Depends whom you ask. I consider myself a "compassionate conservative", but not far right. But on the issues below, here’s my stances:
- Homosexuality – morally wrong, viewed as a developmental disorder, against gay marriage
- Abortion – against, except to save mother. Not acceptable in rape/incest. Acceptable in all cases before 4 weeks or so.
- Prayer in Schools – indifferent/against
- Limited Govt – for
- Gun Control – for
- Environmental Protection – for "scientific environmentalism" balanced with economic considerations
- Govt support of the arts – against
- Separation of church and state (value systems) – against
- Separation of church and state (power structures) – for
- Approach to sex ed – ABC (Abstain, Be Faithful, Contraception as last resort)
- Evolution as trustworthy explanation of origins – NOT
I took the following tests, with the following results:
1. World’s Shortest Political Test
- PERSONAL issues Score is 40% (more libertarian than statist)
- ECONOMIC issues Score is 80% (more conservative than liberal)
- Economic Left/Right: -1.00
- Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
Damn, that makes me left of center! Funny.
- Social Liberal (63% permissive)
- Economic Moderate (56% permissive)
- You are best described as a: Centrist
- You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
- Your scored 0.5 on the Moral Order axis and
- – 3 on the Moral Rules axis
- System: Authoritarianism
- Variation: Moderate Authoritarianism
- Ideologies: Social Republicanism
- US Parties: No match.
- My Score: 24 (just right of center)
So there you have it. I’m just right of center socially, and slightly more libertarian than statist.
Narcissism: 10
Well, the question did come up in the last set of posts.
Comfort with self: 9
Did you score yourself on these? That would be interesting.
Seeker, I don't know you personally, but everything you post here practically screams "Christian Right". Do you even bother reading your own posts about homosexuality? They're like something Dr Laura would write.
I'm not even sure that you're centrist enough to think that's insulting.
I'm actually surprised by some of those answers Seeker. So, there's that.
Yeah, I'm surprised too. I admit that my stance on homosexuality is "christian right", but i don't take that as an insult – but these views belong to a majority – see this recent (May 2005) clip from gallop:
Most Americans believe homosexuals should have equal rights in the workforce. But the public's underlying belief that homosexual relations are immoral seems to prevail in attitudes about expanding those rights to gay marriage, which a majority opposes. Barely half consider homosexuality a culturally acceptable lifestyle. While public tolerance of gays has increased considerably over the past three decades, there has been little change in the last few years, and support for homosexuals serving as teachers or in the clergy has actually declined.
Or this from the Pew Research Forum in 2003:
Most Americans (55%) believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, while 33% disagree. Strongly religious people are far more likely to see homosexual behavior as sinful than are the less religious. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) highly committed white evangelicals say homosexual behavior is sinful, and 64% of committed white Catholics agree. Nearly three-quarters of black Protestants (74%) see homosexual conduct as sinful. But just 18% of secular respondents feel this way.
But most of those who view it as sinful do not think it is any more sinful than adultery; 44% overall (80% of those who think it is a sin) say homosexual behavior and adultery are equally sinful. Even among committed white evangelicals, fewer than one-in-ten (7%) rate homosexual behavior as more sinful than adultery.
BTW Stewart, that pejorative "do you ever read your own posts" comment is a bit insulting, unless you mean it as a figure of speech. I am not insulted by being called Christian right, since I am both. I'm not sure, though, I've ever heard Dr. Laura. And, I oft repeat myself because I see the same objections brought up as if others have not read my posts.
And yes, I am farther right than these tests seemed to indicate, which was part of the fun. I answered honestly, so not sure what the results mean – either they are inaccurate, or my strong stand on homosexuality does not in itself mean I am merely categorized as "far right." It may also mean that my detractors are out of the mainstream, and "screaming liberals" rather than reasonable centrists.
I think that is also why Zell Miller criticizes the dems – because they are so liberal now, they are not even the same party that was more centrist in the past, and conservatives only seem radical because the dems have moved so far away from center, and have pulled the "center" towards them. But modern liberal dems see anything to the right of their position, even true centrist positions, as conservative.
The fact is, my consistently centrist scores may actually represent the true center. To you I may seem rightist, but compared to many rightists, I am a moderate conservative, not a screaming righist. Consider this – I may be one of the reasonable ones!
I admit, I don't think of myself as centrist, so in a sense I think the tests are somewhat inaccurate. But they do raise the intersting points above.
The fact that I am not hateful towards gays in personal relationships, and am not for criminalizing homosexuality (remember, it was normal, centrist Americans who created the original sodomy laws), coupled with my opposition to gay marriage, don't make me a far rightist, but a moderate conservative, despite my strong language and forceful arguments ;)
As I said, the reasoned position is to neither criminalize nor condone homosexuality legally. To do either, IMHO, is to be extremely controlling or careless (resp) with public policy.
Yeah, you're not hateful towards gays at all. You merely think that we'll all burn in hell for eternity, and that our very existence as gays is a moral crime. No hate there.
I'm sure you'd be real nice to me in person, which would make me feel great. I bet it wouldn't bother me at all that you privately think I'm a perverted maladaption.
1. Disagreement is not hate
One of the problems with a child's view of self is that they can not distinguish between themselves and their ideas. Their identity is too wrapped up in their ideas, so when someone disagrees with them, they experience it as disklike for their person. If I disagree with you, it does not mean I hate you. If you experience it that way, you have some growing to do.
2. Disapproval of behaviors is not hate
While disapproval of behavior is closer to disapproving the person than just disagreeing with their ideas, it is only because actions go beyond ideas. However, even if I disapprove of, say, my own child's action, it does not mean I hate them. In fact, I may love them. My child may experience my disapproval as dislike for them, but that is not so.
Likewise, if I think a behavior is wrong or a maladaptation to personal circumstances, this is not hate, even if someone experiences it that way. I disapprove of homosexuality and think it immoral. Does that mean I hate gays? Only to someone who can not distinguish between self and actions or maladaptive behaviors.
3. Opposing legislation validating a lifestyle or perspective is not hate
Again, if I feel that teaching kids that promiscuity or homosexuality is ok is bad for them and society, opposing it is not hate. This is especially true if you do not believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait which deserves special civil rights allotments. If seen as a behavioral maldaptation, then I am not hating, but merely opposing falsehood. You may accuse me of error, but not hatred. The adage may apply "never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by ignorance."
4. Calling for legislative criminalization of behaviors is not hate
Do I hate thieves or adulterers if I make laws against such behaviors? Not if they are damaging to society. Some people who are against gay marriage may be haters, but that doesn't mean that opposing gay marriage is a hateful act.
As I have argued, since homosexuality is not directly dangerous (though promiscuity is), it should not be criminalized. However, since it is also considered immoral by many, and appears to be against nature and the civil order of society (arguably), it is in the gray zone, so we should not condone it through legislation either.
5. Using derogatory names, or calling for physical violence against persons IS hate
People like the church who sponsor godhatesfags.com are certainly haters, as are those who call for violence against gays. But you won't find any of that on this site. So take your accusation of hate and run it through these definitions and see what you come up with.
5. Gays burning in hell
Of course, you have never read those words from my keyboard, since I have never written them. And if you must know, scripture says that all of us deserve punishment for our sins. And those who reject Jesus as savior choose hell rather than redemption, be they gay or straight.
Giving up homosexuality is not a prerequisite for salvation or being a Xian, as far as Xianity is concerned. However, giving up all known sin, and being willing to continue the process of healing and working on deeper sinful habits is part of maturing as a spiritual person and an xian.
To put it plainly, in xian theology, gays aren't greater sinners than anyone else – but if they want to walk with Jesus and the God of the bible, they will have to acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, and work to forsake it inwardly (not just through outward "celibacy").
And of course, there are biblical requirements for xian leadership, which exclude those who can not overcome sexual sin (homosexuality, adultery, fornication) and keep an orderly home (relationally speaking). If they do sin in this way, the xian way is to have them step down from leadership, and go through a period of restoration, after which they may return to leadership.
Are you completely blind to your own anti-gay obsession? If, in your own words "gays aren't greater sinners", why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time castigating them?
I know other Christians who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and although I strongly disagree with them, I don't think they hate gay people. You, on the other hand, have an enormous hard-on for anti-gay rhetoric, and that is why I said that you act hatefully towards homosexuals.
I've asked you before (and I'm pretty sure Louis and Sam have as well) to explain your anti-gay obsession, but you've never committed to answering the question. You produce post after post directly and indirectly criticizing homosexuals for something that is inherently part of them. I might not be so quick to think you're a bigot if you produced some sort of reason for this. Of course, I don't believe that a reasonable answer to such a question actually exists, but I'm willing to keep an open-mind when you attempt to provide one.
Thus, seeker proves that christianism is not only deeply inimical to gay people, but also to common sense, science, and any kind of social and political progress. It has always been a brake on any kind of cultural rationality (just look at its history).
And it's not hatred to think it should be suppressed or, at least, forced back into its churches and silenced for good.
I'd LOL if you weren't so dead serious.
1. Much of my posting on homosexuality is a response to comments, not an initiation.
This post was not about homosexuality, but about conservatism. It seems that our gay readers always have to bring up their pet topic when commenting. Most of my follow ups on this are responses, not initiations.
2. My Posts on Gays are A Small Fraction of Posts
I have posted only 87 articles on this blog, 12 of which are categorized as gay/lesbian. That's about 14%. I'd hardly call that an obsession. Your perception that I am fixated is more like over-sensitivity on your part rather than a fixation on my part.
3. I Have Been Helped by Ex-gay Literature
One of my best friends is ex-gay, and was changed by ex-gay ministries. And, although I have never been gay, nor found men sexually attractive, I had many of the predisposing factors that lead to homosexuality.
Specifically, I had no Dad, and never really bonded with a father figure when young. I never developed a sense of myself as part of "manhood." I was sensitive and to this day never learned to enjoy "male" activities like hunting, spectator sports, building things, etc. I was bookish and gentle. Also, my mother was a very active and vocal women's rights advocate, and after her divorce from my dad, had little good to say about men.
When I did my own masculine recovery work, seeing the true masculine, I was able to recover my masculine identity. The main reason I think I never became gay was that, rather than rejecting the masculine as a child (like many with bad male role models do), I merely had no experience with men, so when I saw the true masculine, I didn't have to work through my alienatio for the masculine – it merely filled the vacuum I had.
So I believe that ex-gay literature and ideas hold a lot of hope and power for those who wish to change. Those who oppose these ideas are opposing truth, and I want to keep such truths out there in the market for people like me, and for others wishing to recover from homosexuality.
4. I like taking on scientific topics that are predominantly dominated by untruth in the public marketplace
Homosexuality, along with Creation/Evolution, are both grand candidates for debate because I believe the current scientific/medical establishments are just plain wrong. Additionally, being wrong has impact on society. Also, as a former biochemist, I love arguments that deal w/ science because I see how science and scientists like to cow people into agreeing with them because they are smarter. I've always hated bullying, and what is happening today amounts to such, and I enjoy challenging bullies.
You may think that my approach and perspectives to homosexuality amount to bullying – I suspect that you think my position is a lie, and therefore, using my logic above, YOU like to fight it for the sake of truth and those out there hurt by my lies.
But I can tell you that, as I said previously, I am not on a crusade against gays – I don't call for violence or criminalization of gays. In fact, I have not even really been involved in the fight to pass anti gay-marriage legislation – although it may be warranted in order to fend off gays who think that the government should legitimize their sinful lifestyles. If it wasn't for the gay lobby overreaching in this way, I doubt we'd have such a battle, nor such a focus upon gays by the evangelicals.
I don't think you're obsessed with same-sex sex, I think you're a bloody lunatic on the topic.
So-called "ex-gay literature" is also bloody lunacy. I, for instance, have always been extremely close to my father, much so than my mother (who worked evenings and weekends). I still am. I also was never molested. I also have no "feminine" characteristics (in fact, gays who do repulse me). I am very masculine. I simply find men erotic and am indifferent to women. BFD.
As to your last point, I had to laugh. Classic "blame the victim" tactic. If gays weren't so forward, so demanding of equality, well, then, we christers wouldn't have to persecute them! And, after centuries of christianist persecution of homosexuals, you can still repeat this lie. It just proves you are a twisted f**k.
btw: my "virus" comment wasn't intended as hatred of humanity; it was a metaphor describing humanity's effect on the Earth. 6 billion and ever-expanding population is destroying our environment. After we've poisoned and paved over nature, we will die, just as viruses die after killing their host. I don't delight in this; I merely see it as inevitable.
Has it ever occurred to you that nature produces homosexuals as a gesture of self-defense? We certainly don't need any more babies.
So there you have, I am a whole lot more conservative than Seeker. Especially on that last one, I was one point away from a full Ronald Reagan. I scored 39 (40 is 100% conservative).
Louis, your tone exihibits not only exasperation, but lack of civility and respect.
BTW, I think you misunderstand the reparative therapy model. You can reject the masculine in your own gender identity development even if you have a good relationship w/ your father, or have not been abused. The reason that father relationship and molestation are most often mentioned is because these are the most common causes of gender rejection.
The question is regarding your relationship w/ the masculine, not just your father.
I knew a guy who had a good relationship w/ his father, but his mother was a control freak. I think his gayness was due to the fact that his father's own masculinity was supressed by the controlling wife, and this affected my friend's gender identity development. Also, his mother liked to control him too.
HA! Thanks for the laugh.
btw: I don't respect you, thus the lack of civility.
btw: I embrace the masculine all the time. Maybe you should stop projecting your gender identity problems onto others.
btw2: All women are controlling, it's just a matter of degree. My mother wasn't particularly controlling at all. She just wasn't around that much.
I guess it depends on what you mean by embrace ;) The reparative therapy teaching is that men who fail to develop an inner sense of the masculine still need it, and seek to get it through intimate romantic and sexual relationships with men.
BTW, nice view of women! The xian teaching i've heard is that women and men are designed so that women can exert influence on men. If they do it for selfish means, it's "controlling", but if they do it for godly means, i.e. to guide their men into what is right, it is "influence." However, it all depends on the spirit in which influence is done, and whether or not they cross the line into bossiness.
Nonsense. I have a well-developed sense of my masculinity. Your "reparative therapy" nonsense is pure fantasy, cooked up by anti-gay bigots, and has little relationship with reality. You guys are really sad.
Well, you may not think this model fits you, but it fits hundreds, maybe thousands or tens of thousands of happy, healthy ex-gays.
…maybe millions, why not?
Now, we need to get started an ex-straight reparative therapeutic model. It makes as much sense.
It's actually hard to find stats on ex-gay stuff. I'm sure that ex-gay organizations are prone to exaggeration, and there is no official reporting on it.
Actually, same-sex attraction is natural and healthy – that's why you don't need ex-straight. I know you were sarcastically joking on that one, but good luck with your model for how people come out straight – first, you'll have to find a model for what is normal if you think being straight is not.
How about this – normal development is described as growing up with a disdain for one's own gender, or the opposite gender. Twisete straight people who grow up with a positive regard for both genders end up feeling like their own gender fits them, so they develop an unhealthy sense of gender – one that matches their physiology – and fail to develop enough of the opposite gender in themselves. To compensate, they feel the need to merge with the other gender. This leads to procreation and overpopulation.
To fix this, we should try to raise children to dislike their own or the other gender, in an effort to get them to desire intimacy with their own gender only. That way, we can eliminate procreation altogether and save the earth from humans.
Makes as much sense as what you believe.