NationStates

Can queers be socially conservative (and I don't mean celibate homosexuals, I mean open queers)? Perhaps a bizarre question, seeing as how opposition to queers is the mainstay of social conservatism today.

Some would argue that, yes, quuers can be socially conservative, because social conservatism needs to update for the times. I argue that queers can be socially conservative for precisely the opposite reason. The fact is that LGBT has allowed social conservatives to abandon the original issues that defined then, such as opposition to divorce (On Divorce, by Louis de Bonald, is a seminal conservative work). Pornography has been allowed to run rampant, as has very inappropriate programming for public television. With the rise of LGBT rights, all these serious issues were dropped by social conservatism. But these are the ones coming into everyone's home and subverting our morals and families. It's almost as if queers are more an issue because they're easier, they don't require addressing the vices plaguing the regular family; they allow an externalization of major problems, transferring them to a little demographic.

If a queer ran for an office on a platform of addressing epidemics like these, any serious conservative (I don't mean crypto liberal) would certainty be obliged to support such a candidate rather than an opposition which opposed queers but failed to confront the heavier concerns. No one can really say there is anything socially conservative about a queer lifestyle, but it can be truthfully said that the filth and narcissism the international capitalist is polluting the folk with is a far more critical concern for conservatives, these concerns fake "conservatives" often fail to address due to alliance with money.

Yes. Consult link.

Note the italics on the "folk".

Oh Parkus, and you don't want us to pull a "literally sHitler"?

Yeah of course

Yes.

Mardla wrote:Can queers be socially conservative (and I don't mean celibate homosexuals, I mean open queers)? Perhaps a bizarre question, seeing as how opposition to queers is the mainstay of social conservatism today.

Some would argue that, yes, quuers can be socially conservative, because social conservatism needs to update for the times. I argue that queers can be socially conservative for precisely the opposite reason. The fact is that LGBT has allowed social conservatives to abandon the original issues that defined then, such as opposition to divorce (On Divorce, by Louis de Bonald, is a seminal conservative work). Pornography has been allowed to run rampant, as has very inappropriate programming for public television. With the rise of LGBT rights, all these serious issues were dropped by social conservatism. But these are the ones coming into everyone's home and subverting our morals and families. It's almost as if queers are more an issue because they're easier, they don't require addressing the vices plaguing the regular family; they allow an externalization of major problems, transferring them to a little demographic.

If a queer ran for an office on a platform of addressing epidemics like these, any serious conservative (I don't mean crypto liberal) would certainty be obliged to support such a candidate rather than an opposition which opposed queers but failed to confront the heavier concerns. No one can really say there is anything socially conservative about a queer lifestyle, but it can be truthfully said that the filth and narcissism the international capitalist is polluting the folk with is a far more critical concern for conservatives, these concerns fake "conservatives" often fail to address due to alliance with money.

Yeah, I know a few. Primarily, they know what they do/think is wrong but they don't really care.

Ja mein Kamerad!

Mardla wrote:Can queers be socially conservative (and I don't mean celibate homosexuals, I mean open queers)? Perhaps a bizarre question, seeing as how opposition to queers is the mainstay of social conservatism today.

Some would argue that, yes, quuers can be socially conservative, because social conservatism needs to update for the times. I argue that queers can be socially conservative for precisely the opposite reason. The fact is that LGBT has allowed social conservatives to abandon the original issues that defined then, such as opposition to divorce (On Divorce, by Louis de Bonald, is a seminal conservative work). Pornography has been allowed to run rampant, as has very inappropriate programming for public television. With the rise of LGBT rights, all these serious issues were dropped by social conservatism. But these are the ones coming into everyone's home and subverting our morals and families. It's almost as if queers are more an issue because they're easier, they don't require addressing the vices plaguing the regular family; they allow an externalization of major problems, transferring them to a little demographic.

If a queer ran for an office on a platform of addressing epidemics like these, any serious conservative (I don't mean crypto liberal) would certainty be obliged to support such a candidate rather than an opposition which opposed queers but failed to confront the heavier concerns. No one can really say there is anything socially conservative about a queer lifestyle, but it can be truthfully said that the filth and narcissism the international capitalist is polluting the folk with is a far more critical concern for conservatives, these concerns fake "conservatives" often fail to address due to alliance with money.

Well, if the culture of a nation is traditionally LGBTQ+ friendly, then yes, LGBTQ+ can run on a platform of preserving their culture.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Ja mein Kamerad!

That's nazi talk.

Mardla wrote:Can queers be socially conservative (and I don't mean celibate homosexuals, I mean open queers)? Perhaps a bizarre question, seeing as how opposition to queers is the mainstay of social conservatism today.

Some would argue that, yes, quuers can be socially conservative, because social conservatism needs to update for the times. I argue that queers can be socially conservative for precisely the opposite reason. The fact is that LGBT has allowed social conservatives to abandon the original issues that defined then, such as opposition to divorce (On Divorce, by Louis de Bonald, is a seminal conservative work). Pornography has been allowed to run rampant, as has very inappropriate programming for public television. With the rise of LGBT rights, all these serious issues were dropped by social conservatism. But these are the ones coming into everyone's home and subverting our morals and families. It's almost as if queers are more an issue because they're easier, they don't require addressing the vices plaguing the regular family; they allow an externalization of major problems, transferring them to a little demographic.

If a queer ran for an office on a platform of addressing epidemics like these, any serious conservative (I don't mean crypto liberal) would certainty be obliged to support such a candidate rather than an opposition which opposed queers but failed to confront the heavier concerns. No one can really say there is anything socially conservative about a queer lifestyle, but it can be truthfully said that the filth and narcissism the international capitalist is polluting the folk with is a far more critical concern for conservatives, these concerns fake "conservatives" often fail to address due to alliance with money.

I am a lesbian who is against divorce, pornography, and overly sexualized and unnecessarily violent TV programming.

So yes, we can be.

Lol Parkus, desperately grasping for queer conservatives to be good allies to you, when you refuse to be a good ally to them.

Yes, sexual attraction has no impact on your political ideology.

/thread

Namyalidahs wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Ja mein Kamerad!

That's nazi talk.

Nyet Tovarish

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Yes, sexual attraction has no impact on your political ideology.

/thread

Honestly this sums it up, your sexuality does not mean you will lean to one specific ideology or the other, there are a good number of gay conservatives around the world.

Of course they can. Not sure why they'd want to, but whatever.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Namyalidahs wrote:That's nazi talk.

Nyet Tovarish

ДА

I don't see why not. I mean, why should any group be confined to, collectively speaking, specific socio-political leanings?

Social conservatives in most of the West had dropped opposition to divorce and pornography long before homosexuality became a cultural norm.

Sskiss wrote:I don't see why not. I mean, why should any group be confined to, collectively speaking, specific socio-political leanings?

That's what most of us have been wondering. Unless some people think LGBT people are a hivemind that thinks only one way, there's really no reason to assume that they can't have myriad socio-political leanings.

Sskiss wrote:I don't see why not. I mean, why should any group be confined to, collectively speaking, specific socio-political leanings?

Well, for one, social conservatism is directly incompatible with being an LGBT+ person. Its kind of like being black and supporting the KKK.

Of course I can. It's not that difficult.

They can be. But the tendency will be for people to hide one facet or the other of themselves for easier relations with other people and better chances of being taken seriously and avoid constant grumblings about being a joke or a traitor, with in-group policing always liable to turn on them as a way of reasserting the hegemonic identity and beliefs of the wider group.

They'll have a chance of popularity from other conservatives only if there's a dearth of internal alternative candidates whose net combinations of traits makes them easier to accept, and the opposition is also not very good at appropriately dogwhistling. A conservative LGBT person may gain a little more support from LGBT people than a standard conservative candidate but the community is small enough that this isn't very useful. They'd only have much of a chance of success if there's a big pool of moderate conservatives and easily detachable moderate liberals.

The linguistic and image associations of the two are not naturally an easy fit, so it's a combination that'll usually be a significant debuff both in terms of getting any significant influence or just getting by without an elevated chance of hostility. People may try to self-deny, square the circle by hiding one element or the other, but people are rarely good at doing this for an extended period. The alternative is to simply recognise that it's an awkward intersection, that things being awkward is simply how things are and their natural lot in life, and that they have to grit their teeth and make the best of it since it's the only way not to violate either their principles or nature.

Of course they can. Mary Cheney comes to mind, along with the Log Cabin Republicans, and that's in the U.S. alone.

What does divorce have to do with homosexuality, anyways?

Grenartia wrote:

Sskiss wrote:I don't see why not. I mean, why should any group be confined to, collectively speaking, specific socio-political leanings?

Well, for one, social conservatism is directly incompatible with being an LGBT+ person. Its kind of like being black and supporting the KKK.

I'll be honest, as crazy as it may sound, I bet that if you were to investigate some, you'll find black people who support the Klan. There's everything on this earth.