LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Abhorsen]

Homosexual activity in general was illegal in much of the US in 1978. Even if they didn't care about public perception, that's another matter.

Another thing I wanted to say on this is that I know I'm kind of asking for a unicorn here, as studies from before modern LGBT ideology is going to have issues because such a large fraction of homosexuals are probably closeted, and anything after is going to have issues going against the current orthodoxy.

I mean, they're already in jail for having said gay sex with minors, I doubt they care about that. And there is a check against worrying about the orthodoxy. Basically there are studies that ignore what respondents say they are, and instead measure how erect the penis is when looking at types of porn (like the second study).

The sample size here is really small, but at least parts of this would seem to somewhat line up with what's public anecdotally. IIRC most of both Spacey and Weaver's victims were in the 14-18 range.

Totally agree about the sample size. I put it there for the same reason you noted: That it includes the type of pathology Spacey and Weaver fell into.

 

[LindyAF]

Here is the thing conservatives need to understand. Regardless of what you think about the LGBT these people are not going to go away. You've tried ignoring them and you have tried locking them up and while it's allowed conservatives to put their head in the sand, like frankenstein's monster it will strike back with a vengeance. This is what happens with EVER lesser class in society. (progressives are making the same mistake with... Well everybody), you can't keep ignoring the issue and think it will go away or will not cause tension later on. You can't be pro liberty and authoritarian. Heck I'd argue you can't be pro life and authoritarian (Pro tribe is not the same as pro life.) Consorvatives need to figure out who they are and commit, not define themselves by what they are or who they are against

Homosexual men are like 2-4% of men, 1-2% of the population. Homosexual women are half that. I suspect (although I don't have evidence for) that bisexuality is more prone to vary with societal acceptance, and that the fraction of the population that is bisexual in a society which is less accepting of them is smaller fraction still- but even in the most accepting ones, I don't think they are more common than homosexual men. Transsexuals are like 0.3% of the population.

For the vast majority of human history, homosexuality was viewed critically, to varying degrees. The past twenty years have historically been the aberration, rather than the norm, even if you take into account the progressive fanfic versions of Greece and Rome.

If you think the current progressive opinions on LGBT issues should be embraced, or some stance in between, argue for it. I understand and to some extent sympathize with the arguments, as I've said I used to think similarly, and it's still one of the issues I'm probably the softest on. But I don't understand at all arguing that the progressive stance on this issue is some inevitability that can't possibly be fought against so you shouldn't even try. This is not some underclass imported for cheap labor, that will inevitably rebel. Every social conservative stance on this issue that has historically been done has not generated more societal tension than was trivial to deal with.

Also, at this risk of derailing the derail thread, but there are different conceptions of liberty, and historically the concept was very different from what social liberal fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and the like try to pretend it was. As someone you'd probably consider an authoritarian, I suspect my view is rather different than yours. I'll make a different thread if we want to go into this.

 

[FriedCFour]

That's the same as the government allowing all people to marry people of only the same race, which wouldn't be considered equal rights. Or only allowing people to marry people of the same gender.

first you’d have to somehow show homosexuality is equal to race for that equivalence, and for the latter that’s nonsensical because I’ve already outlined what the actual purpose is which is procreating and creating families.

The only argument against same sex marriage is really "my religion forbids it", which isn't an argument that the US government can use, as it can't establish a religion. Also, a gay civil marriage doesn't affect you any more than someone having a different religion than you, so I don't see your objection to gay civil marriage having any basis here.

Except I’ve been making arguments the entire time that aren’t just “it goes against my religion.” The reality is that it’s pretended that thats the only argument so you don’t even have to think about it and can just dismiss everything to the contrary. And yes, it absolutely does affect it because of restrictions around businesses and discriminatory laws, as well as again, breaking down societally what the meaning of marriage is, as well as pushing that men and women are interchangeable and that two men being married is as equally valuable as a man and a woman. Oil workers losing their job doesn’t absolutely directly affect me either, at least not as much as it does the oil workers, but I think it harms the economy and the nation. Am I not allowed to care about that either?

Here is the thing conservatives need to understand. Regardless of what you think about the LGBT these people are not going to go away. You've tried ignoring them and you have tried locking them up and while it's allowed conservatives to put their head in the sand, like frankenstein's monster it will strike back with a vengeance. This is what happens with EVER lesser class in society. (progressives are making the same mistake with... Well everybody), you can't keep ignoring the issue and think it will go away or will not cause tension later on. You can't be pro liberty and authoritarian. Heck I'd argue you can't be pro life and authoritarian (Pro tribe is not the same as pro life.) Consorvatives need to figure out who they are and commit, not define themselves by what they are or who they are against

Yes and I have figured out who I am and committed to that, which is someone who wants to kill the libertarian idea of what the founding fathers were and what liberty and equality meant and bring it back to the historical truth, as well as someone who deeply values the nation and the religion and people and culture it was founded upon. My opposition to gay marriage is directly founded in me doing exactly what you’ve said. It’s not based in me just deciding “I’m against the LGBT so I’m against gay marriage.” It’s that I am for the American identity as it was founded and it’s preservation and in spreading what the truth of it is to counteract this pervasive meme version of it spread by many neocon and libertarians that is so grossly twisted from the reality. For the “well they’ve been around forever!” So has crime and so has everything bad too. It’s a terrible argument to try and justify not caring.

Your argument doesn't address at all that being gay is fixed at a very young age, and isn't possible to change.

And yours doesn’t change that if you identify the environmental factors you can mitigate and end them, reducing their numbers.

 

[ShieldWife]

Trump, despite being painted as some kind of right wing fanatic, was actually the first president of the USA to be elected while not opposing gay marriage. Even Barrack Obama claimed to only want civil unions when he ran in 2008. Yet Trump still managed to be a stronger advocate for conservative Americans than his GOP predecessors who opposed gay marriage.

With the degree to which leftists are winning and the right is losing, I’m not sure if we can devote any political capital to opposing gay marriage. I wouldn’t want to anyway, because I think that gay marriage should be allowed, but even if I opposed it, it’s not a hill to die on.

We can still be pro-family, oppose divorces, and emphasize the importance of parenthood without getting hung up on gays who are only something like 2% of the population.

Really, gay marriage should be a 10th Amendment issue. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution, therefore the ability to regulate marriage falls to the states. Personally, I think that it’s a problem that social conservatives even think that the government has the authority to regulate the parts of marriage that they think are important. The government doesn’t regulate who loves who, it doesn’t regulate sexual morals, it doesn’t get to decide what God (if he exists) thinks about anything. All that the government can do is enforce contracts, so that’s really what government marriage should consist of - contacts of shared property that can be entered into by people in a traditional marriage or people who are not.

I think that John Weaver and his ephebophia are probably more closely linked with the Lincoln Project itself than him being gay. The Lincoln Project isn’t a grass roots movement, it is a creation by the elites to try to maintain their control over “conservative” politics. High level establishment shills like Weaver probably often got their jobs by succumbing to honey traps, therefore insuring their loyalty to their masters - hence the importance of guys like Jeffrey Epstein.

 

[FriedCFour]

Trump, despite being painted as some kind of right wing fanatic, was actually the first president of the USA to be elected while not opposing gay marriage. Even Barrack Obama claimed to only want civil unions when he ran in 2008. Yet Trump still managed to be a stronger advocate for conservative Americans than his GOP predecessors who opposed gay marriage.

because he really embraced anti-immigration, populist economics, and America first. His embrace of the LGBT earned him exactly nothing.

With the degree to which leftists are winning and the right is losing, I’m not sure if we can devote any political capital to opposing gay marriage. I wouldn’t want to anyway, because I think that gay marriage should be allowed, but even if I opposed it, it’s not a hill to die on.

With that in mind, I don’t think even a single shred of capital should be spent on holding up gay “conservatives” and on “the left are the REAL homophobes”.

We can still be pro-family, oppose divorces, and emphasize the importance of parenthood without getting hung up on gays who are only something like 2% of the population.

it’s not about getting hung up on gays. It’s the pervasive nature in which the entirety of LGBT culture has invaded the public sphere and demanded rights and equality in ways detrimental and harmful, and how it breaks down the distinction between men and women. It’s about rebuilding the conservative moral fabric and framework into something cohesive, to stop ceding the moral high ground to the left, and to get people to realize where fights need to be had so that way the right can expunge the influence that the left has over culture.

Really, gay marriage should be a 10th Amendment issue. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution, therefore the ability to regulate marriage falls to the states. Personally, I think that it’s a problem that social conservatives even think that the government has the authority to regulate the parts of marriage that they think are important. The government doesn’t regulate who loves who, it doesn’t regulate sexual morals, it doesn’t get to decide what God (if he exists) thinks about anything. All that the government can do is enforce contracts, so that’s really what government marriage should consist of - contacts of shared property that can be entered into by people in a traditional marriage or people who are not.

the government absolutely regulates sexual morals now (see age of consent and bestiality laws) and has since the start. And “love is love” is a very silly platitude. Marriage is not even primarily about loving a spouse it’s about creating and raising an entire family. That’s how it was for virtually all nations and cultures and societies and religions, up until roughly the 60s and 70s in the west as they began to embrace progressive social liberal ideology. And as I showed repeatedly, the founders said that Christian religion and morality is imperative to this nation, John Adams in particular saying the constitution is designed for those people in mind, and that it doesn’t work when you don’t have religion guiding your society.

 

[Abhorsen]

first you’d have to somehow show homosexuality is equal to race for that equivalence, and for the latter that’s nonsensical because I’ve already outlined what the actual purpose is which is procreating and creating families.

No, first I don't have to show that, as we need a governmental reason to impose a difference, and I don't see why limiting the race one can marry is different than limiting the gender. As for procreation and creating families, we don't restrict infertile people from marrying, and gay couples can and do raise families by adoption.

Except I’ve been making arguments the entire time that aren’t just “it goes against my religion.” The reality is that it’s pretended that thats the only argument so you don’t even have to think about it and can just dismiss everything to the contrary. And yes, it absolutely does affect it because of restrictions around businesses and discriminatory laws, as well as again, breaking down societally what the meaning of marriage is, as well as pushing that men and women are interchangeable and that two men being married is as equally valuable as a man and a woman.

No, you really haven't. You've fought with pro-gay arguments, but haven't issued any reason why gay marriage is bad other than that it assaults the definition of marriage, which is defined... by religion. How does gay marriage harm you?

As for laws mandating that businesses participate, I'm against those, but those aren't part and parcel of allowing civil gay marriage.

As for marriage breaking down, gay marriage has caused the complete opposite. First, divorce rates are down. Second, and bigger, the lack of gay acceptance and gay marriage didn't cause less degeneracy, it cause more. I've talked about this before here, but basically cultures where they suppressed gay relationships still had gay people, they were just part of classic gay degeneracy stereotypes. As cultures got more accepting, gays were able to normalize and integrate into culture. The LGBT marriage movement was actually a huge win for family values.

Oil workers losing their job doesn’t absolutely directly affect me either, at least not as much as it does the oil workers, but I think it harms the economy and the nation. Am I not allowed to care about that either?

That's a person distant from you being harmed. A much closer example to what you want would be a liberal complaining that the oil worker is contributing to pollution, and thus the industry should be closed, even though that oil worker has no real affect on the liberals life.

And yours doesn’t change that if you identify the environmental factors you can mitigate and end them, reducing their numbers.

But this again has nothing to do with my point. The point is that being gay is immutable after a short period post birth. You still haven't presented evidence disputing this.

 

[Captain X]

I chose not being very nice and lying. What do my choices say?

That apparently you view gay people in the same light as murderers, which is pretty messed up.

it’s not a nonargument to point out that natural =/= good, that you still have to assert why it’s good outside of just being natural.

No, I don't, because I never made that argument. That would be some straw man you've constructed.

Okay, so they didn’t share those enlightenment values then? We weren’t founded on that? So will you stop appealing to them and claiming you embody them more?

Are you flipping around and arguing against liberty and equality now?

a whole lot of gun nuts do, it’s very popular among libertarians / an-caps. But either way I said like it. Most libertarians idea of liberty that aren’t religious tend to be around the NAP

So basically what I'm getting out of this is that you seem to think you're talking to a stereotype, which I suppose might explain why most of your arguments don't really make any sense.

How so? Each person has the exact same equal right there.

No, they don't. Your example is like some loaded example an SJW comes up with. The upshot of any marriage equality question is going to come down to how you view marriage. If it is meant to be connected in any way to love, then you cannot limit it to just heterosexual couples. Thanks to government being involved, there are all kinds of tax and financial issues tied up in it, not to mention legal rights, such as being able to know a loved one's medical status, and being able to make decisions for them regarding their treatment or whether they are DNR, etc.

.... because we are talking about enlightenment principles and the founding fathers and I have yet to see absolutely anything from the founding fathers or the actually written principles that suggest that it’s a value. This isn’t even an argument of what I believe, this is an argument about historical record and what actual men who existed wrote down and believed.

No, this is you just trying to frame the argument a certain way. It's pretty clear from their writings that the founding fathers valued the ideas of liberty and equality, even if they were still bigoted in that they thought these principals should only apply to white males.

utterly and blatantly false.

This is a matter of historical record. Religious conservatives too often just assume the founding fathers were also Christians when they just wasn't the case. This is the basis they use for the "this is a Christian country" when trying to basically argue in favor of what amounts to theocracy.

Yeah clearly not someone who values Christianity here and was totally a Deist who didn’t believe in anything supernatural. He only prays for the nation and says that the Bible was a work of God and that we will never be happy as a nation unless we follow it. They mainly saw it fairly similar to how I do really.

Well Washington did, at any rate.

based on what, please, please let me know.

The same things I keep harping on - liberty and equality

quote it later then. I’d love to go in depth more on just how many of the founding fathers I can pull up and just how much of their writing and beliefs and ideas I can bring up from a multitude of them.

That would be pointless, so have fun with that. It's the same kind of shit the regressive left likes to do and it is no more effective when they do it.

It’s not an absurd take.

Yes, it is, because you are simply looking for excuses to discriminate against people.

It’s the basic response to the appeal to nature fallacy you are using.

Except I never actually made an appeal to nature - I refuted a specific argument, and you keep just ignoring that. Between this and basically everything else you've said, I'm going to go ahead an assert that you are arguing in bad faith.

Did you miss the bit where I posted that it’s only about 25% genetic according to studies? That even among genetically identical twins there are mass studies that have shown as low as a thirty percent likelihood of both twins being homosexual? Born this way is a meme, it’s not totally genetic, it likely isn’t even majority influenced by genetics.

I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore - here, have someone else's argument.

I made a whole point on it you glossed over, but I don’t really see how I’m treating them as lesser than myself, or in what sense you mean.

If yo ucan't see that, then I have no idea how to explain it to you. It's like explaining how a black person doesn't deserve to be discriminated against to a Klansman. And given the other hints you've left, it seems you aren't arguing in good faith anyway, so there's really nothing more to say.

 

[Captain X]

It also absolutely does cheapen it, because again, it breaks down the fact that it undeniably was about having children, and suggests that two men being married and a man and a woman being married is the same. It cheapens the distinction between man and woman, and calls the two unions equal when they are absolutely not.

If marriage is only about reproduction (in spite of the fact one hardly needs to be married to do so), why then do people like yourself never seem to take issue with old people who are past being able to reproduce getting married? Or people who are otherwise infertile and unable to reproduce getting married? It kind of makes me think that deep down, people who make this argument know that the "it's for having children" is invalid, but just can't think of a better one.

 

[FriedCFour]

No, first I don't have to show that, as we need a governmental reason to impose a difference, and I don't see why limiting the race one can marry is different than limiting the gender. As for procreation and creating families, we don't restrict infertile people from marrying, and gay couples can and do raise families by adoption.

Which hits on the fact that men are not the same as women and that children should be raised not by two men or two women but by a man and a woman. Children are nurtured by having both, sexes are not interchangeable or exactly the same. And on why limiting race is different than gender is because, again, men and women are different from each other, what I’ve already outlined the purpose of marriage is, and because as you’ve already agreed, one is entirely biological and the other isn’t.

No, you really haven't. You've fought with pro-gay arguments, but haven't issued any reason why gay marriage is bad other than that it assaults the definition of marriage, which is defined... by religion. How does gay marriage harm you?

Except I didn’t define it by religion. I defined it by its structure within pretty much every society that had marriage, they had it between men and women regardless of where they were. That’s because the purpose was nearly entirely the same for everyone, and I think we have done tremendous harm by radically changing what the purpose of marriage is. I see the family as the most important building block of society, and so attacks on that are harmful to it. Ive already explained again and again how I see gay marriage as damaging the social fabric and distinction between men and women as well as the purpose of marriages.

As for marriage breaking down, gay marriage has caused the complete opposite. First, divorce rates are down.

but they aren’t having kids which is the point of a marriage and the value of it to society.

Second, and bigger, the lack of gay acceptance and gay marriage didn't cause less degeneracy, it cause more. I've talked about this before here, but basically cultures where they suppressed gay relationships still had gay people, they were just part of classic gay degeneracy stereotypes. As cultures got more accepting, gays were able to normalize and integrate into culture. The LGBT marriage movement was actually a huge win for family values.

absolutely and utterly false without even the tiniest shred of evidence. Gay pride parades have gotten more extravagant and degenerate, you scroll through Tik Tok and the gay section is supremely degenerate, STDs are still massive throughout the gay community, gays still very often have a multitude of partners at once. This is such bullshit I don’t know how you even can say it.

That's a person distant from you being harmed. A much closer example to what you want would be a liberal complaining that the oil worker is contributing to pollution, and thus the industry should be closed, even though that oil worker has no real affect on the liberals life.

yeah, because they value the environment. I don’t see how “but it doesn’t affect you!” Is at all valid. You’re allowed to care about those things that don’t directly impact you.

But this again has nothing to do with my point. The point is that being gay is immutable after a short period post birth. You still haven't presented evidence disputing this.

I kind of have though? That the Kinseyian school would suggest that more tolerable societies would have more engage in and thus identity as LGBT and less tolerable would have less?

 

[Captain X]

This shows me that you subscribe to revisionist histories.

Uh, no. The revisionists would be the ones claiming all the founding fathers were Christian and that their intention was to found a Christian theocracy. I have yet to meet one person who ever made the "it's a Christian nation" argument who even knew about the Jefferson bible.

Actually, it's philosophically consistent. "This exists in nature, therefore there is nothing wrong with it" is a pretty weak argument. You could make the same excuse for schizophrenia, cuckolding, infanticide, etc, but you wouldn't. Therefore you are looking to another factor to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, and appealing to nature is a waste of everybody's time.

It's a good thing that isn't actually the argument I made then. I only ever made a preemptive counter to the "it's unnatural" argument which asserts that homosexuality is a choice that is consciously made rather than just something you are born with.

 

[FriedCFour]

That apparently you view gay people in the same light as murderers, which is pretty messed up.

that would also mean I view murderers in the same light as “people who aren’t very nice”. You’ve honed in one example to obfuscate. I think you can agree that’s unfair.

No, I don't, because I never made that argument. That would be some straw man you've constructed.

then what the fuck is the point of being up nature?

Are you flipping around and arguing against liberty and equality now?

No, as I’ve been arguing the entire time your modern conception of it isn’t the same as it was at the founding.

So basically what I'm getting out of this is that you seem to think you're talking to a stereotype, which I suppose might explain why most of your arguments don't really make any sense.

can say the exact same to you lol.

No, they don't. Your example is like some loaded example an SJW comes up with. The upshot of any marriage equality question is going to come down to how you view marriage. If it is meant to be connected in any way to love, then you cannot limit it to just heterosexual couples.

it’s meant to build families.

Thanks to government being involved, there are all kinds of tax and financial issues tied up in it, not to mention legal rights, such as being able to know a loved one's medical status, and being able to make decisions for them regarding their treatment or whether they are DNR, etc.

yeah that’s all fine by me.

No, this is you just trying to frame the argument a certain way. It's pretty clear from their writings that the founding fathers valued the ideas of liberty and equality, even if they were still bigoted in that they thought these principals should only apply to white males.

Can you please finally show that they see liberty and equality the same way as you do.

This is a matter of historical record. Religious conservatives too often just assume the founding fathers were also Christians when they just wasn't the case. This is the basis they use for the "this is a Christian country" when trying to basically argue in favor of what amounts to theocracy.

if this is theocracy then our first president believed in theocracy. And yes they were absolutely Christians. Please provide some evidence for your claim. I have, you haven’t.

Well Washington did, at any rate.

Yes, so unequivocally the number one founding father. I also showed that John Adams did too. How many more do you need to see? I can find examples from most if not all.

The same things I keep harping on - liberty and equality

Show me what those mean according to the founders. You and leftists disagree on what liberty and equality mean almost certainly. Why do you think yours embodies the enlightenment? Can you show how that lines up with them and what they wrote about it?

That would be pointless, so have fun with that. It's the same kind of shit the regressive left likes to do and it is no more effective when they do it.

“it’s pointless to actually provide any evidence” lol. You are having a hard time dealing with the fact that your idea of the founders doesn’t match up to reality.

Yes, it is, because you are simply looking for excuses to discriminate against people.

Accusing me of just being mean so that way you can ignore what I say.

Except I never actually made an appeal to nature - I refuted a specific argument, and you keep just ignoring that. Between this and basically everything else you've said, I'm going to go ahead an assert that you are arguing in bad faith.

an argument I never made.

If yo ucan't see that, then I have no idea how to explain it to you. It's like explaining how a black person doesn't deserve to be discriminated against to a Klansman. And given the other hints you've left, it seems you aren't arguing in good faith anyway, so there's really nothing more to say.

Accuse me of bad faith because I disagree. Ridiculous.

If marriage is only about reproduction (in spite of the fact one hardly needs to be married to do so), why then do people like yourself never seem to take issue with old people who are past being able to reproduce getting married? Or people who are otherwise infertile and unable to reproduce getting married? It kind of makes me think that deep down, people who make this argument know that the "it's for having children" is invalid, but just can't think of a better one.

You don’t need to be married to reproduce but you damn sure need to have both parents as a family in order to have a stable environment for the child. With old people because it doesn’t do as much damage, and with the infertile because it’s still a man and a woman which is better for raising children and doesn’t break down the actual fabric of what marriage means or that men and women are different. These are also exceptions, not the norm. It’s stupidly obvious it’s to make children and raise them in a home with their family.

Uh, no. The revisionists would be the ones claiming all the founding fathers were Christian and that their intention was to found a Christian theocracy. I have yet to meet one person who ever made the "it's a Christian nation" argument who even knew about the Jefferson bible.

I knew about the Jefferson Bible and I also argue it’s a Christian nation. Congrats, you met one! Did you know any of the quotes I’ve shown so far from our founders? Because I have yet to meet a person who says “they are all deists!” And read any of the quotes I have where they go “hey being Christian is really important for America’s well being”. Where do you find that they are all deists from? Where’s your evidence of that? Because in my dives in I’ve found claims to be fairly spurious and that the only major Deists would be Jefferson and Franklin. So many of them wrote about the importance of religion within our social framework. How much evidence do you need to prove this to you, because I will happily gather all of it.

 

[Abhorsen]

Which hits on the fact that men are not the same as women and that children should be raised not by two men or two women but by a man and a woman. Children are nurtured by having both, sexes are not interchangeable or exactly the same.

First, I need evidence for why do they need both sexes. Second, the other option for gay adopted children isn't being adopted by a straight couple, but not getting adopted at all.

And on why limiting race is different than gender is because, again, men and women are different from each other, what I’ve already outlined the purpose of marriage is, and because as you’ve already agreed, one is entirely biological and the other isn’t.

First, what did I agree to here? what is entirely biological and what isn't?

Second, I think you are arguing that race is a meaningless distinction. Sure. Then why not limit marriage between people of different religions?

Except I didn’t define it by religion. I defined it by its structure within pretty much every society that had marriage, they had it between men and women regardless of where they were. That’s because the purpose was nearly entirely the same for everyone, and I think we have done tremendous harm by radically changing what the purpose of marriage is. I see the family as the most important building block of society, and so attacks on that are harmful to it. Ive already explained again and again how I see gay marriage as damaging the social fabric and distinction between men and women as well as the purpose of marriages.

If you want to go to the historical definition of marriage, are you pro-polygamy then? Because historically, marriages have been very 1 man, many wives.

but they aren’t having kids which is the point of a marriage and the value of it to society.

Neither can infertile couples, but I hear no objection to them marrying.

absolutely and utterly false without even the tiniest shred of evidence. Gay pride parades have gotten more extravagant and degenerate, you scroll through Tik Tok and the gay section is supremely degenerate, STDs are still massive throughout the gay community, gays still very often have a multitude of partners at once. This is such bullshit I don’t know how you even can say it.

The opposite is true. You just know jack shit about gay history, and how degenerate the gay world was.

In the 60s before stone wall, thousands of gay men were having sex with anonymous partners every night, constantly switching, in gay 'meccas' like New York.

In the 1970s, long term gay relationships existed, but were usually plagued by cheating.

In the 90s, we had gay couples that actually lasted without cheating.

And now we have full on married families raising kids, with more gays than ever choosing a coupled life rather than multiple partners.

That sounds to me like a win for family values. As for TikTok's gay section being degenerate, no fucking duh. The entirety of Social media promotes shock value, in which is included degeneracy. What doesn't follow is that gays are more degenerate.

yeah, because they value the environment. I don’t see how “but it doesn’t affect you!” Is at all valid. You’re allowed to care about those things that don’t directly impact you.

Sure, you can care about them, but banning them because you don't like them is wrong. Honestly, even the pollution example is a bad analogy, because at least pollution exists. In contrast, gays getting married only positively affects society.

I kind of have though? That the Kinseyian school would suggest that more tolerable societies would have more engage in and thus identity as LGBT and less tolerable would have less?

No, you haven't. The point I have been making in this side conversation to the larger point is that gays exist and are immutably gay at some point a little after birth. Do you agree with this point or not?

As for your attempted point about a Kinseyian school, that doesn't exist. There's Keynesian school of economics, and there's the Kinsey scale, named after Alfred Kinsey.

 

[Captain X]

because he really embraced anti-immigration, populist economics, and America first. His embrace of the LGBT earned him exactly nothing.

Actually it did earn him votes, not to mention being able to point to this as an example of how he wasn't a bigot in spite of the regressive left insisting that he was.

With that in mind, I don’t think even a single shred of capital should be spent on holding up gay “conservatives” and on “the left are the REAL homophobes”.

Has anyone actually made that argument? I'd argue that they're definitely racist and sexist, but the closest they are to being homophobes is that tiny subset of gays and lesbians who insist that there's no such thing as bisexuals, whom they insist are just confused homosexuals.

it’s not about getting hung up on gays.

Sure seems that way.

It’s the pervasive nature in which the entirety of LGBT culture has invaded the public sphere and demanded rights and equality in ways detrimental and harmful, and how it breaks down the distinction between men and women. It’s about rebuilding the conservative moral fabric and framework into something cohesive, to stop ceding the moral high ground to the left, and to get people to realize where fights need to be had so that way the right can expunge the influence that the left has over culture.

The real moral high ground would be in actually treating people equally rather than defining roles for them based on attributes they cannot control - you know, like the regressive left does.

the government absolutely regulates sexual morals now (see age of consent and bestiality laws) and has since the start.

And just because one should be be against statutory rape and bestiality, it does not follow that one should be against homosexuals and bisexuals being able to, you know, exist, and get treated like a normal person.

And “love is love” is a very silly platitude. Marriage is not even primarily about loving a spouse it’s about creating and raising an entire family.

I find myself amused, because you've actually gone against the argument you made to me previously when I stated that the concept of marriage being based on love is a fairly modern one, and that in the past it was more about alliances (and financial gain). You may not have agreed with the latter portion of that argument, but you seem to have done so with the former part. So I'll ask directly then - what then of aged but heterosexual people getting married? What then of people who are otherwise incapable of reproduction but are heterosexual getting married?

 

[Rocinante]

I'm m not gonna jump right into the middle of this spaghetti posting argument...

But I will throw in, I agree with the poster who said you can't run on an anti-gay platform and win.

That fight is lost. It's time to move on.

And I'm glad it's lost. I'm one of those people @Zachowon referred to. I would never even consider voting for an anti-gay candidate. They deserve all the same rights we do, and that includes marriage.

Don't give me some slippery slope argument either. I actually agree that slippery slope can be a valid argument, but at the same time, you can have lines that you won't cross.

Child trans/pedo stuff that's on the rise? That's a no for me dawg. I'll accept the argument that allowing gay marriage allowed people to move the goal posts to the next thing. The slope is indeed slippery. However, that doesn't mean that gay people, who hurt absolutely nobody, shouldn't have equal rights, or that we can't draw a line and still say NO to other things.

You guys know we have gay/bi conservatives on this site? Why would you want to alienate those voters? Or all the voters who have close friends or family who are gay? This is a ridiculous stance to hold that will just lose you votes. Including mine.

I'll just throw in the old argument I used she. I was arguing this as a liberal: if you don't like gay marriage, then don't have a gay wedding."

Live and let live. I guess that's the libertarian in me.

 

[Laskar]

Uh, no. The revisionists would be the ones claiming all the founding fathers were Christian and that their intention was to found a Christian theocracy. I have yet to meet one person who ever made the "it's a Christian nation" argument who even knew about the Jefferson bible.

I'm one, and both Lordsfire and FriedCFour probably make three. It's a lot more common than you think. Hell, I probably know more about the Jefferson Bible than you do.

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth may have omitted most if not all of the miraculous signs of Jesus, because Thomas Jefferson was a committed naturalist, but it contained all of the moral teachings of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Judeo-Christian moral teachings were absolutely true, and he believed in them far more than the average modern person who thinks that Jesus was merely a good teacher.

Probably you have heard me say I had taken the four Evangelists, had cut out from them every text they had recorded of the moral precepts of Jesus, and arranged them in a certain order; and although they appeared but as fragments, yet fragments of the most sublime edifice of morality which had ever been exhibited to man.

Jefferson believed in those moral teachings enough that he thought his book would be an excellent missionary tool on missions to spread Christianity to the Indians. That's why another copy of the bible was subtitled "Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, Unembarrased [uncomplicated] with Matters of Fact or Faith beyond the Level of their Comprehensions."

So, yeah. Even if Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, he was a committed Christian of a sort. And he was the most atheist of the Deists who had no problem attributing this bit of good fortune to Devine Provenance, or of invoking Christian morality in the operation of society. And those Deists were not the whole of the Founding Fathers, just the most notable.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'm m not gonna jump right into the middle of this spaghetti posting argument...

But I will throw in, I agree with the poster who said you can't run on an anti-gay platform and win.

That fight is lost. It's time to move on.

And I'm glad it's lost. I'm one of those people @Zachowon referred to. I would never even consider voting for an anti-gay candidate. They deserve all the same rights we do, and that includes marriage.

Don't give me some slippery slope argument either. I actually agree that slippery slope can be a valid argument, but at the same time, you can have lines that you won't cross.

Child trans/pedo stuff that's on the rise? That's a no for me dawg. I'll accept the argument that allowing gay marriage allowed people to move the goal posts to the next thing. The slope is indeed slippery. However, that doesn't mean that gay people, who hurt absolutely nobody, shouldn't have equal rights, or that we can't draw a line and still say NO to other things.

You guys know we have gay/bi conservatives on this site? Why would you want to alienate those voters? Or all the voters who have close friends or family who are gay? This is a ridiculous stance to hold that will just lose you votes. Including mine.

I'll just throw in the old argument I used she. I was arguing this as a liberal: if you don't like gay marriage, then don't have a gay wedding."

Live and let live. I guess that's the libertarian in me.

granted I was a teen when this became big hot topic issue but if my memory serves me correct I was just more ticked that the federal government got involved in the marrige debate in the first place when it should have been a state issue or even better a community/personal issue, I frankly think homosexuality is a sin just like divorce edit: (And remarriage) but as God has clearly showed we have the free will and the right to choose what path we take so long as we accept the consequences there of, and frankly the precedents set by anti-lgbt policies aren't much (if any) better than absolute pro-lgbt policies. (Seriously just replace anti-lgbt with anti-trump and suddenly those policies don't taste to good.) this really needs to be a personal and community issue, not a federal one.

 

[Abhorsen]

So, yeah. Even if Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, he was a committed Christian of a sort. And he was the most atheist of the Deists who had no problem attributing this bit of good fortune to Devine Provenance, or of invoking Christian morality in the operation of society. And those Deists were not the whole of the Founding Fathers, just the most notable.

I'm pretty sure believing in the divinity of Jesus is pretty much a requirement for Christianity. I mean, I consider Jesus a valuable moral teacher as well, but I'm definitely no christian (I can't get myself to believe in anything religious, despite attempts).

Regardless the question of what exactly the founding fathers believed in regards to marriage is irrelevant even for an originalist, because the relevant amendments that made marriage constitutional came well afterwards, except maybe the 10th amendment, which could be relevant with regards to DOMA.

 

[Captain X]

that would also mean I view murderers in the same light as “people who aren’t very nice”. You’ve honed in one example to obfuscate. I think you can agree that’s unfair.

No, not really - you said it yourself, and you started right in with that. You set the tone.

then what the fuck is the point of being up nature?

As I've repeatedly stated - it is a counter to the "it's unnatural" argument. I simply stated it preemptively because I pretty much always get that as a response from religious conservatives when it comes to non-heterosexuals enjoying the same rights as them. You're a bit different in that you make a much more childish argument that amounts to "literally the same" by asserting they have the "same right" to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, as I’ve been arguing the entire time your modern conception of it isn’t the same as it was at the founding.

Which was also never my argument. The closest I came to that was cheekily suggesting that libertarians were truer to the enlightenment ideals than social religious conservatives such as yourself.

can say the exact same to you lol.

I'm not the one claiming others are making arguments they actually aren't and demanding they support these arguments they never made, or arguing in circles about what marriage really means.

yeah that’s all fine by me.

Which shows that you are in fact in favor of treating those who were born different as lesser than youself.

Yes, so unequivocally the number one founding father. I also showed that John Adams did too. How many more do you need to see? I can find examples from most if not all.

Washington didn't write the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution, so he's hardly "number one" at anything aside from being President. I could also show plenty of examples of how both he and John Adams failed to live up to what they said, like how one of the first things Washington did as President was to turn around and lead a military force against strikers. Adams wasn't real big on free speech either.

“it’s pointless to actually provide any evidence” lol. You are having a hard time dealing with the fact that your idea of the founders doesn’t match up to reality.

No, it's just pointless to quote mine with someone who's already made up their mind, particularly in service to an argument that's basically a side-show.

Accusing me of just being mean so that way you can ignore what I say.

No, you are just looking for excuses to discriminate against people. Abhorsen made some very good points, including citing studies, which you basically just ignored. This is also the reason I'm really not putting much effort into this argument myself - because I've already had this exact same argument so many times, going back to the Bush administration, and I know it's basically pointless.

Accuse me of bad faith because I disagree. Ridiculous.

No, I'll accuse you of not arguing in good faith, which means that there isn't much point to arguing with you at all.

You don’t need to be married to reproduce but you damn sure need to have both parents as a family in order to have a stable environment for the child.

And there's no reason a gay or lesbian couple can't provide that. In contrast, the regressive left is very much against the concept of a nuclear family and families in general, because families can refute state propaganda and pass on any pesky values they might have.

With old people because it doesn’t do as much damage, and with the infertile because it’s still a man and a woman which is better for raising children and doesn’t break down the actual fabric of what marriage means or that men and women are different. These are also exceptions, not the norm.

Which is why homosexual marriage would also not represent any kind of a harm to marriage, even if one were to accept your premise of marriage being only about reproduction, which I don't. Apparently you don't either, as you've just rationalized two exceptions to it. This illustrates that it really isn't about reproduction as you assert.

I knew about the Jefferson Bible and I also argue it’s a Christian nation. Congrats, you met one!

Yay. And what a stellar example you are. Your argument has basically gone from "all the founders were Christians" to "all the important founders were Christian." hardly an improvement.

 

[Rocinante]

granted I was a teen when this became big hot topic issue but if my memory serves me correct I was just more ticked that the federal government got involved in the marrige debate in the first place when it should have been a state issue or even better a community/personal issue, I frankly think homosexuality is a sin just like divorce but as God has clearly showed we have the free will and the right to choose what path we take so long as we accept the consequences there of, and frankly the precedents set by anti-lgbt policies aren't much (if any) better than absolute pro-lgbt policies. (Seriously just replace anti-lgbt with anti-trump and suddenly those policies don't taste to good.) this really needs to be a personal and community issue, not a federal one.

Thats a fair argument that you didn't want the federal government involved. I've got plenty of respect for that position.

It's somewhat personal to me, as my best friend (and therefore many other friends made through them,) going back the last 12 years or so is gay.

This is the person I rely on the most in life when going through hard times, and the same for them toward me. They're a productive, hard working member of society, that loves and cares for their friends and family, and I wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for them.

And the thought that they couldn't have married their partner is flat out wrong to me. So I extend this to all gay people. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to marry who they love and I don't buy a single argument I have seen against it. I do however, understand and respect your argument, and your logic is something that I do apply to other positions myself.

Maybe it's a double standard from me. Maybe it's inconsistent. I don't know....but I do know that to me it is wrong to oppose them having equal rights, and that it's not hurting anyone to give them equal rights. I was in support of the move that legalized gay marriage when it happened, and I wouldn't want to go back.

 

[FriedCFour]

gonna get back in a bit, the spaghetti posting is getting me lost in the weeds here. Going to write up a big post on all my arguments and positions in a bit.