Is there a place for social conservatives in the Democratic Party?

[Horus]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

How would you propose "not promoting" SSM? If a teacher has a picture of his husband or her wife on their desk, should they be forced to remove it? What are your tangibles here?

Gay people exist, many are married, and probably 99% of kids middle school age and up already know this.

Still waiting to hear how and why you think same sex marriages should be hidden away. It's not a hard question.

[MarkD]

I honestly don't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. Shouldn't it be widely accepted that people can love whoever they want, as long as relationships are consensual? Gay marriage doesn't take anything from anyone, men and women can still marry obviously. So nobody is being taken something, but others are given something. According to polls even a small majority Republican voters (not office holders) support SSM.

Translation: I demand that everyone in the whole world must agree with MY criteria for what federal, state, and local governments are supposed to do! The only things governments should do is prevent people from violating the rights of people and animals -- NOTHING ELSE! That's MY vision, and I'm right! Everyone who wants to legislate their traditional moral values is a TYRANT and must have NO POWER to pursue those goals! My vision of what governments should do is the only valid vision!!!

[HisGrace]

I honestly don't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. Shouldn't it be widely accepted that people can love whoever they want, as long as relationships are consensual? Gay marriage doesn't take anything from anyone, men and women can still marry obviously. So nobody is being taken something, but others are given something. According to polls even a small majority Republican voters (not office holders) support SSM.

Translation: I demand that everyone in the whole world must agree with MY criteria for what federal, state, and local governments are supposed to do! The only things governments should do is prevent people from violating the rights of people and animals -- NOTHING ELSE! That's MY vision, and I'm right! Everyone who wants to legislate their traditional moral values is a TYRANT and must have NO POWER to pursue those goals! My vision of what governments should do is the only valid vision!!!

I mean yes, legislating moral values rather than protecting people's rights is a form of tyranny. You can have whatever personal opinion on homosexuality that you want but marriage is a legal institution and in America everyone is supposed to be equally protected by the law. You're the one who wants to ban other people from doing things here, you don't really have room to turn it around and act like other people are being authoritarian as a result of legalizing something.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

How would you propose "not promoting" SSM? If a teacher has a picture of his husband or her wife on their desk, should they be forced to remove it? What are your tangibles here?

Gay people exist, many are married, and probably 99% of kids middle school age and up already know this.

I think this depends on the grade level. I don't think they should be forced to remove it, but they shouldn't be explicitly promoting it if that makes sense. But I'm talking more about the pride flags and posters rather than a discrete photograph. A lot of people tend to make being LGBT their main identity and that shouldn't be pushed in a classroom setting.

[MillennialModerate]

So I’m a Democrat. I consider myself a Democrat. I support

-Single Payer Healthcare
-Free college
-Student loan forgiveness
-Expanded SNAP benefits
-Unions
-Labor rights
-Increase immigration and refugee numbers  
-Gerrymandering ban
-Universal voter registration
-President elected by popular vote
-Higher taxes on rich
-No outsourcing or automation
-Federal job programs
-Higher pay for teacher
-Subsidized housing
-Environmental protections

But I’m a social conservative. I believe

-Abortion is murder. Should only be allowed in limited circumstances like rape, incest, health of mother, human trafficking etc.

-Marriage is between a man and a woman.

-Children should not be allowed to medically transition to a different gender.

-Trans people should only play sports of their biological sex. Nor should they use a different restroom.

-I’m strongly pro gun and against gun control

-EXTREMELY pro law and order. Shoplifters should be arrested. Rioting is never acceptable.  

-Marijuana should not be legalized.

I don’t feel like modern Democrats are very accepting to differences in the party. In all honestly I don’t think I’m very different from Joe Biden. And I feel my views are largely aligned with most minorities. Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Muslim communities in the US usually support Democrats are socially conservative compared to white people.

So, is there a place in the modern Democratic Party for social conservatives like me?

There SHOULD be room for people like you because that’s how Dems compete in the non-growing deep south states. That’s how Clinton won Louisiana and Tennessee… by being very moderate (Welfare reform!?!?!)

Is there? I don’t know. I’m nowhere near you but I’m somewhat moderate on some of these issues.. and I feel somewhat at home in the Democratic party. Although I considered myself a true independent until Trump took over the Republican party

Like you, I prefer it marriage be between a man and a woman but some would also say I’m a hypocrite who doesn’t *seriously* believe in the sanctity of marriage because I’m open to non-traditional things (IE Swinging)

You lose me on Marijuanna.. To me it does less damage than alcohol and that’s legal. So we’re out there.

I’m pretty law and order, more than the average Dem. Shop lifters should be arrested otherwise what is the deteranc? And Dem policies are way too leniant and they invite the hysterical rampant crime propoganda BS you see on Fox. But in some cases I do think there should be sentencing reform - some are way too long. Unless you’re a violent criminal - there is very little that should keep you in jail for any period longer than a couple years.

Guns… now guns. This is the one issue I’m a purist on - how anyone can be against any gun control at all just… defies logic. How many people have to die for the gun crowd to be moved. Enough is enough.

The Trans sports thing - I’m 500% with you. I’m not sure how anyone who uses logic can see it otherwise. There is no question a biological male has a MASSIVE advantage over a biological female. And it’s simply not fair to the females who have worked hard to have accomplishments taken from them…
 

[Ferguson97]

I think this depends on the grade level. I don't think they should be forced to remove it, but they shouldn't be explicitly promoting it if that makes sense. But I'm talking more about the pride flags and posters rather than a discrete photograph. A lot of people tend to make being LGBT their main identity and that shouldn't be pushed in a classroom setting.

What does "promoting" it mean? Your criticisms here don't really seem any different from the "stop shoving it down my throat" whining from the 2010s whenever a gay couple appeared in a movie or a television show.

[TheReckoning]

I think this depends on the grade level. I don't think they should be forced to remove it, but they shouldn't be explicitly promoting it if that makes sense. But I'm talking more about the pride flags and posters rather than a discrete photograph. A lot of people tend to make being LGBT their main identity and that shouldn't be pushed in a classroom setting.

What does "promoting" it mean? Your criticisms here don't really seem any different from the "stop shoving it down my throat" whining from the 2010s whenever a gay couple appeared in a movie or a television show.

It’s not homophobia if you’re keeping it consistent. Banning pride flags isn’t homophobic if you ban straight pride flags as well. It’s not homophobic to prohibit gay teachers from mentioning their spouses if you ban straight teachers from mentioning theirs.

This is different from it being a good idea to ban to those things, however.

[Ferguson97]

I think this depends on the grade level. I don't think they should be forced to remove it, but they shouldn't be explicitly promoting it if that makes sense. But I'm talking more about the pride flags and posters rather than a discrete photograph. A lot of people tend to make being LGBT their main identity and that shouldn't be pushed in a classroom setting.

What does "promoting" it mean? Your criticisms here don't really seem any different from the "stop shoving it down my throat" whining from the 2010s whenever a gay couple appeared in a movie or a television show.

It’s not homophobia if you’re keeping it consistent. Banning pride flags isn’t homophobic if you ban straight pride flags as well. It’s not homophobic to prohibit gay teachers from mentioning their spouses if you ban straight teachers from mentioning theirs.

This is different from it being a good idea to ban to those things, however.

What is a straight pride flag?

And nobody is, in practice, going to ban a straight teacher from mentioning their spouse.

[MarkD]

I honestly don't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. Shouldn't it be widely accepted that people can love whoever they want, as long as relationships are consensual? Gay marriage doesn't take anything from anyone, men and women can still marry obviously. So nobody is being taken something, but others are given something. According to polls even a small majority Republican voters (not office holders) support SSM.

Translation: I demand that everyone in the whole world must agree with MY criteria for what federal, state, and local governments are supposed to do! The only things governments should do is prevent people from violating the rights of people and animals -- NOTHING ELSE! That's MY vision, and I'm right! Everyone who wants to legislate their traditional moral values is a TYRANT and must have NO POWER to pursue those goals! My vision of what governments should do is the only valid vision!!!

I mean yes, legislating moral values rather than protecting people's rights is a form of tyranny. You can have whatever personal opinion on homosexuality that you want but marriage is a legal institution and in America everyone is supposed to be equally protected by the law. You're the one who wants to ban other people from doing things here, you don't really have room to turn it around and act like other people are being authoritarian as a result of legalizing something.

Based on the last sentence, which I bolded, you clearly do not understand me. I am not saying that I want top legislate morality in every way, including that I want to ban SSM. I am saying that I understand why so many conservative people want to legislate morality. I protested against what Pres. Johnson said because he claimed he cannot understand why there is anyone still opposed to legalization of SSM. He obviously believes everyone is supposed to be liberal/progressive about gay equality. That is what makes Pres. Johnson totalitarian. He's intolerant of different points of view; he's prejudiced against people with a different view of whether government should legislate morality -- which has been going on in the USA for over 200 years!! According to liberals/progressives like he and you, the United States has always been tyrannical, given the fact that SSM had always been banned by every state in the country ever since the beginning. Whenever you people want progress, it has to happen now, and absolutely every single person should be in agreement about it! This attitude of everyone has to agree with me; they have to! is arrogant, narrow-minded, and dictatorial. That was the point I was getting at.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I honestly don't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. Shouldn't it be widely accepted that people can love whoever they want, as long as relationships are consensual? Gay marriage doesn't take anything from anyone, men and women can still marry obviously. So nobody is being taken something, but others are given something. According to polls even a small majority Republican voters (not office holders) support SSM.

Translation: I demand that everyone in the whole world must agree with MY criteria for what federal, state, and local governments are supposed to do! The only things governments should do is prevent people from violating the rights of people and animals -- NOTHING ELSE! That's MY vision, and I'm right! Everyone who wants to legislate their traditional moral values is a TYRANT and must have NO POWER to pursue those goals! My vision of what governments should do is the only valid vision!!!

I mean yes, legislating moral values rather than protecting people's rights is a form of tyranny. You can have whatever personal opinion on homosexuality that you want but marriage is a legal institution and in America everyone is supposed to be equally protected by the law. You're the one who wants to ban other people from doing things here, you don't really have room to turn it around and act like other people are being authoritarian as a result of legalizing something.

Based on the last sentence, which I bolded, you clearly do not understand me. I am not saying that I want top legislate morality in every way, including that I want to ban SSM. I am saying that I understand why so many conservative people want to legislate morality. I protested against what Pres. Johnson said because he claimed he cannot understand why there is anyone still opposed to legalization of SSM. He obviously believes everyone is supposed to be liberal/progressive about gay equality. That is what makes Pres. Johnson totalitarian. He's intolerant of different points of view; he's prejudiced against people with a different view of whether government should legislate morality -- which has been going on in the USA for over 200 years!! According to liberals/progressives like he and you, the United States has always been tyrannical, given the fact that SSM had always been banned by every state in the country ever since the beginning. Whenever you people want progress, it has to happen now, and absolutely every single person should be in agreement about it! This attitude of everyone has to agree with me; they have to! is arrogant, narrow-minded, and dictatorial. That was the point I was getting at.

I think you're both wrong. It's ridiculous to accuse someone of being "totalitarian" (not even authoritarian!) for expressing a personal inability to understand what motivates opposition to SSM. It's also specious to distinguish "legislating moral values" from "protecting people's rights," as if rights are not a moral concept. Rawlsian liberalism is a substantive moral framework that can be, and must be, argued for just as much as any other. In this case, I think President Johnson is doing so just fine.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There certainly should be. At no point in history has the working class been uniformly progressive, and any party that purports to represent it has to at least recognize and work with that.

Of course, on the other side, conservatives have to accept that they're a minority within the party and that their voice isn't the one that's going to be centered on these issues.

[Dan the Roman]

The Democratic party is ultimately a liberal party. It is a left-liberal party, but ultimately liberal and that is the greater obstacle to social conservatism than the leftism part.

There are socially conservative Marxists who view LGBT identity, and even racial identity politics as either

1. A form of indulgence in personal egotism common to the bourgeois
2. A sign of the attachment to the politics of symbolism common to middle class politics
3. A deliberate effort to distract from class war

Of those, only #3 has ever really had a foothold in the US, and even it has largely been confined to online corners. Because the Republican party is still largely a right-liberal party it has never been able to wage class warfare against LGBT/racial issues by identifying them as inherently middle class preoccupations.

So the simplest answer to the question in this thread is that there isn't much of a place for social conservatives in the Democratic party because there isn't really much of a place for socially conservative marxism/stalinism what have you.

And in fairness, those views have always been fascist adjacent - see Mussolini's evolution

Now are there going to be people who hold socially conservative preferences who vote Democratic? Absolutely. But they will have preferences or beliefs, not ideological convictions. The type of people who don't fit are those for whom social conservatism fits into a wider ideological worldview.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I honestly don't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. Shouldn't it be widely accepted that people can love whoever they want, as long as relationships are consensual? Gay marriage doesn't take anything from anyone, men and women can still marry obviously. So nobody is being taken something, but others are given something. According to polls even a small majority Republican voters (not office holders) support SSM.

I don't subscribe to some of the comments made about you in previous posts.  But you asked a fair question, and it deserves an answer.

It's very simple:  Scripture explicitly forbids sexual activity of that nature.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman,k they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them."  Leviticus 20:13


We are not justified by the Law.  The Law does not save a person.  The Grace of God provided through the Redemptive Work of Christ on the Cross provides that grace:

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)"  Galatians 3:13

Christ's redemptive work freed us from the curse of the Law.  The Law exists, however, and one of the functions of the Law is to show believers what sin is.  But the fact that we are forgiven is not license to sin:

"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"  Romans 6:1-2

Google has adjusted its algorithms to direct people to what I consider to be heretical doctrines that attempt to pervert Scripture in order to justify their own worldview.  

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."  Revelation 22:18-19

You're a good person and a genuinely tolerant person.  I believe that you recognize that "tolerance' does not require the active affirming of other beliefs, lifestyles, practices, etc. that you would consider morally incorrect.  For myself, I did not support SSM, and I consider the Obergefell decision to be an example of straight-up Judicial Lawmaking; there is no real Constitutional basis for it.  That being said, I do not actively support its repeal, as doing so would cause all sorts of havoc in many families' lives, as it would plunge numerous marriages and adoptions into a legal netherworld, the immediate effect of which would be serious upheaval in the lives of many children.  And I certainly don't think that the Public School (at a minimum) should be a place where the marriage of one of their parents, or of their adoptive parents, should be openly debated or made controversial.  But in asserting this, I also believe that parents, such as myself, have a right to not have the religious beliefs we are trying to instill in our children actively undermined by curricula and by classroom practices of educators.  

The Freedom I believe is rightfully mine is the Freedom to not be coerced in any manner to affirm as moral and acceptable in the eyes of God an institution (SSM) that I do not believe to be so.  I suppose that no one has the right to be totally free from the cultural clash, but students and parents ought to be free from their children being forced to affirm what they do not believe to be moral.  We would not tolerate a radical feminist teacher who, forsaking allyship principles, would undermine the religious requirements of Islamic girls to wear head coverings in schools, and any teacher who did so would be labeled an Islamophobe.  Christians (and Jews and Muslims for that matter) that share the Scriptural view of sexuality, marriage, and family (a Scriputural view in all 3 religions) ought to be afforded no less.  To the degree that it is discussed in Schools, it should be simply discussed as "It's the law>" without making moral arguments, and leave it at that.  

You asked "Why?".  I'm giving you an honest answer.

[MasterJedi]

The place for social conservatives in the party is the freedom part. If they’re economically liberal you vote on that and then don’t partake in the socially liberal things but leave the freedom for everyone else to live their lives in a first world country and not be oppressed by the Satan worshiping pastors.

[AlterEgo]

It's very simple:  Scripture explicitly forbids sexual activity of that nature.

Sure, you can quote scripture, but then you're also ignoring other parts of scripture.

Matthew 7:1-3: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you."

and, of course, the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.

If you're following your interpretation of Leviticus, that should make you good in the eyes of your Maker. Scripture, though, explicitly says that if others aren't, it's not up to you to judge that. That is an issue that they will have to take up with God in the next life. But that's His job, not yours.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's very simple:  Scripture explicitly forbids sexual activity of that nature.

Sure, you can quote scripture, but then you're also ignoring other parts of scripture.

Matthew 7:1-3: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you."

and, of course, the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.

If you're following your interpretation of Leviticus, that should make you good in the eyes of your Maker. Scripture, though, explicitly says that if others aren't, it's not up to you to judge that. That is an issue that they will have to take up with God in the next life. But that's His job, not yours.

The "Judge not" refers to judging the hearts of men as to whether they are Believers or not.  That is an area of the Heart only God judges.

It is not "Judging" to point out what sin is, and when a person is spinning.  The Law teaches us what sin is.  We do have some responsibility to a Brother or Sister in the Lord to point out when they are sliding into sin when it is obvious, as well as to receive such counsel, for our own betterment.  God does give us the authority, as believers, to point out what Sin is, and to point out what False Doctrine is.  We can certainly KNOW that WE, individually, are going to Heaven, but the hearts of others are known only to God, alone in that matter.

It IS fair (and, IMO, right) to be concerned about someone who professes to be "in Christ" that lives a life where important parts reflect rebellion against Christ.  This is no small deal. 

1 Samuel 15:22-23

 22 And Samuel said,

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

Behold, xto obey is better than sacrifice,

and to listen than the fat of rams.

 23  For rebellion is as the sin of divination,

and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,

ahe has also rejected you from being king.”

To what degree are today's "Gender Ideologues" in overt rebellion to God?  To what degree can one be a "Gender Ideologue" yet regard God as LORD?  That's a question, because Saving Faith in Jesus Christ involves faith in not just what He DID (His Redemptive Work on the Cross), but who He IS (King of Kings and Lord of Lords).  It is one thing to sin and fall short of the Glory of God.  Christians are no different than others in that they are imperfect (although a Christian ought to be going through a process of being perfected).  But when you set up an area in your life which you will not submit to God, and you are unwilling to be convicted of sin in that area and strive to refrain from that sin (let alone apologizing for it and glorifying it), are you really acknowledging the LORDSHIP if Christ?  That, too, is a question only God can answer.  But we are to work out our Salvation "with Fear and Trembling".  That means that what we believe and live out is a Big Deal.  There's a difference between falling into temptation and hardening into rebellion, and God does know the difference.

[AlterEgo]

The "Judge not" refers to judging the hearts of men as to whether they are Believers or not.  That is an area of the Heart only God judges.

That's an interpretation, although not one universally shared by biblical scholars.

"Given the close connection between ethics and eschatology in Jesus’s teachings, Tertullian concluded that the command to “judge not” is a reminder to us that judgement and punishment are not ours to mete, but God’s."

https://daily.jstor.org/nderstanding-a-misunderstood-bible-verse/

Plus,

Titus 3:2--"To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."

Matthew 13:24--"He put another parable before them, saying, w“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds3 among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants4 of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, x‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, y“Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

aka, the current time and place is where weeds and wheat (good and bad) grow together and it is not humanity's job to try and gather up the bad

Notice how virtually everything you quote is Old Testament while virtually everything I quote is New Testament. No offense, but this seems odd for me for Christians to do this. The separation from other monotheistic religions is the New Testament and the belief in following the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. Over and over throughout the New Testament, Jesus' words can frequently be summed up with: "Don't be an a-hole, and be nice to people."

[PSOL]

The Democratic Party has wholly accepted sexist attacks on conservative women and has embraced eugenics by not taking the pandemic seriously a few months into getting elected.

[South Dakota Democrat]

The Democratic Party has wholly accepted sexist attacks on conservative women and has embraced eugenics by not taking the pandemic seriously a few months into getting elected.

No.

[PSOL]

The Democratic Party has wholly accepted sexist attacks on conservative women and has embraced eugenics by not taking the pandemic seriously a few months into getting elected.

No.

oh?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     As someone who often finds himself politically homeless, I would suggest that you stick to what you believe in and don't worry about which party strangers on the internet think fits you. Only you can truly know what issues you care about the most and what policies will guide your voting decision. If that leads you to vote Democrat, so be it. If that leads you to vote Republican, then likewise. And if that leads you to vote third-party or not vote at all, then that is still your prerogative.

     If you were running for office then this would be a different question, but the reality is that most of us will never be more than just voters, in which case what party we "belong" to is an auxiliary detail at best.