they didn't care about public perception, that's another matter.

Another thing I wanted to say on this is that I know I'm kind of asking for a unicorn here, as studies from before modern LGBT ideology is going to have issues because such a large fraction of homosexuals are probably closeted, and anything after is going to have issues going against the current orthodoxy.

It had a scientific measure of arousal, so we can ignore what the people said about being gay, as they used erection length after viewing pictures to determine it. I would have issues with the ratios they found, as again, these are convicted pedophiles which might not be representative, and also there's a low number (21) of people in the study. It only looked at abusers of male children, and split them up by arousal to adult males vs adult females. The ones that were attracted to adult males were attracted to 15 year olds, while the ones attracted to adult females weren't attracted to adult males, but instead attracted to about 11 year old males, but not a lot older.

These two studies seem to combine to state that regressed homosexual pedophiles do exist, but not fixated ones.

The sample size here is really small, but at least parts of this would seem to somewhat line up with what's public anecdotally. IIRC most of both Spacey and Weaver's victims were in the 14-18 range.
 
Here is the thing conservatives need to understand. Regardless of what you think about the LGBT these people are not going to go away. You've tried ignoring them and you have tried locking them up and while it's allowed conservatives to put their head in the sand, like frankenstein's monster it will strike back with a vengeance. This is what happens with EVER lesser class in society. (progressives are making the same mistake with... Well everybody), you can't keep ignoring the issue and think it will go away or will not cause tension later on. You can't be pro liberty and authoritarian. Heck I'd argue you can't be pro life and authoritarian (Pro tribe is not the same as pro life.) Consorvatives need to figure out who they are and commit, not define themselves by what they are or who they are against
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top