Marriage Poll

[clarsct]

Are you from Canada?

As for me, I'm for same-sex marriage, for pretty much all the reasons enumerated to now in this thread. In no way do I see my parents' marriage (now in its 51st year) threatened by letting two guys or two gals marry each other. (No more than it was threatened by Brittany's 52-hour fling, with a member of the opposite sex, no less!)

Nope, I'm a born and bred Merican.


Conservative: Someone who would prefer the past to any future.
Moderate: Wishy-washy.
Liberal: Closet aristocrat.

I hope this helps. Basically, if you build a spectrum from the extreme right(fascism) to the extreme left(communism), the cons would be towards the right and the liberals would be towards the left.

Libertarians seem to go towards anarchy a bit, which isn't on the scale, so to speak. They're kinda off to one side.

ETA: So, right, left or wish-washy for me? I am slightly curious.

 

[rjh01]

Well that means I must vote for Planet X as I am a capitalist freedom fighter.

 

[Polaris]

What is it about this subject that makes the Christian conservatives start foaming at the mouth? And why does it not seem to be an issue except near election time (rhetorical question)?

 

[Meffy]

I'm no great fan of Mencken, but will occasionally brave his preciousness on the strength of the truths he couched therein. (Was that, itself, precious? Ooops.)

"A Puritan is someone who is desperately afraid that, somewhere, someone might be having a good time." -- H.L.M.

[edit] The 'specially-around-election-time thing... I'd say it's a matter of economy; can't stay agitated and anxious all the time, gotta take it easy now and then.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow! With the majority claiming to be moderate or liberal, why are there so many pro Bush posters in the political forums?

Either the conservatives are not voting or the Bush supporters are loud for their size.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

John Stewart of the Daily show had a good rebuttal point to the slippery slope argument. Homosexuality is "part of the human condition" and is not a choice. Allowing gay marriages does not mean you then must allow marriage alternatives based on choices. I thought that was very insightful.

 

[RandFan]

Wow! With the majority claiming to be moderate or liberal, why are there so many pro Bush posters in the political forums?

Either the conservatives are not voting or the Bush supporters are loud for their size.

You think that moderate posters and Bush suporters are mutually exclusive?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You think that moderate posters and Bush suporters are mutually exclusive?

Yes. Moderates are not supporting Bush for the moment according to multiple polls.

And, the Bush supporters on the political forum I speak of are by no means moderate. But even if they merely think of themselves as moderate, then where are the conservatives? Why would most Bush supporters here be moderate and only a few identify themselves as conservative?

 

[fishbob]

I voted for Planet X because I am moderately liberservative, progressively anti-religious, and adamantly for equal rights. SSM is clearly an equal rights issue, so there you are.

 

[rjh01]

Yes. Moderates are not supporting Bush for the moment according to multiple polls.

And, the Bush supporters on the political forum I speak of are by no means moderate. But even if they merely think of themselves as moderate, then where are the conservatives? Why would most Bush supporters here be moderate and only a few identify themselves as conservative?

Maybe we need another poll
Conservative / Moderate or Liberal
Bush supporter / anti Bush / Bush who?
Gives us nine options plus one for planet X.

Then see that there are lots of Liberal Bush supporters

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Say what? Liberals who support Bush? Only if they are also schizophrenic.

 

[Cain]

Yes. Moderates are not supporting Bush for the moment according to multiple polls.

And, the Bush supporters on the political forum I speak of are by no means moderate. But even if they merely think of themselves as moderate, then where are the conservatives? Why would most Bush supporters here be moderate and only a few identify themselves as conservative?

Be forewarned: RandFan is precisely one of those people who likes to think of himself as "moderate" and "objective" and totally fair. We've had several threads about it.

RandFan writes:

You think that moderate posters and Bush suporters are mutually exclusive?

I suggest you read _Off Center_ by political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. Isn't it possible for a person to be a left-winger and support Bush? Christopher Hitchens appears to be that sort of single-issue loon, but we're talking about rare exceptions. The Bush presidency, and the Republican Party in general, are decidedly off center. Look at the Nixon presidency: price controls, expanding food stamps, visit to China, EPA, off the gold standard, and so on. Gerald Ford was a party leader. Look at typical moderate Republican from 30 years ago and compare him to today. Compare what self-identified "moderates" on this board, in fact hard-core conservatives and libertarians, believe versus the general public on workplace safety, the environment, social security, and so on. See the aforementioned book.

Not that there's anything especially great about being "moderate." They're on the losing side of history when it comes to the really important issues. Screw'em.

 

[Piggy]

The liberal/progressive-moderate-conservative "spectrum" is total BS.

What's worse, defining the political "spectrum" this way helps ensure that the current political structure remains in place.

When people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative, I say "No". Almost always, I'll then be asked if I'm in the middle or if I lean toward the right or the left. (Yes, I get into a lot of political discussions w/ lots of different folks.) My answer is still "No".

Asking me if I'm liberal or conservative is like asking me if I'm Nigerian or Chinese. I'm neither. And that doesn't mean that I must therefore be from someplace in between these 2 points.

What's more, the definitions of these political camps are so inconsistent as to be worthless.

I don't see how anyone can consider Bush a conservative. He's in favor of amending the Constitution, foreign entanglements and nation-building, the growth of government (in terms of number of employees), expanded role of federal government in non-governmental arenas, increased federal spending, enormous deficits, intrusion of the government into citizens' private lives, etc.

Yet he, like the big-spender Regan before him, is the darling of the Republican right-wing and the icon of conservatism for the general public in America.

The definitions of liberal/progressive and conservative change with the times to suit the purposes of those who use them.

Right now, the dichotomy breaks largely along social-issue lines, especially attitudes regarding religion and sexuality, and the government's role where both are concerned.

However, there are many conservative pundits out there who are willing to say that Bush is no conservative. Some are fiscal conservatives or isolationists. Others would like to see an out-and-out theocracy.

 

[wastepanel]

Be forewarned: RandFan is precisely one of those people who likes to think of himself as "moderate" and "objective" and totally fair. We've had several threads about it.

So does FOX news...

 

[Upchurch]

So, Papa Funkosophy, have you drawn any conclusions from your research so far?

Well, let's take a look. (I'm counting Planet X as abstaining)

as of this posting (145 responses), 123 (85%) were in favor of SSM and 10 (7%) were opposed with 12 (8%) abstaining.

Of those who self-identify themselves as conservative, 6 (60%) were in favor of SSM and 4 (40%) were opposed.

Of those who self-identify themselves as moderate, 53 (93%) were in favor of SSM and 4 (7%) were opposed.

Of those who self-identify themselves as liberal, 64 (97%) were in favor of SSM and 2 (3%) were opposed.

Of those who self-identified themselves as religious, 9 (75%) were in favor of SSM and 3 (25%) were opposed.

Of those who self-identified themselves as non-religious, 124 (95%) were in favor of SSM and 7 (5%) were opposed.

Of those in favor of SSM, 6 (5%) were conservative, 53 (46%) were moderate, 64 (50%) were liberal, 9 (7%) were religious, and 114 (93%) were non-religious.

Of those against SSM, 4 (40%) were conservative, 4 (40%) were moderate, 2 (20%) were liberal, 2 (22%) were religious, and 7 (78%) were non-religious.

---------------

Ya know, I'm not sure what conclusions I can draw from this. It's apparent that of those who participated in the poll, the board is strongly in favor of SSM. Conservatives are the most split on the issue, followed by the religious, but this could just be the result of a small sample size (10 and 12, respectively). I don't know if the conservative/moderate/liberal split is genuinely representative of the board. I suspect that it isn't.

 

[I less than three logic]

I know I do not visit politics forum much, but for the non-USA people can you please define conservative, moderate and liberal or say this is only for USA people?

Here in the US, conservative and liberal are more or less derogatory labels created for Republicans and Democrats respectively. Moderate is more of a self-created label for those that agree with some ideas from each of the other two, but don’t want either label attached to them.

Well, that’s my at least.

 

[shalomsteph]

I voted liberal, religious, and FOR SSM. I should add my religion is also liberal, Reform Judaism.

 

[Meffy]

Planet X-ers outvoted anti-SSM. Who needs further proof that the space aliens are among us?

 

[Cain]

I don't see how anyone can consider Bush a conservative. He's in favor of amending the Constitution, foreign entanglements and nation-building, the growth of government (in terms of number of employees), expanded role of federal government in non-governmental arenas, increased federal spending, enormous deficits, intrusion of the government into citizens' private lives, etc.

Some good points. I was going to mention Bush's huge medicare entitlement uniformly opposed by the liberal left and the conservative right. I recall David Brooks in the NYT saying it was the kind of legislation that gets passed by a "governing party." Bush originally claimed he wanted a "humble" foreign policy explicitly opposed to "nation-building" and being the world's "police man." He flip-flopped on that one. The Nixon comparison apparently appears in Bartlett's book _Imposter_, the thesis of which is that Bush is not a "real" conservative like Ronald Reagan, who, incidentally, oversaw a period when the U.S. deficit was ballooning and we had the most protectionist policies since H-S.

But everyone also knows there is a whole lot of politics involved. Do the hawkish loons on this board mock Bush for repeatedly calling Islam a "peaceful" religion? I'm not sure -- I try to avoid their scribblings -- but I think the answer is no. His "crusade" slip-up probably signals what he "really" believes, and what he has to say in order to sound politically correct.

Clinton's policies helped balanced the budget, he expanded free-trade (compare with steel tariffs), cut jobs from the bureaucracy, signed on to welfare "reform," and so on. But the budget was balanced in part because he raised taxes on the rich (those predictions of a recession didn't pan out, did they); and the Clinton administration did enforce environmental and workplace protections in a way that has been wholly ignored by the current administration; and the welfare bill was the third(?) one sent to him by the Congress; and he did go with Kyoto but over the protests of Rubin and Summers and knowing the Senate would never ratify it; and he did make a pitiful attempt to bring "universal" health coverage to America.

Amending the Constitution is a major change, for the Constitution, but it is conservative in that it effectively upholds a kind of tradition (albeit one that is arbitrary and cruel). Besides, I think almost everyone agrees this whole thing is a cynical political ploy in an election year.

Bush has betrayed principles of conservative governance. Who hasn't? Then there are all these other self-identified conservatives, on this board and elsewhere, the hoi polloi who, perhaps because of a cult of personality surrounding Bush, largely go along with what the administration says and does. They define themselves against the opposition, and they like Ann Coulter if for no other reason than the fact she pisses off "the other side."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The liberal/progressive-moderate-conservative "spectrum" is total BS.....

While I totally agree with you in principle, the terms used actually identify how we identify ourselves. And our perception of ourselves may or may not be accurate.

Take the car you drive, is it a huge ATV while you've never or rarely been off road in it? Are you a suit and tie guy or a teeshirt guy? What does your hairstyle say about how you see yourself?

The party in power while claiming to be for smaller government and less government interference in one's private life have spent more money, run up more dept, and taken more actions against personal liberty than any previous administration. They claim to be for marriage and the family yet were overzealous to interfere in a personal marital decision they didn't agree with. They claim to support democracy yet did everything to assure their election rather than everything to assure an accurate vote count.

And it wouldn't surprise me if they have excuses or arguments against everything I said in the above paragraph. In other words, they believe in the image, not the reality.

But before you 'conservatives' get sidetracked with the examples and ignore the subject the examples illustrate, 'liberals' do exactly the same thing. They are for the environment but don't practice it as fully in their personal lives as claimed. They loved Clinton but hated the WTO. And so on and so on.

It's all image and the degree the image agrees with reality varies considerably from person to person. And even within the image, of course there is a mix. I think the Republican campaign machine has done a lot to skew the real position of people towards a fake split. Of course many conservatives want to protect the environment. Just as many liberals go to church and own guns.

So while I agree the image doesn't reflect reality at all, it does reflect one's image of self whether accurate or not. Fox newscasters probably believe they are "fair and balanced" just as Limbaugh lovers think he states accurate facts everyday on his program. And I think it's safe to assume O'Reilly is truly self delusional.

Getting back to the topic, I wonder how many people who consider themselves conservative really give a rat's backside about the gay marriage issue?