LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[FriedCFour]

I can't get over this obsession with hedonism, though.

It’s a shit way to live your life. We have civilization because of delayed gratification, people sacrificed inordinate amounts to get us here, and the life of “consume product and get excited for next product” and “work your wagey 9-5 in a cubicle staring at a blinking screen so you can spend Friday going to a bar and failing to make it with a girl,” or “spend your times swiping through tinder in a desperate attempt to get a one night stand” isn’t much of a life worth living, there’s no higher love or aspiration or goal or meaning there. Hardly anything you accomplish or can be proud of and nothing with anything lasting. And then those same people call me crazy for getting married in my early 20s, as if I’m the bizarre one for doing what everyone else on earth did for all time up till recently.

 

[Abhorsen]

I think that it’s terrible for society to have hedonistic sex festivals in the streets, if you look into the history it’s absolutely a LGBT thing and then expanded wider, with a very very strong undercurrent of that.

That's very nice that you dislike it. But LGBT people have a history of being discriminated against for their sexuality, so if a street wants to dedicate itself to having a sex festival and kids aren't allowed, no problem with us. But in our private lives, we are being more conservative, we aren't about to push that on others.

Again, I can guarantee I can find you organization after organization providing extensive critiques and fighting to police that, that so many were in favor of Betos position that Churches that don’t marry gays should lose tax exemption as just one point.

And this is wrong too, for the same reason. Policing another's life isn't right. Thankfully, more and more gays are moving away from that, as I've demonstrated with the vote, among other evidence I've presented.

 

[FriedCFour]

That's very nice that you dislike it. But LGBT people have a history of being discriminated against for their sexuality, so if a street wants to dedicate itself to having a sex festival and kids aren't allowed, no problem with us. But in our private lives, we are being more conservative, we aren't about to push that on others.

Not wanting to push anything on others is silly. There is no such thing as a vacuum of standards, something will always be pushed.

And this is wrong too, for the same reason. Policing another's life isn't right. Thankfully, more and more gays are moving away from that, as I've demonstrated with the vote, among other evidence I've presented.

Everyone’s life will be policed in some fashion. It’s not about right or wrong, it just is. The same people who said this exact line for decades until one side decided to stop policing them immediately took power and began heavy policing of others. It’s an ideal with zero bearing on the reality of how anything has ever worked in any instance of history and total ignorance of human nature.

 

[Abhorsen]

Not wanting to push anything on others is silly. There is no such thing as a vacuum of standards, something will always be pushed.



Everyone’s life will be policed in some fashion. It’s not about right or wrong, it just is. The same people who said this exact line for decades until one side decided to stop policing them immediately took power and began heavy policing of others. It’s an ideal with zero bearing on the reality of how anything has ever worked in any instance of history and total ignorance of human nature.

That's very nice. But in reality, this binary concept of one side needing to rule over the other isn't true. It isn't true for blacks and whites. It isn't true for protestants and catholics. So why would it need to be true here?

 

[Bacle]

This might be fun, but what it isn't is useful. This isn't how you go about convincing people to believe in LGBT rights, and that they are in the best interest of the religious community (which, given the amount of absolute degeneracy that has stopped, they definitely are).

If they do not already believe in LGB rights, nothing any of us say will change their minds.

Therefore, we gain nothing by humoring the arguments and pretending there is common ground to be had when they want to stuff LGBs back in the closet.

I actually rather like the idea of the Christian busybodies fucking off to their own party, but having everyone form their own party only really works if we can get the Democrats to do the same thing. Like, for example, getting the Labor types to go ahead and form their own party since they've recently gotten a good taste of what voting Democrat gets them. Of course the real problem is that with our first past the post style of voting, eventually things would just end up as two parties again.

Maybe first past the post needs to go as well; ranked choice voting seems like it could be made to work in the US.

 

[Abhorsen]

If they do not already believe in LGB rights, nothing any of us say will change their minds.

Therefore, we gain nothing by humoring the arguments and pretending there is common ground to be had when they want to stuff LGBs back in the closet.

This is very much not true. Peoples minds do change, I've seen it happen and had it happen to myself.

 

[Bacle]

This is very much not true. Peoples minds do change, I've seen it happen and had it happen to myself.

Yes, they can change, when they are OPEN to change to begin with.

The people using theological reasoning to go after LGBs are not open to that sort of change, because if they were, they wouldn't be quoting scripture to justify going against LGB rights and liberties in the first place.

 

[FriedCFour]

That's very nice. But in reality, this binary concept of one side needing to rule over the other isn't true. It isn't true for blacks and whites. It isn't true for protestants and catholics. So why would it need to be true here?

It’s not “one side needs to rule over another” it’s that each cultural group will have its own standards. In the case of Protestants and Catholics it took bloody wars and very typically, decisions to split off from one another with their own states and own standards for each other. sects do not get along well within the same general spaces. With blacks and whites you have separate cultures as well, separate spaces but as the gaps are bridged there is absolutely a push to dismantle “whiteness” coming from many different people. You get along better historically with differing cultural groups when either they have separate states/governments/laws/communities that do not really intermix much or interact much with geographic separation often involved. The idea that you can have competing groups with separate visions of how they would like society to look like in a democratic system with a zero sum game in the federal government that gets to shape how our lives look like and hardly any commonality or shared values is ever supposed to just go “we all just do our own thing and no ones gonna bother anyone else” is silly. It’s not how the EU has been working out, it’s not working out with us, and it’s trending worse. It’s a prisoners dilemma and doesn’t fit with how people are and the results show as much.

 

[Stargazer]

yes and Judah is one of the sons of Jacob, and the progenitor of one of the twelve tribes of Israel and only half the nation of it. Israelites=/=Jews, anymore than all Americans are Texans.

I’m not sure, haven’t heard that term before. But I think it’s very fair to say that the groups around there were not all Jewish, nor was all of Israel Jewish, that it stems from one specific sect of Israel, and that much of its traditions and identity are built around opposition to Christianity.

Ok, I kind of get your point in that the Jews =\= the entire people of Israel, so technically the Old Testament isn't *just* about the Jews. Still, the narrative of the Tanakh culminates in the captive people of Judah specifically returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding Jerusalem's walls and temple under the leadership of Nehemiah. The narrative stops following the people of the Northern Kingdom after they're taken into captivity. So in that sense, the Old Testament is ultimately about the Jewish people.

The history of the 1st century is pretty clear. The predominant religion of Judea was Judaism, Second Temple Judaism to be exact, and the people were known as Jews. They were the primary people that Jesus interacted with, and also an important subject that the New Testament authors wrote about.

This might be fun, but what it isn't is useful. This isn't how you go about convincing people to believe in LGBT rights, and that they are in the best interest of the religious community (which, given the amount of absolute degeneracy that has stopped, they definitely are).

You know, I'm curious. What exactly do you think are the "LGBT rights" that you want to convince people of, and what do you think "the best interests of the religious community" are, and how do LGBT rights fit that?

It’s not “one side needs to rule over another” it’s that each cultural group will have its own standards. In the case of Protestants and Catholics it took bloody wars and very typically, decisions to split off from one another with their own states and own standards for each other. sects do not get along well within the same general spaces. With blacks and whites you have separate cultures as well, separate spaces but as the gaps are bridged there is absolutely a push to dismantle “whiteness” coming from many different people. You get along better historically with differing cultural groups when either they have separate states/governments/laws/communities that do not really intermix much or interact much with geographic separation often involved. The idea that you can have competing groups with separate visions of how they would like society to look like in a democratic system with a zero sum game in the federal government that gets to shape how our lives look like and hardly any commonality or shared values is ever supposed to just go “we all just do our own thing and no ones gonna bother anyone else” is silly. It’s not how the EU has been working out, it’s not working out with us, and it’s trending worse. It’s a prisoners dilemma and doesn’t fit with how people are and the results show as much.

It is contrary to history, and recent history particularly with the US is an anomaly with all the disparate people groups living next to each other in relative harmony. I think it's something special and worth preserving, though not to the point of putting ahead of my own religious obligations.

 

[FriedCFour]

The history of the 1st century is pretty clear. The predominant religion of Judea was Judaism, Second Temple Judaism to be exact, and the people were known as Jews. They were the primary people that Jesus interacted with, and also an important subject that the New Testament authors wrote about.

Yes and that’s a small portion of the people the Bible goes over and directly where you have Jesus Christ coming in to attack it’s leaders on just how off it is and explicitly saying it’s leading people on a path to hell.

It is contrary to history, and recent history particularly with the US is an anomaly with all the disparate people groups living next to each other in relative harmony. I think it's something special and worth preserving, though not to the point of putting ahead of my own religious obligations.

Since the 60s we’ve begun a process of incorporating vastly more disparate peoples at the same time as we’ve been destroying our ability to assimilate and actively supporting non assimilation. Your religious obligations and beliefs were one of those ways we assimilated and came together. It’s no coincidence that as you have the mainline and evangelical divide and drop in the value and role of the church that we begin to fail more and more to get along and have less in common.

 

[Stargazer]

Yes and that’s a small portion of the people the Bible goes over and directly where you have Jesus Christ coming in to attack it’s leaders on just how off it is and explicitly saying it’s leading people on a path to hell.

That's not what Jesus criticized the Jewish religious leaders for. What do you think the Old Testament was actually about, yourself?

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, they can change, when they are OPEN to change to begin with.

The people using theological reasoning to go after LGBs are not open to that sort of change, because if they were, they wouldn't be quoting scripture to justify going against LGB rights and liberties in the first place.

Only, they very much are?

You know, I'm curious. What exactly do you think are the "LGBT rights" that you want to convince people of, and what do you think "the best interests of the religious community" are, and how do LGBT rights fit that?

LGBT rights are the following, in rough order of how important they are:

First, freedom to engage in consensual sexual activity without violating the law.

Second, actual justice for victims of hate crimes (but not hate crime laws). So if someone is beaten for being gay, I want that person to be arrested and have a fair trial, but not for that person to face additional penalties for doing it because the person is gay. Basically, equal protection under the law.

Third, if the government recognizes marriages and privlidges/rights are associated with it, the government must recognize gay marriage as well.

Fourth, the ability to serve in the military and government openly (with the exceptions of people going through surgical transition in the military, and closeted people from handling sensitive material).

Fifth, a ban on child conversion therapy, which is basically child abuse in practice, and completely unscientific. If you are an adult, you can do whatever stupid stuff you want to do to your body, but putting a child through some of that stuff, including electroshock therapy, etc, disgusts me.

Sixth, if we are going to have antidiscrimination laws, they should include orientation and gender identity, but also have a big exception for religion (which ours does) allowing for non-participation in thing that violate their marriage. So for example, a baker can choose not to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but can't stop a gay man going in and buying an already made cookie that's being sold to the public. Personally, I'd prefer no discrimination law, but if it does exist, LGBT is a part of this.

and what do you think "the best interests of the religious community" are,

I am not religious, but from what I understand, they want to be able to live a sin free life as they determine sin, without government forcing them to sin, and want to help others sin less, along with a family oriented lifestyle.

and how do LGBT rights fit that?

The way LGBT rights fit this is that the more LGBT people get rights, we can see a considerable decline in them sinning. For one clear example, monogamy gets more and more common the more LGBT people fit into society. Basically in 50 years, we've gone from homeless orgies in the back of tractor trailers to largely monogamous families that adopt and raise children. And it's still improving. That sounds like a win for family values to me.

 

[Zachowon]

Why cant we just let the LGB commmunity live in peace? Give them marriage and then leave them alone. Or, just make marriage not a matter of the state.

 

[FriedCFour]

That's not what Jesus criticized the Jewish religious leaders for.

You’re right, it’s what he told the Roman Centurion.

Matthew 8:5-13
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

What do you think the Old Testament was actually about, yourself?

The nature of humanity and of different peoples and leaders and groups, where they failed and where they succeeded and where that is and isn’t moral and on how to live your life, and on the succession of leaders, men, their descendants culminating in the birth of christ. I take issue with saying they are all Jewish in the same way I think it would be laughable to say that my Irish ancestor in the eighth century is an American because I am an American and I can trace direct descendence from him, meaning he too was an American.

 

[FriedCFour]

Why cant we just let the LGB commmunity live in peace? Give them marriage and then leave them alone. Or, just make marriage not a matter of the state.

Because of antithetical ideas on relationships, their meaning, and laws that do not allow for actual freedom of association and a winner take all fed that forces us all to live under the same laws as each other, because the allies and institutions of the LGBT and the majority of them actively campaign to remake America in an image that is antithetical to myself and my identity and hopes for a world without people like me, where “whiteness” has been dismantled, tradition is eradicated and whatever vestiges of my religion remain are vestiges of what it was and progressivism wearing its carcass, that I no longer be allowed a public voice, that no child grow up loving what America was, that I’m labeled an extremist and put on a watchlist and banned from being able to earn any kind of an income if I dare try and speak what I believe and garner a following and then be unhirable if I don’t.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The interests of the "LGBT community" are fundamentally opposed to the interests of conservative Christians, in my view. I think the government of a secular society should be very limited in "legislating morality". But there is an area the government is involved in by necessity, marriage. I don't think the government should get its nose out of marriage altogether, I think state recognized marriages are essential. Largely for the protection of the weaker spouse, whichever that is. Alimony, child custody, power of attorney in medical emergencies, tax purposes. Without state marriage licenses, what rights does a father have if the mother decides to run off with their children? So to get government out of marriage is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't understand why you don't consider acceptable the proposition that the instrument(s) the state uses and the instruments religions use should be different and separate.

 

[Zachowon]

Because of antithetical ideas on relationships, their meaning, and laws that do not allow for actual freedom of association and a winner take all fed that forces us all to live under the same laws as each other, because the allies and institutions of the LGBT and the majority of them actively campaign to remake America in an image that is antithetical to myself and my identity and hopes for a world without people like me, where “whiteness” has been dismantled, tradition is eradicated and whatever vestiges of my religion remain are vestiges of what it was and progressivism wearing its carcass, that I no longer be allowed a public voice, that no child grow up loving what America was, that I’m labeled an extremist and put on a watchlist and banned from being able to earn any kind of an income if I dare try and speak what I believe and garner a following and then be unhirable if I don’t.

Except you cant blame that on the LGB because of the right pushing away the LGB and the left accepting them and making such a thing popular.
If you become and ally of the LGB community, and make it so you can show that the left does not care, then you win.
Agian,do not blame the ones that are fooled, blame the ones that do the fooling

 

[FriedCFour]

Except you cant blame that on the LGB because of the right pushing away the LGB and the left accepting them and making such a thing popular.
If you become and ally of the LGB community, and make it so you can show that the left does not care, then you win.
Agian,do not blame the ones that are fooled, blame the ones that do the fooling

The left does care, and it’s because it is intrinsically incompatible with my own beliefs. To accept these things is to intrinsically give up that there is a difference between men and women inherently and in their role in society and the nature of the two, because you are ultimately saying that a relationship between two men is exactly the same, as valid, as normal, as acceptable as a relationship between a man and a woman. That both can raise children equally as well, that they should be allowed to, and with the structure of freedom of association that they must be accepted in basically all spaces and are in excludable. To accept them I have to give up something I believe or want to preserve, or hide it and coach it and pretend like I don’t believe that just to be accepted by them, and I am not going to do that. The LGBT push for rights and equality has always and intrinsically gone against what the right purports, it’s why all of you want to change the right to fit with them, why you say you want my position entirely ousted and your goal is to force me to support your push even as I agree with it because you want your politics to dominate the discourse of the party rather than mine. It’s why you push for that change, for giving up those positions, because you also recognize them as incompatible, and you don’t care for them or adhere to them. I do however, and so obviously I’d like to keep them. I can understand why you push for what you do because I understand your positions but y’all don’t seem to get mine much.

 

[Stargazer]

LGBT rights are the following, in rough order of how important they are:

First, freedom to engage in consensual sexual activity without violating the law.

Second, actual justice for victims of hate crimes (but not hate crime laws). So if someone is beaten for being gay, I want that person to be arrested and have a fair trial, but not for that person to face additional penalties for doing it because the person is gay. Basically, equal protection under the law.

Third, if the government recognizes marriages and privlidges/rights are associated with it, the government must recognize gay marriage as well.

Fourth, the ability to serve in the military and government openly (with the exceptions of people going through surgical transition in the military, and closeted people from handling sensitive material).

Fifth, a ban on child conversion therapy, which is basically child abuse in practice, and completely unscientific. If you are an adult, you can do whatever stupid stuff you want to do to your body, but putting a child through some of that stuff, including electroshock therapy, etc, disgusts me.

Sixth, if we are going to have antidiscrimination laws, they should include orientation and gender identity, but also have a big exception for religion (which ours does) allowing for non-participation in thing that violate their marriage. So for example, a baker can choose not to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but can't stop a gay man going in and buying an already made cookie that's being sold to the public. Personally, I'd prefer no discrimination law, but if it does exist, LGBT is a part of this.

Thank you for your response. Here's my take on each of those points, as a conservative Christian:

1: Basically necessary in a secular society. It is outside the bounds of government to dictate what people can do with their bodies (as long as they're not ending another human being's life in the process). So that's something I would grant.

2: I'm against violence and beating in general, for any reason, and I think that a essential function of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens from such violence and to seek justice for victims of violence. I would certainly extend that protection to anyone targeted for violence because of being LGBT.

3. Here's the problem. As a Christian, I see marriage as a sacred institution, not a secular one. And I believe marriage has been clearly defined by God in the Bible as being between one man and one woman. I think government oversteps its bounds when it seeks to redefine marriage as something other than that. Therefore, I don't support candidates and policies that presume to redefine marriage.

4: I don't think it's appropriate to legally bar LGBT people from military or government in a a secular society. However, if someone is living an openly single sinful lifestyle, it's a strong deterrent from me giving my support and my vote.

5: This one's sticky. I agree that "conversion therapy" like ECT is unscientific and abusive. I also think it's unbiblical - there's no Biblical rationale for acting like you can "cure" sin with some sort of therapy. The question is, where do you draw the line? Let's say a teenager with Christian parents comes out as having same sex attraction. Are their parents allowed to teach that teenager that same sex relationships are sinful, and forbid them from such relationships? Can the parents put the teen into counseling with the pastor - the point not being to "cure" them of homosexuality, but to help the teen live with the attraction while never acting on it?

6: I think we're finding more and more that having an religious exception for discrimination laws is untenable. Either individual liberty and freedom of association is the highest value, or anti-discrimination is the highest value. So I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but I think it's bound to lead to more conflict.

I am not religious, but from what I understand, they want to be able to live a sin free life as they determine sin, without government forcing them to sin, and want to help others sin less, along with a family oriented lifestyle.

The way LGBT rights fit this is that the more LGBT people get rights, we can see a considerable decline in them sinning. For one clear example, monogamy gets more and more common the more LGBT people fit into society. Basically in 50 years, we've gone from homeless orgies in the back of tractor trailers to largely monogamous families that adopt and raise children. And it's still improving. That sounds like a win for family values to me.

I think therein may lie a fundamental misunderstanding. As a conservative Christian, my goal isn't to "help others sin less". I think any sin makes a person subject to God's divine wrath and judgement. Simply lessening sin doesn't solve this, and I don't think it's even possible for a person to live completely without sin. The solution, from a Christian perspective, is for a person to be moved by the Gospel to have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, thus receiving grace for their sins. That's why Christians preach and proselytize, so that more will hear and believe.

So, from my perspective, a "decline in people sinning" doesn't solve anything. Monogamous LGBT people are still sinful, still living in active rebellion against God, and still needing to hear the Gospel.

You’re right, it’s what he told the Roman Centurion.

What's your point in bringing up the Roman centurion, exactly?

The nature of humanity and of different peoples and leaders and groups, where they failed and where they succeeded and where that is and isn’t moral and on how to live your life, and on the succession of leaders, men, their descendants culminating in the birth of christ. I take issue with saying they are all Jewish in the same way I think it would be laughable to say that my Irish ancestor in the eighth century is an American because I am an American and I can trace direct descendence from him, meaning he too was an American.

Ok. I actually agree that a key theme of the Old Testament is revealing the nature of humanity in relationship to God. But, how did God reveal the nature of humanity in the Old Testament, exactly?

 

[FriedCFour]

What's your point in bringing up the Roman centurion, exactly?

If you track back two posts you’ll see.

Ok. I actually agree that a key theme of the Old Testament is revealing the nature of humanity in relationship to God. But, how did God reveal the nature of humanity in the Old Testament, exactly?

two examples would be Adam and Eve showing the break down and role of men and women, and being too lenient on evil creating a world of evil men via Cain and Abel leading to Noah and his family being the last good people on earth. But to be honest this is more fitting conversation for a specifically biblical discussion which would be way more enjoyable than this.