hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them

View Poll Results: Result?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Solid Liberals

    30 51.72%
  • Faith and Family Left

    0 0%
  • Next Generation Left

    13 22.41%
  • Hard-Pressed Skeptics

    1 1.72%
  • Young Outsiders

    3 5.17%
  • Business Conservatives

    3 5.17%
  • Steadfast Conservatives

    4 6.90%
  • Bystanders

    4 6.90%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: Political Alignment Quiz (US Based)

  1. #61
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Steph View Post
    Having only two responses to each question forces me to pick one extreme or the other
    As others have said, American politics in a nutshell.

  2. #62
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetsuo View Post
    Do Chinese citizens count as having political opinions when they live in a single party state and any opinion other than "our government sure is awesome" results in summary execution and then organ harvesting for the black market?
    Nah they've gotten more civilized, they take a page from the Soviet handbook of destroying dissidents by putting them into psychiatric wards for several years

  3. #63
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    So I'm next gen left, but more than likely I'd be more like outsider or bystander if they had more questions.

  4. #64
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,512
    I'm actually interested in a proper quiz and a comparison of the USA to the rest of the civilized world.


    

  5. #65
    HEY LOOK AT ME I HAVE A TITAN LordsServant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 3, 2011
    Location
    [VENIO]
    Posts
    4,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Aea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aea View Post
    "Marriage" is not a uniquely Religious or Christian concept.
    Who said it was?

    I thought it was a given that the debate about whether a civil union is allowed was over, except in trailer parks and shithole countries where they can't conceive such a thing.


    I mean obviously a troll but still. I find it greatly amusing.
    Not a troll. Read below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by LordsServant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Gays should have equal rights.
    That's what I just said.

    Religions shouldn't be forced to do w/e unless they're actively harming other people (if your religion says you should drag a woman into the street and murder her, damn right your religion should be FORCED to fuck right off with that shit).

    I'm against gays getting married in the Christian sense under a religion that's against it; I am FOR equal rights.
    I'd agree that forcing an institution that doesn't want to marry them is a pointless fight. In principle there is a problem with what you're saying, and that is that if a religious group is just like any other group, and if a religious group can discriminate based on orientation, so can other groups. Clubs can say they won't let gays in, for example. And what's to stop them doing the same thing based on race? The only counter argument I can think of is that religion should be allowed to get away with it for historical reasons, and that's not a very good argument either.

    Fortunately getting married in a religious ceremony so you can get a gold star from some guy wearing a special hat, or to get vacuous respect from stupid family members or friends who ought not to be your friends if they expect that from you has little real value.
    This is what I refer to. You can't force people to change their religions (based on the basic right of religious freedom) unless they're actively hurting someone (various other rights like the basic right to not get murdered or assaulted obviously trump the right to religious freedom.)

    At the same time, those religious people should not be able to force their religion on everybody - just as they have the right to be religious or w/e if that makes them happy, LGBT people should have the right to be with the one they love, complete with ALL legal rights therein.

    You can call it whatever you want - civil union, marriage, w/e - there should be no distinction between the two in the EYES OF THE LAW AS FAR AS LEGAL RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED.

    You can have whatever personal opinions you want on how it's "unnatural" or w/e the fuck else, but that shouldn't affect how a human being is treated compared to another under the government.

    Equal rights are VERY important.

    For example, if you want to make up a Raviolian religion where you ONLY religiously recognize MTF transgender people getting "married" to eunuchs, and you want to pronounce them "Ravioli and Ragu" that should be perfectly fine, and you should be welcome to PERSONALLY religiously not be ok with Males "marrying" Females if that's your thing. That's religious freedom. However, that religious freedom is personal to those that choose to practice that religion, and NOT at all related to how we decide who gets legal rights in the eyes of the law as far as being together.

    Arguing semantics over "civil union" or "marriage" or "Ravioli and Ragu" is fucking stupid. All 3 should have equal rights in the eyes of the law, with no distinction made between the 3 as far as legal rights are concerned.

    It doesn't matter what you want to call it, or what your personal beliefs are; the only thing that matters is that you are treated equally by law and government.
    It's 2020. Get a grip.

  6. #66
    DevilDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,900
    oh man the questions in that thing are so deeply flawed that any statistical analysis would be by definition useless.

  7. #67
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Steph View Post
    Basically it's a shit quiz, but at least it's not actively deceptive in how it presents itself like the other one was.

  8. #68
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,138
    Quote Originally Posted by LordsServant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aea View Post
    "Marriage" is not a uniquely Religious or Christian concept.
    Who said it was?

    I thought it was a given that the debate about whether a civil union is allowed was over, except in trailer parks and shithole countries where they can't conceive such a thing.


    I mean obviously a troll but still. I find it greatly amusing.
    Not a troll. Read below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by LordsServant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Gays should have equal rights.
    That's what I just said.

    Religions shouldn't be forced to do w/e unless they're actively harming other people (if your religion says you should drag a woman into the street and murder her, damn right your religion should be FORCED to fuck right off with that shit).

    I'm against gays getting married in the Christian sense under a religion that's against it; I am FOR equal rights.
    I'd agree that forcing an institution that doesn't want to marry them is a pointless fight. In principle there is a problem with what you're saying, and that is that if a religious group is just like any other group, and if a religious group can discriminate based on orientation, so can other groups. Clubs can say they won't let gays in, for example. And what's to stop them doing the same thing based on race? The only counter argument I can think of is that religion should be allowed to get away with it for historical reasons, and that's not a very good argument either.

    Fortunately getting married in a religious ceremony so you can get a gold star from some guy wearing a special hat, or to get vacuous respect from stupid family members or friends who ought not to be your friends if they expect that from you has little real value.
    This is what I refer to. You can't force people to change their religions (based on the basic right of religious freedom) unless they're actively hurting someone (various other rights like the basic right to not get murdered or assaulted obviously trump the right to religious freedom.)

    At the same time, those religious people should not be able to force their religion on everybody - just as they have the right to be religious or w/e if that makes them happy, LGBT people should have the right to be with the one they love, complete with ALL legal rights therein.

    You can call it whatever you want - civil union, marriage, w/e - there should be no distinction between the two in the EYES OF THE LAW AS FAR AS LEGAL RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED.

    You can have whatever personal opinions you want on how it's "unnatural" or w/e the fuck else, but that shouldn't affect how a human being is treated compared to another under the government.

    Equal rights are VERY important.

    For example, if you want to make up a Raviolian religion where you ONLY religiously recognize MTF transgender people getting "married" to eunuchs, and you want to pronounce them "Ravioli and Ragu" that should be perfectly fine, and you should be welcome to PERSONALLY religiously not be ok with Males "marrying" Females if that's your thing. That's religious freedom. However, that religious freedom is personal to those that choose to practice that religion, and NOT at all related to how we decide who gets legal rights in the eyes of the law as far as being together.

    Arguing semantics over "civil union" or "marriage" or "Ravioli and Ragu" is fucking stupid. All 3 should have equal rights in the eyes of the law, with no distinction made between the 3 as far as legal rights are concerned.

    It doesn't matter what you want to call it, or what your personal beliefs are; the only thing that matters is that you are treated equally by law and government.
    Thats fine for Churches, I agree, they shouldn't be requiring a Catholic Churh to marry gays in the Church.

    Where it's NOT fine for is normal business.

    Like the Cake Maker case, who tried to argue that making a cake for a gay wedding was against their beliefs. Bollocks.

    We all know that cake maker sure a s fuck didn't ask any of his other customers if they committed adultery, dishonered their father or mother, took the Lords name in vain, etc. I.e. BIG sins, breaking the commandments.

    Much less did they ask customers if they broken other of Gods laws.

    So clearly breaking Gods laws is irrelevant to that person in the course of doing normal business. Except for gays.

    And more, making a acke and putting names on it is not, in fact, a sin, nor it it "supporting sin" unless the sin in question is glutony of course.

    Sorry, but if you choose to open a business, you are also required not to descriminae, period, Thats the way civilized people operate.

    And until that cake makers starts giving his customers a 30 page list to ensure they're not breaking other sins, his "principled stance" against writing two male names on a cake is a crock of hypocritical selective bullshit.


  9. #69
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,605
    Didth the baker baketh the dough over a fire of a mans dung?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •