LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[DocSolarisReich]

Which is probably why we should turn to first principles and then debate those.

I've been here before in other forums. It never actually solves anything. We can argue Aristotelian Hylomorphism or Platonic Realism until we are blue in the face, but the secularists will just stick fingers in their ears, hum real loud, then announce that all of our categories of argument are invalid because they cannot be weighed, measured, or quantified; totally ignorant and uncaring that any argument against metaphysics is also an argument against logic itself or mathematics.

 

[FriedCFour]

...err...now I'm no history professor, but I think that's more down to gunpowder, increased populations, and the development of states into where they could actually afford and equip large professional armies like the Romans did.

And Rome did that over a thousand years before the Enlightenment.

With vastly inferior soldiers to the mounted knight or man at arms, and without the same kind of defenses of castles, with equipment that was also far cheaper and easier to produce. And I’m not saying that it’s because of the enlightenment but that that is what happened in that era. As in, it wasn’t Rome, then dark age, then enlightenment. The dark age is at best the time from the fall to the rise of Charlemagne.

Absolute monarchy goes all the way back to Sumer and Akkad. Bronze Age economies were vastly more centralised than those of 18th century Europe for God's sake.

Not the same kind of absolutism. The absolutism of the 17th to 19th century was based around enlightenment philosophy, and the Enlightenment absolutely gave birth to it in Europe where it was not remotely present in the medieval era. One of the strongest embracers of the enlightenment was Prussia. They were quoted by Voltaire, who was friendly with its ruler, as “an army in possession of a state.” They were an intensely militarized and dictatorial state. In fact, you can trace the military, secular rule of a dictatorship to the enlightenment, as ruling by that measure rather than by God.

 

[Bacle]

*snip*

Being called a fifth column, simply because I am an ex-Dem, Bi, and willing to defend same-sex marriage from fools who want to refight that battle shows you cannot accept any reasoning that falls outside your narrow view of what it means to be a conservative, pro-life, or a moderate.

And it's not like we haven't tried to explain to you why our reasoning is what it is, you simply cannot accept that people can reach the same or similar views to you, without needing religious reasoning.

Like, I happen to be pro-life mostly because I came from a family that had the opposite issue to abortion, and a mother who had multiple miscarriages before I was born. I also am not a fan of the way Planned Parenthood's racist past and goals are skated over by the press and the Dems.

People like me break the nice little molds a lot of fundies like you want to sort moderates and the center into, because you think your religious shit demands all or nothing politics regarding it.

Luckily, I also know that the new leadership of the Right (establishment GOP are going to be primaied like fuck) are not so ideologically dogmatic as you, and none of them are interested in trying to repeal same-sex marriage, or treat people like me as a 'fifth' column.

So whine and gnash your teeth here about how horrible people like me are, how we are enemy agents, and how we are a threat to the social-cons/Right. Because that is all you will ever be able to do against people like me, and you know it.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

You need to understand, I dislike it when people call modern democrats communists and Marxists., they may wear the trappings today but they are something older, they are the monstrous mother of that vile ideology. See modern democrats are Babeufists, Maratists, Robespierreists...They're deconstructivists


Now you can be a commie and a Decon..Pol Pot certainly was, Trotsky probably was given he adopted many of their concepts. But they're not the same thing. And while commies hate religion and worship the state they also kinda like the idea of having a state not embroiled in an endless revolution and they wish to replace Christ/Mohammed/Buddha/Ganesha/whatever with the state as the overgod.

Decon's want to replace Christ with absence, the secularists even burned church relics and idols and would replace them with statues of revolutionary leaders or an abacus or a book.

They drowned thousands of Catholic Children in "secular baptisms lawl" and committed what can only be called a genocide in the vende.

And enthroned a literal streetwalking whore as the embodied 'goddess of reason' in the profaned Cathedral of Strasbourg. But remember liberalism is totally NOT another religion.

And to be clear, Communism, Dialectical Materialism, Marxist-Leninism do come out of the same Enlightenment Revolutionary Fervor that gave us 1649, 1682, 1688, 1776, 1789, 1848, and 1917, which are all of a antinomian, anti-Christ piece.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

And enthroned a literal streetwalking whore as the embodied 'goddess of reason' in the profaned Cathedral of Strasbourg. But remember liberalism is totally NOT another religion.

And to be clear, Communism, Dialectical Materialism, Marxist-Leninism do come out of the same Enlightenment Revolutionary Fervor that gave us 1649, 1682, 1688, 1776, 1789, 1848, and 1917, which are all of a antinomian, anti-Christ piece.

It goes like this

The Gracchi brothers of Ancient Rome-Oliver Cromwell - the deconstructivsts of Revolutionary France- Thomas Jefferson - Karl Marx -The dudes behind proto fascism - Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Castro-Pol Pot - Modern deconstructivists

A lineage of mongrel men and mongrel ideologies.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

It goes like this

The Gracchi brothers of Ancient Rome-Oliver Cromwell - the deconstructivsts of Revolutionary France- Thomas Jefferson - Karl Marx -The dudes behind proto fascism - Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Castro-Pol Pot - Modern deconstructivists

A lineage of mongrel men and mongrel ideologies.

Looks at my custom user title. I'm not saying you're wrong per se, I would just add another line of descent from the Gnostic Neoplatonists to the Nominalist anti-Scholastics (William of Ockham) to the de Medicis to the Rosicrucians to the Enlightenment Philosophes to the Continental Encyclopedists and thence to Revolutionary Brotherhoods and the Modern and Post Modern worlds.

 

[Bacle]

Proof that a least some conservatives get it.

 

[ShieldWife]

Proof that a least some conservatives get it.

It's a position that makes sense to me.

A LGB person can say "I am attracted to and/or have sex with women/men/both and I don't want to be persecuted for it." and that is a true statement. There may be policy disagreements about what that entails, but it is still true. A T person can say "Despite being a biological male/female I an in fact a woman/man and I wish to be treated as one." This is more problematic because it contains a clearly false statement.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

It's a position that makes sense to me.

A LGB person can say "I am attracted to and/or have sex with women/men/both and I don't want to be persecuted for it." and that is a true statement. There may be policy disagreements about what that entails, but it is still true. A T person can say "Despite being a biological male/female I an in fact a woman/man and I wish to be treated as one." This is more problematic because it contains a clearly false statement.

It remains unclear to me, if the below is the standard by which a 'right' for homosexuals to pretend to the dignity of marriage was 'discovered' by process of juridical entrails-reading of the 'constitution', how 'Transgender', or any other self-constructed identity, can be denied.

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

They were quoted by Voltaire, who was friendly with its ruler, as “a state in possession of an army.”

Err, wasn't that "an army in possession of a state"?

 

[ShieldWife]

It remains unclear to me, if the below is the standard by which a 'right' for homosexuals to pretend to the dignity of marriage was 'discovered' by process of juridical entrails-reading of the 'constitution', how 'Transgender', or any other self-constructed identity, can be denied.

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

Well, what a marriage actually is and whether or not anybody has a right to one is in dispute. It's not in dispute that LGB people are in fact attracted to the same gender. It is also in dispute (to say the least) that T are in some metaphysical way the opposite sex than what their biology indicates.

I think that a good argument could be made that the Constitution doesn't recognize or guarantee a right to marriage, though if it did then that right would necessarily have to be extended to more people (or combinations of them) than most LGBT activists would be comfortable with. Legally speaking, gay marriage should be determined by the individual states in accordance to the 10th Amendment.

"Rights" in modern politics has become an extremely problematic idea, since people claim all kinds of rights which traditionally would never have been recognized as rights.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Well, what a marriage actually is and whether or not anybody has a right to one is in dispute. It's not in dispute that LGB people are in fact attracted to the same gender. It is also in dispute (to say the least) that T are in some metaphysical way the opposite sex than what their biological indicates.

I think that an good argument could be made that the Constitution doesn't recognize or guarantee a right to marriage, though if it did then that right would necessarily have to be extended to more people (or combinations of them) than most LGBT activists would be comfortable with. Legally speaking, gay marriage should be determined by the individual states in accordance to the 10th Amendment.

"Rights" in modern politics has become an extremely problematic idea, since people claim all kinds of rights which traditionally would never have been recognized as rights.

All of which I grant, but it is the logic of the Nine Lords in Black that because Identity is arbitrary, muh Freedumb requires the State to hold absolute neutrality in regards to any and every identity whatsoever. Why this logic would exclude any Trans (or Poly, or Pedo, or whatever) identity for whatever reason at all... I don't see it, facts seem to have nothing to do with it.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Well, what a marriage actually is and whether or not anybody has a right to one is in dispute. It's not in dispute that LGB people are in fact attracted to the same gender. It is also in dispute (to say the least) that T are in some metaphysical way the opposite sex than what their biological indicates.

What standard do you apply to determine sex? Chromosomes or flesh or something else?

 

[FriedCFour]

Err, wasn't that "an army in possession of a state"?

My b lol

 

[ShieldWife]

What standard do you apply to determine sex? Chromosomes or flesh or something else?

I know where you're going with this. There are in fact situations that are biologically questionable. One is androgen insensitivity syndrome where a person with XY chromosomes seems to be biologically female because the hormones that create the male phenotype don't have an effect. There are also humans who don't have XY or XX chromosomes and may develop physical characteristics of both males and females. Those are biologically observable edge cases and I wouldn't object to biologists using male/female/other to classify humanity. Could some of those edge cases be placed into male or female? Maybe, sure, but they are edge cases and it's still debatable depending on the reason for categorization.

The existence of such people as I mention above doesn't justify "I feel like a girl therefore I am one" any more than the fact there there might be non-doctors who know as much about medicine and biology as doctors doesn't justify people saying "I feel like a doctor therefore I am one."

If we are going to have regulations that recognize biological sex in a meaningful way: like sporting events for only men or only women, then biological sex must be an issue of biology and not feels.

To answer the question, I might say that a person with XX chromosomes who manifests as physically female is in fact a female, while a person with XY chromosomes who manifests as physically male is in fact a male. If one of those conditions aren't met, we can go with a broad (yet demographically tiny) other category. How the person feels shouldn't factor into this determination.

 

[ShieldWife]

All of which I grant, but it is the logic of the Nine Lords in Black that because Identity is arbitrary, muh Freedumb requires the State to hold absolute neutrality in regards to any and every identity whatsoever. Why this logic would exclude any Trans (or Poly, or Pedo, or whatever) identity for whatever reason at all... I don't see it, facts seem to have nothing to do with it.

It's not logically consistent, these identities are used by the left to wage their culture war and can be changed (or hypocritically applied) at their convenience.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

It's not logically consistent, these identities are used by the left to wage their culture war and can be changed (or hypocritically applied) at their convenience.

Precisely. Thus I have no need to submit my conscience to the magisterium of the Nine.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I know where you're going with this. There are in fact situations that are biologically questionable. One is androgen insensitivity syndrome where a person with XY chromosomes seems to be biologically female because the hormones that create the male phenotype don't have an effect. There are also humans who don't have XY or XX chromosomes and may develop physical characteristics of both males and females. Those are biologically observable edge cases and I wouldn't object to biologists using male/female/other to classify humanity. Could some of those edge cases be placed into male or female? Maybe, sure, but they are edge cases and it's still debatable depending on the reason for categorization.

The existence of such people as I mention above doesn't justify "I feel like a girl therefore I am one" any more than the fact there there might be non-doctors who know as much about medicine and biology as doctors doesn't justify people saying "I feel like a doctor therefore I am one."

If we are going to have regulations that recognize biological sex in a meaningful way: like sporting events for only men or only women, then biological sex must be an issue of biology and not feels.

To answer the question, I might say that a person with XX chromosomes who manifests as physically female is in fact a female, while a person with XY chromosomes who manifests as physically male is in fact a male. If one of those conditions aren't met, we can go with a broad (yet demographically tiny) other category. How the person feels shouldn't factor into this determination.

All right. So we have people who are approximately male or female, people who don't quite fit all the criteria but who come close enough that we consider them male or female.

I certainly agree with the idea that people don't get to wake up and say "I'm feeling male today" and force everyone else to play along. But why do we need to prevent people from changing their body from one approximate to the other?

 

[King Arts]

All right. So we have people who are approximately male or female, people who don't quite fit all the criteria but who come close enough that we consider them male or female.

I certainly agree with the idea that people don't get to wake up and say "I'm feeling male today" and force everyone else to play along. But why do we need to prevent people from changing their body from one approximate to the other?

Because it is mutilation. Note however that not even all conservatives are neccesarily for banning the surgery. Some will say if an adult wants to do that fine. But other people should not be forced to call them by what ever pro nouns they want, (especially if they don't pass, and look like a freak) and they should definitely be forced to disclose their identity to any romantic partners before they try anything otherwise that is rape, oh and here is another one, DOING THE IRREVERSIBLE SURGERY ON KIDS is definitely fucked up. I mean if you are going to make laws limiting kids from drinking, voting, driving, etc. you should not allow them to make THIS choice, because that has FAR bigger consequences than drinking when you are 12, or whatever.

 

[Bacle]

All right. So we have people who are approximately male or female, people who don't quite fit all the criteria but who come close enough that we consider them male or female.

I certainly agree with the idea that people don't get to wake up and say "I'm feeling male today" and force everyone else to play along. But why do we need to prevent people from changing their body from one approximate to the other?

Because they are demanding the rest of us humor the lie they want to live.

LGBs do not feel the need to lie about our junk or our biology; Ts do, and think a few biological edge cases justify hijacking the LGB movement, and protraying biological sex and sexual oreintation as no longer mattering, just 'gender'.

Because it is mutilation. Note however that not even all conservatives are neccesarily for banning the surgery. Some will say if an adult wants to do that fine. But other people should not be forced to call them by what ever pro nouns they want, (especially if they don't pass, and look like a freak) and they should definitely be forced to disclose their identity to any romantic partners before they try anything otherwise that is rape, oh and here is another one, DOING THE IRREVERSIBLE SURGERY ON KIDS is definitely fucked up. I mean if you are going to make laws limiting kids from drinking, voting, driving, etc. you should not allow them to make THIS choice, because that has FAR bigger consequences than drinking when you are 12, or whatever.

Yeah, no one under 18 should ever be put on transistioning hormones, and not one public dollar should be spent on transition expenses for anyone.

If someone wants to transition, they can do it once they are 18 and can do it on their own dime.