LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Captain X]

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

I'm pressing X to doubt.

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.

Well, good luck with that.

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.

There was nothing particularly secular about any of the arguments you made. Your appeal to what marriage is has always been based in religion, particularly in why you feel same-sex marriage somehow diminishes heterosexual couples. You tried appealing to marriage as being based around creating children, but like everyone else who has ever made that argument, you failed to account for any other example of heterosexual couples getting married where procreation is not possible (or for that matter simply does not occur), and you have to go running right back to religion.

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.

Yeah, I remember how easily you just dismissed history. The thing is, you seem to be forgetting that even with peasants there tended to be a certain amount of politics involved, because even their small communities have politics. There are also all kinds of connections formed for inheritances and the like, and we're also talking about a time where dowries were still a really big deal. Also, it was pretty common among even peasants at the time to arrange marriages for these financial and political reasons, so no, it wasn't just among the aristocracy/royalty.

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.

It's easy - you just need people in the government who are interested in not sticking their nose in everyone's lives.

 

[Captain X]

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.

Yeah, because trying to go back to 50 mostly independent states would just make all of them vulnerable to external threats. I'd much rather still have that central government, it's just that I want to emphasize individual rights a lot more than they are, and limit the things the central government can poke its nose into. Barring that, fuck leaving, I want to kick the communist states out. I'd even go as far as to excise the more conservative rural counties from those states just to keep them in the US so they don't have to suffer under the communists.

 

[FriedCFour]

I'm pressing X to doubt.

I posted both polls in here.

Well, good luck with that.

thanks, I’ve done a good job with Christians who say “I think it’s wrong but it’s the government so whatever”.

There was nothing particularly secular about any of the arguments you made. Your appeal to what marriage is has always been based in religion, particularly in why you feel same-sex marriage somehow diminishes heterosexual couples.

Still made the argument secularly tho, and my argument involved societies that had encompasses virtually all religions. My argument was from a basis of our nature, and how you can find that through comparison between nations and seeing what they have in common and analysis of their social structures. They almost all had marriage for procreation and family building regardless of what their religion was.

You tried appealing to marriage as being based around creating children, but like everyone else who has ever made that argument, you failed to account for any other example of heterosexual couples getting married where procreation is not possible (or for that matter simply does not occur), and you have to go running right back to religion.

Didn’t, I responded and said that the infertile don’t do anything about the nature of marriage and are the optimal people to adopt, and said that the elderly shouldn’t be getting married to each other either, but also doesn’t factor into my point that men are not women and should not be seen as the same and that a marriage between a man and a woman isn’t the same inherently as a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

Yeah, I remember how easily you just dismissed history.

This is literal clown shit. I pointed out how even where political alliances were important, having an heir was absolutely more so.

The thing is, you seem to be forgetting that even with peasants there tended to be a certain amount of politics involved, because even their small communities have politics. There are also all kinds of connections formed for inheritances and the like, and we're also talking about a time where dowries were still a really big deal. Also, it was pretty common among even peasants at the time to arrange marriages for these financial and political reasons, so no, it wasn't just among the aristocracy/royalty.

Yes, definitely. It was a part of the purpose of marriage. It was not the main purpose and it’s laughable to suggest that. The main purpose was making kids. You make kids, other than the fact that like, it’s literally one of your strongest biological imperatives that you have, you especially need them as a peasant because if you get old and have no kids it’s vastly less likely there is someone to take care of you and continue to farm your land. You wanting to have kids, and you are absolutely compelled to do so, and not having kids leads your genes to die out and those that do have kids and succeed sexually pass on their genes selecting for those who have the most viable offspring is literally basic Darwinism. And as we are social animals and as we marry we are one of the 5% or so of mammals who form lifelong bonds, we have marriage as a social expression of our biological drives. It’s why marriage develops in most every society even though they have different religions and they are isolated from one another.

It's easy - you just need people in the government who are interested in not sticking their nose in everyone's lives.

sure, if you had an enlightened despot you can have a more libertarian state as with Pinochet but with voting, especially universal voting, “government do something” has to beat “government do nothing” and has to do so always and forever, and historically it just hasn’t.

Cool, so we're agreed that there needs to be compromise in order to beat the social justice communists so as to gain allies against them.

Again, still the majority of the voters.

 

[Captain X]

I posted both polls in here.

Polls are essentially meaningless.

Still made the argument secularly tho,

Uh, no, you didn't. I just pointed out why that wasn't the case - you keep running back to religion and religious belief to define marriage, which is why that isn't a secular argument. Including other religions also isn't a secular argument.

Didn’t, I responded and said that the infertile don’t do anything about the nature of marriage and are the optimal people to adopt, and said that the elderly shouldn’t be getting married to each other either,

That isn't really a counter to the argument that getting married is solely about creating children, particularly when it's pretty obvious that elderly people getting married doesn't really bother you. I and others have also pointed out that there are homosexual couples who also wish to have children, and adoption has been an option some of them seek, ergo, they have married and created a family, albeit not the "traditional" family you envision.

but also doesn’t factor into my point that men are not women and should not be seen as the same and that a marriage between a man and a woman isn’t the same inherently as a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

Your "point" isn't really a point to me. I certainly recognize basic biology in terms of physical differences, and even that stereotypes tend to have some basis in reality, but I am not someone who thinks people ought to be forced to adhere to stereotypes. This is one of the reasons I am very opposed to the regressive left, who just love to cram everyone into little stereotype boxes, and screech at anyone who dares not conform to these stereotypes.

This is literal clown shit. I pointed out how even where political alliances were important, having an heir was absolutely more so.

I like how you have to keep going back and revising what you said. You literally just dismissed my historical argument and went "lol, you think the commoners were concerned about that?" Speaking of history, though, the way the "Good Emperors" handled heirs was kind of interesting, as they would adopt a grown ass man specifically to make them an heir. Except for the last one, who ruined a good thing by just letting his son take over after him.

Yes, definitely. It was a part of the purpose of marriage. It was not the main purpose and it’s laughable to suggest that.

Not really. I'l reiterate that people like yourself keep referring to what are relatively modern concepts in the sense of that being how it was always done. I'll also go ahead and point out that just because something has always been done a certain way, it does not follow that it must always been done this way.

sure, if you had an enlightened despot you can have a more libertarian state as with Pinochet but with voting, especially universal voting, “government do something” has to beat “government do nothing” and has to do so always and forever, and historically it just hasn’t.

I forget - are you one of those people who thinks women shouldn't be able to vote?

Again, still the majority of the voters.

Only if you count dead people.

 

[FriedCFour]

Polls are essentially meaningless.

So why do you think not?

Uh, no, you didn't. I just pointed out why that wasn't the case - you keep running back to religion and religious belief to define marriage, which is why that isn't a secular argument. Including other religions also isn't a secular argument.

see above. I made a purely Darwinian argument.

That isn't really a counter to the argument that getting married is solely about creating children,

Good thing that’s never been my fucking argument! It’s a lot easier for you to beat that one down. I said it was the PRIMARY purpose, specifically because there are other reasons involved as well lol.

particularly when it's pretty obvious that elderly people getting married doesn't really bother you.

Just gonna ignore what I write and keep pretending I wrote other things because it’s easier to argue against those?

I and others have also pointed out that there are homosexual couples who also wish to have children, and adoption has been an option some of them seek, ergo, they have married and created a family, albeit not the "traditional" family you envision.

cool doesn’t affect the fact that men aren’t equivalent to women.

Your "point" isn't really a point to me. I certainly recognize basic biology in terms of physical differences, and even that stereotypes tend to have some basis in reality, but I am not someone who thinks people ought to be forced to adhere to stereotypes. This is one of the reasons I am very opposed to the regressive left, who just love to cram everyone into little stereotype boxes, and screech at anyone who dares not conform to these stereotypes.

and I say we have roles for a reason and said roles should maintain their overarching purpose in society. Men should be encouraged to be masculine and women feminine and to fill and fulfill these roles.

I like how you have to keep going back and revising what you said. You literally just dismissed my historical argument and went "lol, you think the commoners were concerned about that?" Speaking of history, though, the way the "Good Emperors" handled heirs was kind of interesting, as they would adopt a grown ass man specifically to make them an heir. Except for the last one, who ruined a good thing by just letting his son take over after him.

because when you said political alliance I figured you meant the less broad political alliance, ie you meant an actual alliance between nations, not just like, any marriage between two families contains a political element. I wrote a lot more above too. And yes, the Good Emperors were somewhat anomalous much like Nero marrying Sporus, but exceptions don’t invalidate a general rule.

Not really. I'l reiterate that people like yourself keep referring to what are relatively modern concepts in the sense of that being how it was always done. I'll also go ahead and point out that just because something has always been done a certain way, it does not follow that it must always been done this way.

it’s a reflection of the nature of humanity if you can see for example, that the Aztecs and the Spanish both came up with the concept of marriage. It means that it’s derived biologically, because they had no social influence or exchange of ideas what so ever but both got the same social idea.

I forget - are you one of those people who thinks women shouldn't be able to vote?

Not gonna lie, I hold that position more because it’s way more fun than anything. But if you want libertarianism you absolutely need anti-democratic measures. The bill of rights would be a baseline for that.

Though, let’s just focus in on two topics, because that’s where I think I can get somewhere. The primary purpose of marriage is creating children, and that I can make a secular argument against gay marriage. I don’t even want you to agree with the latter, but I think I can get you to admit that the secular argument exists.

 

[Captain X]

So why do you think not?

Because of my own personal experiences in the red state I live in.

see above. I made a purely Darwinian argument.

No, you keep running back to religion, which you admit yourself by conflating including other religious views as "secular."

Good thing that’s never been my fucking argument! It’s a lot easier for you to beat that one down. I said it was the PRIMARY purpose, specifically because there are other reasons involved as well lol.

This is nothing more than a semantic argument, and it falls apart considering that you already tried being ideologically consistent by claiming you don't think elderly people should get married either.

Just gonna ignore what I write and keep pretending I wrote other things because it’s easier to argue against those?

I don't have to pretend anything. You may not have explicitly said this but you've never made a point of bringing it up until after you were called out about it. If this had really been part of your argument, it would have been an easy example to use to show that you were being consistent about it. As it is, I get the impression that you hadn't really considered this weakness in your argument until I had brought it up.

cool doesn’t affect the fact that men aren’t equivalent to women.

They don't have to be to have equal rights and to be treated equally before the law.

and I say we have roles for a reason and said roles should maintain their overarching purpose in society. Men should be encouraged to be masculine and women feminine and to fill and fulfill these roles.

And I say there is no need for this. This is illustrated by the common feminist talking point of there not being a lot of women in the STEM field, in spite of there being so many incentives for them to do so, simply because there aren't that many women who are interested in those types of jobs. But people should not be limited because of how they were born, beyond any actual physical limitations they might have. I also value both masculinity and femininity, but do not think people should be limited by stereotypes or traditional gender roles. I believe people should be allowed to be whatever they desire to be.

because when you said political alliance I figured you meant the less broad political alliance, ie you meant an actual alliance between nations, not just like, any marriage between two families contains a political element.

Both are true in a sense. That is how the aristocracy did things. On a smaller scale this also took place among the common people, and in some cultures continues to this day.

it’s a reflection of the nature of humanity if you can see for example, that the Aztecs and the Spanish both came up with the concept of marriage. It means that it’s derived biologically, because they had no social influence or exchange of ideas what so ever but both got the same social idea.

A lot of animals tend to mate for life, and generally this is done to produce offspring. Homosexuality also exists in nature in everything from insects on up to great apes, and this includes couples who also mate for life among animals that tend to do so.

Not gonna lie, I hold that position more because it’s way more fun than anything. But if you want libertarianism you absolutely need anti-democratic measures. The bill of rights would be a baseline for that.

I'm not seeing how. And it should be pretty obvious that I'd never go for getting rid of universal suffrage.

Though, let’s just focus in on two topics, because that’s where I think I can get somewhere. The primary purpose of marriage is creating children, and that I can make a secular argument against gay marriage. I don’t even want you to agree with the latter, but I think I can get you to admit that the secular argument exists.

Not really. The government makes no such distinction, and the state institution is generally tied up in tax and legal benefits afforded to married couples. If one were to make your argument, this would then have to restrict people who are incapable of reproduction from getting married, and you would have a much harder fight there than against same-sex marriage.

 

[FriedCFour]

Because of my own personal experiences in the red state I live in.

and in my personal experience among my own generation there is a hell of a lot less love and support for the LGBT among the right.

No, you keep running back to religion, which you admit yourself by conflating including other religious views as "secular."

That’s because you can’t grasp my point. It’s comparing different cultures and their ideas and where they fall into similarity. If you have a running strain of similarity that runs between different and/or isolated cultures, you have two options. Either it’s a complete and total coincidence that all these groups happened to come up with very similar ideas, or it is derived from something they have in common with one another, which is humanity. With marriage in particular it’s almost exclusively between men and women and almost everyone has some form of marriage as a social institution. I mean hell, polygamy and harems were where they valued more kids above much everything as more wives = more kids= Much more guaranteed heirs. I also explained how in the lower classes, particularly farmers, no kids means provided you get to age where you have trouble working the fields you basically starve to death unless you can find someone else to help you, but typically it was your kids, and more kids equals more workers equals better farm. It’s one of the biggest drives within all species to procreate down to single celled life, with our specific species we form longer lasting bonds very often and we raise our children with both parents more often than not, and have done so again across societies. This shows what the main drive of marriage is, it’s an extension of our desire to procreate and how we as a species are made to have children and raise them. I mean literally go play CK lol. It spells this out pretty well in how you lose the game.

This is nothing more than a semantic argument, and it falls apart considering that you already tried being ideologically consistent by claiming you don't think elderly people should get married either.

It’s not semantic. There’s a big difference between this is the main thing and this is the only thing. If it’s the main thing that means that it’s the most important, but there are other reasons. If it’s the only thing, then there exist no others. You say that I’m saying only reason because then all you have to do is bring up another reason, and then if that reason even just exists my argument is beaten. The problem is, I agree with everything else you’ve brought up as it relates to marriage and what purposes it fulfilled, I just don’t think they are more important than having children.

I don't have to pretend anything. You may not have explicitly said this but you've never made a point of bringing it up until after you were called out about it. If this had really been part of your argument, it would have been an easy example to use to show that you were being consistent about it. As it is, I get the impression that you hadn't really considered this weakness in your argument until I had brought it up.

It’s not a part of my argument because it’s much less relevant and I explained why, because again, again, again, ability to reproduce is not the only thing that divides men and women. I don’t think the elderly should be banned from marriage but I think it’s wrong for them to marry, because they’ve almost certainly been married prior, and their marriage isn’t good for bringing up children. Of course I don’t think it’s a good thing, it clearly violates what is laid out as the purpose of marriage in my religion lol. It just doesn’t violate it as badly. There’s a lot of things I think are bad marriages. I think open marriages are bad but I don’t think these should be illegal, as I don’t think adultery should be illegal.

They don't have to be to have equal rights and to be treated equally before the law.

Yeah but I don’t think they should. I think they should have different roles and different

And I say there is no need for this. This is illustrated by the common feminist talking point of there not being a lot of women in the STEM field, in spite of there being so many incentives for them to do so, simply because there aren't that many women who are interested in those types of jobs. But people should not be limited because of how they were born, beyond any actual physical limitations they might have. I also value both masculinity and femininity, but do not think people should be limited by stereotypes or traditional gender roles. I believe people should be allowed to be whatever they desire to be.

People should be encouraged to follow traditional gender roles heavily. Stay at home moms should be paid or heavily subsidized to keep women at home, to help our birthrate stop declining as well as raise wages for men.

Both are true in a sense. That is how the aristocracy did things. On a smaller scale this also took place among the common people, and in some cultures continues to this day.

Sure. Having kids was still more important to most more often than not.

A lot of animals tend to mate for life, and generally this is done to produce offspring. Homosexuality also exists in nature in everything from insects on up to great apes, and this includes couples who also mate for life among animals that tend to do so.

Cool. It still shows you how we ended up with marriage.

I'm not seeing how. And it should be pretty obvious that I'd never go for getting rid of universal suffrage.

Well I think it’s pretty obvious. I mean gun rights are present in America and basically no other democracy to remotely our extent entirely because of the 2A which is intensely anti-democratic. With universal voting the more voters you have the more you drop the lowest common denominator of voter, the less appealing and viable government do nothing becomes as of course people who are less well off will want to government to do something, to say nothing of those who are well off and want the government to do something. Libertarian strains within America survive not through the libertarian party or voting but purely off of the courts and the bill of rights which are entirely and wholly anti-democratic.

Not really. The government makes no such distinction, and the state institution is generally tied up in tax and legal benefits afforded to married couples.

not true. You get a tax credit for your children and dependents.

If one were to make your argument, this would then have to restrict people who are incapable of reproduction from getting married, and you would have a much harder fight there than against same-sex marriage.

I’ve already explained why you don’t lol. You’re completely ignoring the other part about men not being women and how there are intrinsic differences and their marriages are not equal. It goes beyond just the ability to conceive a child.

 

[Stargazer]

I think FriedC has a point in saying you can construct an argument against same-sex marriage, or same sex relationships altogether, from a naturalistic materialist worldview. It all comes down to your presuppositions about what you think is moral. With naturalistic materialism, morals are essentially arbitrary, depending on the preference of an individual or group. Right now our culture values individual autonomy, allowing people to behave however they like as long as it doesn't effect others.

But what if someone, or a whole society, had a different fundamental value? What if the fundamental value was the continuation and propagation of the human species? That every person has a moral obligation to continue the human species by reproducing. Homosexual relationships do nothing to continue the human species, therefore the society sees fit to make them illegal. From a naturalistic materialist worldview, can you say that are wrong to hold those values and derive that sort of policy from them?

 

[Rocinante]

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.

It's a good reminder that the only reason I'm under the same voting tent as a lot of the right wingers is just because the democrats have gone THAT insane.

It reminds me that I'm still kinda liberal....but the left has just lost their God damn minds, so I'm voting with republicans.

I respect the opinions of everyone in here, but I outright disagree with this anti gay stuff. I want the government out of religion and religion out of government. Not everyone needs to follow the same beliefs, and we should be free to live and practice how we want.

I respect your religion and your right to practice it, but the free country I want to live in gives them equal rights. I can't figure out how this hurts any of you. I can't figure out how "widen our tent to get 90% of what we want, we can live and let live" is less appealing than "stick to this anti gay stuff and probably lose and get nothing."

You can be morally against it and still let others live how they'd like.

This shit is going to lose elections.

 

[FriedCFour]

I respect the opinions of everyone in here, but I outright disagree with this anti gay stuff. I want the government out of religion and religion out of government. Not everyone needs to follow the same beliefs, and we should be free to live and practice how we want.

Why is there more value in someone saying “I want free speech because I like free speech and I think it’s good” than “I want free speech because it’s a God given right”?

respect your religion and your right to practice it, but the free country I want to live in gives them equal rights. I can't figure out how this hurts any of you. I can't figure out how "widen our tent to get 90% of what we want, we can live and let live" is less appealing than "stick to this anti gay stuff and probably lose and get nothing."

I disagree it will probably lose, I’ve explained over and over how I see it as damaging society. Black Americans in polls are the least likely to want gay marriage, there’s a strong number of Hispanics who also don’t like it. Both these groups out mass the entirety of the LGBT several times over. Picking up even a net 10% increase split across both demographics would outmass the entirety of the LGBT population of the US. right still has it in the official GOP platform that it’s opposed to gay marriage, I don’t think we are losing because of that.

 

[Rocinante]

Why is there more value in someone saying “I want free speech because I like free speech and I think it’s good” than “I want free speech because it’s a God given right”?

I disagree it will probably lose, I’ve explained over and over how I see it as damaging society. Black Americans in polls are the least likely to want gay marriage, there’s a strong number of Hispanics who also don’t like it. Both these groups out mass the entirety of the LGBT. The right still has it in the official GOP platform that it’s opposed to gay marriage, I don’t think we are losing because of that.

Black and latinos clearly don't give enough of a fuck to not vote for parties supporting it because they tend to vote for the party that supports it.

The GOP beginning to support it isn't going to scare away black and latino democrat voters.

But lots of gay people have otherwise conservative values and we HAVE seen and you have been shown, that they aren't quite as tied to the Democrats as other minorities.

If you people would stop being hostile toward them having equal rights, you'd get more votes from them, and people who care about/support them.

I'm straight. I don't LIKE voting republican because of this anti gay sentiment. But the democrats are fucking crazy so here I am.

"Our" side could pull so many voters, and you could still have your religious values. I don't think government has any place enforcing your religious values.

 

[FriedCFour]

Black and latinos clearly don't give enough of a fuck to not vote for parties supporting it because they tend to vote for the party that supports it.

It’s not enough to win them over on its own but economic populism did win more votes in both blocks. Combine the two and it lines up to garner more, with the right candidate of course. The next four years, should we see more and more push by the LGBT and their organizations into society and more domineering, privilege and status garnered within the social sphere, or should there be an event with significant controversy between the two, socially conservative racial minorities and progressives and the right candidate to play on that it’s entirely possible you could pick up a significant portion a lot of things can happen, things right now are highly volatile. It could lose votes to take a stronger stance or have a candidate with a stronger stance but it’s entirely compatible with trumpism and with what states Trump turned to battlegrounds. Really, that 90% thing cuts both ways. It’s not inherently widening the tent to drop social conservatism, and if you are hostile to it or drop it completely, that’s by definition closing the tent. It’s a case where you have two incompatible positions really, the only way you can say you are widening the tent is if it picks up more votes than a stronger embrace of social conservatism.

 

[FriedCFour]

"Our" side could pull so many voters, and you could still have your religious values. I don't think government has any place enforcing your religious values.

Virtually every political position I hold is in some way tied to my religious values. Should I just not vote then? Every religious person has that influence their world view. Does an atheist who opposes gay marriage have more ground to stand on than me intrinsically, purely because of their identity And further more should none of us who value our religion vote? It’s always going to influence our world views, after all. You also never answered this. Why is it okay to say “I like free speech because I get to say what I want” but not okay to say “I believe free speech is a god given right”. I’d wager that, if I supported gay marriage because of religion, you wouldn’t oppose that. It’s not so much about religion I think, but more so when a religious person holds a position contrary to yourself, it’s easy to default and dismiss it as “religion shouldn’t play into secular politics”. Not because that’s really a position you hold, but because it was an effective way to get people to just outright dismiss the religious right because they had different values that’s been inculcated as a meme culturally.

 

[Rocinante]

Virtually every political position I hold is in some way tied to my religious values. Should just not vote then? Every religious person has that influence their world view. Does an atheist who opposes gay marriage have more ground to stand on than me? And further more Should none of us who value our religion vote? You never answered it. Why is it okay to say “I like free speech because I get to say what I want” but not okay to say “I believe free speech is a god given right”. I’d wager that, if I supported gay marriage because of religion, you wouldn’t oppose that. It’s not so much about religion I think, but more so when a religious person holds a position contrary to yourself, it’s easy to default and dismiss it as “religion shouldn’t play into secular politics”. Not because that’s really a position you hold, but because it was an effective way to get people to just outright dismiss the religious right because they had different values that’s been inculcated as a meme culturally.

I like free speech because I get to say what I want. You like free speech because you believe that it's a God given right.

That's great. We can work together and fight for free speech.

I like gay marriage because I think people should be free to live their lives without government getting in the way. Lots of right wingers believe people should be able to live however they want, without the government interfering. We can work together on that. Or at least agree to live and let live. You can have a gay guy in the voting booth next to you voting republican because they value free speech, the second amendment and oppose cancel culture. All you have to do is say "well I don't agree with your lifestyle but I respect your right to live how you want. Welcome to the GOP!" And BAM, just like they you've dismantled one of the left's holds to power. That's a good thing?

But instead you believe they shouldn't get equal rights because your book tells you it's bad? That's fine that you don't agree with gay marriage, as long as you're not trying to push that on everyone else. But you are. I can't work together with you on this.

If this was the prevailing opinion on the right, I wouldn't be voting for them. Period. The only reason I am now is because the democrats are nuts, and there isn't much of an alternative. If there was, I would probably vote for that. If the right wasn't on the path of becoming more open, I would just simply not vote.

 

[Stargazer]

Why is there more value in someone saying “I want free speech because I like free speech and I think it’s good” than “I want free speech because it’s a God given right”?

I actually don't think that free speech is a "God given right". In fact, there are various kinds of speech that the Bible categorizes as sinful. I think that in a secular society, the principle of free speech is important for preserving religious liberty, but is not directly instituted by God.

 

[FriedCFour]

I like gay marriage because I think people should be free to live their lives without government getting in the way. Lots of right wingers believe people should be able to live however they want, without the government interfering.

libertarians primarily. I think the government should be utilized to push back against progressivism and uphold traditional mores and the family unit. No government interference is an absolutely impossible pipe dream that I want utterly dead because it’s killing the rights ability to restructure society so it helps to support our positions in future generations and maintain the America we want. We couldn’t even do anything about section 230 as just one example because there was “a private platform gets to do what they want because it’s their business”. I want a right that fights back against the institutions that try to destroy it and works to get future generations to be inculcated with actual American values as the left does so much to destroy them. “Let everyone do whatever they want as long as it hurts nobody” just simply doesn’t exist, can’t persist, and adhering to that is a guaranteed death of what you want politically.

But instead you believe they shouldn't get equal rights because your book tells you it's bad? That's fine that you don't agree with gay marriage, as long as you're not trying to push that on everyone else. But you are. I can't work together with you on this.

It’s a part of it. I’ve also made arguments around the nature of marriage from an evolutionary biology point of view which I do subscribe to as well, and also that I value tradition and believe that men are intrinsically not women and that children should be raised by a mother and a father because that is what will naturally inculcate them to be a well rounded and developed person in a way two men or two women simply can’t. Families are the fundamental building block of society, families are better as man and woman. You also miss the point where freedom of association is a dead letter in the United States, you are forced to legally include them pretty often. Then there’s the fact it’s not an inherent identity akin to race, it’s mostly environmental factors at a young age and pretty much every environmental factor that correlates heavily with the LGBT is not a good thing. Molestation, mental illnesses, developmental issues, etc. everyone engages in behavior that is wrong biblically. It’s impossible not to. Any position that I have where I think something that’s wrong biblically should also be illegal is influenced by more than just “my book tells me so”.

If this was the prevailing opinion on the right, I wouldn't be voting for them. Period.

It is. It’s still on the GOP platform, polls still suggest it is. The guy you like btw, Ron Desantis? Doesn’t support it either.

I actually don't think that free speech is a "God given right". In fact, there are various kinds of speech that the Bible categorizes as sinful. I think that in a secular society, the principle of free speech is important for preserving religious liberty, but is not directly instituted by God.

It’s a hypothetical meant to demonstrate that “don’t bring religion into politics” really just applies to positions that you don’t particularly like.

 

[Bacle]

It's a good reminder that the only reason I'm under the same voting tent as a lot of the right wingers is just because the democrats have gone THAT insane.

It reminds me that I'm still kinda liberal....but the left has just lost their God damn minds, so I'm voting with republicans.

I respect the opinions of everyone in here, but I outright disagree with this anti gay stuff. I want the government out of religion and religion out of government. Not everyone needs to follow the same beliefs, and we should be free to live and practice how we want.

I respect your religion and your right to practice it, but the free country I want to live in gives them equal rights. I can't figure out how this hurts any of you. I can't figure out how "widen our tent to get 90% of what we want, we can live and let live" is less appealing than "stick to this anti gay stuff and probably lose and get nothing."

You can be morally against it and still let others live how they'd like.

This shit is going to lose elections.

Yep, if the GOP/Right actually do start supporting the paleo-con position on LGB stuff, they will guarantee the Dems will keep power for the foreseeable future.

Because the LGBs who were betrayed, after they came over to help and unite under Trump, will do everything in their power to keep the paleo-cons out of power. And would have the institutional backing to do it, too.

LGBs don't owe paleo-cons anything, and the paleo-cons need us more than we need them.

If they want to play the naked political power game against the LGBs, we have every reason to bring the full brunt of our institutional power down to make sure we are never under the paleo-cons thumbs, ever again.

 

[Stargazer]

Yep, if the GOP/Right actually do start supporting the paleo-con position on LGB stuff, they will guarantee the Dems will keep power for the foreseeable future.

Because the LGBs who were betrayed, after they came over to help and unite under Trump, will do everything in their power to keep the paleo-cons out of power. And would have the institutional backing to do it, too.

LGBs don't owe paleo-cons anything, and the paleo-cons need us more than we need them.

If they want to play the naked political power game against the LGBs, we have every reason to bring the full brunt of our institutional power down to make sure we are never under the paleo-cons thumbs, ever again.

I'm not even sure what "paleo-con" means in this context. It's not a label I've ever identified with.

 

[Bacle]

I'm not even sure what "paleo-con" means in this context. It's not a label I've ever identified with.

Paleo-cons are the fossilized remnants of Pat Buchanan's type of conservative.

They are about as politically damaging to their own causes as Buchanan was, as well.

 

[Stargazer]

Paleo-cons are the fossilized remnants of Pat Buchanan's type of conservative.

They are about as politically damaging to their own causes as Buchanan was, as well.

I had to google Buchanan, wasn't familiar with him. So that just begs a further question, what do you mean by "Pat Buchanan's type of conservative"?