LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Captain X]

I love that someone who is proposing that gay people be discriminated against and how other people doing things they don't approve of somehow damages them, and that they would rather just lose everything than compromise and still get most of the things they want, is also claiming to be more tolerant than someone who is saying gay people should have rights, and that you can be free to believe as you will, so long as you don't try to enforce those beliefs through the state.

 

[FriedCFour]

I'm not saying anyone who opposes gay marriage wants to kill every last gay. I'm asking what's the alternative when people won't accept being treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens. You don't seem content living and let live. You don't seem content letting the states/cities handling the issue, and if you think you can just plug your ears and ignore them, clearly you've not been paying attention the last 50 years let alone the past 10.

I literally just said I’d rather have states handle the issue rather than it being federally dominated, and I’ve been paying plenty of attention to what’s occurred since the 60s.

I love that someone who is proposing that gay people be discriminated against and how other people doing things they don't approve of somehow damages them, and that they would rather just lose everything than compromise and still get most of the things they want, is also claiming to be more tolerant than someone who is saying gay people should have rights, and that you can be free to believe as you will, so long as you don't try to enforce those beliefs through the state.

I’ve explained how it damages society, I don’t want to “lose everything”, I’ve explained how social conservatism is still plenty viable and popular within the right which absolutely no one has countered and everyone tries to enforce their beliefs through the state. That’s what a fucking democracy does. Seriously, I can’t think of any state that didn’t have that, and you certainly want that too. You have beliefs you want enforced through the state as do I. I mean I’d honestly take gay marriage being legal but the vast majority of society not seeing a gay relationship as remotely equal to a man and woman being married and seeing homosexuality as a sin, but that’s not something that exists and those two aren’t likely to occur.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I've never been super convinced by the complaint that a state is oppressing people when it stops them from oppressing other people.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I literally just said I’d rather have states handle the issue rather than it being federally dominated, and I’ve been paying plenty of attention to what’s occurred since the 60s.

you'll have to pull that quote up again because from what I see you've been talking about things at a federal level for the past several pages.

 

[FriedCFour]

you'll have to pull that quote up again because from what I see you've been talking about things at a federal level for the past several pages.

Because that’s what we have to deal with as the reality, but I had said that awhile ago.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Because that’s what we have to deal with as the reality, but I had said that awhile ago.

Quote please.

 

[FriedCFour]

Quote please.

Such as? I mean my ideal conception of the United States is where the federal government has way less power because the increase in power and ability to massively affect others lives has caused drastic issues because of how disparately different all of our different cultures and ideologies are and how much we hate living and dealing with one another, as well as this zero sum game we are playing where we fight heavily for control of a federal government that imposes a whole lot of things that we share no agreement or value on that are exactly opposite in aim. I’d hope and like for an America where a democratic socialist could be happy over in Oregon or Washington and have all that they want, and where I don’t have to deal with it and could have a state without that where people in my political and social conservative sphere would be happy themselves. A break up of the massive power of the fed and a return to the power of the states to have more determination for themselves, so that they can be shaped by those who live there and that those who don’t like the policies of one state, instead of trying to push this massive change that a large swath of the country hates, can just go to another with a very different atmosphere more like how they want. I doubt it would happen but right now that’s what I want.

That’s my ideal, but I don’t see it as super viable and I see “live and let live” as a prisoners dilemma. It works if everyone adheres to it but if someone’s not, even a small vocal minority actively pushing for how they want society to look like, you have to push back. I don’t see this as remotely a feasible option in the current state of things, and given the structures and the powers involved and how things work, I’d rather actively push back because I see “live and let live” as a totally non viable option. If one group is proselytizing and you don’t proselytize at all for how you’d like things to be, they’ll just win out in the end.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Thank you. Yeah I don't see a problem with this. My suggestion is maybe instead of being obsessed with the unlawfully created federal government, you actually get involved in state and local elections. Our corruption is from the bottom up, not the top down.

Edit:there is a difference between proselytizing and wanting to use the sword of federal power to get your way. When you swing a sword at someone don't be surprised or cry foul when said person guns you down out of self preservation. Live by the sword die by the sword.

 

[FriedCFour]

Thank you. Yeah I don't see a problem with this. My suggestion is maybe instead of being obsessed with the unlawfully created federal government, you actually get involved in state and local elections. Our corruption is from the bottom up, not the top down.

When I’m capable of doing so I plan to do so, but lawfully or unlawfully or whatever just isn’t relevant. You have to deal with what exists and with reality and what’s feasible or not, and the fed isn’t going away any time soon, and gets to do a whole lot of stuff. So use it to do the stuff you want, and try your best to stop the other side from doing the same.

 

[Captain X]

I’ve explained how it damages society,

And it should be pretty obvious that not many people are on board with this viewpoint. You can try to "explain" that point all you want, but for myself and others like me, that just isn't something we're going to agree with. It also really hurts your argument that you can't make it from a secular standpoint.

I don’t want to “lose everything”,

You literally said as much, and I already mocked you for it.

You have beliefs you want enforced through the state as do I.

Ah yes, plotting to take over the world just so I can leave everyone alone.

I mean I’d honestly take gay marriage being legal but the vast majority of society not seeing a gay relationship as remotely equal to a man and woman being married and seeing homosexuality as a sin, but that’s not something that exists and those two aren’t likely to occur.

At least you've come to that realization.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

When I’m capable of doing so I plan to do so, but lawfully or unlawfully or whatever just isn’t relevant. You have to deal with what exists and with reality and what’s feasible or not, and the fed isn’t going away any time soon, and gets to do a whole lot of stuff. So use it to do the stuff you want, and try your best to stop the other side from doing the same.

Just don't cry foul when your enemy guns you down out of self preservation.

 

[Captain X]

That’s my ideal, but I don’t see it as super viable and I see “live and let live” as a prisoners dilemma. It works if everyone adheres to it but if someone’s not, even a small vocal minority actively pushing for how they want society to look like, you have to push back. I don’t see this as remotely a feasible option in the current state of things, and given the structures and the powers involved and how things work, I’d rather actively push back because I see “live and let live” as a totally non viable option. If one group is proselytizing and you don’t proselytize at all for how you’d like things to be, they’ll just win out in the end.

What you describe is basically the balkenization that a lot of libertarians want, except that all the regions are still in the US somehow. At least that's my take on it.

 

[FriedCFour]

And it should be pretty obvious that not many people are on board with this viewpoint.

In this thread. Still the majority of R and growing numbers of Gen Z.

You can try to "explain" that point all you want, but for myself and others like me, that just isn't something we're going to agree with.

yep, but it’s worth gathering counter arguments and refining my own so I can better sway others to oppose it and agree with myself in the future.

It also really hurts your argument that you can't make it from a secular standpoint.

I absolutely did several times explaining that there are inherent differences between men and women, what the nature of marriage is, what the purpose of families and sex is, and how I see gay marriage as antithetical to all of that. I made the argument from a secular standpoint, you just disagreed with it. And remember, you threw out some dumb shit about how marriages were about political alliances as if the peasant dude was trying to get political advantage as he married a peasant woman lol. I can and did argue from that standpoint, I don’t even know how you can say I didn’t.

You literally said as much, and I already mocked you for it.

Cool. I still don’t recall you actually disputing that it seems viable to work to pick up more minority votes as Trump already showed that populism can.

Ah yes, plotting to take over the world just so I can leave everyone alone.

I just don’t see that as possible. Just an ideal that I think makes you lose and will never happen and is doomed to failure.

Just don't cry foul when your enemy guns you down out of self preservation.

This is out of self preservation lol. I see that as the only way to preserve what I care about.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

What you describe is basically the balkenization that a lot of libertarians want, except that all the regions are still in the US somehow. At least that's my take on it.

Have we seriously gotten to the point where we are calling liberals and communists based?

 

[FriedCFour]

What you describe is basically the balkenization that a lot of libertarians want, except that all the regions are still in the US somehow. At least that's my take on it.

And like most of what libertarians want, it’s a nice ideal with zero viability, the main reason why I stopped being or calling myself politically libertarian, and getting away from “I think this but let’s just all live and let live and do what we want”. It just doesn’t match up to reality or how things work or have been working. It’s non viable and bound to die as it doesn’t have much that will protect it or ensure it’s existence inherently.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

This is out of self preservation lol. I see that as the only way to preserve what I care about.

You forgot the part where I said don't cry foul. It's not a foul when they are doing the very thing you would do if the roles were reversed. At that point you aren't a victim. You just lost.

 

[FriedCFour]

You forgot the part where I said don't cry foul. It's not a foul when they are doing the very thing you would do if the roles were reversed.

I don’t cry foul. I stopped saying “can you believe the hypocrisy of liberals?!?!” A while ago. They have a standard for their friends and a standard for your enemies just as you do in warfare because politics is just warfare by other means.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I don’t cry foul. I stopped saying “can you believe the hypocrisy of liberals?!?!” A while ago. They have a standard for their friends and a standard for your enemies just as you do in warfare because politics is just warfare by other means.

Then why are you on the Sietch? I've had it pointed out to me several times rather harshly this was a "safe haven" for those who feel victimized by the left

 

[FriedCFour]

Then why are you on the Sietch? I've had it pointed out to me several times rather harshly this was a "safe haven" for those who feel victimized by the left

I was an OG member of the group that led to its creation lol. One of the first ten or so of the PM that eventually started this split off forum, and one of the first people on this website when it was private still. And of course I don’t like the left, I have absolutely no shared values or beliefs with them, and they don’t like me much either.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I was an OG member of the group that led to its creation lol. One of the first ten or so of the PM that eventually started this split off forum, and one of the first people on this website when it was private still.

Then it sounds like the sietch needs to change it's slogan. But that is another topic.