Where would you say you stand on the Conservative vs Liberal scale?

[Archer2]

Very...................................................................Middle of...................................................................Very
Liberal..............................................................the Roader.......................................................Conservative

L5............L4............L3............L2............L1..........M/R.........C1..........C2..........C3...........C4...........C5


I know this is oversimplified but I'm curious where you think you fall on this scale. I consider myself R2, very Conservative fiscally(R5), but pretty Liberal socially(L3).

 

[heelmanwilm]

I would say c1 for similar reasons, fiscally conservative but somewhat liberal socially.

I favor stricter gun and abortion laws. I'm christian but not evangelical church going. I favor legalized pot, against hb2, dont care either way about gay marriage though.

 

[tarheel0910]

I would say I'm CB4.

 

[strummingram]

 

[uncboy10]

For anyone who was wondering how I support Bernie AND Gary Johnson.

 

[carolinablue34]

M/R to C1.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

I am what ever side is far, far, far away from these two nut jobs...The American side.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Here's where I am. But I'll say that with each passing day, I drift further to the right.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Here's where I am. But I'll say that with each passing day, I drift further to the right.

I'm probably right around the same as GSD. Libertarian shading to the right.

Economically/fiscally conservative - socially liberal for the most part (pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, in favor of marijuana legalization, etc.).

 

[gunslingerdick]

I'm probably right around the same as GSD. Libertarian shading to the right.

Economically/fiscally conservative - socially liberal for the most part (pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, in favor of marijuana legalization, etc.).

I used to say the same thing - "fiscally conservative, socially moderate". But as I've said before, I usually don't care about social issues. But I care deeply about how we currently address social issues. And I've had a dozen people echo this sentiment - "I didn't care about gay marriage until it became such a big deal". What they're saying is essentially the same thing as I said above - I'm totally fine with gay people enjoying what my wife and I have. And I used to want it to be called something else but I even gave on that too. Call it marriage, fine. But what I don't want is public celebration of it. I don't want to talk about it. I don't want it to be a topic on radio, TV and social media. When it is, it's always shoved down our throats that if you're against it, you're a bigot. And when that starts happening, I'm now more against it than I ever was before it became a public issue. If the morons that champion such causes would understand that, we'd all be better off. Gays would be married and living their lives happily and I would go on with mine without interruption from having to celebrate their gay marriage.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Strongly conservative, fiscally. Don't give a shit about social issues. Live and let live, just do it away from me and not on TV that my kids will watch one day.

 

[strummingram]

Strongly conservative, fiscally. Don't give a shit about social issues. Live and let live, just do it away from me and not on TV that my kids will watch one day.

That was funny! You give a big shit about social issues. It's almost impossible to NOT give a shit.

ALL of you who claim you don't care about them, and then go on to elaborate how seeing them, hearing about them, or knowing about them at all BOTHERS you, is evidence that you care. If seeing them, hearing about them, having people "celebrate them" truly didn't bother you, then you wouldn't need any qualifiers. This is more of a reply to @gunslingerdick, but I started on yours THN, sorry.

If hearing about other people doing what you do bothers you, then you're NOT "socially liberal" at all. You are, more likely, a bigot. Now, being a bigot is not necesarily good or bad, it's just bigoted. Your whole life, you are taught that when two men do the same things as a man and a woman, that is "wrong." So, when suddenly society starts to show acceptance of that behavior, and you feel compelled to resist because of what you were taught, it doesn't make you a horrible person. It just makes you a bigot, as long as you feel a need to resist it and want it out of your media, and out of the public eye entirely. No one is asking you to have SEX WITH THEM. But, you will need to allow them to do what every other couple does in public. And...That includes hearing about it! That includes seeing it on TV. You may not LIKE IT, but oh well. I dislike most of what I see on TV whenever I watch commercial television (which is rare). I get so sick of the way commercialism panders to peoples' insecurities and tries to get them to buy shit they don't need. In that sense, I am a bigot. I still recoil when I see two men kiss. But, I wish I didn't. It's a display of affection... that's all. One day, I'll overcome it and stop being a bigot!

 

[gunslingerdick]

That was funny! You give a big shit about social issues. It's almost impossible to NOT give a shit.

ALL of you who claim you don't care about them, and then go on to elaborate how seeing them, hearing about them, or knowing about them at all BOTHERS you, is evidence that you care. If seeing them, hearing about them, having people "celebrate them" truly didn't bother you, then you wouldn't need any qualifiers. This is more of a reply to @gunslingerdick, but I started on yours THN, sorry.

If hearing about other people doing what you do bothers you, then you're NOT "socially liberal" at all. You are, more likely, a bigot. Now, being a bigot is not necesarily good or bad, it's just bigoted. Your whole life, you are taught that when two men do the same things as a man and a woman, that is "wrong." So, when suddenly society starts to show acceptance of that behavior, and you feel compelled to resist because of what you were taught, it doesn't make you a horrible person. It just makes you a bigot, as long as you feel a need to resist it and want it out of your media, and out of the public eye entirely. No one is asking you to have SEX WITH THEM. But, you will need to allow them to do what every other couple does in public. And...That includes hearing about it! That includes seeing it on TV. You may not LIKE IT, but oh well. I dislike most of what I see on TV whenever I watch commercial television (which is rare). I get so sick of the way commercialism panders to peoples' insecurities and tries to get them to buy shit they don't need. In that sense, I am a bigot. I still recoil when I see two men kiss. But, I wish I didn't. It's a display of affection... that's all. One day, I'll overcome it and stop being a bigot!

 

[carolinablue34]

You could at least give a more intellectual response.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

No one is asking you to have SEX WITH THEM. But, you will need to allow them to do what every other couple does in public. And...That includes hearing about it! That includes seeing it on TV.

I agree with this. However, I think that many outlets have now overcompensated, and now gone over the top in the opposite direction (aka, tried to be "equal" so badly that they have now made it unequal again). Does anyone remember when Michael Sam was drafted to the NFL? The camera was locked on him kissing his boyfriend for literally minutes. Then they interviewed him for a half hour and talked about what it was like to be gay and get drafted. While I personally had no problem with this reaction, it is in no way treating them "as every other couple does in public". When straight players are drafted you might see them peck their gf/wife on their way to the podium, maybe a 5 second kiss at most (if any longer than that the camera cuts away to something else). Then in their green room interviews, its always about how they're going to help the team, or what they need to work on to succeed at the next level. You never see a half hour interview with them saying "so what's it like being a straight man getting drafted?" "How has your relationship with your girlfriend shaped you as a person?".

 

[strummingram]

I agree with this. However, I think that many outlets have now overcompensated, and now gone over the top in the opposite direction (aka, tried to be "equal" so badly that they have now made it unequal again).

I get that feeling sometimes, too. But, I think that is more of my own reaction to it not being the norm. At some point, it will even-out and it will go unnoticed, and just be "the way it is"... I hope.

 

[gunslingerdick]

You could at least give a more intellectual response.

I've given responses to strum ad nauseum. It's pointless. He continues to say the same nonsensical shit. I've told him that he and I simply don't see eye to eye yet he continues to want to address my poasts and tag me in poasts as if I want to read his drivel.

You're no longer new here. I'm surprised you didn't already know this.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I agree with this. However, I think that many outlets have now overcompensated, and now gone over the top in the opposite direction (aka, tried to be "equal" so badly that they have now made it unequal again). Does anyone remember when Michael Sam was drafted to the NFL? The camera was locked on him kissing his boyfriend for literally minutes. Then they interviewed him for a half hour and talked about what it was like to be gay and get drafted. While I personally had no problem with this reaction, it is in no way treating them "as every other couple does in public". When straight players are drafted you might see them peck their gf/wife on their way to the podium, maybe a 5 second kiss at most (if any longer than that the camera cuts away to something else). Then in their green room interviews, its always about how they're going to help the team, or what they need to work on to succeed at the next level. You never see a half hour interview with them saying "so what's it like being a straight man getting drafted?" "How has your relationship with your girlfriend shaped you as a person?".

You're absolutely correct. That's what THN was referencing when he said he didn't want to be forced to see it and that's what I was referencing when I stated that I don't have to celebrate it. No, it's not the same. The media would much rather publicize deviant behavior rather than what is considered traditional. Because traditional is boring to them. No one would be lighting up their website with complaints or with congratulatory messages over traditional. But they know that focusing on deviant behavior sells. They get the messages from angry folks and messages from like-minded. But either way, it's people paying attention to them and what they're reporting.

 

[strummingram]

I've told him that he and I simply don't see eye to eye

No... you have never stated that to me. You have NEVER said "You and I simply don't see eye-to-eye..." You've conveyed that, and you've used tons of insulting memes and hurled endless insults. But, you have never once said, "simple", that we don't see eye to eye. If you had, then we would never go back-and-forth like it does. You love wrestling with me! I enjoy it, too! I would be bored to death some afternoons were it not for you!

 

[gunslingerdick]

No... you have never stated that to me. You have NEVER said "You and I simply don't see eye-to-eye..." You've conveyed that, and you've used tons of insulting memes and hurled endless insults. But, you have never once said, "simple", that we don't see eye to eye. If you had, then we would never go back-and-forth like it does. You love wrestling with me! I enjoy it, too! I would be bored to death some afternoons were it not for you!

We don't see eye to eye.

Are we done now?

 

[strummingram]

Because traditional is boring to them. No one would be lighting up their website with complaints or with congratulatory messages over traditional. But they know that focusing on deviant behavior sells. They get the messages from angry folks and messages from like-minded. But either way, it's people paying attention to them and what they're reporting.

This, we agree on.

I don't consider "traditional" and "deviant" the same things as you, however. To me, that's as relative as right and wrong. The media DOES profit from poking the public's hornet's nest. They are great at exploiting and profiting from things that they think will rile us up toward each other. The "tradition" of everyone getting along is of no use to them. That takes the focus OFF of their circus.

 

[UNC '92]

No... you have never stated that to me. You have NEVER said "You and I simply don't see eye-to-eye..." You've conveyed that, and you've used tons of insulting memes and hurled endless insults. But, you have never once said, "simple", that we don't see eye to eye. If you had, then we would never go back-and-forth like it does. You love wrestling with me! I enjoy it, too! I would be bored to death some afternoons were it not for you!

 

[strummingram]

We don't see eye to eye.

Are we done now?

For now.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

You're absolutely correct. That's what THN was referencing when he said he didn't want to be forced to see it and that's what I was referencing when I stated that I don't have to celebrate it. No, it's not the same. The media would much rather publicize deviant behavior rather than what is considered traditional. Because traditional is boring to them. No one would be lighting up their website with complaints or with congratulatory messages over traditional. But they know that focusing on deviant behavior sells. They get the messages from angry folks and messages from like-minded. But either way, it's people paying attention to them and what they're reporting.

Exactly.

And btw Strum, your point about "well if it bothers you, then you DO care about it!" couldn't be further from correct. You're confusing the notions of caring about something morally and caring about something politically. These are two separate things for those like myself who are insightful enough to separate portions of their own personal morality from their political views.

Yes, deviant behavior irritates me, grosses me out, etc etc etc. But let me repeat, I don't give a shit about it politically. Do I disagree, morally, with abortion and other social issues? Yes. But politically, those issues will never shape how I vote. This is where "live and let live, just do it away from me" kicks in for me. Government should not legislate morality. If people want to sin and be deviants, then by all means, go for it. Just do it away from me and the ones I love. There's a difference there, but I doubt you'll see it. See, a lot of Republican voters are too stubborn or too dumb to separate their moral beliefs from the equation when voting, especially presidential primaries. They staunchly hate the concept of abortion (which is something I also dislike by the way!) and will support a candidate who's very strong on pro-life matters but who may be awful on fiscal policy, foreign policy, et al. This is why the GOP party is in dire straits. Unlike myself and GSD, voters cannot compromise with their own beliefs and allow themselves to vote for fiscal conservatives for the greater good. Instead, they vote with their moral beliefs and usually the candidates who are strongest on moral issues are the weakest on the infinitely more important fiscal and foreign / domestic policy issues (example: Mike Huckabee).

See the difference now?

 

[gunslingerdick]

This, we agree on.

I don't consider "traditional" and "deviant" the same things as you, however. To me, that's as relative as right and wrong. The media DOES profit from poking the public's hornet's nest. They are great at exploiting and profiting from things that they think will rile us up toward each other. The "tradition" of everyone getting along is of no use to them. That takes the focus OFF of their circus.

I usually go with the definition provided in the dictionary.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Exactly.

And btw Strum, your point about "well if it bothers you, then you DO care about it!" couldn't be further from correct. You're confusing the notions of caring about something morally and caring about something politically. These are two separate things for those like myself who are insightful enough to separate portions of their own personal morality from their political views.

Yes, deviant behavior irritates me, grosses me out, etc etc etc. But let me repeat, I don't give a shit about it politically. Do I disagree, morally, with abortion and other social issues? Yes. But politically, those issues will never shape how I vote. This is where "live and let live, just do it away from me" kicks in for me. Government should not legislate morality. If people want to sin and be deviants, then by all means, go for it. Just do it away from me and the ones I love. There's a difference there, but I doubt you'll see it. See, a lot of Republican voters are too stubborn or too dumb to separate their moral beliefs from the equation when voting, especially presidential primaries. They staunchly hate the concept of abortion (which is something I also dislike by the way!) and will support a candidate who's very strong on pro-life matters but who may be awful on fiscal policy, foreign policy, et al. This is why the GOP party is in dire straits. Unlike myself and GSD, voters cannot compromise with their own beliefs and allow themselves to vote for fiscal conservatives for the greater good. Instead, they vote with their moral beliefs and usually the candidates who are strongest on moral issues are the weakest on the infinitely more important fiscal and foreign / domestic policy issues (example: Mike Huckabee).

See the difference now?

Just to thoroughly make sure my position is explained properly, here's a hypothetical example that illustrates it.

I don't agree, morally, with abortion or homosexuality.

Now, say a hypothetical candidate runs with a platform that calls for all the following:

- building a wall on the border and arming said wall to keep border secure
- cutting taxes and gov't expenditures across the board
- supporting the right to gay marriage
- supporting the right to get an abortion

I would vote for that candidate 1000 times out of 1000. Now why would I do that, even though I disagree, morally, with the bottom two bullet points? Because the top two bullet points impact our nation (and impact ME) infinitely more than the bottom two bullet points.

 

[strummingram]

I usually go with the definition provided in the dictionary.

Me, too... for the words themselves. But, how they apply to modern-day society is going to be different. Not always, but more often than not.

 

[Billheel]

m/r to L1. Hate Affordable Care act. Don't think POTUS is the reason for every single thing that befalls us. Can't stomach far to either side pols and people like them. Respect the Police, but do believe they are getting a little to gun happy and absolutely do racial profile. I am a Christian but not a hating of other people kind. We should all try to love each other and our differences and anyone who feels they have the religious power to judge others doesn't know Jesus and should find another religion. Leave fully funded programs such as social security and Medicare the hell alone. Find a way to keep revenues up without raising the taxes on the middle class. In other words give me my damn pie so I can eat it to.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

m/r to L1. Hate Affordable Care act. Don't think POTUS is the reason for every single thing that befalls us. Can't stomach far to either side pols and people like them. Respect the Police, but do believe they are getting a little to gun happy and absolutely do racial profile. I am a Christian but not a hating of other people kind. We should all try to love each other and our differences and anyone who feels they have the religious power to judge others doesn't know Jesus and should find another religion. Leave fully funded programs such as social security and Medicare the hell alone. Find a way to keep revenues up without raising the taxes on the middle class. In other words give me my damn pie so I can eat it to.

This isn't directed at you, I'm just latching on to your post because it's something I've often wondered and can't figure out:

I know North Carolina is a "purple" state and has been that way for 10+ years. I know that a chunk of liberal-leaning North Carolinians can be attributed to increased migration of Northern transplants to Charlotte and Raleigh. However, this absolutely does not explain the huge percentage of the population of liberals in North Carolina, with respect to other Southern states. By question is this...........why the hell are so many people in North Carolina who I'd say "should be" Republicans, actually Democrat voters? I can't figure this out. Why are so many rural N.C. folks liberal voters? It makes no sense to me. Between my time spent at UNC and just my time spent in different regions of the state, I've experienced this over and over and it just perplexes me. You'll go to areas of the state that are rural, heavily faith-based, conservative (in terms of doing things the "old fashioned" way like style of dress, family values, etc.), and yet lots of these folks vote Democrat. I honestly don't get it. It doesn't play out this way in other Southern states.

 

[uncboy10]

This isn't directed at you, I'm just latching on to your post because it's something I've often wondered and can't figure out:

I know North Carolina is a "purple" state and has been that way for 10+ years. I know that a chunk of liberal-leaning North Carolinians can be attributed to increased migration of Northern transplants to Charlotte and Raleigh. However, this absolutely does not explain the huge percentage of the population of liberals in North Carolina, with respect to other Southern states. By question is this...........why the hell are so many people in North Carolina who I'd say "should be" Republicans, actually Democrat voters? I can't figure this out. Why are so many rural N.C. folks liberal voters? It makes no sense to me. Between my time spent at UNC and just my time spent in different regions of the state, I've experienced this over and over and it just perplexes me. You'll go to areas of the state that are rural, heavily faith-based, conservative (in terms of doing things the "old fashioned" way like style of dress, family values, etc.), and yet lots of these folks vote Democrat. I honestly don't get it. It doesn't play out this way in other Southern states.

I've been curious about that for awhile as well. Most of them are older, and probably remember a time when being a Democrat meant something completely different. That's the only explanation I can come up with. I have older family who hold views on social issues that are much more in line with the Republican party, yet they are card carrying Democrats.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I've been curious about that for awhile as well. Most of them are older, and probably remember a time when being a Democrat meant something completely different. That's the only explanation I can come up with. I have older family who hold views on social issues that are much more in line with the Republican party, yet they are card carrying Democrats.

Yep that's been my working theory as well.

 

[Billheel]

This isn't directed at you, I'm just latching on to your post because it's something I've often wondered and can't figure out:

I know North Carolina is a "purple" state and has been that way for 10+ years. I know that a chunk of liberal-leaning North Carolinians can be attributed to increased migration of Northern transplants to Charlotte and Raleigh. However, this absolutely does not explain the huge percentage of the population of liberals in North Carolina, with respect to other Southern states. By question is this...........why the hell are so many people in North Carolina who I'd say "should be" Republicans, actually Democrat voters? I can't figure this out. Why are so many rural N.C. folks liberal voters? It makes no sense to me. Between my time spent at UNC and just my time spent in different regions of the state, I've experienced this over and over and it just perplexes me. You'll go to areas of the state that are rural, heavily faith-based, conservative (in terms of doing things the "old fashioned" way like style of dress, family values, etc.), and yet lots of these folks vote Democrat. I honestly don't get it. It doesn't play out this way in other Southern states.

I can only answer for myself. It comes down to two things, local politics and outsiders coming in and trying to change us into northerners or Floridians instead of turning themselves into North Carolinians. The two counties where I have lived (Transylvania and Jackson, just moved to Buncombe) are rife with shady Repubs who gerrymander everything for their own personal gain. Admittedly, it used to be the other way, although my family was always poor enough it didn't matter, but when the aforementioned Yankees and Floridians flooded our area all that switched 180 degrees. I personally find that kind of politics distasteful on both sides. We are currently represented by men on the national and state levels who moved here from Florida. They brought with them a pile of money and ultra conservative backers and got themselves elected. They have a penchant for force feeding us change we don't want nor need and of raping our mountain environment. The latest is defunding of local public schools in favor of for profit charter schools in which one has a large vested interest.

I don't really know where I do fit politically. I'm neither at this point. I don't trust anyone running. Especially the top two. I may vote for Gary Johnson, but don't really include myself as a libertarian either. I think a lot of my fellow constituents feel the same way.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I can only answer for myself. It comes down to two things, local politics and outsiders coming in and trying to change us into northerners or Floridians instead of turning themselves into North Carolinians. The two counties where I have lived (Transylvania and Jackson, just moved to Buncombe) are rife with shady Repubs who gerrymander everything for their own personal gain. Admittedly, it used to be the other way, although my family was always poor enough it didn't matter, but when the aforementioned Yankees and Floridians flooded our area all that switched 180 degrees. I personally find that kind of politics distasteful on both sides. We are currently represented by men on the national and state levels who moved here from Florida. They brought with them a pile of money and ultra conservative backers and got themselves elected. They have a penchant for force feeding us change we don't want nor need and of raping our mountain environment. The latest is defunding of local public schools in favor of for profit charter schools in which one has a large vested interest.

That is the unfortunate byproduct of you living smackdab in the "New Florida" in terms of tourism. The whole Asheville area is the new "retirement mecca," and anytime a new "popular" area pops up, undesirable Northern trash flocks there.

That's not really a reason not to vote Republican in presidential elections, IMO. And please note, my question was about voting in presidential elections. For the sake of this discussion, I don't care about N.C. state government. That ish is way too broken, corrupt, and inept to ever fix.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

and anytime a new "popular" area pops up, undesirable Northern trash flocks there.

It probably only becomes popular if there isn't already southern trash inhabited there.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

It probably only becomes popular if there isn't already southern trash inhabited there.

Or if the area is desirable from a climate and/or scenery standpoint. People like the mountainous areas of Asheville because of the climate and landscapes. The poorest of the poor have always lived in these areas; it hasn't stopped people from moving in and making changes.

And BTW, by "undesirable Northern trash" I meant specifically those who come in and seek to drastically change the area, especially politically. You know what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Northerners in general who decide to relocate.

 

[Archer2]

Some very good points made here.

In the 44 years since I've been voting, I've never found a candidate that felt the same way I did on all the issues. So, it becomes a matter of prioritizing issues. As I've stated, I'm very Conservative on fiscal issues. I also believe in minimal Federal Government, the bare amount to get the job done. Thomas Paine said it best when he said: "Government, even in it's best state, is a necessary evil; in it's worst state, an intolerable one." I believe in states' rights, with most issues to be handled at the local or state level.

Socially, I'm divided on some key issues. While I believe in gay rights, that they should be able to marry and share insurance benefits, I'm divided on whether they should be allowed to adopt. I'm Pro Choice, up to a point. I believe a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, but only in the first trimester, barring medical issues for the mom or in cases of rape. I believe in tougher enforcement of our existing gun laws and the banning of assault weapons. I believe in securing our border, the right of any country to determine who enters their borders. Therefore, while I believe in immigration, I believe it should be done legally and that illegal immigrants should be deported.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

While I believe in gay rights, that they should be able to marry and share insurance benefits, I'm divided on whether they should be allowed to adopt.

Hmm, this is a really interesting one that I hadn't considered before - and I've been trying to see which side I fall on for this one. I'm all for gays being allowed to marry, share insurance, have hospital visitation rights, and things of that nature as it has a positive effect on them, and no negative effect on anyone else. However, adoption has an effect on the adoptee, as well as the adopters. While most orphans aren't really in position to be choosers, it can be argued that they wouldn't be getting a "normal kid" experience if adopted by a same sex couple. They would either be lacking a mother figure or a father figure depending on the gender of their same sex parents. That may be unfair to the kid. However ultimately, I guess if they let single "parents" adopt (I believe they do, right?) then the adoptee is lacking whichever gender the single adopter isn't, so if they do allow single parents to adopt - then I guess I have no problem with gay couples adopting. If single "parents" are deemed less worthy than a heterosexual couple, which I assume would be based on the single parent not being able to provide both a mother and father figure, then I feel that gay couples should be treated the same, for the same reason. I'm sure there are "adoption experts", that know a lot more than me, that have done studies that determine if kids are disadvantaged or not due to same sex adopters.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Yep, the adoption this is something I'm not comfortable with as well. That would be the one 'gay rights' thing that I'd actually consider letting sway my vote at all. Although, you could counter that with your single parent argument. Some psychology shows that boys growing up in a single-mother family have a high percentage of turning into homosexuals later in life (I hope I'm not butchering this finding).

 

[Billheel]

That is the unfortunate byproduct of you living smackdab in the "New Florida" in terms of tourism. The whole Asheville area is the new "retirement mecca," and anytime a new "popular" area pops up, undesirable Northern trash flocks there.

That's not really a reason not to vote Republican in presidential elections, IMO. And please note, my question was about voting in presidential elections. For the sake of this discussion, I don't care about N.C. state government. That ish is way too broken, corrupt, and inept to ever fix.

For me it is. The view at the bottom tends to give me a jaded view of the top. The culture currently in North Carolina is taken right from the very core of the right in D.C. In checking the voting record of our elected Senators and Reps, they agree 100% with what they are told to believe. You are right though, Pat McCrory is another topic altogether.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Hmm, this is a really interesting one that I hadn't considered before - and I've been trying to see which side I fall on for this one. I'm all for gays being allowed to marry, share insurance, have hospital visitation rights, and things of that nature as it has a positive effect on them, and no negative effect on anyone else. However, adoption has an effect on the adoptee, as well as the adopters. While most orphans aren't really in position to be choosers, it can be argued that they wouldn't be getting a "normal kid" experience if adopted by a same sex couple. They would either be lacking a mother figure or a father figure depending on the gender of their same sex parents. That may be unfair to the kid. However ultimately, I guess if they let single "parents" adopt (I believe they do, right?) then the adoptee is lacking whichever gender the single adopter isn't, so if they do allow single parents to adopt - then I guess I have no problem with gay couples adopting. If single "parents" are deemed less worthy than a heterosexual couple, which I assume would be based on the single parent not being able to provide both a mother and father figure, then I feel that gay couples should be treated the same, for the same reason. I'm sure there are "adoption experts", that know a lot more than me, that have done studies that determine if kids are disadvantaged or not due to same sex adopters.

Paging @bleeduncblue