Political leaning...

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby xaustinx » 21 May 2014, 20:41

I would never concede to voting for a party that opposes gay rights even if they are the 'the lesser of two evils' because that is how rights get lost or go unrecognized. We must stand for our rights and fight for them. I basically have no party, as I am a libertarian socialist, and as such I promote candidates/people in power that stand for human and gay rights in addition to freedom of liberty. Conversely, I denounce and oppose those that oppose or ignore those rights and liberty. We shouldn't ideally accept bigotry in any form. Accepting or allowing this will deny us our own rights, slow societal progression and hamper culture.
User avatar
xaustinx
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 20 May 2014, 19:48
Location: Georgia
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Courage » 23 May 2014, 16:50

I'm very much a moderate, that much is certain. I only abide by the truth, and what has been confirmed to work. Conservatives and radical liberals are insane liars, whether they're lying for a good cause is irrelevant to me, I want the truth. I'm very liberal but I find that most of the liberals currently in power (in the U.S. at least) are just shameful. Being unwilling to hear the other side of the story is an enormous flaw, and that's what ruins radicals.
Don't fuck with me, I have the power of God, and anime on my side.
User avatar
Courage
 
Posts: 431
+1s received: 75
Joined: 22 January 2013, 06:56
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby rxxli » 23 May 2014, 17:14

I have received a letter from national electoral committee today inviting me to an election for representatives in European parliament. Let's just say that I won't be going. I don't have any idea who the candidates are and I don't care.

My interest in politics is obvious. Actually I know more about the US politics than I do about our own.

This could mean two things - everything is fine and I don't care, or everything is shit and I can't do anything about it.
Image
User avatar
rxxli
 
Posts: 4317
+1s received: 262
Joined: 21 December 2012, 21:33
Country: Slovenia (si)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Edward » 23 May 2014, 22:55

Nam wrote:Torys (central-right?) supported gay marriage but then openly admitted to it being a mistake in their eyes and even the mayor of London used homophobia as a tool to gain votes

Have you got a source for either of these? I could see back benchers probably saying the first part but I'd be surprised if that was the main Conservative line. And how did Boris Johnson use homophobia? Obviously this was your friend speaking so not accusing you of making things up!

And to answer your question, no. I'd always see these parties as being very socially conservative so they'd be likely to also hinder other movements (minorities, feminism etc.) In fact, I'd expect any 'anti-gay' party to have many non-gay related policies that I'd strongly oppose. I also want kids, and would hate for any government to take that opportunity away from me.

Having said that, the inverse doesn't apply to me. I wouldn't vote for a party just because they promise gay marriage if I disagree with the rest of their policies.
Formerly known as upthebracket
Edward
 
Posts: 863
+1s received: 1
Joined: 21 December 2012, 00:54
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Nam » 29 May 2014, 21:37

Edward wrote:
Nam wrote:Torys (central-right?) supported gay marriage but then openly admitted to it being a mistake in their eyes and even the mayor of London used homophobia as a tool to gain votes

Have you got a source for either of these? I could see back benchers probably saying the first part but I'd be surprised if that was the main Conservative line. And how did Boris Johnson use homophobia? Obviously this was your friend speaking so not accusing you of making things up!

And to answer your question, no. I'd always see these parties as being very socially conservative so they'd be likely to also hinder other movements (minorities, feminism etc.) In fact, I'd expect any 'anti-gay' party to have many non-gay related policies that I'd strongly oppose. I also want kids, and would hate for any government to take that opportunity away from me.

Having said that, the inverse doesn't apply to me. I wouldn't vote for a party just because they promise gay marriage if I disagree with the rest of their policies.


Firstly, read the damn post first; if you did, you see that this was not my "friend". Secondly, why the hell would I have evidence if I did not say it, but, because im in that sort of mood, I did actually search for both of the arguments online and actually did find stories which back them up, so why dont you search for them?
I know you wont, so to summerise, the Torys gay marriage thing-well a book was written which suggested that Cameron himself said that he regretted pushing gay marriage bills through as it has alienated many old school Tories and divided his party. The Boris point, well supposedly he decided to pull the christian adverts on buses promoting gay cures just before the election as it would bring in the gay vote and that he didn't care less about the actual message. He denies it though many gay newspapers etc disagree.
Thats me done, continue the conversation among yourselves
"Go fuck yourself" General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck
Nam
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 23 February 2014, 11:48
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Edward » 29 May 2014, 21:48

Nam wrote:
Edward wrote:
Nam wrote:Torys (central-right?) supported gay marriage but then openly admitted to it being a mistake in their eyes and even the mayor of London used homophobia as a tool to gain votes

Have you got a source for either of these? I could see back benchers probably saying the first part but I'd be surprised if that was the main Conservative line. And how did Boris Johnson use homophobia? Obviously this was your friend speaking so not accusing you of making things up!

And to answer your question, no. I'd always see these parties as being very socially conservative so they'd be likely to also hinder other movements (minorities, feminism etc.) In fact, I'd expect any 'anti-gay' party to have many non-gay related policies that I'd strongly oppose. I also want kids, and would hate for any government to take that opportunity away from me.

Having said that, the inverse doesn't apply to me. I wouldn't vote for a party just because they promise gay marriage if I disagree with the rest of their policies.


Firstly, read the damn post first; if you did, you see that this was not my "friend". Secondly, why the hell would I have evidence if I did not say it, but, because im in that sort of mood, I did actually search for both of the arguments online and actually did find stories which back them up, so why dont you search for them?
I know you wont, so to summerise, the Torys gay marriage thing-well a book was written which suggested that Cameron himself said that he regretted pushing gay marriage bills through as it has alienated many old school Tories and divided his party. The Boris point, well supposedly he decided to pull the christian adverts on buses promoting gay cures just before the election as it would bring in the gay vote and that he didn't care less about the actual message. He denies it though many gay newspapers etc disagree.
Thats me done, continue the conversation among yourselves


Fine, random man you met, the subject of the person wasn't really relevant to my point. I was just interested if there was anything besides speculation, which what you've found kind of is. None of it is exactly 'openly admitting it was a mistake.' And when you said 'used homophobia to gain votes,' I thought you meant was homophobic to gain votes from anti-gay people, not the other way round. Still kind of speculative as to whether or not he did that purely to gain votes though.
Formerly known as upthebracket
Edward
 
Posts: 863
+1s received: 1
Joined: 21 December 2012, 00:54
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Mod » 29 May 2014, 22:07

I'm centre left.
Both mainstream/majority parties of NZ are Gay friendly. There are three or four parties I can think of that are not, they may end up sharing the government as a minor coalition partner but they don't really command more than 5%.
Also three of those minor parties are actually splinters off of other now minor parties.
They survive by cutting electoral deals with the National government, green stamping National's more unpopular plans, causing a fuss when national thinks they have a good hand to play, and maintaining a public profile because their wealthy benefactors have controlling stakes in national newspapers.

I don't think I have to worry about those splinter's actions towards The Gays for some time.

Even then their combination of influences see them being three or more of: being very corrupt (scandals ahoy), socially conservative, fiscally conservative, right wing, theistic, or classically liberal. So I don't have to worry about wanting to vote with them and not agreeing with social policies.

Gay adoption, adoption laws in general, and blood donation laws, and maybe trans (Nz had the first openly trans MP) laws are the few things left to umm and ahhh about.

That said if a centrist, or left wing party had ideas I agreed with and promised to complete inaction w/r/t queer issues I'd still vote for them. Unless they plan on rolling back previous victories.
Money can't buy happiness; but we'll sell it to you anyway.
Mod
 
Posts: 3157
+1s received: 149
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:26

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 30 May 2014, 13:06

Nam wrote:as a LGBT person, would you vote for a political group that may hinder or reverse the progress of gay-rights? and if so, why?

Happily, it doesn't look like I'll ever have to. I'm about as "left-wing" as you can get, and in every election I've ever voted in, there has been a party aiming to get just about as much of the things I believe in done as can be realistically expected, which has always included being in favour of equal rights for gays in marriage, adoption, etc.
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Derek » 30 May 2014, 15:15

I would definitely vote for a party that promised to reverse the rights gained by LGBT people because I want being gay to be cool again. Now it's all white picket fences and primetime sitcoms.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5438
+1s received: 1537
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Mod » 30 May 2014, 15:19

Derek wrote:I would definitely vote for a party that promised to reverse the rights gained by LGBT people because I want being gay to be cool again. Now it's all white picket fences and primetime sitcoms.

Really? Didn't picture you to be waving a sign reading "Fuck the Heteronormative Agenda!"
Money can't buy happiness; but we'll sell it to you anyway.
Mod
 
Posts: 3157
+1s received: 149
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:26

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Pierro stardust » 30 May 2014, 17:50

Derek wrote:I would definitely vote for a party that promised to reverse the rights gained by LGBT people because I want being gay to be cool again. Now it's all white picket fences and primetime sitcoms.


Ask to some members from countries where LGBT haven't gained any rights, if it's so cool to be beaten by cops, or such things...I don't think they care a lot about coolness, they just want to live their life as they intend to.
The LGBT rights seem acquired and obvious in most of "western" countries, but it's far from being evident in many other places :(
"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger"
User avatar
Pierro stardust
 
Posts: 600
+1s received: 3
Joined: 28 May 2014, 23:58
Location: Normandy, France
Country: France (fr)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Sullivan » 30 May 2014, 20:39

I choose which party to vote for by tacking photos of all the candidates to a wall, blindfolding myself, and throwing a dart.

I'll stand by my method as being equally rigorous and respectable as any other.
User avatar
Sullivan
 
Posts: 554
+1s received: 130
Joined: 25 July 2013, 02:12
Location: Chicago
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby BeyondThePale » 31 May 2014, 00:24

I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this symbolic ceremonial thing people do, and like bam, you're married. It doesn't mean anything. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.
Jive the lions.
User avatar
BeyondThePale
 
Posts: 212
Joined: 6 March 2014, 23:04
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 31 May 2014, 00:35

BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby BeyondThePale » 31 May 2014, 06:05

René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.
Jive the lions.
User avatar
BeyondThePale
 
Posts: 212
Joined: 6 March 2014, 23:04
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby xyz72 » 31 May 2014, 08:37

At this point in Germany where my Civil Union does award me almost all the benefits of a "real" marriage(including an unlimited visa for my husband so long as he has enough funds to self-support(I believe that, as long as you have enough money to support yourself and pay taxes, you shouldn't be kept out of any country)), gay rights are one of the least important political issues for me at the moment. We're not quite at the point of equality necessary, but there's very little actual points of discrimination left - which are rather minor in the big picture. As long as a party isn't going to take rights away again I couldn't care less what their stance is.

I do feel myself alienated from all major parties though. I used to vote FDP, a center right party with strong liberal views, however, they recently fell to 3%(from nearly 20% just a while back) and I'm beginning to lose hope that they will return. They have aligned themselves more with the generic centrist stance of most of our other parties towards the end, trying to reclaim some voters that felt them too capitalistic during the financial crisis, and by doing so lost all appeal as the only party that didn't want to continue increasing taxes and government benefits when both are ridiculously high already. What's left are a centrist party build around Christianity, the Green party, a socialist-leaning party(these 3 have essentially identical views and make up about 80% of the votes), a radical left party, the Pirates and a new, anti-EU right-wing party. :sadblue:
xyz72
 
Posts: 3923
+1s received: 32
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:50
Country: Germany (de)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Derek » 31 May 2014, 09:06

BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5438
+1s received: 1537
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 31 May 2014, 15:28

Derek wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.

Moreover, my husband didn't get Dutch citizenship, and I didn't get American citizenship. You can't just marry someone and then become a citizen of their country. That's not how it works.

Without the EU/UK's recognition of our marriage, we wouldn't have been able to be together for more than 3 months at a time at all. We didn't "just hook up and move". (That makes it sound almost like we just got married to bypass immigration requirements.) We got married because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.

There are good reasons to regulate who can move into your country, but what good is it being a citizen of a country if that country won't even allow you to live there with your family? There is no benefit to keeping people like us apart just because we were born in different countries.

I never wanted to live in the United States, and my husband never wanted to live in Europe before meeting me. We just wanted to be together, somewhere.
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby BeyondThePale » 1 June 2014, 07:00

Derek wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.


I never said it was an expression of love. Not once. It's a social contract between two people and the State; and it shouldn't be. Custodial rights can be determined without marriage, lol. How do you think unmarried people with kids work that stuff out? As if marriage is a prerequisite for having offspring.
Jive the lions.
User avatar
BeyondThePale
 
Posts: 212
Joined: 6 March 2014, 23:04
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby BeyondThePale » 1 June 2014, 07:35

René wrote:
Derek wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.

Moreover, my husband didn't get Dutch citizenship, and I didn't get American citizenship. You can't just marry someone and then become a citizen of their country. That's not how it works.

Without the EU/UK's recognition of our marriage, we wouldn't have been able to be together for more than 3 months at a time at all. We didn't "just hook up and move". (That makes it sound almost like we just got married to bypass immigration requirements.) We got married because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.

There are good reasons to regulate who can move into your country, but what good is it being a citizen of a country if that country won't even allow you to live there with your family? There is no benefit to keeping people like us apart just because we were born in different countries.

I never wanted to live in the United States, and my husband never wanted to live in Europe before meeting me. We just wanted to be together, somewhere.


I realize that you don't get 'citizenship', and I realize you didn't just hook up and move, but people can, and that's part of my problem with it; that it can be abused. Also, what should family have to do with it? Why can't someone lonely and hopeless move somewhere else so easily if they want to? Why do people who want to be together get preferential treatment over single people?
Jive the lions.
User avatar
BeyondThePale
 
Posts: 212
Joined: 6 March 2014, 23:04
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: United States (us)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests