Political Test - an oldie but a goodie

[frigidweirdo]

So some people don't like the idea of gay marriage. So what?

So they shouldn't marry a gay person.

So some people don't like the idea, so ALL gay people shouldn't marry?

I don't like the idea of marriage at all, so NOBODY should be able to marry. End of story, one person has spoken, all must obey.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In a democracy, I suppose the voters should decide, but I'm an anarchist. Marriage is originally a religious institution, so in the absence of government the churches should decide.

Okay then, the voters have decided. The Bill of Rights and the 14A have been upheld by the voters in every single federal election since 1868.

So if there's a church that decides on gay marriage, then gay marriage is allowed then? Good. Because I know of at least one, and I'm not even religious.

 

[whitehall]

The trouble is that political labels such as "libertarian" have changed within the last ten years. Even the concept of what is liberal and conservative is different from what it was 200 years ago so you can't put a label on a historic figure. .Sometimes political agendas are are split such as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal" and sometimes political concepts are hijacked outright such as the pot heads becoming the vocal base of the libertarian party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

hmmmm, if the government says gays can marry, then government is mandating it, moron. It's simply mandating it the way you and the homos want rather than the way sensible people want.

Personally, I don't think government should have any laws that even refer to your marital status. But so long as we have such laws on the books, it's ridiculous to define a union of two people who lack the physical equipment for reproduction as being "married."

Well govt actually said they couldn't marry before. This is the point. It's not govt going from zero to allowing marriage. It's going from prohibition of marriage among same sex couples to getting rid of the prohibition.

If the govt gets rid of a prohibition of a part of liberty, it's not mandating something, it's freeing it up.

What does reproduction have to do with marrying?

 

[bripat9643]

The point is that the arguments used against racial discrimination are not relevant to the campaign for "gay marriage."

Or, the point being that you don't like people using such arguments and you want to shout them down.

Why?

Oh, it hardly takes a genius to realise why.

If black people suffered discrimination, and the form that it often took was people pretending that black people we're really entitled to human rights and freedom, and then you use the same form for gay marriage, what are we supposed to say? Just ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda or you can't cope with the argument?

Get real.

Government marriage benefits are not a human right. They are a privilege that government grants to married people to serve a social purpose. That purpose is not served by adding gays to the mix.

Human rights have nothing to do with so-called "gay marriage." It's simply a quest to get government benefits and social respectability. Of course, you can't mandate social respectability. People will never treat "gay marriages" as if they were genuine marriages.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

No, you're a child because you think two people who fall in love and choose to be together is an issue for the government to mandate - and yet you still claim to be all about freedom and liberty.

Anyone over the age of 10 would see the voice of the goddess hypocrisy screaming in delight from that.

hmmmm, if the government says gays can marry, then government is mandating it, moron. It's simply mandating it the way you and the homos want rather than the way sensible people want.

Personally, I don't think government should have any laws that even refer to your marital status. But so long as we have such laws on the books, it's ridiculous to define a union of two people who lack the physical equipment for reproduction as being "married."

Ah, so the government is going to force people to enter a gay marriage?

Are you sure?

Or is it that the government is going to let people themselves decide who they want to marry?

The government is forcing me to pay benefits to the members of gay marriages and it's forcing businesses to recognize these arrangements to be the same as real marriages.

Please don't try to claim no one is being forced to do anything. Everything government does is rooted in force.

 

[bripat9643]

hmmmm, if the government says gays can marry, then government is mandating it, moron. It's simply mandating it the way you and the homos want rather than the way sensible people want.

Personally, I don't think government should have any laws that even refer to your marital status. But so long as we have such laws on the books, it's ridiculous to define a union of two people who lack the physical equipment for reproduction as being "married."

Well govt actually said they couldn't marry before. This is the point. It's not govt going from zero to allowing marriage. It's going from prohibition of marriage among same sex couples to getting rid of the prohibition.

If the govt gets rid of a prohibition of a part of liberty, it's not mandating something, it's freeing it up.

What does reproduction have to do with marrying?

Marriage benefits are a government granted privilege. They aren't "rights" any more than Social Security is a right.

 

[Freewill]

Does anyone really believe Gandhi actually took this test?

 

[Carla_Danger]

I do find it rather silly that Libertarian is presented as the opposite of Authoritarian - and yet most Libertarians I come across want more police, more defence and more limits on everything from gay marriage to abortion.

Maybe they're not libertarians, they just pretend to be.

Maybe they're just assholes.

 

[Bfgrn]

 

[Carla_Danger]

 

[frigidweirdo]

Government marriage benefits are not a human right. They are a privilege that government grants to married people to serve a social purpose. That purpose is not served by adding gays to the mix.

Human rights have nothing to do with so-called "gay marriage." It's simply a quest to get government benefits and social respectability. Of course, you can't mandate social respectability. People will never treat "gay marriages" as if they were genuine marriages.

No, they'd be covered under equality of the law, read the 14th Amendment recently?

So if it grants it to married people, all consenting adults have to have the opportunity to marry, otherwise it isn't equality of the law.

Would you say there's a right to privacy? A right to liberty? These things have gay marriage under their umbrella.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The government is forcing me to pay benefits to the members of gay marriages and it's forcing businesses to recognize these arrangements to be the same as real marriages.

Please don't try to claim no one is being forced to do anything. Everything government does is rooted in force.

Govt forces me to pay benefits to members of straight marriages and it forces business to recognize these arrangements.

 

[JWBooth]

Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

 

[Ragnar]

Been a long time but holds up OK despite some badly phrased questions. That said, about as good a "test" as I've ever found.

Economic Left/Right: 7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13


Same old, same old. lol

 

[Tresha91203]

Kinda surprised. I consider myself fiscally conservative in a balanced budget way but not in a "don't fund the arts" way. Socially, I consider it mostly none of my business.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My biggest complaint about this test that hurts it's economic validity is it equates anti-corporatism to being leftist. That is flat out wrong.
I am very conservative economically, which is attested by my post. However this text rates me as -.88 because I answered negative in every question about corporations.
I am extremely pro-business, which is why I am very much against corporatism that we have today
Corporatism indeed causes wealth concentration, but that is not the biggest problem. Greater than that is it's denial of opportunity.

 

[Tresha91203]

My biggest complaint about this test that hurts it's economic validity is it equates anti-corporatism to being leftist. That is flat out wrong.
I am very conservative economically, which is attested by my post. However this text rates me as -.88 because I answered negative in every question about corporations.
I am extremely pro-business, which is why I am very much against corporatism that we have today
Corporatism indeed causes wealth concentration, but that is not the biggest problem. Greater than that is it's denial of opportunity.

I agree. I'm conservative and small goverment, but that does not mean zero oversight or regulations. The questions are worded poorly IMO.