American social conservatives giving tacit support to Putin's anti-gay law

[Papa bull]

I have seen some of the things you post, and I would have to say communism is for you.

I've said many times that the democrats winning strategy consists of pandering to the dumbest 50 percent of the voters. People like you are strong support for that theory.

Just for future reference you should know that communism and "social freedom" have no relationship. A country can be the very model of a communist utopia and still allow you to have all the homosexual sex and do all the drugs and drink and cavort all you can afford to do in an economy that keeps everyone dirt poor.

 

[tererun]

And all those on the Marxist left who aren't happy here in the USA should think about moving to Russia and joining the communist party.

They'll find a lot of people who 'think' just like them there.

Or Cuba. Cuba might be even better because the airfare would be cheaper.

Socialism tends to be the leftist fascist state. I will agree it nannies more and takes care of people more so it is more of a leftist fascist idea to have a socialist state. however, communism is certainly conservative. Socialism would allow for some individual determinism while keeping the state in control, but communism would really be the method to lock down a rigid societal structure that would cater to a specific mindset of right and wrong. Since you are up on moral imposition you would certainly be much more comfortable in a communist state which matched your morals.

 

[tererun]

I've said many times that the democrats winning strategy consists of pandering to the dumbest 50 percent of the voters. People like you are strong support for that theory.

insult me all you want, but you really should consider it. You are not fooling the rest of us, and frankly it is very hard to try and pretend to be free and capitalistic when you want to be restricted on moral grounds. In the end you will have to take control of every segment of life to impose your moral beliefs on everyone and have them live as you see fit. otherwise start to recognize what freedom and liberty actually are. They mean that there will be people who act in ways you truly despise and you can do absolutely nothing about it.

 

[Papa bull]

insult me all you want, but you really should consider it. You are not fooling the rest of us, and frankly it is very hard to try and pretend to be free and capitalistic when you want to be restricted on moral grounds. In the end you will have to take control of every segment of life to impose your moral beliefs on everyone and have them live as you see fit. otherwise start to recognize what freedom and liberty actually are. They mean that there will be people who act in ways you truly despise and you can do absolutely nothing about it.

Love who you want. Do whatever drugs you want. I couldn't care less if you hang out on the street corner hawking handjobs for $20 bucks. See, I support capitalism. The fact that I don't think it's a violation of your "rights" because the state says, "look, screw whomever you wish... move in with them if you wish.... live free and frolic for the rest of your lives together if you wish.... just don't expect us to to give our stamp of approval as "married" if, as a pair, one of you isn't a man and one of you isn't a woman.... well that fact has nothing to do with communism or capitalism.

Assuming that's communism is STUPID. REALLY stupid. Maybe the dumbest thing I've seen anyone post on these forums and that's a very special kind of stupid, indeed.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

*Yawn*

Typical hackery that you expect from Huff & Puff. No different than the crap you get from the Blaze. Let's examine this "story".

NEW YORK -- As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism.

The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.

"You admire some of the things they're doing in Russia against propaganda," said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. "On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here."

So then... this guy, Austin Ruse, who is the president of "Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute" makes a statement in support of Russia's stand against the rights of homosexuals. Check.

First of all, I have never heard of Austin Ruse or the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute but apparently, The Huffington Post, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that this guy and this group are now the voice of social conservatism for western civilization? Color me unimpressed.

This is a hack job, nothing more. It's the same thing as when Glen Beck tries to make somebody like Van Jones the face of liberalism. It's actually laughable that people continue to believe this stuff.

<sigh>

 

[tererun]

Love who you want. Do whatever drugs you want. I couldn't care less if you hang out on the street corner hawking handjobs for $20 bucks. See, I support capitalism. The fact that I don't think it's a violation of your "rights" because the state says, "look, screw whomever you wish... move in with them if you wish.... live free and frolic for the rest of your lives together if you wish.... just don't expect us to to give our stamp of approval as "married" if, as a pair, one of you isn't a man and one of you isn't a woman.

You were going so good and then your freedom train completely crashed. They should probably put training wheels on those things. Look, you can not approve of the marriage all you want. That is freedom, but there is no reason to restrict legal partnerships from two people of the same gender. the ideal solution in my mind is to have the government only give out a legally defined partnership agreement, and the religious can have marriage as per their religion. The government endorse Male and Female partnerships so they should also endorse male and male and female and female. If you are really about the word marriage then get the government and religion separate entirely and you can define it any way you want. You will find society does not want the government out of the marriage business, and the arguments about calling it something different than marriage when it is the same thing in the eyes of a government really tend to fail when you are separating church and state.

Assuming that's communism is STUPID. REALLY stupid. Maybe the dumbest thing I've seen anyone post on these forums and that's a very special kind of stupid, indeed.

If you want those things imposed, you have to do the imposing. Your claims of what you are willing to do do not even accomplish what you say it would. For instance, let us say there was straight marriage and civil unions. Two separate terms in the government. I open up a business that will be catering to gays, so I call my business the gay marriage planner. The government cannot step in and tell me that the name has to be changed. The civil unions i form could have the gays using the term married. You are not stopping that use of the word. You are flirting with freedom, but it is all a tease. You do not actually want freedom, you want to declare marriage is between a man and a woman which is not freedom. Freedom is the ability for gays to marry in the eyes of their god as any straight person would. You cannot deal with freedom like that. That is why you would prefer a state that gives you the freedom to be you, while making other people conform to your standards. That is best accomplished through communism, and not freedom. In freedom not everyone has to follow your views which is why it is free.

 

[Papa bull]

You were going so good and then your freedom train completely crashed. They should probably put training wheels on those things. Look, you can not approve of the marriage all you want. That is freedom, but there is no reason to restrict legal partnerships from two people of the same gender. the ideal solution in my mind is to have the government only give out a legally defined partnership agreement, and the religious can have marriage as per their religion. The government endorse Male and Female partnerships so they should also endorse male and male and female and female. If you are really about the word marriage then get the government and religion separate entirely and you can define it any way you want. You will find society does not want the government out of the marriage business, and the arguments about calling it something different than marriage when it is the same thing in the eyes of a government really tend to fail when you are separating church and state.


If you want those things imposed, you have to do the imposing. Your claims of what you are willing to do do not even accomplish what you say it would. For instance, let us say there was straight marriage and civil unions. Two separate terms in the government. I open up a business that will be catering to gays, so I call my business the gay marriage planner. The government cannot step in and tell me that the name has to be changed. The civil unions i form could have the gays using the term married. You are not stopping that use of the word. You are flirting with freedom, but it is all a tease. You do not actually want freedom, you want to declare marriage is between a man and a woman which is not freedom. Freedom is the ability for gays to marry in the eyes of their god as any straight person would. You cannot deal with freedom like that. That is why you would prefer a state that gives you the freedom to be you, while making other people conform to your standards. That is best accomplished through communism, and not freedom. In freedom not everyone has to follow your views which is why it is free.

You're stuck on stupid if you keep equating opposition of SSM to communism.

 

[tererun]

You're stuck on stupid if you keep equating opposition of SSM to communism.

OK, then you explain to me how you stop SSM without preventing businesses and the government from performing it? The moment you tell businesses they cannot perform marriages for gays in a free society the businesses will object. They will use their influence and money and wear away at the law. Eventually they will open up that market. if you have a country based on freedom denying that freedom really doesn't fit the constitution. Your goals are quite contrary to american values. They are much more in line with a country like russia which imposes christian morals on every segment of society and does not allow for lots of freedoms.

 

[Papa bull]

OK, then you explain to me how you stop SSM without preventing businesses and the government from performing it? The moment you tell businesses they cannot perform marriages for gays in a free society the businesses will object. They will use their influence and money and wear away at the law. Eventually they will open up that market. if you have a country based on freedom denying that freedom really doesn't fit the constitution. Your goals are quite contrary to american values. They are much more in line with a country like russia which imposes christian morals on every segment of society and does not allow for lots of freedoms.

Wow. Just.... wow. I wouldn't even know where to begin sorting out everything wrong with that. I think I'll just leave you to your bliss.

 

[tererun]

Wow. Just.... wow. I wouldn't even know where to begin sorting out everything wrong with that. I think I'll just leave you to your bliss.

Have fun. Remember you would be happier in a country that tells people what to do and limits your interaction with certain types of people. Freedom is not your friend.

 

[Papa bull]

Have fun. Remember you would be happier in a country that tells people what to do and limits your interaction with certain types of people. Freedom is not your friend.

Thank you, sweetie. I'll just try to remember that.

 

[Einzige]

It amuses me that social conservatives are avoiding the main thrust of this thread by attacking me as a liberal Democrat, when I'm far from liberal and most certainly not a Democrat.

 

[Cyrylek]

Its goofy supporting Putin on just about anything and CERTAINLY on his recent stand on gay rights. Thats about as retarded as leftists wearing Che t-shirts.

I like the "socially conservative" catchall. Its a good way to avoid the reality that a good number of people in this country that oppose gay marriage also happen to be liberal democrats.

The Soviet Communism was extremely "socially conservative". Gays were subject to punishment much harsher than under the Czar, for example. The totalitarian mindset does not tolerate "deviations". Those among American "liberals" (i.e. socialists) who share with Communists the idea of the benevolent government controlling every aspect of human lives are quite likely to be socially conservative - I have seen plenty of that in Massachusetts.

 

[Masada]

Anyone on the religious right who is not happy in the USA should think about moving to Russia and joining the Russian Orthodox Church.

They'll find a lot of people who 'think' just like them there.

As if you know one thing about how Russian Orthodox Christians believe.

 

[Masada]

The Soviet Communism was extremely "socially conservative". Gays were subject to punishment much harsher than under the Czar, for example. The totalitarian mindset does not tolerate "deviations". Those among American "liberals" (i.e. socialists) who share with Communists the idea of the benevolent government controlling every aspect of human lives are quite likely to be socially conservative - I have seen plenty of that in Massachusetts.

This is absurd. Communists opposed homosexuality because they believed homosexuality was inferior. Conservatives oppose it because its immoral.

So trying to compare the two ideologies makes as much sense as playing leap frog with a unicorn.

 

[Cyrylek]

As if you know one thing about how Russian Orthodox Christians believe.

What makes you think he doesn't? Doctrines and practices of the Orthodox Church are not kept secret.

 

[Masada]

Have fun. Remember you would be happier in a country that tells people what to do and limits your interaction with certain types of people. Freedom is not your friend.

Oh you mean instead of a country where you're told what kind of health insurance you can buy, how big of a coke you can buy in New York City, and that you don't have any choice when it comes to being spied on.

Ya, keep preaching wise guy.

 

[Masada]

What makes you think he doesn't? Doctrines and practices of the Orthodox Church are not kept secret.

No doubt. But I can assure you he's not Orthodox, and Orthodoxy is pretty complex. He's no student of complexity based simply off my observation of his level of intelligence.

I would however be willing to make a gentleman's wager he hasn't studied anything about Orthodoxy outside of maybe a google search.

 

[Cyrylek]

This is absurd. Communists opposed homosexuality because they believed homosexuality was inferior. Conservatives oppose it because its immoral.

So trying to compare the two ideologies makes as much sense as playing leap frog with a unicorn.

I have never heard them talking about human traits being "inferior"; you are confusing them with the Nazis. Close practices, different slogans.

They were talking about morality non-stop, however. It was the moral duty of the "new Soviet man" to march strenuously in the uniform columns of builders of the glorious utopia prophesized by Marx and Lenin; any deviation from "the norm" disqualifies. And all things "immoral" (including homosexual relationships) were declared a legacy of corrupting capitalism, and had to be purged from the society.

 

[Cyrylek]

Oh you mean instead of a country where you're told what kind of health insurance you can buy, how big of a coke you can buy in New York City, and that you don't have any choice when it comes to being spied on.

Ya, keep preaching wise guy.

While I certainly oppose all these limitations, let's have some sense of proportion here. Having to buy a small coke twice instead of a big coke once is not quite on the same level of oppression as being banned from marrying a person of your choice.

 

[Masada]

While I certainly oppose all these limitations, let's have some sense of proportion here. Having to buy a small coke twice instead of a big coke once is not quite on the same level of oppression as being banned from marrying a person of your choice.

Of course. I was merely matching absurdity with absurdity. Of all people, I thought you might of seen the cleverness of that.

The other man was told that because he was a Conservative, he would love living in a country where they told you what to do, etc etc. despite the fact that its liberal progressives, in this country, that are forcing people to do things. The irony was too irresistible not to point out.

 

[Papa bull]

While I certainly oppose all these limitations, let's have some sense of proportion here. Having to buy a small coke twice instead of a big coke once is not quite on the same level of oppression as being banned from marrying a person of your choice.

Choose someone that isn't your brother, sister, aunt, uncle, father, mother, cousin, underage, already married or the same sex and you've no problems. That leaves you about 100 million people to choose from in this country alone. That's a whole LOT of freedom.

 

[Cyrylek]

Choose someone that isn't ..... the same sex and you've no problems. That leaves you about 100 million people to choose from in this country alone. That's a whole LOT of freedom.

What a remarkable understanding of freedom. Your individual choices don't matter, as long as you have the same options as everyone else. In this case not only the Putin's Russia, but the USSR as well should be considered perfectly free countries: nobody was prohibited from worshiping Lenin and Stalin, doing hard labor for minimal compensation, and standing in lines for rotten vegetables.

 

[Einzige]

What a remarkable understanding of freedom. Your individual choices don't matter, as long as you have the same options as everyone else. In this case not only the Putin's Russia, but the USSR as well should be considered perfectly free countries: nobody was prohibited from worshiping Lenin and Stalin, doing hard labor for minimal compensation, and standing in lines for rotten vegetables.

Coerced conformitty to social norms is the hallmark of social conservatism, after all.

 

[fmw]

Russia Anti-Gay Bill Admired By Some U.S. Conservatives



This angers me tremendously for two main reasons, neither of which is the usual liberal moral outrage predicted on human rights:

1. I am not a nationalist; America is not a collective I voluntarily identify with. But most American conservatives are. One of the principle building blocks of nationalism is sovereignty: the belief that nation-states are inviolable units, 'in-themselves' in the language of German philosophy.

That traditionally extended to other nations - hence the rule of non-intervention American conservatives once hewed to. How can they then deign themselves fit to intervene in Russian affairs? It smacks of internationalism.

2. On a broader note, why was repression in Russia heinous only when a Bolshevik government committed it? I'm less concerned with the abuses as such, but hypocrisy galls me.

I'm still confused. Is the point that I'm supposed to be surprised that the Huffington Post doesn't think much of conservatives? Or is the point that when one or several conservatives say something you don't like, I should blame all conservatives for it? Or perhaps the point is I should accept the Huffington Posts's bias as truth? I really did miss the point, apparently.