Your Political Affiliation

[Penalt]

With regards to this 'Political affiliation' and with regards to derail ensuing....spirited discussion may I offer the following link.

Political Compass Test

Click on 'Take the Test' second down on the left....
My results:
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
Which makes me a Social and Economic Libertarian. Close to Ghandi on the scale apparently....ack!

 

[BogartSlap]

wow

Not does calling something a fact make it one.

Conservatives have no problem with "sexual freedom". They do have a problem with freedom divorced from responsibility. They also believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to use the intelligence we are given to decide what behaviors tend to strengthen and build up a society and which ones corrode them. They use the words "conservative" because they seek to conserve the things that have worked or hundreds or thousands of years.

A concise. intelligent comment...forgive me, but I have no idea how to respond to the presence of such a post.

 

[BogartSlap]

sorry you can't seem to meet a better class of people

...most men liberal conservative or otherwise are complete hypocrites when it comes to actual parity. I've found about a 50 50 split among conservative and liberal men who actually took an interest in my well being beyond my tits.

Most PEOPLE are hypocrites, time to time, about one thing or another.
Sorry about your unfortunate experiences with meeting people who lack a genuine concern for you - perhaps you're hanging out with the wrong crowds. Your comment reminded me of the joke about the lady who complains about the soldiers at Fort Hood, "I've fucked about 3,000 of them, and they're ALL lousy lays!"...the punchline being, "After the first 1,000 or so, did it ever occur to you that you might be part of the problem?".

 

[Netzach]

The "other people's marriages" is just an excuse to mask something that is not politically correct: people are annoyed by homosexuality. Of course you can't say that, because you are immediately labeled a "homophobe", whether you fear or have contempt towards homosexuals or not.

Since people have backed themeselves into the simplistic worldview of dualtiy -good and bad- people are unable to comprehend more complex issues like homosexualty. Traditionally, homosexuality has been a luxury -in the day-to-day struggle for survival of pre-contemporary, sexual promiscuity was reserved primarly for the rich. In fact, there is abundant testimony of Roman, Grecian, Egyptian and even Babylonian orgies with copious homoerotic entertainment. It is only now, with reliable food supplies and sufficient free time, has homosexuality reached the masses, and the masses have had to consider it as part of their lives. This change is not one lots of people are willing to accept.

So, while homosexuality might not have any negative connotations or effects to an individual, or in the sphere of individuality; within a social context, it quite possibly could be negative. I think the debate rages on the issue, because we the people are unable to reconcile the apparent paradox of an activity that can be individually good, but socially unhealthy. Conversely, we are also unable to come to terms with things that are socially healthy or necesary, but individually negative.

Untill we can make the clear distinction between private individualism, and public socialism -and in which cases applies what- we will be banging our heads against eachother.

Homosexuality results in what, fewer babies? Is that the public menace?

We're a very crowded ship. A few less well fed industrialized people is a public service.

 

[Netzach]

Most PEOPLE are hypocrites, time to time, about one thing or another.
Sorry about your unfortunate experiences with meeting people who lack a genuine concern for you - perhaps you're hanging out with the wrong crowds. Your comment reminded me of the joke about the lady who complains about the soldiers at Fort Hood, "I've fucked about 3,000 of them, and they're ALL lousy lays!"...the punchline being, "After the first 1,000 or so, did it ever occur to you that you might be part of the problem?".

I wouldn't reach any special inferences about me from it, I'm far from the first person to notice such a thing.

But I also noticed a distinct lack of pattern between submissive index and political party. There are just as many conservative submissives, if not even more, than Doms. Maybe we're seeing the gender gap in action and the lack of msub participation on Lit in action.

 

[BogartSlap]

I must have missed that part, too

And here we find the vocabulary police, something the Left is constantly being accused of. "Homophobic" "Racist" oh pleeeeease don't offend our sensibilities.

Did I say my sensibilities were offended? You know, you really have quite a talent for projection. I probably don't even need to type my side of the conversation - you can just make it all up for me out of your own head.

 

[BogartSlap]

bunk

But the idea that this does something to *other people's marriages* is bunk.

What's "bunk" is the insane notion that altering the definition of the basic foundational building block of all of human society is really no big deal and nothing we need take ten seconds to consider the implications of, before doing.

 

[Netzach]

What's "bunk" is the insane notion that altering the definition of the basic foundational building block of all of human society is really no big deal and nothing we need take ten seconds to consider the implications of, before doing.

News flash. It's always altering. It's been altering since we've been humping in pairs. You feel like you have a pipeline to what it's meant for millenia, whereas I'm willing to say I have no idea what it's meant for millenia because I'm here now. I live now. I'm talking about a civil process by which I can split my stuff, care for my children, and care for my loved ones whether or not they have a dick.

 

[Netzach]

I also still find the idea that liberals don't make good Dom material interesting when we're running 14-9 on this poll and I'm the only femdom dumb enough to bother to come out of the woodwork and I know femdoms are a minority around here.

Obviously you guys are in over your heads. Whoever you are.

And I'm done playing "talk to Ann Coulter" for today.

 

[Shankara20]

"talk to Ann Coulter"

 

[BogartSlap]

how short-sighted can you get?

Homosexuality results in what, fewer babies? Is that the public menace?

As a member of the "sixties generation", I recall how we wondered what all the fuss was about over our engaging in pre-marital, extra-marital, any-old-kind-of sex. All the concern was "obviously" just the result of people being "uptight", "old-fashioned", "intolerant", "judgmental"...or just plain stupid. (WE, of course, were just enlightened, intelligent, and progressive as hell.)
We look back now, a mere quarter of a century later, at a world in which STDs are both epidemic and increasingly fatal, and rather than thinking that all the fuss was "ridiculous" (as you project future generations will think about the debate over homosexuality), if we're honest with ourselves then we're forced to confront the fact that, "Hm...maaaaaybe we didn't quite think this thing through far enough...".

 

[BogartSlap]

none so blind as those who will not see

News flash. It's always altering. It's been altering since we've been humping in pairs. You feel like you have a pipeline to what it's meant for millenia, whereas I'm willing to say I have no idea what it's meant for millenia because I'm here now.

News flash - no, it hasn't been altering. My only "pipeline" is a willingness to accept the truth of human history - in this instance, namely that marriage has - since the beginning of recorded history - ALWAYS been defined, and understood to mean, a male/female union. If you have "no idea" that that is indeed what the term has meant all over the world for millenia, then you've simply chosen to indulge in willful ignorance of the facts.
You are, of course, free to make that choice...but I can't honestly recommend it as a good idea.

 

[brioche]

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

Close to Ghandi as well. It says I'm a left-wing communist Just because I think big business is too intrusive on our lives. I think the questions either need to be more specific or the answers need to have more choices. There were some questions I felt ambivalent about.

 

[BiBunny]

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

Close to Ghandi as well. It says I'm a left-wing communist Just because I think big business is too intrusive on our lives. I think the questions either need to be more specific or the answers need to have more choices. There were some questions I felt ambivalent about.

I could've written this post myself. I took the test and scored in the same close-to-Ghandi category.

I'm really politically apathetic (as in, I haven't even bothered to register to vote because I can't fathom trying to decide between the lesser of two evils). In this poll, though, I picked "switch, politically liberal," although libertarian is probably closer to the mark as far as U.S. politics go. I'd also venture to guess that most of us here do hover around the liberal or libertarian categories. This is just my own opinion, so no flames please. My own Master identifies as conservative, although if you talk to him, he's really somewhat libertarian as well. Like Netz, I personally can't imagine supporting a group who would just as soon throw us kinksters in a dungeon somewhere and throw away the key as to look at us. And I ain't talkin' a fun kind of dungeon, either.

 

[m wisdom]

As a member of the "sixties generation", I recall how we wondered what all the fuss was about over our engaging in pre-marital, extra-marital, any-old-kind-of sex. All the concern was "obviously" just the result of people being "uptight", "old-fashioned", "intolerant", "judgmental"...or just plain stupid. (WE, of course, were just enlightened, intelligent, and progressive as hell.)
We look back now, a mere quarter of a century later, at a world in which STDs are both epidemic and increasingly fatal, and rather than thinking that all the fuss was "ridiculous" (as you project future generations will think about the debate over homosexuality), if we're honest with ourselves then we're forced to confront the fact that, "Hm...maaaaaybe we didn't quite think this thing through far enough...".

This is the first good argument I have ever heard against homosexual marriages. Much respect to you BogartSlap for bringing up a valid argument to this discussion.

However, how many people do you believe are against homosexual marriages because they want to "slow things down and discuss the possible consequences" compared to people that are just simply being "uptight", "old-fashioned", "intolerant", "judgmental"...or just plain stupid?

Back to the disscussion: I would like to hear what problems you think there might be with homosexual marriages that aren't based on an intolerant or judgmental view. To connect back to what you said before, STD's are a valid argument against sleeping around with everyone else. Are there any as valid resons against homosexual marriages or homosexuality in general?

 

[SpectreT]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

 

[bisexplicit]

I'd just like to note, that it appears that it's slightly more even for dominants in terms of liberal/conservative, and much more favored for submissives to be liberal.

Now, the question is, does gender factor in? Are more women submissives, and, therefore, this poll is more recognizing that more females are liberal, rather then saying something about submissives?

 

[BogartSlap]

notes

This is the first good argument I have ever heard against homosexual marriages. Much respect to you BogartSlap for bringing up a valid argument to this discussion.
However, how many people do you believe are against homosexual marriages because they want to "slow things down and discuss the possible consequences" compared to people that are just simply being "uptight", "old-fashioned", "intolerant", "judgmental"...or just plain stupid?
Back to the disscussion: I would like to hear what problems you think there might be with homosexual marriages that aren't based on an intolerant or judgmental view. To connect back to what you said before, STD's are a valid argument against sleeping around with everyone else. Are there any as valid resons against homosexual marriages or homosexuality in general?

This is the "first" good argument you've heard on this? - Man, you need to get out more. Anyway, thanks for the nod of respect, but I don't deserve it.
I know it's a mistake (like THAT's ever stopped me!), but I'll attempt an answer to your question. First, as noted previously, there's just the fact that we're thinking about a major re-defining of the foundational relationship of all human society. Marriages - families - communities - villages - cities - states - nations. It all arises from the original joining together of people - marriage. To my feeble mind, you just think long and hard before you start adjusting the foundation stone that everything else is built on top of.
I'd also spin the question around, and ask what's GOOD about homosexual marriage? - in what significant way do we think it will be of benefit to our society to legitimize such relationships? There isn't a lot of history to go on here, but what little there is isn't very encouraging - the only two major societies/nations in history to in any significant way embrace or legitimize the practice of homosexuality, Greece and Rome, both collapsed within a century. Even without a direct cause-and-effect line drawn on page 84 of your world history textbook, that alone is sufficient reason to give any reasonable person "pause for thought". So, I think before you go changing the definition of marriage, the "burden of proof" lies with pro-homosexual-marriage advocates to demonstrate significant benefits to society that would result from such a change, rather than being on traditionalists to show "what's wrong with it".
Also, there are at this point dozens of long-term studies that have been done documenting that children suffer when raised in ANY family arrangement other than with their biological mother and father - everything in the world from lower test scores to more likely to commit crimes, more likely to abuse drugs, more likely to suffer divorce, LOWER SEXUAL SATISFACTION (I figure that's a "biggie" in here!). Given that, why would we want to legitimize, give the societal "good housekeeping seal of approval" to, relationships that we KNOW will necessarily result in children not being raised in the traditional societal family arrangement that appears decidedly most beneficial for them? Sure, Mom and Dad may get divorced, and Mom may end up a single parent, or the kids may end up with a step-parent...but maybe not. In contrast, legitimization of homosexual marriage would guarantee that a certain percentage of children would be reared in a familial arrangement less than the ideal one (ideal from the point of view of beneficial to society/most likely to produce happy, successful adults from those little monsters...er, kiddies).
And now to make the most unpopular statement I can come up with: Male homosexual behavior is still - eighty gazillion condom ads on TV later - the leading cause of transmission of HIV/AIDS in this country. Do we want to in any way legitimize a practice that has led to - and continues to result in - thousands of unnecessary deaths, thereby costing our society untold billions in health care costs? Again I'd ask, what's the upside to doing that, as compared to the downside?
I've droned on long enough. Welcome to the funhouse - appreciate your comments. Let's try (yeah, I know it's a vain hope) to keep the discussion civil.
Jack

 

[BogartSlap]

I'll have another sub - all the way, please

I'd just like to note, that it appears that it's slightly more even for dominants in terms of liberal/conservative, and much more favored for submissives to be liberal.
Now, the question is, does gender factor in? Are more women submissives, and, therefore, this poll is more recognizing that more females are liberal, rather then saying something about submissives?

Well, there are definitely WAY more female subs - I don't even think that's under debate. But are more females liberal? - I think not. For example, polls consistently show that more women than men are opposed to both abortion and homosexual marriage (not to mention drunk-driving!).

 

[BogartSlap]

everything's a judgment

I would like to hear what problems you think there might be with homosexual marriages that aren't based on an intolerant or judgmental view.

Just a quick note on that one statement. Everything, and everybody, is "judgmental" on this issue. Precisely what's going on is that our society is in the process of making a judgment call on whether or not to legitimize homosexual relationships/marriages. It's misleading to say that people are one side of the issue are "judgmental" but people on the other side aren't - both are making judgments about what's right or wrong, good or bad, helpful or harmful. They just happen to be making different judgments, that's all. For the pro-homosexual marriage crowd to claim that they are somehow non-judgmental is misleading at best, and downright dishonest as hell at worst.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hmmm, I got Economic Left/Right : -5.50; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46. I will be allowed to continue dwelling in F's house.

Catalina

 

[BogartSlap]

SpectreT has the solution!

I glanced at SpectreT's location line, and had a moment of enlightenment. You know, all this debate shit is really lame. The question of homosexual marriage should be settled in an intelligent, rational manner - namely, with a really awesome squirt gun fight!

 

[Netzach]

Uh, I believe the leading cause of AIDS transmission worldwide has hopped to heterosexual transmission in the third world, probably about a decade ago. HIV is a virus, last I checked, not a behavior.

I wasn't alive for the giant fuckfest of the 60's and '70s. It was a bad idea, clearly. I do talk to people around at that time frequently, and it sounds really excessive and insane. I've always conducted myself responsibly if not perfectly. I've never done drugs, I've not left a litter of bastard children in my wake, and I've never contracted an STD for all my sexual deviancy.

There were plenty of hets hooking up and haunting the VD clinics too, though. It's not like queers had the premium on the casual fuck.

I've never understood this logic. "We abhor you because you're promiscuous."

"Ah. OK. Well I'd like to settle in with my boyfriend, maybe adopt some kids nobody else wants. We make good money and can take care of kids with compound emotional and physical issues and we have backgrounds in that kind of work."

"Hell no! You are eroding the world!"

Then let's let you adopt those kids and yank them out of your house after 10 years because you have no rights as adoptive parents. That's stabilizing.

 

[Shankara20]

Also, there are at this point dozens of long-term studies that have been done documenting that children suffer when raised in ANY family arrangement other than with their biological mother and father -

My wife (now my ex-wife) was raped at age 8 by her biological father. He kept it up till she was 12 and only stopped then because the mother filed for divorce and took all 5 kids with her. Turns out he had had his way with them all at one time or another.

The husband and wife that raised me were both raging alcoholics until the day they each died. Broad generalities, IMHO, fall apart when applied to individuals. An ideal is wonderful - and often far fetched from the reality of the word.

Most of our foundational books talk of peace as the idea and model. My country, the U.S. of A., is a peace loving country. For a way long time (that is a technical term for "a way long time") violence and war has been the norm for settling disputes - it still is but not quite as often. Wives and children have, at one time, been seen as property with no rights at all - in some place they still are. I could not vote in my country (U.S. of A.) if it were 1800 - I'm white, I'm male, but I do not own property. The foundations of societies change over time, often after hard sacrifices are made by risk takes brave enough to say "hold on a moment, that just does not seem fair"

I may be rambling here a bit, but I happen to wonder just how the world is threatened if my boyfriend and I (I'm a man) love each other and wish to live openly in a committed relationship. How does what we do at home lead to the total downfall of the "civilized" world when the killing of 650,000 people in 4 years following an invasion of another country will not. Making love to another man is more of a threat to a way of life then murdering civilians?

Wow - I sure went off topic there, sorry - sorta.

ps - I'm guess I'd be called a liberal by most.

pss - I believe the largest "at-risk" communities in the U.S. of A. for HIV-AIDS infections right now are the communities that are still lying to themselves about there own sexual activities out of shame and lousy sex-ed. Hiding the facts of biology behind dogma and belief-systems tends to create large problems down the road.

Sorry again. I'll try to stay focused in future posts here.

Hi, I'm Shank - prone to fits and rants

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi, I'm Shank - prone to fits and rants

http://www.smiliemania.de/smilie132/00001589.gif You are so adorable.

Catalinahttp://home.scarlet.be/~cl898452/index/cats/killer1.gif