Can someone tell me what political party I am?

Post Reply New Topic

You mean you'd lose and you'd have your beliefs ridiculed.

You might upset a few people with comments like that. I've always thought of many gay people and people with Asperger's Syndrome to be traditional allies, us both being social outcasts in many cases. I have no reason to dislike gay people and they have no real reason to dislike us. As a libertarian, I don't care what gay people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I believe that that's their business and not mine. Moreover, I'd like to build bridges between people instead of breaking them down. I think (and hope!) you'll get very little support here for your bigotry.

No I think its fine if you want to oppose gay rights but I want to know how you define
gay rights? Its one thing to say I'm opposed to gays. Its a completely another thing to
want to oppose gay rights.

Yeah true wealthy people know how to avoid taxes (kind of what it takes to get wealthy) that is usually in the form of highly tax defered investment like stocks (and stock options). My guess your more middle class and paying any tax is too much for you. Plus you got a state income tax(glad I'm in Texas).

WARNING! EXTREME LOGIC FALLACY DANGER!

Please hit Clrl-Alt-Del and reboot the Lightning88 unit.

Gay rights seems to have become an emotive issue.

Research has shown that homosexual activity does take place among animals in nature. Therefore such activity (although unusual) cannot be seen as unnatural. And so cannot be regarded as a sin against god. I can therefore see no reason not to advocate gay rights.

By the way, in case you were wondering I'm not gay myself. I have two kids and a wife.

So an imaginary diety tells him to hate those who are pulling themselves out of the competition for desirable females (don't give me a bad time about using the term 'desirable females'; desirable is totally an individual assessment, and if you never admit that some life/sexual partners are more desirable than others, then you are lying to yourself as well as everyone else here. If you want to give me flak, focus on my calling your religious beliefs "imaginary". I'll happily take heat for that.)

If it were up to me, there would be more gay males. I need less competition.

I think you need psychiatric help, so you can get over your fear of gays and your believe in God. I am not saying that God does not exist but there is a big difference between the God that is worshiped by Christians and the God that is acknowledged by certain gnostic, deistic and pagan religions.

Ok, this thread is being sort of ridiculous. Do the people here honestly think that by viciously attacking a belief they will get rid of it? Asking the reason why a person feels the way they do is one thing but such attacks on certain beliefs is not an effective tactic at getting people to agree. Do you honestly think that people change through such tactics? If you do then thank bullies for ruthlessly giving incentive to adapt socially. The fact of the matter is that only through logically debating lightning88 when she feels like debating this and getting her to reconsider her position will her mind be changed. Really, it is likely that this is a cultural issue, remember she lives in a conservative state, and is not likely to be a mental defect given the type of issue this is in the US. I am not approving of her position but I know that these tactics are idiotic.

I even said I'm fine with her not liking gays. She asked what political party has anti-gay rights positions. So I told her the Republican party. I then asked her to define what the gay rights she was oposing were. She would not detail. Naturally people here who think human rights are important are curious about this. She open this topic up for debate by posting it here. I do not want to change her postion I want to shine light on what her postion is. I asked very reasonable questions. Should gays be aloud to be teachers and adopt children?If she answered yes I walk away. If she answers no I keep probing to find out how close she gets to loading people on cattle cars.

I did not mean you. I probably just got mad at cros for his reaction and generalized. It happens, most of the people did not do anything wrong here and generally were just curious and perhaps just wanted to challenge her beliefs a little. I do apologize for any confusion.

Yes, that was quite reasonable asking someone to explain their position, but the last few words, along with a significant proportion of this thread, seems to come from the general PC direction that anyone who criticises legislation that puts a minority in a preferential position is in fact concealing an opinion that that particular minority should be exterminated. That's plainly absurd.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a Christian to be against certain gay rights, particularly gay marriage. Moreover, I think it's quite reasonable for an an atheist to have reservations about that issue, too. It's also quite reasonable for an atheist or Christian to hold the opinion that children should ideally be raised by a man and a woman. Indeed, I see nothing unreasonable in finding these "hate" crimes rather inequitable — it's tantamount to saying that beating the s**t out of me is not as bad as beating the s**t out of an individual from a minority which happens to have particularly vociferous spokespersons.

You see, holding such opinions does not necessarily mean that you believe the minority in question should have any less rights than anyone else. It could mean you don't hold the view that they should have special treatment just because they are a minority who have representatives that are politically active.

Of course, you shouldn't confuse me finding a point of view reasonable with me necessarily agreeing completely with it.

Here's how my philosophies compare:

I kind of think they have nothing to worry about in that regard - if they're that loaded its kind of immaterial.



That's a hard toss up for me because while I don't condone it at all and am not thrilled about it I also realize this is a world where rape happens, medical complications, and when you have the sorts of stereotypicals everyone loves to hate who have em over and over like they just don't and never will see a consequence - you realize what kind of kids they'd be bringing into this world. Don't like it but unfortunately it has its necessity in terms of being an option.



I'm for them having the right to be them and do whatever they chose in private, I'm glad a lot of them are doing well as entrepeneurs, but at the same time I realize that the marriage argument comes down to a lot of technicals and whether its 'marriage' being a Judao-Christian term or the fact that they're against the sharing of health care benefit it seems like everyone has their point. IMO I think they should just expand what they do with civil unions - add healthcare extension and maybe try to dress them up in a way to where its not encroaching on the people who are only for marriage in the religious sense.



The crazy thing is most people don't know it but the rich get raped on taxes. Isn't it like close to 50% of their income at times? IMO they should get tax breaks but ONLY and particularly when they're reinvesting in job creation and helping the economy. Its your right to get rich in this country and particularly when you've earned it the hard way you deserve it, however you don't have the right to just straight up tuck it under your mattress or have it stashed in some Swiss or Cayman Islands bank account. This is where tax breaks and incentives come into play and there are already laws in place like this - there's a certain margin where if they go above it they're charged a holding penalty.



I disagree, they're necessary because again - influence on spending. Supposedly capitalism does work on the governance of the 'unseen hand' but still that hand needs a bit of octane boost at times and people could still derail that process if they bring it too far out of equilibrium. Tax incentives for corporations to recycle, tax incentives for hiring people with disabilities, you get the drill - its trying to get people to do things that are a little extra work which they might otherwise groan about if they weren't getting their margins knocked down a bit for the effort. Its the most efficient way to influence social policy on the fly and I'm just glad there are people out there with much better rote memories than mine who can keep track of that whole maze.

As for my political orientation though - hmmm, I'm overall conservative on economics but I would say I'm a social liberal (I'm also someone who thinks marijuana should be legalized). I'd say good luck on finding any description that matches you perfectly because the second you do - that party is in a constant state of change, you are too if your staying on top of politics and world events, and odds are that kind of perfect alignment with a party is fleeting and momentary at best.

No I'm against giving preferential treatment to any one. I mentioned exterminating
not to compare it to taking away some rights from gays. I ment it as does she literal
want them exterminated. The term gay rights seems wrong to me. I like the term human rights. I do not want gays getting any rights all humans in their community do
not have.

If you don't know, you're not 'part' of a political party.

At best, you will find that some speak to your values more than others.

You are right.