Right-Wing Discussion Thread Part Two

[The V O I D]

I wish there was a way to inject experiences unto other people's minds. That way, we could inject the experiences - negative and positive - of the LGBT Community as a whole into social conservatives. Then, suddenly, social conservatism would go extinct.

If only...

Yeah. No.

No, you don't want social conservatives to experience both the good and the bad of the LGBT Community; or no, you don't think they'd all disappear?

I'm pretty sure they would. Only way-too-overzealous theocrats would continue to exist, and they'd lack any support they'd need from the people, perhaps even from people within their own militaries and governments and police forces if they are in control of their country.

[The V O I D]

You and Dio do not represent the entire LGBT Community or their experiences. And I'm pretty sure you're both committing self-harm, psychologically speaking, in an unintentional manner. Not everyone is willing to do that to themselves just to conform to what you believe is normal.

What about their experiences could possibly change what we hold to be an eternal truth?

Let's see; an entire history of being whipped, locked up, killed, attacked, assaulted, raped, and forcefully made to repress themselves by various religions? Combined with modern day existence of "conversion therapy" (aka physical torture under the guise of 'helping' people be someone they aren't) created by religious people and others who don't like LGBTs or the way they live their lives. All combined with the bullying, torment, assault if they are youths; and the risk of being told they can't love who they want to love or be who they are because some magical bearded wizard said so after condemning one of his sky-fairies to some fiery pit?

The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the gist.

[United Marxist Nations]

What about their experiences could possibly change what we hold to be an eternal truth?

Let's see; an entire history of being whipped, locked up, killed, attacked, assaulted, raped, and forcefully made to repress themselves by various religions? Combined with modern day existence of "conversion therapy" (aka physical torture under the guise of 'helping' people be someone they aren't) created by religious people and others who don't like LGBTs or the way they live their lives. All combined with the bullying, torment, assault if they are youths; and the risk of being told they can't love who they want to love or be who they are because some magical bearded wizard said so after condemning one of his sky-fairies to some fiery pit?

The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the gist.

So? None of that addresses why we're against LGBT activities.

[Aelex]

No, you don't want social conservatives to experience both the good and the bad of the LGBT Community; or no, you don't think they'd all disappear?

I'm pretty sure they would. Only way-too-overzealous theocrats would continue to exist, and they'd lack any support they'd need from the people, perhaps even from people within their own militaries and governments and police forces if they are in control of their country.

No. I don't think they would all disappear. I'm a social conservative and, honestly, the LGBT community play for little into my belief. If I'm a social conservative, it's because I believe that new don't automatically mean better and that progress isn't something you should rush.
I have nothing against the LGBT community but I don't support it neither, I just don't care at all about it and making me "experience" what someone who is part of it live isn't likely to make me change said belief.

Most people supporting this ideology are most likely the same. They don't give much shit about gays in general and even if they did "experience" what gays live, it's still unlikely that it would be enough for them to stop holding the ideology they were because, once more, the LGBT community isn't that important.

[Ashkera]

1. There's some stuff to indicate it could be involved in pair bonding, which could be undermined by promiscuity wearing out the mechanism.

2. For the fertile, there is risk of baby. Baby is best raised in stable 2-parent home.

3. It's quite possible that lack of desire for promiscuous women among some men is natural, much like how some women naturally prefer tall men.

4. Disease risk.

1. Some stuff =/= fact. And, besides. Not everyone wants to be a pair, and some people consider 'relationships' and 'sex' to be separate

2. Condoms/Birth Control/Abortion/Adoption

3. Eh. I mean, not quite sure why a in depth discussion of sexual history would be involved in every encounter.

4. Did I mention condoms?

1. Well, divorce rates start low, increase for the first few partners (roughly), then decline until around ten, then start increasing again. The exact causality isn't known, but for many people sex, relationships, and emotions aren't something they can just separate. I know I can't. Telling them they can sleep around as much as they want is bad advice for them, and they may be the majority. It probably isn't limited to marriage, but all long-term romantic relationships.

2. If you're the guy, the girl controls basically all of that.

3. It isn't. Many men who care will sleep with someone they won't marry. It's a double standard, though many women will do the same.

4. Not fully effective.

Having lots of promiscuous sex, especially with strangers, is risky behavior.

I drink maybe once a month. If you go binge drinking, indeed, you are being stupid and shouldn't do that.

If you're having sex only in the context of romantic relationships, it's not nearly so risky.

The definition of binge drinking is, I think, a little too subjective to make this a particularly meaningful analogy.

That's a cop out. You are entirely aware that drinking too much is straight-up dumb. Don't try to get around that by haggling over the definition.

[The V O I D]

Let's see; an entire history of being whipped, locked up, killed, attacked, assaulted, raped, and forcefully made to repress themselves by various religions? Combined with modern day existence of "conversion therapy" (aka physical torture under the guise of 'helping' people be someone they aren't) created by religious people and others who don't like LGBTs or the way they live their lives. All combined with the bullying, torment, assault if they are youths; and the risk of being told they can't love who they want to love or be who they are because some magical bearded wizard said so after condemning one of his sky-fairies to some fiery pit?

The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the gist.

So? None of that addresses why we're against LGBT activities.

Magic bearded wizards and sky fairies have no place in State affairs, including marriage. Especially with the damage they've already done.

That's my point.

No, you don't want social conservatives to experience both the good and the bad of the LGBT Community; or no, you don't think they'd all disappear?

I'm pretty sure they would. Only way-too-overzealous theocrats would continue to exist, and they'd lack any support they'd need from the people, perhaps even from people within their own militaries and governments and police forces if they are in control of their country.

No. I don't think they would all disappear. I'm a social conservative and, honestly, the LGBT community play for little into my belief. If I'm a social conservative, it's because I believe that new don't automatically mean better and that progress isn't something you should rush.
I have nothing against the LGBT community but I don't support it neither, I just don't care at all about it and making me "experience" what someone who is part of it live isn't likely to make me change said belief.

Most people supporting this ideology are most likely the same. They don't give much shit about gays in general and even if they did "experience" what gays live, it's still unlikely that it would be enough for them to stop holding the ideology they were because, once more, the LGBT community isn't that important.

The LGBT Community is being discriminated against, and actively targeted. Ignorance isn't bliss, it is just allowing more harm and damage to come to the community unnecessarily, when the State can intervene and stop this discrimination and harm. Which, it should. The State is where all authority comes from; not some novel that's so outdated it could be fossilized, and definitely not from bearded wizards with sky-fairies for pets.

They are important because they are the group in question being currently discriminated against and harmed by society. Until this stops and they are no longer being discriminated against or harmed, they will be important. The reason they are important and are the main issue of today is exactly because of this.

[United Marxist Nations]

So? None of that addresses why we're against LGBT activities.

Magic bearded wizards and sky fairies have no place in State affairs, including marriage. Especially with the damage they've already done.

That's my point.

Then we will obviously never agree. As I said, personal experiences don't actually address why we're against it.

[The V O I D]

Magic bearded wizards and sky fairies have no place in State affairs, including marriage. Especially with the damage they've already done.

That's my point.

Then we will obviously never agree. As I said, personal experiences don't actually address why we're against it.

Why are you against it, then? I'd prefer a rational answer to a religious one. If because it isn't natural - there are proofs after proofs that there are psychological and neurological, as well as biological, reasons for the various sexualities that exist, as well as similar reasons for gender identity being in opposition to biological sex.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then we will obviously never agree. As I said, personal experiences don't actually address why we're against it.

Why are you against it, then? I'd prefer a rational answer to a religious one. If because it isn't natural - there are proofs after proofs that there are psychological and neurological, as well as biological, reasons for the various sexualities that exist, as well as similar reasons for gender identity being in opposition to biological sex.

If you can't accept a religious answer, then there is nothing to discuss.

[Aelex]

The LGBT Community is being discriminated against, and actively targeted. Ignorance isn't bliss, it is just allowing more harm and damage to come to the community unnecessarily, when the State can intervene and stop this discrimination and harm. Which, it should. The State is where all authority comes from; not some novel that's so outdated it could be fossilized, and definitely not from bearded wizards with sky-fairies for pets.

They are important because they are the group in question being currently discriminated against and harmed by society. Until this stops and they are no longer being discriminated against or harmed, they will be important. The reason they are important and are the main issue of today is exactly because of this.

Once more, why am I supposed to care? Why should the State care for more than merely stopping violence from occurring?
You're free to chose your lifestyle. People are free to disapprove of it.
And, while I agree that it's from the State that all the authority come from (or rather that the State is the embodiment of the will of the people and draw its authority from it), why should I let the State dictate my own morals? Your dismissal of religion, for all edgy it is, don't actually address the point that, as a Christian, I am to follow a specific set of moral that, while conflicting with my own personnals ethics sometime, I need to upheld no matter what over my own opinions or desires.
Now, I agree that gays shouldn't be harmed because they're gays nor trans because they're trans and that the State should make sure of it but, apart from that, why should I "accept" them when it go against my beliefs and why should the State force me to do so?
Why should I throw away what my faith command me to just to please other people and why should the State give them more than mere protection?

[The V O I D]

Why are you against it, then? I'd prefer a rational answer to a religious one. If because it isn't natural - there are proofs after proofs that there are psychological and neurological, as well as biological, reasons for the various sexualities that exist, as well as similar reasons for gender identity being in opposition to biological sex.

If you can't accept a religious answer, then there is nothing to discuss.

Exactly, because unless you can supply a rational non-religious answer, there is nothing to discuss as there shouldn't be anything wrong with the State giving people their social rights. The State is the ultimate authority over man because it is physical, here, and now. It has a duty to its citizens to ensure they have standards of living that don't involve crippling depression or other horrible things happening to them. Therefor, the LGBT Community must be given its rights, as it is a State matter; not one for the concern of magic bearded wizards who think they have the right to govern man because magic, and definitely not one for a novel written two thousand years ago when social conservatism was the norm.

It is up to the State, and only the State. If you can only give a religious concerned answer, then there is no answer and you default to being wrong. It is a State matter; and State matters are solved in a secular, humanist manner. No religion has governance or governing powers.

[United Marxist Nations]

If you can't accept a religious answer, then there is nothing to discuss.

Exactly, because unless you can supply a rational non-religious answer, there is nothing to discuss as there shouldn't be anything wrong with the State giving people their social rights. The State is the ultimate authority over man because it is physical, here, and now. It has a duty to its citizens to ensure they have standards of living that don't involve crippling depression or other horrible things happening to them. Therefor, the LGBT Community must be given its rights, as it is a State matter; not one for the concern of magic bearded wizards who think they have the right to govern man because magic, and definitely not one for a novel written two thousand years ago when social conservatism was the norm.

It is up to the State, and only the State. If you can only give a religious concerned answer, then there is no answer and you default to being wrong. It is a State matter; and State matters are solved in a secular, humanist manner. No religion has governance or governing powers.

See, I disagree. In my mind, if the state does not submit itself to God, then that state doesn't deserve to hold a position of any authority.

[The V O I D]

The LGBT Community is being discriminated against, and actively targeted. Ignorance isn't bliss, it is just allowing more harm and damage to come to the community unnecessarily, when the State can intervene and stop this discrimination and harm. Which, it should. The State is where all authority comes from; not some novel that's so outdated it could be fossilized, and definitely not from bearded wizards with sky-fairies for pets.

They are important because they are the group in question being currently discriminated against and harmed by society. Until this stops and they are no longer being discriminated against or harmed, they will be important. The reason they are important and are the main issue of today is exactly because of this.

Once more, why am I supposed to care? Why should the State care for more than merely stopping violence from occurring?
You're free to chose your lifestyle. People are free to disapprove of it.
And, while I agree that it's from the State that all the authority come from (or rather that the State is the embodiment of the will of the people and draw its authority from it), why should I let the State dictate my own morals? Your dismissal of religion, for all edgy it is, don't actually address the point that, as a Christian, I am to follow a specific set of moral that, while conflicting with my own personnals ethics sometime, I need to upheld no matter what over my own opinions or desires.
Now, I agree that gays shouldn't be harmed because they're gays nor trans because they're trans and that the State should make sure of it but, apart from that, why should I "accept" them when it go against my beliefs and why should the State force me to do so?
Why should I throw away what my faith command me to just to please other people and why should the State give them more than mere protection?

It isn't your duty to question the State. Matters of religion do not govern what the State does. The State should always do things in the interests of their people; not their religious beliefs, nor for religions. The State governs us. Not anything else. If something goes against the interests of their people (i.e. psychological or physical harm, etc.), it should be solved somehow or some way. Marriage is a State matter, as it is an agreement of union between two people that the State presides over and legally acknowledges. Religious 'marriage' in a church or whatever is a formality, if that, and just two people expressing their beliefs in the process of marrying someone they love. I don't think we should force religious institutions to marry people, unless the church formed a legally binding contract beforehand with the people - whether they knew the couple was homosexual or not is irrelevant. Once a legally-binding contract is made, the State can and will enforce this contract on behalf of the people in question if the church fails to do so. Churches, so long as there is no binding contract, can feel free to refuse people; the people will likely go elsewhere or simply marry in a courtroom if they so wish.

[The V O I D]

Exactly, because unless you can supply a rational non-religious answer, there is nothing to discuss as there shouldn't be anything wrong with the State giving people their social rights. The State is the ultimate authority over man because it is physical, here, and now. It has a duty to its citizens to ensure they have standards of living that don't involve crippling depression or other horrible things happening to them. Therefor, the LGBT Community must be given its rights, as it is a State matter; not one for the concern of magic bearded wizards who think they have the right to govern man because magic, and definitely not one for a novel written two thousand years ago when social conservatism was the norm.

It is up to the State, and only the State. If you can only give a religious concerned answer, then there is no answer and you default to being wrong. It is a State matter; and State matters are solved in a secular, humanist manner. No religion has governance or governing powers.

See, I disagree. In my mind, if the state does not submit itself to God, then that state doesn't deserve to hold a position of any authority.

The State shouldn't have to submit itself to any being. At worst, it should have to submit to its people (democracy); at best, it should only submit unto itself (dictatorship). The State is the ultimate authority, and no one has the right to question matters of the State; especially if they have to default to magical sky fairies, bearded wizards, hocus pokus and 2,000 year old books to support their claim. The State is called such for a reason. It states what is law; it determines what is in the best interests of its people.

Now, this may be corrupted by my own opinion politically speaking, but an idealistic society is one I call 'neo-Bonapartist'; or Bonapartism with Liberalism. Essentially, it takes this;

The term was used more generally for a political movement that advocated a dictatorship or authoritarian centralized state, with a strongman charismatic leader based on anti-elitist rhetoric, army support, and conservatism.

and turns it into this;

...a political movement that advocated a dictatorship or authoritarian centralized state, with a strongman charismatic leader based on anti-elitist rhetoric, army support, and social liberalism.

[United Marxist Nations]

See, I disagree. In my mind, if the state does not submit itself to God, then that state doesn't deserve to hold a position of any authority.

The State shouldn't have to submit itself to any being. At worst, it should have to submit to its people (democracy); at best, it should only submit unto itself (dictatorship). The State is the ultimate authority, and no one has the right to question matters of the State; especially if they have to default to magical sky fairies, bearded wizards, hocus pokus and 2,000 year old books to support their claim. The State is called such for a reason. It states what is law; it determines what is in the best interests of its people.

Now, this may be corrupted by my own opinion politically speaking, but an idealistic society is one I call 'neo-Bonapartist'; or Bonapartism with Liberalism. Essentially, it takes this;

The term was used more generally for a political movement that advocated a dictatorship or authoritarian centralized state, with a strongman charismatic leader based on anti-elitist rhetoric, army support, and conservatism.

and turns it into this;

...a political movement that advocated a dictatorship or authoritarian centralized state, with a strongman charismatic leader based on anti-elitist rhetoric, army support, and social liberalism.

Your just supplanting God's role with that of the state. The state is not some arbiter of the truth, it is merely an instrument by which society enforces its rules.

[The V O I D]

The State shouldn't have to submit itself to any being. At worst, it should have to submit to its people (democracy); at best, it should only submit unto itself (dictatorship). The State is the ultimate authority, and no one has the right to question matters of the State; especially if they have to default to magical sky fairies, bearded wizards, hocus pokus and 2,000 year old books to support their claim. The State is called such for a reason. It states what is law; it determines what is in the best interests of its people.

Now, this may be corrupted by my own opinion politically speaking, but an idealistic society is one I call 'neo-Bonapartist'; or Bonapartism with Liberalism. Essentially, it takes this;



and turns it into this;

Your just supplanting God's role with that of the state. The state is not some arbiter of the truth, it is merely an instrument by which society enforces its rules.

I am a secular humanist and a self-proclaimed neo-Bonapartist.

As for your statement, the State is the ultimate authority. It is physical, it is here, and it genuinely exists without need for faith. I only care for things that are here and now. The State should never discriminate, and should always encourage a united human front. We are all humans. Forget races, forget sexes, forget gender identity and sexuality; enjoy being human. We are all humans; and thus we should all be treated as such, regardless of whatever minor differences. The State should have that sort of stance to be doing its job correctly. The State should enforce such a stance to be doing its job correctly.

[Northern Davincia]

What about their experiences could possibly change what we hold to be an eternal truth?

Let's see; an entire history of being whipped, locked up, killed, attacked, assaulted, raped, and forcefully made to repress themselves by various religions? Combined with modern day existence of "conversion therapy" (aka physical torture under the guise of 'helping' people be someone they aren't) created by religious people and others who don't like LGBTs or the way they live their lives. All combined with the bullying, torment, assault if they are youths; and the risk of being told they can't love who they want to love or be who they are because some magical bearded wizard said so after condemning one of his sky-fairies to some fiery pit?

The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the gist.

Clearly someone is forgetting how polite the Soviet Union was towards the LGBT community.

[The V O I D]

Let's see; an entire history of being whipped, locked up, killed, attacked, assaulted, raped, and forcefully made to repress themselves by various religions? Combined with modern day existence of "conversion therapy" (aka physical torture under the guise of 'helping' people be someone they aren't) created by religious people and others who don't like LGBTs or the way they live their lives. All combined with the bullying, torment, assault if they are youths; and the risk of being told they can't love who they want to love or be who they are because some magical bearded wizard said so after condemning one of his sky-fairies to some fiery pit?

The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the gist.

Clearly someone is forgetting how polite the Soviet Union was towards the LGBT community.

The Soviets and the Nazis don't need to be explained, though. I think it goes without saying they were horrible.

[United Marxist Nations]

Clearly someone is forgetting how polite the Soviet Union was towards the LGBT community.

The Soviets and the Nazis don't need to be explained, though. I think it goes without saying they were horrible.

You said the state was the ultimate authority, which means that they couldn't have been horrible, because their authority makes them right by virtue of being the state.

[Northern Davincia]

Clearly someone is forgetting how polite the Soviet Union was towards the LGBT community.

The Soviets and the Nazis don't need to be explained, though. I think it goes without saying they were horrible.

The Soviet case is a special one, seeing as how they were militant atheists that also oppressed sexual deviants.
The Nazis were simply intent on wiping out any threat to building an Aryan master race, which includes LGBT folk.

[The East Marches]

I wish there was a way to inject experiences unto other people's minds. That way, we could inject the experiences - negative and positive - of the LGBT Community as a whole into social conservatives. Then, suddenly, social conservatism would go extinct.

If only...

Yes, I wish for such a thing too. Maybe then this country would have less naive fools and dreamers trying impractical ideas. It would a good thing for them witness a bit of horror.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Let's see; an entire history of being whipped, locked up, killed, attacked, assaulted, raped, and forcefully made to repress themselves by various religions? Combined with modern day existence of "conversion therapy" (aka physical torture under the guise of 'helping' people be someone they aren't) created by religious people and others who don't like LGBTs or the way they live their lives. All combined with the bullying, torment, assault if they are youths; and the risk of being told they can't love who they want to love or be who they are because some magical bearded wizard said so after condemning one of his sky-fairies to some fiery pit?

The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the gist.

Clearly someone is forgetting how polite the Soviet Union was towards the LGBT community.

V O I D isn't a commie.

Also, V O I D, if you ever make this regime, I'd like a job

[Aelex]

Once more, why am I supposed to care? Why should the State care for more than merely stopping violence from occurring?
You're free to chose your lifestyle. People are free to disapprove of it.
And, while I agree that it's from the State that all the authority come from (or rather that the State is the embodiment of the will of the people and draw its authority from it), why should I let the State dictate my own morals? Your dismissal of religion, for all edgy it is, don't actually address the point that, as a Christian, I am to follow a specific set of moral that, while conflicting with my own personnals ethics sometime, I need to upheld no matter what over my own opinions or desires.
Now, I agree that gays shouldn't be harmed because they're gays nor trans because they're trans and that the State should make sure of it but, apart from that, why should I "accept" them when it go against my beliefs and why should the State force me to do so?
Why should I throw away what my faith command me to just to please other people and why should the State give them more than mere protection?

It isn't your duty to question the State. Matters of religion do not govern what the State does. The State should always do things in the interests of their people; not their religious beliefs, nor for religions. The State governs us. Not anything else. If something goes against the interests of their people (i.e. psychological or physical harm, etc.), it should be solved somehow or some way. Marriage is a State matter, as it is an agreement of union between two people that the State presides over and legally acknowledges. Religious 'marriage' in a church or whatever is a formality, if that, and just two people expressing their beliefs in the process of marrying someone they love. I don't think we should force religious institutions to marry people, unless the church formed a legally binding contract beforehand with the people - whether they knew the couple was homosexual or not is irrelevant. Once a legally-binding contract is made, the State can and will enforce this contract on behalf of the people in question if the church fails to do so. Churches, so long as there is no binding contract, can feel free to refuse people; the people will likely go elsewhere or simply marry in a courtroom if they so wish.

What's with this total and utter non sequitur?
I simply can't respond to this post since it has litteraly nothing to do with what I said so, please, just re-read what I said and actually respond to the points I made rather than the ones you wish I had.

[Northern Davincia]

I wish there was a way to inject experiences unto other people's minds. That way, we could inject the experiences - negative and positive - of the LGBT Community as a whole into social conservatives. Then, suddenly, social conservatism would go extinct.

If only...

Yes, I wish for such a thing too. Maybe then this country would have less naive fools and dreamers trying impractical ideas. It would a good thing for them witness a bit of horror.

Wouldn't there just be a violent backlash against the people who forced others to witness horrific visions?
Sympathy is not a trait that you can tear out from the hearts of social conservatives.

[The East Marches]

Here in the US, I remember when it was fundamentalist conservatives who wanted to censor everything under the pretense of "think of the children." It was stupid then, and no one batted an eye when I criticized them.

Now it's the politically correct left wing which tries to censor everything under the pretense of "equality." It's still stupid now, but the difference is there are people who actually expect you to make the double standard of supporting them.

I'm glad somebody cares for free speech. I have been in a similar boat.

On that note, I do this it's telling that Rambo IV is acceptable but a pair of tits is not. Both sides are largely ok with that as it stands now.