LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[FriedCFour]

What could people like bacle and I do, as a quid pro quo?

Say you lighten up on gay marriage.

What can ex lefties do, in your opinion, that would be a trade off?

Give up on women’s rights.

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

Give up on women’s rights.

You are joking, right? Are you sure about this?

I strongly dislike the queer stuff and a lot of feminism, but the early parts of the woman's right movement needed to happen. It's later that the feminist movement went out of control.

It's perfectly possible to have woman who can vote and still be moral Christians. Most woman I know are.

 

[FriedCFour]

You are joking, right? Are you sure about this?

I’m sure that it’s funny.

 

[Bacle]

I disagree that is the reality. I believe that God's decree will come to pass, no matter what any individual human chooses to do. It's not on me to "get everything I want". It's not my job to win. It's on me to be faithful to what God has commanded me, and to do it to the best of my ability.

All the values established by God matter to me. I refuse to engage in cold political calculus by actively working against one value in order to advance another politically. To do so would violate that duty to be faithful to what God has commanded.

Why does any of this matter to you?

Because you are acting like a naive fool who thinks you will never have to sacrifice part of you principles or values to save another part.

Let me make it simple: If you had the choice to be able to shame LGBs as much as you want without pushback, or the choice to make sure abortion was no longer at will anywhere in the US, which would you chose?

I don't really think this is failure to evolve- rather it's single issue people trying to jump on board the winning team.

My point, though, was that single issue groups trying to throw every other part of the right under the bus in order to appeal to the left hasn't been beneficial. Similarly, I think it's wrong to suppose that right-wing positions are in a tradeoff, that sacrificing one would benefit the other.

Well not fighting on LGB stuff would actively make it easier to advocate for other parts of what the Right want.

If LGBs knew the Right was over the same-sex marriage battle, it'd make protecting the 1st amd 2nd Amendments, getting pro-Life policies to be more wide spread, dealing with Chinese infiltration into our institutions, and multiple other things.

This isn't asking for multiple causes to be thrown under the bus, this is simply asking for the Right to not try to refight a battle they already lost.

That’s what I asked. All Bacle has offered so far is that if the literal core values of a significant chunk of the party aren’t altered they would go back to the left. That screams fair weather friend to me, why bother going through the massive reorganization of the party that kind of change would need for someone who threatens to leave if not appeased? So my question is what policy sacrifice he and him are making/willing to make as to have that be worth it. I’m not asking on what policies they agree on, they are asking people to massively twist a fundamental value, I’m asking if they are willing to do the same.

Ah yes, asking people to not going after the LGBs is 'sacrificing a core part of the party'.

And yet Trump knew this was an issue where the Right was not going to win if they do not adapt. That's why he fought against the criminalization of homosexuality around the world and had the first gay cabinet member, just to name a couple things.

If you all want to ignore why Trump was able to reach across party lines to pull in ex-Dems and independents, don't be surprised when those same people do everything possible to keep the Right from backsliding on the LGB stuff.

I want first amendment rights, second ammendment rights, the right to due process restored, and while were at it for the press to hold the democratic party to the same standard the republican party is held to.

But if that isn't possible then I am gladly willing to accept having any cheating at the ballot box eliminated with the cheaters put into federal prison for the attempt.

We want those things anyway, we simply don't want the paleo-cons trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore.

 

[Rocinante]

I want first amendment rights, second ammendment rights, the right to due process restored, and while were at it for the press to hold the democratic party to the same standard the republican party is held to.

But if that isn't possible then I am gladly willing to accept having any cheating at the ballot box eliminated with the cheaters put into federal prison for the attempt.

I agree with all of this.

I see there are other quotes and will try to respond as I can

That’s what I asked. All Bacle has offered so far is that if the literal core values of a significant chunk of the party aren’t altered they would go back to the left. That screams fair weather friend to me, why bother going through the massive reorganization of the party that kind of change would need for someone who threatens to leave if not appeased? So my question is what policy sacrifice he and him are making/willing to make as to have that be worth it. I’m not asking on what policies they agree on, they are asking people to massively twist a fundamental value, I’m asking if they are willing to do the same.

I'd be willing to consider tightening of abortion laws even though I am still pro choice

 

[FriedCFour]

Because you are acting like a naive fool who thinks you will never have to sacrifice part of you principles or values to save another part.

Didn’t you say the same lol.

 

[Cherico]

Because you are acting like a naive fool who thinks you will never have to sacrifice part of you principles or values to save another part.

Let me make it simple: If you had the choice to be able to shame LGBs as much as you want without pushback, or the choice to make sure abortion was no longer at will anywhere in the US, which would you chose?
Well not fighting on LGB stuff would actively make it easier to advocate for other parts of what the Right want.

If LGBs knew the Right was over the same-sex marriage battle, it'd make protecting the 1st amd 2nd Amendments, getting pro-Life policies to be more wide spread, dealing with Chinese infiltration into our institutions, and multiple other things.

This isn't asking for multiple causes to be thrown under the bus, this is simply asking for the Right to not try to refight a battle they already lost.

Ah yes, asking people to not going after the LGBs is 'sacrificing a core part of the party'.

And yet Trump knew this was an issue where the Right was not going to win if they do not adapt. That's why he fought against the criminalization of homosexuality around the world and had the first gay cabinet member, just to name a couple things.

If you all want to ignore why Trump was able to reach across party lines to pull in ex-Dems and independents, don't be surprised when those same people do everything possible to keep the Right from backsliding on the LGB stuff.
We want those things anyway, we simply don't want the paleo-cons trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore.

Since your willing to back me on the issues I find important I am willing to back you on the stuff you want.

Gay marrage has my support, I wish you the best.

 

[FriedCFour]

We want those things anyway, we simply don't want the paleo-cons trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore.

Not anymore, because they were never the group in power that opposed it and it’s a plank shared by the mainstream GOP. Again, for everyone here Bacle is very mad at me for not being on board with gay rights and in private discussion I said I was a paleocon and now he’s gone on a tear against it because he associates it with me. He knows little to nothing about the movement or what it purports except that I believe in it.

 

[LindyAF]

What could people like bacle and I do, as a quid pro quo?

Say you lighten up on gay marriage.

What can ex lefties do, in your opinion, that would be a trade off?

I don't really think this a meaningful question here- there are always going to be these internal debates on the issues. And none of us is setting party platform. But, in a hypothetical where we were both on a committee for the determining the Republican party platform going forward- is, I would support a proposed platform which compromised on gay issues in exchange for concessions toward immigration restrictionism and social conservatism on other issues (for instance, banning no-fault divorce). I can't speak for @Wargamer08 or anyone else, though, but that'd be my stance. Degree of compromise would depend on how much who I was negotiating with was willing to compromise, but gay issues aren't a high priority for me. I probably wouldn't change my stance on these issues and would continue to advocate internally for what I think, and I woudn't expect you to change your stances either and wouldn't have an issue with you advocating for what you think, but I certainly don't treat it as the end-all-be-all and I treat disagreements on this issue as friendly with people who I'm generally in agreement with on other issues.

 

[Bacle]

Since your willing to back me on the issues I find important I am willing to back you on the stuff you want.

Gay marrage has my support, I wish you the best.

See, this is the thing, most of the people on the Right or who lean Right, don't seem to want this fight either.

Outside fringes like Fried, most right-leaning people I've met aren't interested in trying to undo same-sex marriage and consider it a settled matter.

I don't really think this a meaningful question here- there are always going to be these internal debates on the issues. And none of us is setting party platform. But, in a hypothetical where we were both on a committee for the determining the Republican party platform going forward- is, I would support a proposed platform which compromised on gay issues in exchange for concessions toward immigration restrictionism and social conservatism on other issues (for instance, banning no-fault divorce). I can't speak for @Wargamer08 or anyone else, though, but that'd be my stance. Degree of compromise would depend on how much who I was negotiating with was willing to compromise, but gay issues aren't a high priority for me. I probably wouldn't change my stance on these issues and would continue to advocate internally for what I think, and I woudn't expect you to change your stances either and wouldn't have an issue with you advocating for what you think, but I certainly don't treat it as the end-all-be-all and I treat disagreements on this issue as friendly with people who I'm generally in agreement with on other issues.

See, I think you'd get LGB support for a lot of that (immigration issues and no-fault divorce) anyway.

All right-leaning LGBs want is to not have to worry about people trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore. If they don't have to worry about that, they have very little to fear from the new populist Right.

 

[FriedCFour]

Outside fringes like Fried, most right-leaning people I've met aren't interested in trying to undo same-sex marriage and consider it a settled matter.

Doesn’t fit with the polls lol. I don’t think they are that off that they got a slim majority of Republicans actually constitute anything close to a fringe.

 

[Rocinante]

I don't really think this a meaningful question here- there are always going to be these internal debates on the issues. And none of us is setting party platform. But, in a hypothetical where we were both on a committee for the determining the Republican party platform going forward- is, I would support a proposed platform which compromised on gay issues in exchange for concessions toward immigration restrictionism and social conservatism on other issues (for instance, banning no-fault divorce). I can't speak for @Wargamer08 or anyone else, though, but that'd be my stance. Degree of compromise would depend on how much who I was negotiating with was willing to compromise, but gay issues aren't a high priority for me. I probably wouldn't change my stance on these issues and would continue to advocate internally for what I think, and I woudn't expect you to change your stances either and wouldn't have an issue with you advocating for what you think, but I certainly don't treat it as the end-all-be-all and I treat disagreements on this issue as friendly with people who I'm generally in agreement with on other issues.

I myself am what would be considered pretty right wing on immigration. Or at least illegal immigration.

I support the wall and I am against amnesty and think illegal immigrants should be deported.

I need to learn more about this divorce issue before I can make a claim on that

 

[Wargamer08]

Because you are acting like a naive fool who thinks you will never have to sacrifice part of you principles or values to save another part.

Let me make it simple: If you had the choice to be able to shame LGBs as much as you want without pushback, or the choice to make sure abortion was no longer at will anywhere in the US, which would you chose?
Well not fighting on LGB stuff would actively make it easier to advocate for other parts of what the Right want.

If LGBs knew the Right was over the same-sex marriage battle, it'd make protecting the 1st amd 2nd Amendments, getting pro-Life policies to be more wide spread, dealing with Chinese infiltration into our institutions, and multiple other things.

This isn't asking for multiple causes to be thrown under the bus, this is simply asking for the Right to not try to refight a battle they already lost.

Ah yes, asking people to not going after the LGBs is 'sacrificing a core part of the party'.

And yet Trump knew this was an issue where the Right was not going to win if they do not adapt. That's why he fought against the criminalization of homosexuality around the world and had the first gay cabinet member, just to name a couple things.

If you all want to ignore why Trump was able to reach across party lines to pull in ex-Dems and independents, don't be surprised when those same people do everything possible to keep the Right from backsliding on the LGB stuff.
We want those things anyway, we simply don't want the paleo-cons trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore.

You’re asking the religious right to give up a fundamental truth. That marriage is between man and woman, that engage is gay sex is a failing of will and a sin. This is a core doctrine, you can bitch and moan about religious this and that but the religious right has been a steadfast core to the right wing platform for decades. Please note that I’m not particularly religious. I’m lapsed Protestant at best. I am however willing to defend the old guard against what looks and sounds like a needy newcomer.

Likewise you bragging on about how the last political party you were part of totally owned the right on that whole gay marriage and freedom of association thing so just suck it up and get dunked on because there is totally no way to reverse the shaky ass legal grounds for it. How do you think this will endear you to the existing members of the political block?

Again your coming out and stating your demands for you shaky, unproven loyalty. You have yet to state which of your core values you are willing to compromise in reciprocity for the conservative block breaking with the religious right. As it stands you come across as an unreliable single issue voter with no real love of the right side of the political spectrum and no interest in doing anything other then pushing your personal political agenda while making no compromises. Go on threaten to leave a party you just ‘joined’ if they don’t eject long supporting members again, I’m sure it will work this time.

 

[Bacle]

You’re asking the religious right to give up a fundamental truth. That marriage is between man and woman, that engage is gay sex is a failing of will and a sin. This is a core doctrine, you can bitch and moan about religious this and that but the religious right has been a steadfast core to the right wing platform for decades. Please note that I’m not particularly religious. I’m lapsed Protestant at best. I am however willing to defend the old guard against what looks and sounds like a needy newcomer.

Likewise you bragging on about how the last political party you were part of totally owned the right on that whole gay marriage and freedom of association thing so just suck it up and get dunked on because there is totally no way to reverse the shaky ass legal grounds for it. How do you think this will endear you to the existing members of the political block?

Again your coming out and stating your demands for you shaky, unproven loyalty. You have yet to state which of your core values you are willing to compromise in reciprocity for the conservative block breaking with the religious right. As it stands you come across as an unreliable single issue voter with no real love of the right side of the political spectrum and no interest in doing anything other then pushing your personal political agenda while making no compromises. Go on threaten to leave a party you just ‘joined’ if they don’t eject long supporting members again, I’m sure it will work this time.

I'm a registered Independent, I owe no loyalty to the GOP, and am only voting R now because of how crazy the Ds have become. I want to see the Right succeed right now, because of how insane the Left has gotten, not because I share the paleo/social/trad-con mindset. I am trying to help the Right understand how to better fight the Left, and that includes understanding what fights are worth taking on.

If the Rs decide to backslide on same-sex marriage to appease a fringe of the old guard, it will only ensure the Ds have a much easier time hanging onto power.

You don't have to like same-sex marriage, but you do have to accept it is law now, and accept that your religion does not get to dictate the civic rights and liberties of the nation.

 

[LindyAF]

All right-leaning LGBs want is to not have to worry about people trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore. If they don't have to worry about that, they have very little to fear from the new populist Right.

See, you're never going to get total security on these issues. Even if every single right winger had total message discipline on this issue, which would require some sort of perfect conspiracy of every right winger who disagreed with you on gay issues, so would be pretty counterproductive to your goals anyway, the left is always going to be perceived as (and actually be) more reliably on your side on this, for a couple reasons. They were the first to adopt it and push it, and their further left stance on related issues also acts as a guarantee for their stance on gay marriage. For instance, no one is going to worry about the democrats reversing on gay marriage while they're supporting laws against religious freedom of association, or in favor of pushing trans propaganda on elementary school children.

I myself am what would be considered pretty right wing on immigration. Or at least illegal immigration.

I support the wall and I am against amnesty and think illegal immigrants should be deported.

The omission of the word "illegal" was deliberate, I am in favor of vastly reduced legal immigration. I picked the issue because legal immigration is something nationalists and libertarians generally disagree on, but if it turns out we actually agree on it then I'm sure there's some other issue of enough weight for negotiation. Trade, maybe? Even if there's not and we actually agree on almost everything else, I would be inclined to support a compromise platform that was pro civil union but also restricted homosexuals from positions of authority, particularly over children, within the Republican party and conservative organizations.

 

[FriedCFour]

I am trying to help the Right understand how to better fight the Left, and that includes understanding what fights are worth taking on.

Same here. You’re also hardly the impeccable strategist given your utter illiteracy on the positions and components of the right and how popular certain ideas are on the right.

You don't have to like same-sex marriage, but you do have to accept it is law now, and accept that your religion does not get to dictate the civic rights and liberties of the nation.

I don’t anymore than I do abortion.

 

[Wargamer08]

I remember a certain razor company decided it would shit on it’s core demographic in order to pander to a letter of LGBT. It cost them over seven billion dollars last I heard. How is the Conservative party doing the same any different?

 

[Bacle]

See, you're never going to get total security on these issues. Even if every single right winger had total message discipline on this issue, which would require some sort of perfect conspiracy of every right winger who disagreed with you on gay issues, so would be pretty counterproductive to your goals anyway, the left is always going to be perceived as (and actually be) more reliably on your side on this, for a couple reasons. They were the first to adopt it and push it, and their further left stance on related issues also acts as a guarantee for their stance on gay marriage. For instance, no one is going to worry about the democrats reversing on gay marriage while they're supporting laws against religious freedom of association, or in favor of pushing trans propaganda on elementary school children.

Removing trans 'propaganda' from schools is actually fine by me, and religious freedom of association does need to be protected as well.

However, that does not mean that the rights LGBs have now are up for negotiation.

What really needs to happen is for the two-party system to be broken up, so that new parties can form that more accurately represent a rather diverse nation. That way coalitions can form over issues of common ground, without trying to force everyone into one of two effective political camps.

 

[Zachowon]

I remember a certain razor company decided it would shit on it’s core demographic in order to pander to a letter of LGBT. It cost them over seven billion dollars last I heard. How is the Conservative party doing the same any different?

Pander is diffrent.
We arnt saying the LGB have to be pondered to. Just treated equally

 

[Rocinante]

I remember a certain razor company decided it would shit on it’s core demographic in order to pander to a letter of LGBT. It cost them over seven billion dollars last I heard. How is the Conservative party doing the same any different?

No one is asking the GOP to pander.

Just to not roll back their rights.

Just to let them be.

Which seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst right wing politicians anyways. That's part of why I'm willing to vote for them.

No, don't pander to them. Just let them be. Don't try to take rights away from them.