• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

Wargamer08

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Reaction score
419
Pander is diffrent.
We arnt saying the LGB have to be pondered to. Just treated equally
There is such a thing as opportunity costs and political capital. You only have so much of each. Spending some to defend Johnny come lately from your own supporters needs to be worth the cost. This keeps getting glossed over. Gay marriage in particular and gayness in general is a really big deal to a chunk of the right. It would be like someone saying that they want to join the Conservative party, but you have to accept that all the current gun control was/is totally legit and that they are going to vote for more if it comes up. They are totally on your side though, they just want you to understand that the fight for your guns is over.

Also what else can you call it but pandering? There is no heterosexual lobby. Otherwise normal crimes get a special upgrade and attention when done to LGBT people. They have special laws and social protection. They have preferred hiring quotas and firing one risks additional special lawsuits.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,693
There is such a thing as opportunity costs and political capital. You only have so much of each. Spending some to defend Johnny come lately from your own supporters needs to be worth the cost. This keeps getting glossed over. Gay marriage in particular and gayness in general is a really big deal to a chunk of the right. It would be like someone saying that they want to join the Conservative party, but you have to accept that all the current gun control was/is totally legit and that they are going to vote for more if it comes up. They are totally on your side though, they just want you to understand that the fight for your guns is over.

Also what else can you call it but pandering? There is no heterosexual lobby. Otherwise normal crimes get a special upgrade and attention when done to LGBT people. They have special laws and social protection. They have preferred hiring quotas and firing one risks additional special lawsuits.
No one should get "special rights."

Equal rights. Which they have now. Just don't take equal rights away. That's all that's being asked.

No need to pander. You don't even need to talk about it. Just live and let live. Let them live their lives with equal rights.

If they have special rights, those need to go. Hate crimes aren't a real thing, and shouldn't exist legally. Crimes are crimes.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,142
There is such a thing as opportunity costs and political capital. You only have so much of each. Spending some to defend Johnny come lately from your own supporters needs to be worth the cost. This keeps getting glossed over. Gay marriage in particular and gayness in general is a really big deal to a chunk of the right. It would be like someone saying that they want to join the Conservative party, but you have to accept that all the current gun control was/is totally legit and that they are going to vote for more if it comes up. They are totally on your side though, they just want you to understand that the fight for your guns is over.

Also what else can you call it but pandering? There is no heterosexual lobby. Otherwise normal crimes get a special upgrade and attention when done to LGBT people. They have special laws and social protection. They have preferred hiring quotas and firing one risks additional special lawsuits.
Let them live thier lifes.
Why should I care what goes on behind closed doors?
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Reaction score
640
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.
It's not about your own position on these issues, but rather what they guarantee. Even if the Right was to drop this fight like you want, if your primary issues is "not hav[ing] to worry about people trying to roll back same-sex marriage anymore," the democrats are always going to be more reliable on that issue for you. Between a party who vocally opposed it until it was imposed by judicial fiat and then only gave lukewarm support years later, partially cynical political reasons, while continuing to defend anyone who still opposes it and vocally against it going any further, and a party who was the long time home for its' supporters even before it was in the Overton window, supported it wherever it had the political capital to do so, and now favors coming after anyone who opposes it, and is vocally for it going further to cartoonish levels, the first one's commitment would always be suspect.

We were actually just negotiating on this earlier in this very thread. ;)

If it's truly non-negotiable, to the extent that no disagreement with the left was worth even a small chance that a more powerful right would act against your desires on the issue, then IMO you would never vote Republican. If you've voted for Trump, you've voted for a guy who was historically against it, never recanted but at most dropped the issue, whose running mate always vocally opposed it and who ran with a party platform that was also explicitly opposed.
 

Wargamer08

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Reaction score
419
No one should get "special rights."

Equal rights. Which they have now. Just don't take equal rights away. That's all that's being asked.

No need to pander. You don't even need to talk about it. Just live and let live. Let them live their lives with equal rights.

If they have special rights, those need to go. Hate crimes aren't a real thing, and shouldn't exist legally. Crimes are crimes.
See the part of the issue when anyone starts taking about maybe rolling back the hate crimes thing or any of the other privileges that crept in, it gets responses like people are saying that gays belong in a concentration camp. Your side of the field feels that it won those fair and square and that rolling them back is just step one for throwing them back in the closet. Now to be fair to them, that’s likely the truth for some people. However this means that the LGBT community as a whole needs to step back on special hate crimes courts and quotas or it will be used as a wedge to repeal more.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,693
See the part of the issue when anyone starts taking about maybe rolling back the hate crimes thing or any of the other privileges that crept in, it gets responses like people are saying that gays belong in a concentration camp. Your side of the field feels that it won those fair and square and that rolling them back is just step one for throwing them back in the closet. Now to be fair to them, that’s likely the truth for some people. However this means that the LGBT community as a whole needs to step back on special hate crimes courts and quotas or it will be used as a wedge to repeal more.
I've been against hate crimes for quite a while. If a person cimmited a crime, there is a law for that.

Hate crimes are special rights.

Rosetta Stone didn't sit on the front of that bus for y'all gays to be asking for special rights
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,142
I've been against hate crimes for quite a while. If a person cimmited a crime, there is a law for that.

Hate crimes are special rights.

Rosetta Stone didn't sit on the front of that bus for y'all gays to be asking for special rights
Uh...do you mean Rosa Parks
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Reaction score
98
Well that goes back to the TPUSA Groyper war. At the time I was a TPUSA member and didn’t really watch much of it, but I eventually caught Nick Fuentes coming on to another Podcast that I liked and talking about it and what was going on. I then dug into a whole lot of the different Q&As and background and just saw as these guys miserably failed to death with actual conservatives, and that they were libertarians masquerading as conservatives. I also saw more and more that the Radical Left isn’t the issue, it’s the Washington establishment. I also came around to the conclusion that live and let live simply isn’t viable, because ultimately all the cultural and social institutions are stacked against and inculcating values that go against what I believe in, and we are also importing people that generally vote blue regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. All of those seemed like existential threats that “live and let live” and “our first priority is getting a tax cut passed” politics just simply can’t deal with and that there needs to be a push to actually utilize the government in order to survive, because the way things are really looking now, the right is facing an absolutely existential threat that comes from various things that need to be absolutely rolled back otherwise it will just be liberalism forever and America won’t be anything like America any longer.

there’s also that I stopped just listening to what Pundits appealed to as the founding fathers and read what many of them had to say and saw that they weren’t a bunch of deist libertarians, the fact that every time in my life I went and stopped being traditional and engaged in hedonism it was short highs followed by misery and just how many people I saw who were just broken and toxic from that shit. And with being more socially conservative I tried faith and prayer and opted to read the Bible again, and literally within a couple weeks my wife was pregnant, but then lost the child around 9 weeks in, and really both creating and losing life puts a lot of things in perspective, like how valuable and important relationships are and how important religion is in your own life and for society as a whole, because without that it would have been pretty hard to deal with.

On women’s rights it’s how feminism directly ties into declining birth rates and the sexual revolution and I detest both those things. It’s also the experience of getting an X girlfriend pregnant who said she wanted a family with you, pleading with her to keep the child and then you being able to do basically nothing about it as she killed it. I think that’s totally fucked and really just isn’t right any way you cut it.
Hmm. I'm still having trouble with the why. What are the values at the root of the the things you support and oppose? To put it another way, so what? So what if feminism and the radical left win? So what if birth rates keep declining? So what if men become weaker and weaker? So what if immigrants keep flowing into the the country? So what if America ceases to be America? Let's say you're talking with someone and they say they want all those things, that they see them as good. How would you explain to them that's all actually bad?

I definitely sympathize with you over your ex GF who aborted your baby without your consent. I think that's awful; every abortion is tragic, but being powerless to stop it makes it even more traumatic. And I can see how that's influenced your political outlook. However... I'm wondering if you can explain what exactly made that situation wrong. Not just your own personal grief on the matter. To an outside bystander, why should they see that situation as wrong?
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?
For my part, I'm not looking for a quid pro quo to begin with, so Wargamer and I aren't quite on the same page.

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'm acting in a manner consistent with my worldview. My hope doesn't come from political alliances. It comes from the Lord who has redeemed me, and will return to judge the living and the dead.

Your question is loaded, "shaming LGBs" is in fact not an end goal for me regarding society. So your dilemma in fact isn't one, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you can rephrase the question.

And you just ignored my question, why does it even matter to you? So what if I and other Christians like me continue on advocating for the Biblical definition of marriage?
 

Gladiator

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
50
The problem with a lot of the LGBT movement is a lot of people with the loudest voices are not LGBT. They also tend to be the most "woke," and tend to speak from a place of ignorance. Only going by what the media has fed them.

A lot of issues that do exist in the LGBT but people don't like to talk about because it paints it in a bad light? There are predators who infiltrate it to use it as a means of cover or defense. Heck, you need only look at the most shameless ones who say MAP rights or ZOOPHILE rights. Yeah, they exist and they do their damnedest to make us a part of them.

Others are better at hiding it but you need only look at the weekly controversy with Discord moderators to know these people hide in places of power. Which the LGBT has become when the media decided to openly support us, and advertise us. The problem is that what they advertise are things like Desmond Napoles. It's grotesque, and reminds me of the fact that the rich elite and those in power were almost universally involved with Jeffrey Epstein.

Which in turn makes me think that those same rich elite have been corrupting the movement.

There are actual sexual predators in the LGBT. There is a reason I never went into a gay bar until I was in the middle of my twenties. I fear my fellows as much as I do the ostracization I would face if my family found out I was bisexual.

Another uncomfortable topic is how much does nurture and nature play into sexuality. Addressing the elephant of the room? I was sexually abused as a child, and I always wondered if that contributed to my flexible sexuality. Rather than it being a natural part of it. Of all people only StoneToss recognizes that, and he's as conservative as they come.

It's a hot topic though.

Just like people being groomed into being transgendered. Which also happens. Note Desmond Napoles who I already mentioned. There are people who are either manipulative snakes, or outright sexual predators. Who push for these things not to help others but instead so they can help themselves.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Reaction score
111
Like less than a hundred years lol
Not less anymore—in the USA, at least.
again, I don't think the government has the right to declare marriage to be a secular institution and define marriage however it pleases.
What I continue to not see you addressing is why the state has to adopt a religiously influenced institution of marriage at all instead of having its own completely secular and completely independent institution(s). If this was the case, there would be no grounds to object to some government agency with no relation to your religion granting homosexuals civil unions+ or whatever, right?
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.
It seems to me as a third party that there may be a problem of fundamental goals here. Bacle, you seem to be casting it as cost/benefit, taking what territory you can while not overreaching and losing everything, and different factions arguing over what territory is most worth taking. This is a practical way to operate. But the impression I've gotten from a couple of Stargazer's posts, including the above, is that he just disagrees: it's better to grab for everything and lose it all (in this life, anyway) because it's the will of God that people should do so; compromise doesn't gain you part of your political goals, it loses you Heaven.

Stargazer, please let me know if I've misinterpreted.
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.
That's one way to frame it, I guess. I read it more as, "This is a deal-breaker for me. Is it really a deal-breaker for you? Because that would mean you lose the support of me and people like me on all the other stuff we either agree with or can tolerate because it isn't a deal-breaker." It's not a threat as much as a fact, and as for "why the party should bother," that question depends on the over/under on whom it's a deal-breaker for on both sides of the issue.

In that interpretation, "I'd have to twist a fundamental value for you, what fundamental value would you twist for me?" becomes a question of no value: it's either a deal-breaker or it isn't; if it is, game over; if it isn't, then it's not fundamental in the same way.

Bacle, please let me know if I've misinterpreted.
 

Bacle

When the venture is no longer profitable...
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,356
That's one way to frame it, I guess. I read it more as, "This is a deal-breaker for me. Is it really a deal-breaker for you? Because that would mean you lose the support of me and people like me on all the other stuff we either agree with or can tolerate because it isn't a deal-breaker." It's not a threat as much as a fact, and as for "why the party should bother," that question depends on the over/under on whom it's a deal-breaker for on both sides of the issue.

In that interpretation, "I'd have to twist a fundamental value for you, what fundamental value would you twist for me?" becomes a question of no value: it's either a deal-breaker or it isn't; if it is, game over; if it isn't, then it's not fundamental in the same way.

Bacle, please let me know if I've misinterpreted.
It's close.

The fact that some parts of the fringe right want to use Trump's stolen election to try to push back against same-sex marriage is very alarming.

The simple fact is that when people act like same-sex marriage isn't a settled issue, and will work to repeal it if they ever get power on the Right or in DC...legtimizes so many of the Dems/Lefts biggest facist-right boogiemans/strawmans.

Stargazer is more worried about his own soul in the after life, than he is with the reality on the ground in this life that the rest of us have to live with.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Reaction score
98
What I continue to not see you addressing is why the state has to adopt a religiously influenced institution of marriage at all instead of having its own completely secular and completely independent institution(s). If this was the case, there would be no grounds to object to some government agency with no relation to your religion granting homosexuals civil unions+ or whatever, right?
Nothing is saying the state has to adopt the institution of marriage. As for civil unions, we tried having same-sex civil unions in the US that were marriages in all but name. It led to the government trying to redefine marriage.

It seems to me as a third party that there may be a problem of fundamental goals here. Bacle, you seem to be casting it as cost/benefit, taking what territory you can while not overreaching and losing everything, and different factions arguing over what territory is most worth taking. This is a practical way to operate. But the impression I've gotten from a couple of Stargazer's posts, including the above, is that he just disagrees: it's better to grab for everything and lose it all (in this life, anyway) because it's the will of God that people should do so; compromise doesn't gain you part of your political goals, it loses you Heaven.

Stargazer, please let me know if I've misinterpreted.
That's relatively fair. The reasons for my beliefs and values are not practical reasons. They are theological reasons. So the idea that "hey, it would be more practical if you would abandon one value to better achieve the other" isn't a valid reason to abandon that value.

I would again stress that I don't see it as my job to "win" in the political sphere. If in upholding the commands given by God myself and the Church experience setbacks, so be it. God will decide whether we succeed or fail, grow or shrink. It does come down to my goal and moral duty being fundamentally different than Bacle's. I don't think my entrance to Heaven is at risk, but again, I do think I have a moral duty to be faithful to what God has commanded.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Sotnik
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Reaction score
2,557
I don’t know, it’s bizarre to have someone ridiculously worked up and offended because someone expressed what they think.
I would point out that you are *even more* worked up and offended at, claiming at length that the mere existence of LGBT people is an intolerable assault on society because we go against your chosen interpretation of your religion.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
9,754
This argument really seems to boil down to two different positions:

1. "Morality is defined by God."

2. "Morality is defined by man."


These positions are not reconcileable. Some have made effort to show evidence of negative outcomes in life as proof of their position, or change in negative outcomes as proof of theirs. There's been a couple of stabs at making arguments to practicality.

At this point though, the thread just to be devolving into 'Your position is evil, and you're a nasty person for holding it,' as patience runs out. I don't think this is going to be productive with the same people arguing the same thing back and forth.

If you want to keep pushing the issue, it would probably be more productive to try to convince each other regarding the foundations your positions are based on.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Reaction score
111
Nothing is saying the state has to adopt the institution of marriage. As for civil unions, we tried having same-sex civil unions in the US that were marriages in all but name. It led to the government trying to redefine marriage.
First, thanks for clarifying on the other part.

On the subject of whether the state has to adopt the institution of marriage, it seemed to me that you were saying so earlier:
[...] 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.

But if government is involved in marriage, and it decides to recognize marriage between people of the same sex, things get sticky. Conservative Christians don't recognize such marriages as valid, and in fact see them as fundamentally sinful. Christian business owners feel morally obligated to not participate in anything involving a same sex marriage. But same sex couples can come back and say such behavior is discriminatory - and they're right! Conservative Christians are going to want their elected representatives to stand for their religious liberty to conduct business according to their conscience. And this is just one example. As long as the GOP want to maintain the support of conservative Christians, they can't give full support to LGBT interests. Therefore, from my perspective, if the GOP is to keep conservative Christians in its coalition, it is incompatible with the LGBT community.
I agree that certain protections should be put in place by the government. But I am not sure why such protection must be inextricably linked to the "marriage" that you want to remain untainted by morals/values not in keeping with your specific religion. Why can't the government extend such protection and have it not be marriage?

The three main problems that occurred with respect to civil unions etc., as I understand it, were (1) the federal government refused to recognize such civil unions until the SCOTUS decision in 2013; (2) they were not offered in all states and some states refused to recognize those issued in other states until the SCOTUS decision in 2015; (3) in some states, the protections, privileges, etc. given were less than those afforded by the status of being married (in the eyes of the government). These doesn't strike me as insoluble problems. In fact, isn't it true that the government instrument would in all likelihood give more benefits and protections to individuals than marriage as compatible with your religion? (No-fault divorce, for example, unless I'm confusing you with another poster.) If Congress had stepped in before the SCOTUS then perhaps we'd have nationwide civil unions but not marriage today.

So almost all people wanting government endorsement, protection, etc. of their homosexual union should be perfectly happy with such an arrangement that put them on an equal footing with all secular heterosexual unions. And if any wanted to have a "marriage" recognized by a church, that would be up to the church in question; the government would certainly have no place forcing a church to recognize such marriage and I assume your particular church wouldn't be likely to do so on its own. I suspect your biggest problem area would be in heterosexuals unhappy that the state was getting out of the business of endorsing "marriage" specifically instead of mere civil unions.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Sotnik
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Reaction score
2,557
Nothing is saying the state has to adopt the institution of marriage. As for civil unions, we tried having same-sex civil unions in the US that were marriages in all but name. It led to the government trying to redefine marriage.
The attempted compromise of civil unions was aggressively rejected by the social conservative right that didn't want any compromises, and didn't even reach the level of being "separate but equal". It was not remotely equal in strictly secular and legal terms, especially in strongly consecutive states where "mandatory discrimination" laws were passed that literally barred private entities from *voluntarily* granting any benefits to civil union partners that were similar to those offered to married couples.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,225
Location
England
The attempted compromise of civil unions was aggressively rejected by the social conservative right that didn't want any compromises, and didn't even reach the level of being "separate but equal". It was not remotely equal in strictly secular and legal terms, especially in strongly consecutive states where "mandatory discrimination" laws were passed that literally barred private entities from *voluntarily* granting any benefits to civil union partners that were similar to those offered to married couples.
It's somewhat sad in that the social conservatives would have a platform with broad appeal if they could just ease off on the religious stuff because it gives way to puritanism no one wants. Prime example of that is the Constitution Party, who seem to continuously shoot themselves in the foot with some of the most demented social policy I have ever seen, whilst everything else is reasonable.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
9,754
It's somewhat sad in that the social conservatives would have a platform with broad appeal if they could just ease off on the religious stuff because it gives way to puritanism no one wants. Prime example of that is the Constitution Party, who seem to continuously shoot themselves in the foot with some of the most demented social policy I have ever seen, whilst everything else is reasonable.
'If they could just ease off on the religious stuff.'

Nobody else is, so why should religious conservatives?
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,225
Location
England
'If they could just ease off on the religious stuff.'

Nobody else is, so why should religious conservatives?
So you might actually start winning elections.

And who are these others doing it? Lefties? Muslims? I can assure you, those measures bring them success in the short term, but long term it's disastrous.
 
Top Bottom