Sexual preference and political alignment

[CelticBerserker]

I've changed quite a bit over the last few years. I suppose some of it is just growing up. Most of my twenties I was a super hardcore liberal. As I get older I find myself rejecting a lot of the political ideas of my punk rock fueled youth in favor of more traditional and/or conservative ones.

Go ahead. Call me a fascist or an extremist. Get it out of your system now so I can move on.

Still with me? Ex-cellent.

Where was I? Oh yes. My next thought comes in the form of a question.

How much bearing (if any) do you let your sexual identity have on your political perspective and why?

[Warrior Poet 69]

The first thought/response that crossed my mind was...absolutely none. Then upon a bit of introspection I realized that sexually I am pretty much middle of the road(bisexual) with a slight lean to the right (hetero). And guess what? Pretty much the same politically. Not a conscious thing obviously but....hmmm. Good thought provoking question!

[CelticBerserker]

The first thought/response that crossed my mind was...absolutely none. Then upon a bit of introspection I realized that sexually I am pretty much middle of the road(bisexual) with a slight lean to the right (hetero). And guess what? Pretty much the same politically. Not a conscious thing obviously but....hmmm. Good thought provoking question!
Thanks for your input. I just got an itch to pose this question recently. A lot of my friends are to the left of friggin' Trotsky and can't seem to understand why any queer person would not be. More than anything I despise being told what to think because I'm this or that.

Regards-
Tom

[falcondfw]

Tom,
Well, my bisexuality is in complete contrast with my political views.
I was raised in a conservative, evangelical Christian household. I am still not out to my family and friends because of it. I am actually mostly hetero, but have been with guys and enjoyed it a lot.
On the issue of LGBT priorities, I see both sides of the issues and it really tears at me.
On almost everything else, well . . . let's put it this way, President Reagan was a major influence on me and one of the reasons I enlisted. I think, actually, I am to the right of him on most issues, but especially fiscally. I am EXTREMELY conservative there.
Peace, through superior firepower is also a motto I strongly believe in.

[darkeyes]

It all rather depends whether we are more concerned with our human values or our freedom to be and the things which make us most human. My sexual identity has no bearing on my political values, neither do they on my sexual identity.. one is determined by my human values, the other by the fact that I am... and both tell me the same thing... I am no turkey and don't vote for xmas...

[void()]

Go ahead. Call me a fascist or an extremist. Get it out of your system now so I can move on.

How much bearing (if any) do you let your sexual identity have on your political perspective and why?

Fascist.

None save desiring to have a society where people may have a husband and wife, a woman can have a husband and wife, a man can too. I do not foresee that happening no matter what political ideology of today one chooses.

I also truly believe unless the common people rise up and deliberately take power from the corrupt leaders and establish a sane form of autonomy based on common law, we'll keep hearing the refrain of the 'song that remains the same'. That song is probably what you see as fascist jackboots on the human face.

I dislike that system and try to remain out of it as best able, meaning I am apt to not be political. My notions regarding that are keen to Lao Tzu's, good leaders lead by example and people follow the example voluntarily without realizing they are lead. We are not there yet despite my belief that we should be. This makes me disillusioned and disappointed with the state of human potentiality.

[void()]

Peace, through superior firepower is also a motto I strongly believe in.

You then, would understand a solution my father in law put forward regarding the Middle East. "We need to make it (the Middle East) a glass parking lot." For those whom don't comprehend, when a nuclear explosion occurs material is converted to base elements and superheated in a flash, cooled in a flash too. As the Middle East is largely sand, you'd end up with glass left.

[innaminka]

I don't see how my political views re affected by my sexuality.
Rather, I think with age (maturity) one tends to have a more even sense of the world.
In my youth I was probably not interested, but maybe had a soft spot for "causes." (no, I never burned a bra.)
With maturity, although far from a conservative, I appreciate how the world works a bit more - that capital and labour and sensible finances are critical for any country.
The world needs radical thinkers, but as long as they only think......... otherwise you get Pol Pot!

[tenni]

Post 5
"I am no turkey and don't vote for xmas..."

Well, this statement took me a second to catch on to. ;)
I agree with it in the sense if you are X(bisexual let's consider), why would you vote for a political belief that was going to harm you?

The use of words like "conservative" and "liberal" are really societal based. I suspect that those posters from the US who call themselves "conservatives" are different from those who call themselves "conservatives" in Canada (maybe Britain) depending upon the issue.

A conservative Canadian and British would be more inclined to support universal health care, strict gun laws(not all Canuck conservatives would support strong gun laws though). Even on the issue of same sex marriage, you may find conservatives in Canada and Britain supporting it more likely than a US conservative.

As far as myself, no my sexuality has little significance on my political view of myself as a person who is inclined to see his views as liberal. As the OP states, I do find my political views less "liberal" as I travel through life. I wonder why some/many of us do that though?

[fredtyg]

All I can say is most LGBT types I've know tend to lean fairly strong to the left, with the exception of one guy I know who I'd have to describe a right wing conservative. Myself, I've evolved from a moderate conservative type to libertarian, which I'm surprised to find few LGBT types identify as. I would think gay, lez and bi folks would be the first to have a live and let live, libertarian type philosophy.

Along that line, anybody ever taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz)? You might be surprised where you end up on the chart. I naturally end up as a libertarian. If most here end up in the liberal/authoritarian areas, maybe my personal observations are pretty close to reality?

[i_shoot_blanks]

I'm bisexiual, retired from the military, pro-choice, anti illegal alien, ..... and conservative. I was an independent for several years because I do not tolerate anyone telling me what to think. I rejoined the republican party in order to vote against McCain in the 2010 primary. My sexuality has nothing to do with my political opinions.

[darkeyes]

All I can say is most LGBT types I've know tend to lean fairly strong to the left, with the exception of one guy I know who I'd have to describe a right wing conservative. Myself, I've evolved from a moderate conservative type to libertarian, which I'm surprised to find few LGBT types identify as. I would think gay, lez and bi folks would be the first to have a live and let live, libertarian type philosophy.
Many do, Fred... libertarianism is a left wing concept outside of the US and libertarian socialism well known and common as a philosophy outside of ur country and has many adherents... libertarianism was originally a concept of the left whichever way we look at it but is more readily identified as left wing or social anarchism.... right wing libertarianism is a Johnny come lately in relative terms and the term adopted in the US to describe the socially liberal and fiscally, economically and politically conservative and pro capitalist whereas that of the left, anti capitalist and pro socialist.. Noam Chomsky was a Libertarian but not one I think u would readily identify with.. and I have sometimes described myself as such. Many gay, lesbian and bisexual people around the world identify themselves in the same way, and if they do not in the US it is likely to be because Libertarianism in the US means something quite different and what u would call Libertarian is not a word that the socially liberal but politically conservative outside of the US would dream of describing themselves as. Libertarianism is not a concept owned by the right however much those libertarians in the US might wish to claim otherwise.

[CelticBerserker]

Some interesting thoughts from all.

@Fran- What to you constitutes the core of "Libertarian Socialism"? I've always thought of the two terms as being in direct opposition to one another. I have a friend who identifies as such and she's never really articulated it to me beyond her obvious contempt for capitalism.

Also, I think your definition of American Libertarianism is a bit of an oversimplification. There's a lot of factions within the American Libertarian movement, some who are not socially liberal at all. In spite of their social conservatism, I think the main goal of these (and most) libertarians is to get the govt. out of every inane little aspect of our lives.


I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

[darkeyes]

Some interesting thoughts from all.

@Fran- What to you constitutes the core of "Libertarian Socialism"? I've always thought of the two terms as being in direct opposition to one another. I have a friend who identifies as such and she's never really articulated it to me beyond her obvious contempt for capitalism.

Also, I think your definition of American Libertarianism is a bit of an oversimplification. There's a lot of factions within the American Libertarian movement, some who are not socially liberal at all. In spite of their social conservatism, I think the main goal of these (and most) libertarians is to get the govt. out of every inane little aspect of our lives.


I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it.
It is also contempt for the great lumbering ox of state socialism as much as capitalism... libertarianism is a an invention the the left and many, including me,, are of the opinion that a truly socialist society cannot exist where a burocracy and monolothic state exists.. the Soviet Union was neither communist or socialist but a monstrous burocracy and tyranny where the hopes and aspirations of its people were eliminated.. it was a system of state capitalism in effect with power placed in the hands of a chosen few sometimes elected from within an elite but as often appointed by a single person......libertarianism of the left is about power being retained in the hands of the bottom rung of society and not crushed under foot by the monstrosity of the state and any "godlike" figure or elite which may run it. It is a misnomer the expression "bottom rung" since there would in fact be no bottom rung... or top rung... it is anarchy...not what most probably think of as anarchy, but a way of human beings getting along and prospering without the monolith of the state to crush their dreams and aspirations. and to protect their freedoms.....all equal with equal rights and obligations and equal "power".. a system of co-operation and mutual support between all human beings where no elite exists. The self regulation of a society for the well being of all by all within it on an equal basis..... the state would not be brought under the control of the people for the state would cease to exist and have no meaning...

It is an ideal society.. one for millennia in the future.. not for now.. but one which we on the left, or at least large numbers of us see as the ultimate end of a journey to achieve true human contentment. We are idealists but not silly about it.. each step we take towards making our world a little more socialist is a step closer to achieving an end.. not all socialists agree with us.. they are men and women in my opinion of much more limited vision and ambition for humanity.. true libertarianism.. left libertarian socialism or anarchy may indeed never be achievable.. but without our dreams and our ambitions for our own kind what are we? We strive to be as perfect as we can be...and with each generation we make small steps.. I have my dreams and do my little bit to help humanity get there.. I will never see it.. but I do believe it is perfectly feasible many many generations hence...

[IanBorthwick]

I'm a middle of the road bisexual, but I am Liberal. On some things I am VERY liberal, on others I would be called Conservative but that's because of their lack of understanding of the basics of political maneuvering. At most you could not cal me a hardcore left, more of a left of Center to Middle Center. I firmly believe working for ones self foremost and to the detriment of others deserves you a solid punch in the face. Make love not war, but if you fuck with my loved ones(and you'd be amazed how many I love) you'll be sprouting arrows from my bow like a porcupine would be my motto.

[CelticBerserker]

It is also contempt for the great lumbering ox of state socialism as much as capitalism... libertarianism is a an invention the the left and many, including me,, are of the opinion that a truly socialist society cannot exist where a burocracy and monolothic state exists.. the Soviet Union was neither communist or socialist but a monstrous burocracy and tyranny where the hopes and aspirations of its people were eliminated.. it was a system of state capitalism in effect with power placed in the hands of a chosen few sometimes elected from within an elite but as often appointed by a single person......libertarianism of the left is about power being retained in the hands of the bottom rung of society and not crushed under foot by the monstrosity of the state and any "godlike" figure or elite which may run it. It is a misnomer the expression "bottom rung" since there would in fact be no bottom rung... or top rung... it is anarchy...not what most probably think of as anarchy, but a way of human beings getting along and prospering without the monolith of the state to crush their dreams and aspirations. and to protect their freedoms.....all equal with equal rights and obligations and equal "power".. a system of co-operation and mutual support between all human beings where no elite exists. The self regulation of a society for the well being of all by all within it on an equal basis..... the state would not be brought under the control of the people for the state would cease to exist and have no meaning...

It is an ideal society.. one for millennia in the future.. not for now.. but one which we on the left, or at least large numbers of us see as the ultimate end of a journey to achieve true human contentment. We are idealists but not silly about it.. each step we take towards making our world a little more socialist is a step closer to achieving an end.. not all socialists agree with us.. they are men and women in my opinion of much more limited vision and ambition for humanity.. true libertarianism.. left libertarian socialism or anarchy may indeed never be achievable.. but without our dreams and our ambitions for our own kind what are we? We strive to be as perfect as we can be...and with each generation we make small steps.. I have my dreams and do my little bit to help humanity get there.. I will never see it.. but I do believe it is perfectly feasible many many generations hence...

Interesting. It sounds somewhat utopian to me, but you've given me something new to think about regardless.

[michael6686]

I vote with my wallet, not with my dick. I've been a conservative all my life. It does make coming to grips with my sexual exploration a little more difficult, but...I gotta be me.

[Implanted]

This is an interesting topic, and one I'm almost afraid to get involved in. Although I can't say my sexuality defines my political leanings, I can say that all my life I have leaned to the left of center. I live in Canada now, but I am an American from the West Coast and share many of the stereotypical viewpoints of West Coast Liberalism. I feel more comfortable in Canada now than I do in the US because most Conservatives in Canada have no problem with gay marriage (my daughter is married to a woman). Most Conservatives in Canada also believe in the importance of universal health care. It's hard for us to fathom the fact that there are more Americans without health care than there is people in all of Canada. To us, that is like watching your sister bleed to death while you sit on a pile of bandages.

Taking care of your own is not handing out freebies to people, it's providing them with an opportunity to remain productive members of society while they are in need. People don't build homes in safety nets, they fall into them, crawl out, and start climbing again.

The tax system here in Canada makes more sense to me too. When you have more, you pay more taxes. There are fewer loopholes and more people pay their share. And you know what? Canada has one of the strongest economies of the modern world, despite its over-dependence on the US and its economic health.

So in short, in Canada, I guess I'm a centrist. In the U.S., I lean way left. But that has nothing to do with the fact I'm bisexual.

[darkeyes]

Interesting. It sounds somewhat utopian to me, but you've given me something new to think about regardless.
It is Tom.. utopia and the human search for an ideal state of being is exacty what it is about...:)

,,and if I can return to my definition of right wing libertarianism, it is a confused morass of differing philosophies.. socially liberal in American terms.. not European.. to a European liberal means something quite different.. there is indeed much play on keeping the state out of peoples lives by conservative libertarians in the US... when many really mean is to allow the market to run free, keep the state out of their lives, expand personal freedom not for the liberty of all but to allow free reign to liberty for an elite..their interpretation is an illusion, for what they want is personal freedom for them and their own kind to determine the personal freedom of all.. the Tea party is a classic example..you may argue as an American friend of mine does (a registered Republican) who lives here that the Tea Party is not libertarian, but that isn't what I found when in your country.. of course not all American libertarians are such.. many are classically socially libertarian, but American libertarianism does tend to breed an intolerance which I found for myself on my recent visit to the US because its roots are not in egalitarianism.... no state interference except that which we decide seems to be more their tenet.. they will deny it but from the discussions I held with the few I met in the US, and those I have met here that seems to be how it is. It is but my interpretation of how they are but it is how I found it to be...

.. don't get me wrong... on the left there are many dogmatic and nasty "libertarians"... just as I do not accept many Americans as libertarians within the philosophy of American libertarianism, I do not accept the worst of left wing libertarians as such within the philosophies of libertarian socialism.. many are as much socially restrictive and exclusive in their own way as the worst of those in the US.. not bigoted in the sense that they are for instance anti gay or bisexual, anti female, anti abortion or birth control or anti sex and sex education, but they are judgemental to a fault and remarkably puritanical and intolerant of not just capitalism, conservatism and fascism, but also of other philosophies of socialism including others of the libertarian variety.. and they fail to see the contradictions in their view...their view is not to live and let live and allow freedom for all and people to decide how to live but to argue within the community for their view of how to live to prevail and legislate accordingly and have it imposed.. they are about imposing their ways and their standards on all admittedly through consensus within the community, but even with consensus, imposition is hardly libertarian...that libertarianism is not and never has been about.. they will and often do take great offence at this when I have challenged them and they are as intolerant of and often belligerent towards difference in their own way as the libertarians of the right.. and just as hypocritical.

Neither the philosophies of right or left libertarianism can be placed in a box and it be said that this is how it is.. both are complex and both have strands which go all over the place and each has many different strands.. I would argue that right wing libertarianism is a myth for it is not how I envisage libertarianism and is quite another beast for to be libertarian we need eglitarianism. That is but a personal view and no doubt you will disagree.. but so too is much of left wing libertarianism a myth.. but not all, and those who believe broadly as as I do are as close as there is.. in my view.. and I do admit to having a vested interest in saying that.. cos it is so much of my being...:)

[CelticBerserker]

Fascist.


Lol!. I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist. I'll get you for that :P

[void()]

Lol!. I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist. I'll get you for that :P

Well, you did say we should go ahead and get it done with. ;) :p

N.B. I am obviously joking with Tom, and not exactly calling him names. I knew he would get a chuckle out of someone being a cheesy sod and doing as he said.

[ErosUrge]

nope!...my sexuality does not determine how I view the world politically generally. In other words, I'm not going to necessarily cast a vote based on my sexuality unless a political party decides to start doing witch hunts on LGBT people which is unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility...I consider myself an Independent with leanings Libertarian and with the Greens...I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative and if the environment goes, there'll be no money or jobs to be made if the planet is unfit to sustain us.

[darkeyes]

nope!...my sexuality does not determine how I view the world politically generally. In other words, I'm not going to necessarily cast a vote based on my sexuality unless a political party decides to start doing witch hunts on LGBT people which is unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility...
It can easily be argued, the the Republican Party is doing just that Eros.. at least a very large section of it.. the section that has the rest of it running scared....

[CelticBerserker]

It can easily be argued, the the Republican Party is doing just that Eros.. at least a very large section of it.. the section that has the rest of it running scared....

What about this?


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80343.html?hp=r5

[darkeyes]

What about this?


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80343.html?hp=r5
I said it could easily be argued, Tom.. and is by some... they and certainly the religious wing and the self styled Tea Party wings (if they are different and that is a matter of debate) are the greatest barrier to progress that the the lgbt in the US faces...even the Nazis had their gays and bi peeps but were hardly friendly to them in society... and the Tories have their fair share here but at least officially they are pro lgbt rights and (their leader and many others) pro same sex marriage.... even if I may be so bold as to suggest the BNP..and they are anything but pro gay and would have us hunted own like dogs...

[DiamondDog]

I've been everywhere on the political spectrum from moderate conservative, very far left quasi-socialist, libertarian, moderate liberal, and now I have become pretty apolitical especially with this year's election and how I do not like either Obama or Romney.

[CelticBerserker]

I suppose that depends on how one defines progress. I do however think drawing the nazi comparison is a bit of a reach. To me, not voting for someone purely on the issue of queer rights is single issue isolationist chicken shit.

What really pisses me off are asshats like Dan Savage calling Republican LGBT people 'House Faggots'. People like him add nothing useful to the dialogue.

[NakedInSeattle]

I'm socially liberal (bi-sexual, nudist, pro-choice, married to a bisexual, pro gay marriage, pansexual activist) but politically conservative. I'm sure some would say I'm fucked up. But am happy in my skin.

[darkeyes]

I suppose that depends on how one defines progress. I do however think drawing the nazi comparison is a bit of a reach. To me, not voting for someone purely on the issue of queer rights is single issue isolationist chicken shit.

What really pisses me off are asshats like Dan Savage calling Republican LGBT people 'House Faggots'. People like him add nothing useful to the dialogue.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't Tom... but I used the Nazi's as an illustration that a party or group can be full of gays and bi's yet be intolerant of them and wish them harm.. a response no more to the link u posted...

..... and I agree with u on why we should or should not vote for a particular group or party... unfortunately u living in a "democracy" which has such little choice having really only 2 options puts u on the spot... we have a multi party system no just 2 parties and so we do have more choice, but many gay and bi's still vote for parties which wish them harm or at least do not wish them good.. it is an act of choice really.. whether we put our material well being before our spiritual if u like.. it is all very well being prosperous and having a wealthy nation, but if huge numbers of people are considered second class citizens, denied the liberties and freedoms of the majority and facing bigotry and base prejudice every day of their lives, is the material well being worth it?

Personally I would rather live in place where people were less well off yet compassion and tolerance of all was the paramount virtue of a country no matter gender, sexuality, race, religion or creed... and so I could never bring myself to vote for a party which promised me the material earth, yet would deny me the freedom and rights simply because I am gay or black, or asian or poor and unemployed or anything else... I could never vote for a party which may guarantee people being well off, more money, jobs, guarantee the nation being more prosperous, yet impose social policies which would in other ways disenfranchise and impoverish the soul of the nation by denying these things to huge numbers on the grounds of "we dont like them"... and so I say, materialistic girl that I am,and I have never denied it, I will sacrifice my materialism on the basis of compassion and tolerance and the spiritual good of all.. which is why I say I am no turkey..

[wanderingrichard]

I suppose that depends on how one defines progress. I do however think drawing the nazi comparison is a bit of a reach. To me, not voting for someone purely on the issue of queer rights is single issue isolationist chicken shit.

What really pisses me off are asshats like Dan Savage calling Republican LGBT people 'House Faggots'. People like him add nothing useful to the dialogue.

Thank you. been trying to come up with an apt description of Savage for some time. ass hat fits perfectly. how he ever got into the position he's in with his fucked up versions of reality, is probably a great basis for a group psychology paper.

[CelticBerserker]

Thank you. been trying to come up with an apt description of Savage for some time. ass hat fits perfectly. how he ever got into the position he's in with his fucked up versions of reality, is probably a great basis for a group psychology paper.

The scary part is that some people take him seriously.

[tenni]

I suppose that depends on how one defines progress. I do however think drawing the nazi comparison is a bit of a reach. To me, not voting for someone purely on the issue of queer rights is single issue isolationist chicken shit.

What really pisses me off are asshats like Dan Savage calling Republican LGBT people 'House Faggots'. People like him add nothing useful to the dialogue.
This is the post where you seem to have jumped the shark so to speak. I skimmed your discourse with darkeyes. You may have jumped the shark earlier.

Your OP asks an impartial question. That is good. By making a judgement statement, you alienate those who place sexual orientation as a key reason to vote.

Savage may be an extremist. You may place more importance on issues other sexual orientation but where is your balance here? What does this political perspective offer to non hetros? Just because Savage is someone you don't like doesn't make a political perspective good.

There is a group identifying themselves by their non heterosexual orientation and they identify and promote policies that are not supportive of the non hetero group. Why identify yourself by a non hetero label and then support the actions of a political party that promotes policies that do not support your sexual orientation? (doesn't matter that it is Republican or a neo Nazi group . It is anti LGBT and you are one of that minority).

In my opinion, you, the OP, have asked an impartial question and now are jumping all over posters & others who do not support your political belief. Are you just trying to justify your own political belief here on a bisexual site? I think that you would have been better off remaining impartial and just let posters say whether they see a connection between their sexual orientation and their political beliefs? Gee....sorry but it just seems like confusing fek'n judgmental crap.

[darkeyes]

tsk tennsi wennsi.. ur turkey slip is showing... ;)

[Jobelorocks]

OP- Very little. I may be a little more focused on issues dealing with LGBTQ rights, but that is about it. Maturing and learning more about how politics work has changed my political beliefs more than anything else.

[Long Duck Dong]

in NZ, the labour party ( center left / socialist ) and the national party ( center right / conservative liberal ) are the two majority ruling parties..... and its the labour party that are more supportive of LGBT than the national party.....

when the push for the civil union bill was done, it was by the labour party, led by a asexual female that only married for career advancement and had no kids, and now as the opposition party ( national is the government ) they are back with the bill for gay marriage......

tho the labour party tend to be more pro lgbt, it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for them, cos giving NZ'ers the right to have a civil union / marriage, is not something that I consider to be of a real benefit to NZ and does lil to change the fact that between them and the greenies, they have crippled the forestry, mining and fisheries in NZ... and as a result of their policies of a anti war / anti nuclear stance, the US that was one of NZ's top allies in a number of areas, put NZ on the back burner... something that impacted the production industry severely and cost more than 100k NZ jobs....

I would rather have a country that is back on its feet and looking after its people, economy and jobs than a government that is catering to people on the grounds of sexuality, race or culture at the expense of the countries future as a independant country.....

[DuckiesDarling]

Well, I'm heteroflexible and a Democrat. But I've been known to vote Republican if I feel the candidate will do a better job than the Democrat running. I tend to go more for proLGBT, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun people, the people who believe in the things I believe in. I do not feel that voting strictly on the basis of LGBT while undermining the ecomony and other interests that affect us all greatly are ignored is the way to go but it's up to the individual on how they vote, no one knows what you do after you close the curtain at the polls. Only you do, and if you vote for who you feel will do the best, then you can look in the mirror and tell yourself you did your best.

[dseven]

I'm not american (well actually I am, but from south america XD), but I've seen and studied both perspectives (left and right), and even though I find both of them flawed to some degree and I think the universe of political alignment should not be considered as a one dimension system, but as one with two or more, I know that conservative americans, republicans and christians, are just going against human evolution. I pretty much think that people who believe in racism, homophobia, machism, xenophobia, creationism and texas (this is a joke before anyone snaps), should be treated as criminals, I'm not saying they should be put in jail. But I believe that if you start putting penalties to those things, if you start persecuting someone who makes a parade against lgtb people or that they try to make creationism something you should study at school, then most of them will probably stop doing it, and just the most extremists will continue doing it.

I think that the USA is a country which haves the resources and the people to do wonderful things, they have brilliant people who can design stuff that has to survive extreme environments, and they do it. But on the other hand, they have some of the most stupid people I've ever seen in my life. I mean, I've seen stupid people, but to me, that someone who is middle-class or higher and has the ability to go to libraries, the internet, college, high-school, etc. and not only does not do it, but wants to participate in society by making rules about who I should or I should not marry, that's completely unacceptable. If you are lazy and stupid, you don't get to participate in the desition making process. You are an inferior human being, you either evolve or you don't participate in society.
For me that's how it should be. Someone who has the ability and the resources to do something productive for society and does not do it out of lazyness or stubborness, shouldn't be able to participate in it.

And with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nZy75y2EZU
I back up my point.

[CelticBerserker]

This is the post where you seem to have jumped the shark so to speak. I skimmed your discourse with darkeyes. You may have jumped the shark earlier.

Your OP asks an impartial question. That is good. By making a judgement statement, you alienate those who place sexual orientation as a key reason to vote.

Savage may be an extremist. You may place more importance on issues other sexual orientation but where is your balance here? What does this political perspective offer to non hetros? Just because Savage is someone you don't like doesn't make a political perspective good.

There is a group identifying themselves by their non heterosexual orientation and they identify and promote policies that are not supportive of the non hetero group. Why identify yourself by a non hetero label and then support the actions of a political party that promotes policies that do not support your sexual orientation? (doesn't matter that it is Republican or a neo Nazi group . It is anti LGBT and you are one of that minority).

In my opinion, you, the OP, have asked an impartial question and now are jumping all over posters & others who do not support your political belief. Are you just trying to justify your own political belief here on a bisexual site? I think that you would have been better off remaining impartial and just let posters say whether they see a connection between their sexual orientation and their political beliefs? Gee....sorry but it just seems like confusing fek'n judgmental crap.

Just responding, dood. If you don't like my thread, don't read it. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone.

[tenni]

It is not a matter of like or dislike. Sorry if I misunderstood your other posts, perhaps it should have been more in the form of a question. I think that your OP is a very good point of inquiry.

[CelticBerserker]

It is not a matter of like or dislike. Sorry if I misunderstood your other posts, perhaps it should have been more in the form of a question. I think that your OP is a very good point of inquiry.

If you misunderstood, no harm done. Sorry if I came off a bit rough. Thanks for your input.

-Tom

[ExSailor]

I'm a Democrat and have been for decades. LGBT people who are Conservative or Republican have shit for brains, are full of self loathing, and are the ultimate hypocrites. The Conservative politicians and Republican parties hate LGBT people and make no secret about it. Why would you openly support someone who hates you and who will never like you because of your sexuality?

[IanBorthwick]

I'm a Democrat and have been for decades. LGBT people who are Conservative or Republican have shit for brains, are full of self loathing, and are the ultimate hypocrites. The Conservative politicians and Republican parties hate LGBT people and make no secret about it. Why would you openly support someone who hates you and who will never like you because of your sexuality?


I've wondered at this with every post I see people post in favor of Conservativism which is, in short, the party/thought-process of idiocy and driven by fear. The rationale is always based on rhetoric, hyperbole, lies, illogic and outright self-delusion. Conservatives have ever and always been the people who want to have a small US group and a large THEM group, seeing more differences than similarities in everyone, allowing and encouraging bigotry, racism and traditionalism to regress the nations of the Earth.

[12voltman59]

I just came across this documentary film that was recently run by Colorado Public Television--it deals with a look at evidence that strongly suggests that the story we were told about the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Towers just might not be "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

http://video.pbs.org/video/2270078138

I am not going to say anything much about the film---it explains itself----I would urge everyone to take the time to watch it---and approach the subject matter with an open mind---and also---you will have to sit through segments of the broadcast in which the local PBS stations break away for fund raising efforts.

I do have to admit----I really want to believe the "official line" on the events of 9/11---but based on the evidence presented in this film----it does give me pause and at least has me joining those, who thanks to the information presented----agree that we need a more through and complete investigation into the events of 9/11, because if what is presented here is true---it is troubling and does have some very scary prospects as just what exactly did happen and why.

You do need to move fast to watch this video--it is my understanding that the link to the film will soon be coming down.

I do have to apologize for posting this on this thread---I meant to post it on the other one that is up right now about political affiliation and being bisexual---I guess I am tired.

[darkeyes]

I've wondered at this with every post I see people post in favor of Conservativism which is, in short, the party/thought-process of idiocy and driven by fear. The rationale is always based on rhetoric, hyperbole, lies, illogic and outright self-delusion. Conservatives have ever and always been the people who want to have a small US group and a large THEM group, seeing more differences than similarities in everyone, allowing and encouraging bigotry, racism and traditionalism to regress the nations of the Earth.
It is quite possible within a multi party system to have a fiscally conservative socially liberal party which would meet the needs of "conservative" people in the gay and bisexual world.. these do exist outside of the US but these are in countries where there is no duopoly of power such as exists in the US. Similarly there is no reason why a socially conservative but fiscally liberal party cannot exist for those of that bent. They do again outside of the US. But such is the strangehold on political power in the US that such parties that may exist are smothered by this irrational attachment to the two which so twist American politics out out kilter and encourage the worst excesses and corruptions, and the most base of prejudices. It is not in the interests of the Democrats and Republicans for other parties to rise and challenge their domination so they cater for all kinds of weird and wonderful views and much of their dominance is down to resignation that nothing can and will change. It can and will change I hope in time but is for Americans. In the 18th and 19th centuries the UK was dominated by just two parties, but it began to be broken down by the rise of organised labour and its creation of the Labour Party and the Irish question and Irish Nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. but it is only really in the last 40 years that it has become a multi party democracy, if democracy it is. So it is a long slow and hard process.

[CelticBerserker]

As expected, this thread is beginning to disintegrate. First I got chastized for what I thought was totally civil discussion. My remark about voting based purely on someone's platform on queer rights seems to have aroused things a bit, which was not my intention. I am not using this as a soapbox for my political beliefs. I'm honestly trying to wrap my brain around "identity politics" and understand why some people make their queerness such a passionate element of their political agenda.


Secondly- I'm sorry some of you think that conservative queers like myself (libertarian leaning Republican, disillusioned former green democrat) have "shit for brains". I do, however find that remark rather inflammatory and in rather poor taste. If you would like to clarify your remarks I'm all ears.

Saying that all republicans or democrats fit a uniform ideological mold is rather irresponsible as well.

Third- , I don't believe that my ideological opponents are simply "ignorant". If you guys want to have a civil discussion, I'm game.

Here's an excerpt from a facebook rant of mine a few nights ago. It's a bit off topic but I feel it at least somewhat pertains to what's happening here.

A note from Tom:
I don't like bigotry. I believe in treating others in a respectful and honorable manner. The respect ends when people start throwing emotional fits and tantrums in an effort to tar and feather anyone who expresses the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance toward our society's manic obsession with "equality", "diversity" and/or "tolerance".

My reasons are simple. We aren't all the
same, and there's nothing wrong with that. I come from mixed Western-European stock. To be specific I suppose I would call myself an Anglicized Germano-Celt. This makes me an amalgamation of several bloodlines, with which I have zero qualms. I don't think I'm necessarily better than anyone. I am, however, different from and unique to some.

The liberal mob, however, sees it a bit differently. To many on the left, for nothing more than believing that racial/ethnic differences exist I'm a "Dinosaur" on a good day. On a bad day I'm an "extremist", a "supremacist" or even worse.

Losing a debate? Call someone the dreaded 'R' word. The new scarlet letter. RACIST. Instant advantage, as most people shrink at the accusation and immediately go on the defensive.

My original point was about differences. They are what make us unique individuals. They are what define our indigenous cultures. They are us, period.

My friends are mostly other somewhat blended descendents of European tribes. I mostly listen to music made by the same. Does that make me racist?

Further, if a person wants to live in an ethnically homogenous neighborhood, is that racist?

Is it fair that for expressing opinions viewed as morally repugnant by the Multiculti hive-mind, several Olympic athletes have had their professional lives utterly destroyed?

Is it possible that our schizoid preoccupation with egalitarianism has dragged us kicking and screaming into an era of a sort of soft totalitarianism?

Further, is it possible that when it comes to Racism, the real offender is the coddling and patronizing left for perpetuating a mentality of victimhood?

Is it.... ah hell. I'm done talking. I want to know what "you people" think :p



And that's it. I probably just painted a target on my ass. I really don't care. It's taken me a really long time to find myself intellectually, sexually, politically and spiritually.

If any of you think I'm a traitor, a sell-out or whatever other nasty word you're plotting to slap me with I suppose it's your perogative.

Try going to Saudi Arabia and then tell me how oppressed you think you are here in the United States.


8243

[DuckiesDarling]

Well said, Tom. I'm getting sick and tired of people who just judge and never do a thing to help improve this world. They sit on a forum and tell people they are wrong, they openly say they want to tear down all governments. Newsflash for you anarchists out there.. even if all the governments in the world fall there will be no peace, there will be no utopia.. why? Human fucking nature. Deny it all you want, but deep down you know it's true.


I vote based on who is the best person for what the future of my country, this year it's more a lesser of two evil things but I already know the way I'm voting and I encourage everyone to get registered and be ready to vote.

And lastly, can't resist this nice quote I found earlier.



8244

[darkeyes]

Time and work prevents me from making a fuller reply Tom, but so far this discussion has been the height of civilised behaviour and tolerance for this site. Apart from the exSailor, and but forgive him his lil rant which is much as we have come to expect from him.

But it is how it is.. people of a liberal mind socially tend to have a more liberal mind when it comes to the greater political issues of our world. Tend to I said, not that it is a hard and fast rule. Therefore it is not surprising that so many of us is in the lgbt tend to support left wing or more liberal parties.. the want and need for and of self preservation and progress to eliminate what we see as prejudice and inequality makes it natural for so many of us to gravitate to those parties which are closest to our view of ourselves, what we are and of the world. Some don't..many dont, but not the majority. Although many, probably most of us gravitate to such parties a few are as intolerant as the worst of the conservative tradition which they so loathe and that is something which is a cross to bear and a challenge for us since it does not add to our case but hampers our cause displaying an intolerance that those who wish us harm, and I say this in all honesty and with sadness rather than anger, those primarily from your side of the political divide happily use to discredit us. It is that which gets so many of of the lgbt riled and who find difficulty in understanding why so many take up cudgels on behalf of, and even become members of a political party or group which so loathes them and would deny them their rights as human beings.

I could and may yet reply more fully and take issue with most of what u have said when I have time. But for now chew over what I have said and think about it...

[CelticBerserker]

8244

http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/slogan.asp ;)

[DuckiesDarling]

hehe Tom, yep, but it still made me smile, just as your Willie Wonka poster made me smile. Amazing what the meme's can do, eh?

[CelticBerserker]

Quite so. I can't find the one I'm looking for. It has the Dos Equis guy and says "I don't always kill hipsters, but when I do I drown them in the mainstream" :tongue:

[DuckiesDarling]

LOL i think I've seen that one, I've seen lots of the "most interesting guy in the world" ones. The one about Mordor I have seen a lot... I loved the one with "one does not simply walk into Wal-Mart" talk about culture clash :rolleyes:

[CelticBerserker]

LOL i think I've seen that one, I've seen lots of the "most interesting guy in the world" ones. The one about Mordor I have seen a lot... I loved the one with "one does not simply walk into Wal-Mart" talk about culture clash :rolleyes:
Nice.
8246

Lulzy, eh?

[DuckiesDarling]

oh yeah like this one?

8247

[Long Duck Dong]

since you two are having fun.... based around some posters in the thread, this is the view of america that non americans may end up with....

82488249

[void()]

As expected, this thread is beginning to
disintegrate.

1. First I got chastized for what I thought was totally civil
discussion. My remark about voting based purely on someone's platform on queer
rights seems to have aroused things a bit, which was not my intention. I am
not using this as a soapbox for my political beliefs. I'm honestly trying to
wrap my brain around "identity politics" and understand why some people make
their queerness such a passionate element of their political agenda.


2. Secondly- I'm sorry some of you think that conservative queers like myself
(libertarian leaning Republican, disillusioned former green democrat) have
"shit for brains". I do, however find that remark rather inflammatory and in
rather poor taste. If you would like to clarify your remarks I'm all ears.

Saying that all republicans or democrats fit a uniform ideological mold is
rather irresponsible as well.

3. Third- , I don't believe that my ideological opponents are simply "ignorant".
If you guys want to have a civil discussion, I'm game.

Here's an excerpt from a facebook rant of mine a few nights ago. It's a bit
off topic but I feel it at least somewhat pertains to what's happening here.

A note from Tom:
I don't like bigotry. I believe in treating others in a respectful and
honorable manner. The respect ends when people start throwing emotional fits
and tantrums in an effort to tar and feather anyone who expresses the slightest
bit of cognitive dissonance toward our society's manic obsession with
"equality", "diversity" and/or "tolerance".

My reasons are simple. We aren't all the
same, and there's nothing wrong with that. I come from mixed Western-European
stock. To be specific I suppose I would call myself an Anglicized Germano-Celt.
This makes me an amalgamation of several bloodlines, with which I have zero
qualms. I don't think I'm necessarily better than anyone. I am, however,
different from and unique to some.

The liberal mob, however, sees it a bit differently. To many on the left, for
nothing more than believing that racial/ethnic differences exist I'm a
"Dinosaur" on a good day. On a bad day I'm an "extremist", a "supremacist" or
even worse.

Losing a debate? Call someone the dreaded 'R' word. The new scarlet letter.
RACIST. Instant advantage, as most people shrink at the accusation and
immediately go on the defensive.

4. My original point was about differences. They are what make us unique
individuals. They are what define our indigenous cultures. They are us, period.

5. My friends are mostly other somewhat blended descendents of European tribes.
I mostly listen to music made by the same. Does that make me racist?

Further, if a person wants to live in an ethnically homogenous neighborhood,
is that racist?

6. Is it fair that for expressing opinions viewed as morally repugnant by the
Multicultural hive-mind, several Olympic athletes have had their professional
lives utterly destroyed?

7. Is it possible that our schizoid preoccupation with egalitarianism has
dragged us kicking and screaming into an era of a sort of soft totalitarianism?

8. Further, is it possible that when it comes to Racism, the real offender is the
coddling and patronizing left for perpetuating a mentality of victim hood?

Is it.... ah hell. I'm done talking. I want to know what "you people" think :p

And that's it. I probably just painted a target on my ass. I really don't care.
It's taken me a really long time to find myself intellectually, sexually,
politically and spiritually.

9. If any of you think I'm a traitor, a sell-out or whatever other nasty word
you're plotting to slap me with I suppose it's your prerogative.

Try going to Saudi Arabia and then tell me how oppressed you think you are
here in the United States.


1. I do not think I've been uncivil in this thread. If so I apologize. Don't
really understand the term 'identity politics' but guess it's all the rage. To me
politics is politics. Do not care much for it, as it has been corrupted into
a sad farcical reflection of our worst traits.

Have my views, simple ones I expressed what I thought well enough.

2. Sorry, never engaged in saying that about you, or thinking it.

3. Don't know all your ideas, can't form an opinion of them. Not going to try
either.

I do though believe in diversity, in unification of a whole with acceptance,
dignity granted to said diversities. I.e. We are all one and one is all.
Part of that lies in hearing out another's views. I do so now but remind you
to not disrespect the views of others by falsely calling them manic, schizoid.

That's called playing fair, Tom. I don't think it is too much to ask, especially
if as you suggest, you're desiring civil discourse.

4 & 5. Already addressed via an evoking of playing fair.

6. No clue what your 'on about', didn't watch the Olympics. Unfair to discuss
what one is ignorant of, isn't it? Unfair for me to try and be seen as foolish
due to ignorance, too. I have expressed my views upon stereotypes,
generalizations in other threads. I dislike them. Beyond that I've nothing
further to venture.

7 & 8. Again please see number three, six. Don't know you fully as a person,
can not and will not judge save for a reminder to play fair.

9. Ah yes, another bane in my side. I dislike comparisons, especially of self
to self. I could string out a morgue sheet well over a block long of experiences.
Would it matter? No. What matters is the here and now.

Here and now, I see you confusing experience as justification of comparing your
patriotism to that of other selves. Experience is not a means or an end, it is
simply knowledge or data to use that analogy. Wisdom as Jefferson said, is the
application of knowledge. Your tactic in this here and now betrays your lack
of wisdom.

We've established it's unfair to discuss subject matter in which one or both
parties in the discussion have ignorance of. It seems our discussion aims at
wisdom. I can safely, maturely admit my lack of it. Sure you're as able.

So let us please not compare.


Well said, Tom. I'm getting sick and tired of
people who just judge and never do a thing to help improve this world. They
sit on a forum and tell people they are wrong, they openly say they want to
tear down all governments. Newsflash for you anarchists out there.. even if
all the governments in the world fall there will be no peace, there will be
no utopia.. why? Human fucking nature. Deny it all you want, but deep down
you know it's true.

Each day in my walks I explore different thoughts and ideas. I am drawn to
return to promoting a resource based economy ruled by common law.

Here's a quick run at common law.

You must not injure, or kill anyone.
You must not steal, or damage things owned by somebody else.
You must be honest in your dealings and not swindle anyone.

That's it. We don't need any of these other confusing dung chips we call laws.

Actually the second law would be pretty moot in a resource based economy. No
one would particularly own anything, but own everything. We don't need this
abstract and corrupt idea of money either. It only creates slavery via debt.

I would love to see true democracy, where everyone votes from home electronically
on all issues. Let the computers pick candidates based upon merit, offer us
a real choice, then tally the vote of everyone, equally and justly. If you can
not access the government from home, try the local public library which offers
internet access and nice friendly librarians to help you learn how to access it.

Of course, if we adopted a resource based economy similar in fashion to the
Venus project, what would be the political issues? Everyone would have full and
equal access to anything and everything. There would be plenty for all, again
all being one and one being all. We could in fact allow computers to meter out
distribution, meet the needs of goods, services. Programs can be made to comprehend
merit, act without prejudice or stereotypes.

But we need to work with them. And we need to work with nature, not against it.
As for setting here on the forum, well, I admit to having a lot of free time.
Been curbing the time I spend here. I have my voice. Other ask what I think.
I respond, same as you respond. I'm not calling you wrong. I disagree with what I
see as your clinging to archic ideas, which keep proving themselves broken, fouled.
But you aren't wrong, just human.

I am too. Can we agree upon respecting one another, when in fact it's the ideas
we're discussing? I hope so.

[MelissaPDX]

People who are bisexual, gay/lesbian, or trans who are for the Republican party or who are Conservative politically are severely mentally ill and full of self loathing about their sexuality that isn't hetero. Then again just look who the OP is. ;) He's off his meds.

[darkeyes]

I'm getting sick and tired of people who just judge and never do a thing to help improve this world. They sit on a forum and tell people they are wrong, they openly say they want to tear down all governments. Newsflash for you anarchists out there.. even if all the governments in the world fall there will be no peace, there will be no utopia.. why? Human fucking nature. Deny it all you want, but deep down you know it's true. If I believed any or all of that tirade I would act no differently, Believe no differently. You know so few of us yet u tell us we do nothing to make things better? It's a bit cheeky dontcha think? What we do is argue our corner.. as indeed u do often.. and many of us do things in our lives to achieve the ends in which we believe... because u don't like what we say u shout us down with contempt as if what we say is irrelevant and means nothing. It may well be to u, but not to those who say what they believe and think. I've been heckled in life by far superior hecklers .. and will be again.. the intolerant who do not want to hear what is to us, our truth, ours alone, because they cannot stand to hear it and which challenges whatever their truth is. U may not like it, but we wont go away however much u wish it. Ideas don't. Neither will we prevented from arguing the things which we believe simply because u are sick of hearing from us...

With your outburst you display an intolerance of those who think outside the box of your imagination and knowledge and who think radically differently from u,, u show a belief that humanity will never change.. some of us believe otherwise, and we will not shut up simply because u are sick of who we are or what we believe and hearing what we say... u may well be right and my cause and my dreams, or the causes and dreams of others with whom u disagree are all lost and the things we believe will never come to pass... but I still believe in my cause and my dreams and even if I knew in their ultimate failure in reaching their destination and goals then I would still argue their corner without hesitation, because even if the destination cannot be reached, then we try and get to as close to it as possible.. for even that would not prevent me believing in the rightness and justice of the things in which we believe..

[DuckiesDarling]

Still not seeing an accurate denial of it, Fran. it's human nature or are you now saying you aren't human with the normal human failings???

[darkeyes]

Still not seeing an accurate denial of it, Fran. it's human nature or are you now saying you aren't human with the normal human failings???
The difference between u and I is that I do not believe human nature to be unchanging.. it never has been and never shall be... I have often, as u well know, said in these forums that I am a flawed human being just as all human beings are flawed... I am not perfect but when u go ranting and raving at people I suggest u consider at ur own failings before u sound off so superciliously and hysterically... if I may be so bold, it doesn't become u...

[DuckiesDarling]

You know what Fran, the difference between you and me is evidenced more clearly than ever in the "What would you do?" thread. My idea of surviving in a post apocalyptic world is to make sure there is food and water, your idea? make jewelry. Please do not try to say anything doesn't become me, because when push comes to shove in this world I'd rather have 100 people just like me fighting by my side than 100 of you demanding tea and scones.

[darkeyes]

Did u enjoy that? I wont respond in kind.. I have much better things to do and will allow others to decide the rights of this exchange if rights there be... nice derail of an important thread...

[CelticBerserker]

Hokay Void, These are a few replies to your questions and whatnot. I will attempt to be succinct.
First: I wasn't accusing you of anything of the sort. That was more of a general observation.
Second: That was directed mostly at Exsailor.
Third: It's something I've noticed a lot of liberals (like the ones in my family) like to do. Accuse their opponents of pretty much anything including but not limited to eating babies.
Fourth: I was referring more to state enforced diversity via things like affirmative action quotas and the like.


There's more but I'm getting tired and my thoughts are drifting.

[The Young Pretender]

I'm a Democrat and have been for decades. LGBT people who are Conservative or Republican have shit for brains, are full of self loathing, and are the ultimate hypocrites. The Conservative politicians and Republican parties hate LGBT people and make no secret about it. Why would you openly support someone who hates you and who will never like you because of your sexuality?

Underneath the vitriol, I have to agree with ExSailor's fundamental idea. Speaking as an expat-student American, I can't in good conscience be a registered Republican. For LGBT people, Republican "family values" would create shame, repression, anger, and abandonment in our own families and homes. While their fiscal ideals are tempting, 5 minutes of research on wikipedia will expose them as hypocrites on that front.

As for the democrats: Being LGBT, I feel as if an unquestioning, feudal allegiance is expected of me as a member of a sexual minority. I hate that, especially in sight of fairly tepid, ineffectual efforts at advancing LGBT civil rights. Never mind the more casual spending attitudes, borked immigration policies and so on.

Under the circumstances, I abstain from voting, not that anyone gives a damn as my vote would be sent from overseas.

[void()]

Hokay Void, These are a few replies to your questions and whatnot. I will attempt to be succinct.
First: I wasn't accusing you of anything of the sort. That was more of a general observation.
Second: That was directed mostly at Exsailor.
Third: It's something I've noticed a lot of liberals (like the ones in my family) like to do. Accuse their opponents of pretty much anything including but not limited to eating babies.
Fourth: I was referring more to state enforced diversity via things like affirmative action quotas and the like.


There's more but I'm getting tired and my thoughts are drifting.

Had figured about as much. Sorry to cause swimming thoughts and that I couldn't have been as concise. Just appeared a case of two wrongs not making a right. Got a better opinion of you to see you seem to resort to muck raking. But I'm weird like that.

[Isitfun]

Now that is funny... Almost ass backward!(pun very much intended) and familiar!
When I was in my twenties I was sooo straight and so liberal. Now at 51… very bi and very conservative. How is that even possible? Just asking…

[darkeyes]

please spare me the drama darkeyes, I could say the same thing about the liberal dem party being mostly about abortion...at least a large section of it, being their sacrament. Every party has its issues that may or may not define it.

No one is witch hunting us based on our sexuality, a small segment wants to maintain marriage as one man and one woman. Ok, fine. In the US, it should be and IS a states rights issue because its not defined in our constitution. That can be changed via amendment process, but the odds are long. Second, let states like Alabama and Arkansas have their one man one woman definition, other states can decide otherwise. That's a republic at work. I don't like forcing my opinion down someone's throat and damn sure don't want them doing it to me.

Frankly, I'd prefer to marry one of each, but that's me. It's not a defining issue for me though. i have my wife and I have a BF and I am happy. It's no one else's business.

Economically however, I want their hands out of my pockets. It's not their cash. I earned it. And since I work in a predominantly US Medicaid hospital, I see what slackers are like every day. They sponge off the hard working people of this country and inflict massive damage to themselves and the workers of the country subsidize it. But we do it in the name of compassion so that makes it ok. Then they get discharged and go out and score heroin within minutes of being there. Isn't that sweet what socialism does to their desire to go out and earn a living? Of course, they get a welfare check, food stamps, and then best of all, they take their scripted meds and sell them on the street for cash so they can score more crack or heroin.

Wow, aren't we a great society.......
It isn't meant to be drama JP.. neither do I believe as yet that a witch hunt exists..at least not from the party itself..from certain factions within it which is not quite the same thing.. but what it is, is the major barrier to progress on lgbt equality in the US.. unlike the Democrats and the abortion issue it is far less about choice which is what a free society is after all meant to be about. Few of us in the lgbt have chosen to be what we are..we may have chosen to express or to suppress it, or express it and hide it, or just deny it it to ourselves and to the world, but we are it and many are too afraid to be open about it because of the historical attitudes to homosexuality and bisexuality of both our societies. The Republicans in the US like the Conservatives in the UK are more about preserving and conserving old fashioned and often repressive attitudes of the past.

Whether states should be left to have control over who can and cannot marry is an argument which will have to be fought since those states which allow it and those who do not set up the scenario of a large swathe of people who in one state are free and equal in the eyes of the law to all other citizens, are not in others, so if they move home and work to the state next door, they become second class citizens since their marriage is invalid and their rights as human beings are automatically considered less than the majority of other citizens who are not as they. You can fight it state by state but what is being accepted in reality is institutionalised and constitutional inequality based on sexual orientation...

I could and have argued the last part of your post at other times in forums and may well again.. but the spongers argument runs deep in both our societies as do the questions of why those who are on welfare or are unemployed and addicted to narcotics is a far more complex issue simply than it is what socialism does. I could easily argue that it is what capitalism does and with far more justice, since both our countries are capitalist countries and it is capitalism which provides the movers and shakers and it is capitalism and capitalists which hold the whip hand...but it is far more complex issue than even that. As one who is married to a heroin addict who has rebuilt her life and lives in a city once known as the heroin capital of Europe I do know something about it and it is far more complicated than your over simplistic analysis.

[DuckiesDarling]

please spare me the drama darkeyes, I could say the same thing about the liberal dem party being mostly about abortion...at least a large section of it, being their sacrament. Every party has its issues that may or may not define it.

No one is witch hunting us based on our sexuality, a small segment wants to maintain marriage as one man and one woman. Ok, fine. In the US, it should be and IS a states rights issue because its not defined in our constitution. That can be changed via amendment process, but the odds are long. Second, let states like Alabama and Arkansas have their one man one woman definition, other states can decide otherwise. That's a republic at work. I don't like forcing my opinion down someone's throat and damn sure don't want them doing it to me.

Frankly, I'd prefer to marry one of each, but that's me. It's not a defining issue for me though. i have my wife and I have a BF and I am happy. It's no one else's business.

Economically however, I want their hands out of my pockets. It's not their cash. I earned it. And since I work in a predominantly US Medicaid hospital, I see what slackers are like every day. They sponge off the hard working people of this country and inflict massive damage to themselves and the workers of the country subsidize it. But we do it in the name of compassion so that makes it ok. Then they get discharged and go out and score heroin within minutes of being there. Isn't that sweet what socialism does to their desire to go out and earn a living? Of course, they get a welfare check, food stamps, and then best of all, they take their scripted meds and sell them on the street for cash so they can score more crack or heroin.

Wow, aren't we a great society.......


Hmm, last few times I've been at the hospital they never asked my political affiliation..always want to know the religious part but never the political and it's a little bit pissy of you, JP, to paint all the people who "sponge" as Democrats. You can't argue that the basis of the Republican party platform is the amendment to the Constitution that will say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Never get past the Supreme Court, of course, but that's what the Republicans want to do so they can take the credit for doing it and then blame the Supreme Court when it gets denied. They also want to repeal Roe V Wade, they would rather women die in a back ally then let them have the control over their own bodies.

My favorite myth was when I was told "Last time a Democrat was in office, we went to war" My response, "Oh, Bush was a Democrat?"

Little less party vitriol and more on the issues would be nice, JP. You are an intelligent person, don't paint everyone with the same bigoted brush.

[tenni]

"How much bearing (if any) do you let your sexual identity have on your political perspective and why?"

I have been trying to figure out the "why" aspect. Sorry, but I don't think that a political party name needs to be introduced or the name of a political leader etc. The question is not specific to any one particular country. One country has a political name but others do not use the same political party name. Is this not making the question too specific to one country when the issue/question is not country specific? I've read through and tried to find this answer as to why. This is the best that I can do after removing references to specific political parties and focus on why a person's sexual identity does not doesn't impact their political perspective.

Most posters seem to be stating that their sexual identity has little impact on their political perspective. A few like the OP and innaminka point out that their political beliefs overall have grown more conservative as they matured without answering issues specifically about their sexuality. Then the topics are introduced that indicate that their political beliefs have certain aspects that are more important to them than their sexual identity.

Warrior Poet states in post 2 that he sees his sexuality of being bisexual similar to his political beliefs which are also middle of the road. There seems to be no issue about being bisexual that conflicts with his other poltical needs. Similar for i_shoot_blanks.

fredtyg states that his political beliefs seem to connect to his sexuality as he understands it. He places freedom of choice as significant for bisexuals and wonders why people don't align with parties that promote freedom of choice. I pointed out a bit earlier that how a certain political philosophy is perceived in one country is not perceived the same in another. Sexual identity issues seem to be given less significance than other issues for some political parties and different than how similar political philosophies are played out. Implant seemed to agree with me that various countries seem to have political philosophies that do not necessarily line up with how that philosophy is seen elsewhere. In one country all political beliefs include a permissive approach to sexual identity questions regardless of their other political beliefs.

Falcon, post 4, states that on sexuality issues he sees both sides and he is torn as to which position to take. He does seem to indicate that his main political beliefs play a more overall significant role than his sexuality?

I find that JP has fairly succinctly pointed out his reason. JP seems to be state that sexual identity questions/issues are of less importance to him than economic issues. He is satisfied with his sexual needs being met by a wife and male lover. He doesn't need anything else such as same sex marriage. Fair enough. He has other political needs that he places higher than sexual identity needs as seem by other more activist based people. Earlier michael6686 seemed to be stating similar thoughts that his sexual identity is of less important than economic factors.

Exsaylor raises a sexual identity question as to if a political party takes a political stand opposing your sexual identity why would you support them? I am wondering based on the above that the reason is that some do not see that political party "hating" them at all. They do not identify with any specific sexual identity issue. It is not significant for them that such things as same sex marriage happen imo. It seems to me that their sexual identity is closer to hetero values and they do not see themselves as needing same sex marriage more say than economic beliefs like JP states?

Some, like the Young Pretender seem to feel alienated and that all political parties are not really working for their sexual identity issues and refrain from being political at least as far as voting is concerned. They do not find a party that supports their sexual identity issues and other political issues.

Some like the OP argue that sexual identity equality issues(like same sex marriage?) are not really equality issues? They state that egalitarian issues are really totalitarian issues. Others point out that to look at equality issues as totalitarian is to show intolerance? I may have missed that more clearly in some posts that I thought were off topic and became more poltical discourse overall imo. Please clarify.

Well, that is what I am understanding after removing a lot of specifics to a certain political party and tried to focus on sexual identity and perspectives politically.

[CelticBerserker]

Some like the OP argue that sexual identity equality issues(like same sex marriage?) are not really equality issues? They state that egalitarian issues are really totalitarian issues. Others point out that to look at equality issues as totalitarian is to show intolerance? I may have missed that more clearly in some posts that I thought were off topic and became more poltical discourse overall imo. Please clarify.

Well, that is what I am understanding after removing a lot of specifics to a certain political party and tried to focus on sexual identity and perspectives politically.

Actually, I fully support civil unions. I was having a spirited discussion with a gay guy I'm doing a play with. He doesn't understand why so many are bent on changing the definition of marriage when such a thing is available.

Also, I never said egalitarianism in itself is totalitarianism. I said our society's obsession with making things "fair" is LEADING us to an era of soft totalitarianism. Think Nanny State on steroids, a la 'Harrison Bergeron'.

[tenni]

Actually, I fully support civil unions. I was having a spirited discussion with a gay guy I'm doing a play with. He doesn't understand why so many are bent on changing the definition of marriage when such a thing is available.

Also, I never said egalitarianism in itself is totalitarianism. I said our society's obsession with making things "fair" is LEADING us to an era of soft totalitarianism. Think Nanny State on steroids, a la 'Harrison Bergeron'.

Ok thanks for the clarification. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on a lot of these equality issues.

From where I come from (Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our constitution), "civil union" is not equality. Equality is equality when it comes to same sex marriages and cross gender marriages. You either have the exact same rights and responsibilities whether you are in a cross gender marriage or same sex marriage or you are looking at one relationship different from the other based upon sexual orientation and are discriminating against the other. There is no such thing as a gay marriage either unless both people are gay. Otherwise, it dismisses bisexuals' sexuality. Semantics has power in its use and abuse of language imo. Use of words like "Nanny state" and "soft totalitarianism" are interesting choices in relationship to sexual preferences.

[ExSailor]

Actually, I fully support civil unions. I was having a spirited discussion with a gay guy I'm doing a play with. He doesn't understand why so many are bent on changing the definition of marriage when such a thing is available. Also, I never said egalitarianism in itself is totalitarianism. I said our society's obsession with making things "fair" is LEADING us to an era of soft totalitarianism. Think Nanny State on steroids, a la 'Harrison Bergeron'. As usual the hypocritical LGBT republicans with shit for brains will claim that civil unions and same gender marriage are the exact same thing when in reality they are not. A civil union does not gaurentee the right to marry for all LGBT people and it's not the same as a same gender marriage. CelticBerserker's theater queen friend is also a hypocrite since he thinks that marriage should not be between two people of the same gender but it's fine for two people of the opposite gender to get married and have all the rights and benefits that come with a marriage. Hypocrites like CelticBerserker, JP1986, and CB's theater queen friend and other conservative LGBT people are against LGBT equality and have a lot of internalized homophobia and biphobia since they think that a civil union is somehow the same as a marriage and that LGBT people do not really deserve same gender marriage. These hypocrites also think that they speak for all LGBT people and will claim that they are somehow "Oppressed" and that LGBT people in Europe and North America should stop whining about how we have no rights. JP1986UM's claim that it's only a small percentage of Conservatives who are against same gender marriage and LGBT rights goes against how the Conservative LGBT people here will claim that "A civil union is fine for same gendered people!" and that "States have the right to decide that marriage is between a man and a woman!" which is total bullshit since by saying this you're denying the right of same gender marriage to lots of LGBT people. In truth most Conservatives and right wing political parties are very much against same gender marriage and all equality for LGBT people. Why someone who is LGBT would have this sort of Stockholm Syndrome and actually support a party that hates them shows how these people are mentally ill. The Conservative political parties will NEVER like, respect or accept us LGBT people and this includes the hypocritical Log Cabin Republicans, Libertarians, and the idiots at GOProud.

[darkeyes]

Funny how in Europe most major conservative parties have come to terms with the lgbt.. even in Britain where the Tories have been the party most resistant to tolerance of the lgbt, it is the leader of the Conservative Party which is pushing for same sex marriage to be legalised in England and Wales.. with much support from his cabinet and parliamentary colleagues within his own party.. opposition too I grant, but most resistance is in the constituency parties and within the Tories the battle on same sex marriage is not yet won, and if large numbers of Tories are more resistant to lgbt progress than the Labour and Liberal Democratic and other parties of the left, that's a historical thing and its more "liberal" attitudes may yet prove to be fleeting.. the leader of the Tory group in the Scottish parliament is a lesbian and the Conservative group in that parliament are fully supportive of the bill to legalise same sex marriage for Scotland which will be placed before that body in the coming parliamentary session. So while I agree that conservative parties are certainly the parties where the lgbt will have most resistance to the advance to proper equality, exsailors rant is but a rant of hysterical, blind and and intolerant half truths and untruths as is illustrated by what happens outside of the US..

[DuckiesDarling]

I don't agree that LGBT who are Republicans have "shit for brains" but I do have a problem with people who go on and on about the push for same sex marriage while voting for someone who would do their damnedest to make sure it will never happen. I also want the matter to be dealt with at a federal level because it is not fair for someone to be married in one state and move for work and suddenly find that they are now paying more in taxes and their partner isn't covered under healthcare as they are no longer "married". You shouldn't be black in one state and white in another, is that so hard to understand? We are the UNITED States of America for a reason, time to Unite on issues like this one.

[darkeyes]

..and on the question of being a conservative Republicans and the lgbt, sorry Darlin' darlin', its that newspaper again..http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/29/gay-republican-group-marriage-rights, a conservative view...

[SlimDandy]

I seriously do believe that most Republicans still hold on to the old family values, women's rights resistant, racist, sexist, classist, and homophobic views of yesteryear.

I furthermore believe that if a Republican was still in the White House, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy would still be an active one. Without a doubt, most Republicans would not be willing to grant full employment or residential rights to transsexuals or transgenders, because they are far too conservative for that.

So no... Don't vote with your dick, or your wallet!...Vote with your conscience, instead!

The quality of life you save, just might be your own...

[IanBorthwick]

Funny how in Europe most major conservative parties have come to terms with the lgbt.. even in Britain where the Tories have been the party most resistant to tolerance of the lgbt, it is the leader of the Conservative Party which is pushing for same sex marriage to be legalised in England and Wales.. with much support from his cabinet and parliamentary colleagues within his own party.. opposition too I grant, but most resistance is in the constituency parties and within the Tories the battle on same sex marriage is not yet won, and if large numbers of Tories are more resistant to lgbt progress than the Labour and Liberal Democratic and other parties of the left, that's a historical thing and its more "liberal" attitudes may yet prove to be fleeting.. the leader of the Tory group in the Scottish parliament is a lesbian and the Conservative group in that parliament are fully supportive of the bill to legalise same sex marriage for Scotland which will be placed before that body in the coming parliamentary session. So while I agree that conservative parties are certainly the parties where the lgbt will have most resistance to the advance to proper equality, exsailors rant is but a rant of hysterical, blind and and intolerant half truths and untruths as is illustrated by what happens outside of the US..


Ok, so boil it down to...so ONE person in the group, the leader, is finally for something...but they aren't there yet....because they still resist it as you said...and that make sSailor wrong and full of half truths and hysteria. You know why people don't like to argue with you Fran? because you give them LOADS of ammunition but proceed to shoot yourself in the foot and then go AH HA! I have proven my point exactly that YOU, not I, am insane!

<Sigh>

I'm putting you back on ignore so I don't get dragged into that insanity with you, love. I hope the limp clears up soon.

[darkeyes]

Ok, so boil it down to...so ONE person in the group, the leader, is finally for something...but they aren't there yet....because they still resist it as you said...and that make sSailor wrong and full of half truths and hysteria. You know why people don't like to argue with you Fran? because you give them LOADS of ammunition but proceed to shoot yourself in the foot and then go AH HA! I have proven my point exactly that YOU, not I, am insane!

<Sigh>

I'm putting you back on ignore so I don't get dragged into that insanity with you, love. I hope the limp clears up soon.
U must do what u wish.. but Id rather have my insanity than that which in your mind passes for whatever it passes as... as the man says.. sanity is a state of mind vastly overrated..

[CelticBerserker]

Some interesting replies aside from a bit of bickering. Sorry some of you seem to think I'm an "Uncle Tom", but I do have my reasons for being where I'm at and make zero apologies for who and what I am.

That said, the purpose of this thread was to gauge the amount of bearing one's sexual preference has on their political perspective. In that regard, I feel it was successful. Thanks to all who took the time to post a reply.

[CelticBerserker]

Sorry some of you seem to think I'm an "Uncle Tom", but I do have my reasons for being where I'm at and make zero apologies for who and what I am.

.

The second I clicked reply I knew I should have rephrased that. Oh well.

[void()]

The second I clicked reply I knew I should have rephrased that. Oh well.

<sarcasm>I'm just wondering when you'll make up my mind, you're a plutocrat or a fascist, both? ;) :)</sarcasm>

Sorry, I've not really paid much attention of this thread. Guess it is understandable.

[wanderingrichard]

Ok, back to basics.
Simplest answer for me. I do not vote for majority parties. i vote for the person who can prove they actually can do the job they are asking us to hire them for. so, i'm hated by all the parties bcausee i'm independent. which means in the US i have no legal say in about 70% of the states during any election.


that is a totally separate thing from my being bisexual. politics have no place in my choice of lover or partner. in this day and age of politicising everything, it's a very hard thing to pull off [pun not intended]

[DuckiesDarling]

Things like the below video... they are why some people really really really dislike Romney and by extension Republicans. Sadly, he might embody only a few diehards but the diehards are the ones blowing the hardest :(


http://youtu.be/XnB0NZzl5HA

[void()]

Things like the below video... they are why some people really really really dislike Romney and by extension Republicans. Sadly, he might embody only a few diehards but the diehards are the ones blowing the hardest :(


<SARCASM>He is such a fine up standing American, really pulls for the common man! He is my divine hero!</SARCASM>

This year we are only able to pay tax on my wife's earnings. She pays I guess what is considered payroll tax and income tax at year's end. They take money out of her pay check each week. It was the same for me when I worked. Normally, we got money back because we over paid, did not match a bracket. This year I'm unable to pay as I did not earn anywhere near enough for even pay roll deductions.

There is roughly at least one hundred years of military service between members of my family, about that in my wife's. I served a bit too. Also have worked about thirty five years, earning money for others. Would still be working if I thought or felt I could without being a liability. I am not the sort whom enjoys being a burden and it takes little to make me feel I am.

Was not taught and brought up to not cheat in any way. Now some idiot in a suit who won't show his returns, says I should not eat, have health care, have well being when the constitution was drawn up to establish government to help provide that? To quote Marilyn Manson, "I don't have enough middle fingers!"

And he can take a leap for thinking I think of myself as a victim. I keep going, may need a little help, but I manage. That's being a survivor, thank you.

[Diva667]

Why I hate your freedom (http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html)