LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Snip for blatant propaganda

I had a rather well written and deep response to you but then you claimed there are as many alphabet people as there are black Americans and then went out of.your way to lie about trans people and babble about a cabal of pedos infiltrating the soup.

And I don't feel like engaging in a person who uses pedantry and officious language and a mod badge to obscure their biased and zealotry.

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

"Hate the sin, not the sinner,"

You can be religious as you want and still accept gays because you can be religious as it gets and still respect people who don't follow the religion.

You can say, "hey, we have a lot of the same goals even though we disagree on lifestyles. We should work together to further those goals," because guess what? There are a lot of gay people/gay "allies" out there who support things like the second amendment, the first amendment, cutting taxes, fixing the budget, etc.

Many leftists and atheists make the mistake of thinking that religion is something that people should only practice in their churches and in their own heads, but should otherwise play no great part in their lives.

I feel like you may be falling into this mindset.

True faith must be part of a person's entire life to be real. Otherwise it is a lie.

Part living as a Christian is condemning sin. A true Christian must be clear that homosexuality is sinful lest they sin themselves.

That said, I am not against strategic alliances to achieve mutual goals. I am content to let gays live as they wish as long as I and other Christians have the right to condemn their sin.

But you aren't asking for that. You are asking for silence. And that is something that faithful Christians cannot give, not even to defeat the totalitarian left.

After all, this world and all the evils the Democrats do are transitory. Our souls are eternal.

 

[Abhorsen]

What is your foundation for a moral system whereby homosexuality is ethical?

Are you asking anyone, or just Bacle?

I had a rather well written and deep response to you but then you claimed there are as many alphabet people as there are black Americans and then went out of.your way to lie about trans people and babble about a cabal of pedos infiltrating the soup.

And I don't feel like engaging in a person who uses pedantry and officious language and a mod badge to obscure their biased and zealotry.

... First, the amount of people is from exit polls and other studies. I can link the studies if you like? And this isn't the same number as black Americans, as they comprise about 12.5%, or 1/8, while I'm claiming LGBT people make up 5-10%, which is actually backed by studies, and 7% of the electorate (again, backed by the exit poll). As for Trans people, I have not lied about this either, unless you would like to point out the lie?

As for pedantry, given that you never cite any of your sources while making wild claims (see: over half of trans people are pedos, for example), some pedantry (read: asking you to cite sources and using sources to show that your claims don't work) seems justified.

Finally, when have I used my mod badge against you? Or for that matter against anyone else? I'm posting the same way I did before I got it, but now that I have it we're suddenly enemies?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

what I woudn't do for a certain spitting image clip.

 

[LordsFire]

That said, I am not against strategic alliances to achieve mutual goals. I am content to let gays live as they wish as long as I and other Christians have the right to condemn their sin.

To expand on this, I find that usually the problem with working together between Christians and homosexuals, isn't the Christians. I know there are some people who claim to be followers of Christ out there who behave like anything but, and they can be a problem, but the ranting 'fire, brimstone, and no grace!' types were rare by the 90's, much less now. Of course, those who are still like that tend to leave very profound and very painful memories among those who regularly interact with them, so it's understandable some people would have a visceral reaction to them.

I've had homosexual friends who knew I believe homosexuality is immoral. I didn't constantly nag them about it, and some of them liked to debate philosophy and ethics with me regularly; some of them were among my better friends.

Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro notably get along well, as an example of public figures with similar relationships.

The thing is, Dave Rubin can handle Ben Shapiro saying 'I don't believe what you are doing is moral,' and not flip out. Generally speaking, one of the main reasons I've seen for people from the LGBT letter soup not wanting to have anything to do with conservatives, is because they can't handle people who don't affirm their lifestyle. I don't mean that in the literal sense of 'are incapable of,' but in the proverbial sense of 'they flip out and start having a tantrum.'

If you're only willing to work with people if they agree with you 100%, or even 'just' 95%, then the problem isn't them, it's you. This is true for LGBT types and Christians both. (Exempting, of course, cases where the 5% is critically important stuff like 'murder is bad.')

The political left has made its power base for decades by pandering to special interest groups and coddling them. The political right tries to make its power base by taking the attitude of 'These principles are right and true, and let me explain how they'll help you too.' How well this is or is not communicated tends to have a big effect on the success of conservatism as a whole, which is why Reagan as 'The Great Communicator' persuaded so many Democrats to vote for him, and why Trump's 'coarse but real' ability to connect with a lot of people was also pretty effective.

Are you asking anyone, or just Bacle?

Anyone, but I would like an answer from Bacle in particular.

 

[Bacle]

Well, that's an interesting almost-polite rant.

One question:

What is your foundation for a moral system whereby homosexuality is ethical?

Simple, the American moral system, rooted in 'all men are created equal' and 'give me liberty or give me death'.

Equality and liberty are something LGBs deserve too (T's...genuine Ts, yes, trans-trenders, fuck'em), and every time people like you and Fried go on anti-homosexual marriage or just anti-homosexual stuff in general, it reminds them why it took Trump for them to shift right, and why the GOP has historically been their enemy.

When it gets right down to it, the fact is (in the current time) there are a lot of people who have homosexual/bisexual friends, and will not vote for people who want to strip same-sex marriage from them.

If you want to be stubborn, prideful, and petty like Fried, and rather lose a large part of the coalition Trump formed than admit LGBs aren't evil or destructive to society, don't be surprised when ex-Dems and Independents stop voting for you.

 

[Abhorsen]

Anyone, but I would like an answer from Bacle in particular.

Well, I'll give my own 2 part answer to this.

First, regardless of ones position on the morality of homosexuality, legislating morality itself is bad. Legislation is supposed to be about stopping people from harming others, not instituting morality itself. Otherwise, when the opposition gets in power (which they are right now), they'll legislate their morality on you, and try to force bakers to make gay cakes, reception halls to host gay weddings, etc (all of which I find to be wrong). I do recognize that this only applies to rights though, not behavior.

Second, it causes less moral decay and builds a culture of family values, even if it's not perfect. Gay culture pre-Stonewall was incredibly sexually degenerate (it's really the perfect word for this), far more than most conservatives today imagine. Think nightly orgies in a freight trailer in an alley in NYC degenerate (an actual example I heard in a Stonewall documentary). Ever since then, as gay acceptance has improved, lgbt degeneracy has massively declined as we started settling down and having families. And given that LGBT families usually adopt, that's another moral good as the alternative is the kid being raised by the state.

Finally, the LGBT demographic has the lowest percentage of abortions by far (the B's are kinda screwing it up, sorry).

Simple, the American moral system, rooted in 'all men are created equal' and 'give me liberty or give me death'.

Equality and liberty are something LGBs deserve too (T's...genuine Ts, yes, trans-trenders, fuck'em), and every time people like you and Fried go on anti-homosexual marriage or just anti-homosexual stuff in general, it reminds them why it took Trump for them to shift right, and why the GOP has historically been their enemy.

When it gets right down to it, the fact is (in the current time) there are a lot of people who have homosexual/bisexual friends, and will not vote for people who want to strip same-sex marriage from them.

If you want to be stubborn, prideful, and petty like Fried, and rather lose a large part of the coalition Trump formed than admit LGBs aren't evil or destructive to society, don't be surprised when ex-Dems and Independents stop voting for you.

The American system believing in liberty doesn't morally justify gay behavior. It can justify gay rights, but not the behavior. Americans are free to have premarital sex, but that can be seen as immoral. Same with many other things.

Your second reason also isn't a moral reason. That's a political reason.

 

[LordsFire]

Simple, the American moral system, rooted in 'all men are created equal' and 'give me liberty or give me death'.

Equality and liberty are something LGBs deserve too (T's...genuine Ts, yes, trans-trenders, fuck'em), and every time people like you and Fried go on anti-homosexual marriage or just anti-homosexual stuff in general, it reminds them why it took Trump for them to shift right, and why the GOP has historically been their enemy.

When it gets right down to it, the fact is (in the current time) there are a lot of people who have homosexual/bisexual friends, and will not vote for people who want to strip same-sex marriage from them.

If you want to be stubborn, prideful, and petty like Fried, and rather lose a large part of the coalition Trump formed than admit LGBs aren't evil or destructive to society, don't be surprised when ex-Dems and Independents stop voting for you.

You didn't answer my question. 'All men are created equal' does not equate to 'homosexuality is moral.'

Please answer the question. If you believe you did, please explain the chain of reasoning by which 'all men are created equal' results in the conclusion 'homosexuality is moral,' because if it's apparent to you, it's not apparent to me.

Well, I'll give my own 2 part answer to this.

I agree with your first part, but I have seen no evidence of the second.

Legislating morality is an incredibly nuanced topic that I don't want to hijack this thread with. I'll just leave it at 'I don't favor anti-sodomy laws, but I don't believe in redefining marriage either.' I favor a legal and tax system whereby there is no benefit or loss to being married, and giving a partner power of attorney would give the same rights for things like hospital visitation that a married couple would have by default, which would remove legal code issues from the argument anyways.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Are you asking anyone, or just Bacle?


... First, the amount of people is from exit polls and other studies. I can link the studies if you like? And this isn't the same number as black Americans, as they comprise about 12.5%, or 1/8, while I'm claiming LGBT people make up 5-10%, which is actually backed by studies, and 7% of the electorate (again, backed by the exit poll). As for Trans people, I have not lied about this either, unless you would like to point out the lie?

Ahh yes.im supposed to accept academic sources? Haven't in about 15 years. I automatically dismissed any study done past 2005 as political bullshit.

Ive always maintained that a healthy approach to take is "academics are the enemy". Until such time as our side retakes the ivory towers or just.pulls them down.

As for pedantry, given that you never cite any of your sources while making wild claims (see: over half of trans people are pedos, for example), some pedantry (read: asking you to cite sources and using sources to show that your claims don't work) seems justified.

A little pedantry? That's 75% of your posts all the time. I don't normally mind it and I rather find it funny most of the time. But the lives of kids are literally on the line here.

Not the time

Finally, when have I used my mod badge against you? Or for that matter against anyone else? I'm posting the same way I did before I got it, but now that I have it we're suddenly enemies?

No I was saying it makes debating you a risky prospect.

That's why I hated being a mod when I was one. Not that you would abuse it but that I don't trust your peers as far as I can throw them.

Well minus Spartan and Bullethead.

 

[Zachowon]

I say if they are born and raised to live this country give them rights.
If they come here and are willing to become part of the country, as in adapt and assimilate, I say give them rights.

I do not care what one does in bed, as long it is woth consenting adults, I do not care what kind of adults they find attractive. I just care of rheu are willing to defend the American beliefs.

Hell, I will fight aide by side with any of them should they want to defend the country.

That is the outlook conservatives should have.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Generally agree with Zach but with one caveat.

I think it's logistically risky for trans people to serve in the military for the same reason I don't want diabetics and asthmatics serving at least on the lines.

Granted I'm also of the camp that doctors who perform SRS are morally comparable to Shiro IIshi and Joseph Mengele.

Mostly because I consider transitioning to be a human rights atrocity and treating trans people should focus on correcting the neuro chemical imbalances that make them think they're the opposite gender.

 

[Bacle]

The American system believing in liberty doesn't morally justify gay behavior. It can justify gay rights, but not the behavior. Americans are free to have premarital sex, but that can be seen as immoral. Same with many other things.

Your second reason also isn't a moral reason. That's a political reason.

As far as I am concerned, both points are about morality.

On the first point, homosexuals do not have to morally justify their sexual preferences to anyone in order to justify their legal equality, so I do not need to justify it at all to you or anyone.

On the second point, that is about morality; the morality of not wasting time, effort, and political/social capital on lost causes or battles that have already been fought and lost.

You didn't answer my question. 'All men are created equal' does not equate to 'homosexuality is moral.'

As I said above, homosexuals don't have to morally justify themselves or their existence, to you or anyone, so I am not going to either.

Edit: The fact you trad cons think that homosexuals have to 'morally justify' themselves to you lot is fucking hilarious, and shows just how out of touch with political/cultural reality some of you are.

 

[Zachowon]

Generally agree with Zach but with one caveat.

I think it's logistically risky for trans people to serve in the military for the same reason I don't want diabetics and asthmatics serving at least on the lines.

Granted I'm also of the camp that doctors who perform SRS are morally comparable to Shiro IIshi and Joseph Mengele.

Mostly because I consider transitioning to be a human rights atrocity and treating trans people should focus on correcting the neuro chemical imbalances that make them think they're the opposite gender.

I generally agree, except if one has gone fully through thier transition.
Of they have fully transitioned then they can join, if they are transitioning on the other hand.
No.
So that is my stance

 

[Rocinante]

I generally agree, except if one has gone fully through thier transition.
Of they have fully transitioned then they can join, if they are transitioning on the other hand.
No.
So that is my stance

The issue is that even after they transition, they still need regular doses of their medications. Can we guarantee that on a battlefield?

 

[Zachowon]

The issue is that even after they transition, they still need a regular steady dose of their medications. Can we guarantee that on a battlefield?

Non combat roles

 

[Abhorsen]

Ahh yes.im supposed to except academic sources? Haven't in about 15 years. I automatically dismissed any study done past 2005 as political bullshit.

Ive always maintained that a healthy approach to take is "academics are the enemy". Until such time as our side retakes the ivory towers or just.pulls them down.

It's an exit poll. There's no academics in between. They just asked and got answers, of which 7% were LGBT.

A little pedantry? That's 75% of your posts all the time. I don't normally mind it and I rather find it funny most of the time. But the lives of kids are literally on the line here.

Not the time

When someone says "What about the children" (or any other blatant appeal to emotion) that's when one needs to be the most concerned with facts. And you don't have facts backing up what you're saying.

No I was saying it makes debating you a risky prospect.

That's why I hated being a mod when I was one. Not that ou would abuse it but that I don't trust your peers as far as I can throw them.

Well minus Spartan and Bullethead.

Can you at least assume I won't until I do? I figured we got on fine until right now.

 

[LordsFire]

As far as I am concerned, both points are about morality.

On the first point, homosexuals do not have to morally justify their sexual preferences to anyone in order to justify their legal equality, so I do not need to justify it at all to you or anyone.

On the second point, that is about morality; the morality of not wasting time, effort, and political/social capital on lost causes or battles that have already been fought and lost.
As I said above, homosexuals don't have to morally justify themselves or their existence, to you or anyone, so I am not going to either.

Edit: The fact you trad cons think that homosexuals have to 'morally justify' themselves to you lot is fucking hilarious, and shows just how out of touch with political/cultural reality some of you are.

Wow.

I don't even have words for the sheer pretentiousness of this answer. At least it's clear that you're not interested in discussing the subject, but instead interested in lecturing your intellectual and/or moral inferiors.

That's not productive.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I generally agree, except if one has gone fully through thier transition.
Of they have fully transitioned then they can join, if they are transitioning on the other hand.
No.
So that is my stance

Yeah but you're still on hormone injections for life. Even if you're a normal person with a metabolic disorder and need T or estrogen shots that's kind of a risky thing to put on the front lines.

Or rather my point is. I couldn't serve because of asthma and it made a lot of sense to me. I didn't like it but it made sense.

Space is a premium and all.

Can you at least assume I won't until I do? I figured we got on fine until right now.

I thought I made it clear that I was in fact giving you the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Captain X]

I’d rather lose to be honest. What you want isn’t winning to me, and a win for me isn’t just electoral wins but keeping the traditional spirit of America and the west alive, making men stronger and well read and embracing that life. If that is dead I see zero point in doing anything. Every man that rejects liberalism is a win to me.

Oh no, can't possibly compromise and get basically most of what you want from moderates like myself who are most interested in preserving individual liberties (including the right to freely worship) and enforcing equality under the law. If you can't shoehorn everyone into a stereotype under what you consider to be "traditional," it would just be so much better to have the regressive left usher in full-blown communism, or for all that "Great Reset" nonsense to come to fruition.

 

[FriedCFour]

Simple, the American moral system, rooted in 'all men are created equal' and 'give me liberty or give me death'.

The “American moral system” is Christianity Bacle. It’s not your interpretation of what liberty means and what all men are created equal means.

A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion(1784)

original.religlaw.org

Hilarious you say our morality is “give me liberty or give me death” when Patrick Henry by your standards was a theocrat.

Otherwise, when the opposition gets in power (which they are right now), they'll legislate their morality on you, and try to force bakers to make gay cakes, reception halls to host gay weddings, etc (all of which I find to be wrong). I do recognize that this only applies to rights though, not behavior.

They’ve been doing that for decades lol. It becomes one side uses politics to build up institutions that support and push their views and insures them in the public sphere, and the other side first and foremost wants lower taxes. This argument is decades late.

Otherwise, when the opposition gets in power (which they are right now), they'll legislate their morality on you, and try to force bakers to make gay cakes, reception halls to host gay weddings, etc (all of which I find to be wrong). I do recognize that this only applies to rights though, not behavior.

They’ve been doing that for decades lol. It becomes one side uses politics to build up institutions that support and push their views and insures them in the public sphere, and the other side first and foremost wants lower taxes. This argument is decades late.

Second, it causes less moral decay and builds a culture of family values, even if it's not perfect. Gay culture pre-Stonewall was incredibly sexually degenerate (it's really the perfect word for this), far more than most conservatives today imagine. Think nightly orgies in a freight trailer in an alley in NYC degenerate (an actual example I heard in a Stonewall documentary). Ever since then, as gay acceptance has improved, lgbt degeneracy has massively declined as we started settling down and having families.

prove this at all. Desmond is amazing exists and is put on national TV. The Folsom street fair exists and has grown, and has become like, the model of pride parades. STD rates are still high. Lots and lots of casual sex fairly high still among gay men. At most, I can concede there is a small current of people who do embrace family values molded to the LGBT. But that’s it’s reduced it? Come on man, it’s encouraged openly to be more degenerate now, there’s no shame in it. You can openly flaunt and advertise your porn, you can go write article after article about how you have tons of casual sex with dudes or why it’s homophobic to oppose sex with men. Like “nightly orgies in a freight train” now it’s on the streets of San Francisco every year lol. Now it’s in bars and businesses catering to it, events for it.