Where in the Political Spectrum do you stand ?

@futbol - I know it was only a fly-by suggestion but you said it anyway so I'll speak on it.
Where's the fun in adopting a +16 person?
Isn't the trials and tribulations, birthdays, first day of school, etc etc (you get the drill), all a part of the emotional bond and experience of being parents?

BTW, here's my result in the no-nonsensical graph instead of that fancy certificate print they offered, too:

Fútbol you are missing the point. We are talking about adoption, so these are kids that by definition do not have a two parents already. So the question you should ask yourself is not "is it better to be raised by hetero or home couples?" but "is it better for these kids to spend their childhood in 'the system' or for them to be raised by 2 loving parents?"

futbol wrote:

But let's pretend for a second that it actually does what you thought it does. What are you protecting exactly? Adopting children is not a human right. The well-being of the child is above your lifestyle wish ("wanting to have children", gay or not gay, if you are younger than 25 you can also not adopt). The principle is that the youth welfare office chooses the parents. Parents don't choose children.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that being raised by a same sex couple somehow negatively effect a child and their wellbeing

It's complete and total nonsense and you have nothing to base it on

Also if adopting a child isn't a "right", drinking out of certain water fountains isn't a "right" either. Nor is going to certain movie theaters or eating in certain restaurants. Yet we had to make laws that stopped people from banning black people from doing all the same things and going to the same places white people were able to go to.

There is nothing inherently inferior about the health and relationship of same sex couples compared to heterosexuals and they should be allowed all the same rights heterosexual couples have

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Fútbol you are missing the point. We are talking about adoption, so these are kids that by definition do not have a two parents already. So the question you should ask yourself is not "is it better to be raised by hetero or home couples?" but "is it better for these kids to spend their childhood in 'the system'  or for them to be raised by 2 loving parents?"

Not relevant enough quantitatively. The ratio of declined to accepted applications for adoption is 7:1 anyway. My research says there have been 4060 adoptions in Germany in 2013 and more than half of them were actually adoptions from step-parents. Now imagine that only less than 5 % of the population is gay. And now imagine how many of that < 5 % actually WANT to adopt children AND satisfy the required criteria to adopt children in general (age, income, no criminal history etc.). We might be talking about 3 - 5 cases per year? Which in itself makes the whole thing a very theoretical topic to begin with which is only there to fill political talk show time, when I think about it.

I'm pretty sure gay couples would be disproportionately represented in adoption applications if they were allowed to apply since, you know, if they want a kid they don't have a biological option.

About what I expected.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

futbol wrote:

But let's pretend for a second that it actually does what you thought it does. What are you protecting exactly? Adopting children is not a human right. The well-being of the child is above your lifestyle wish ("wanting to have children", gay or not gay, if you are younger than 25 you can also not adopt). The principle is that the youth welfare office chooses the parents. Parents don't choose children.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that being raised by a same sex couple somehow negatively effect a child and their wellbeing

It's complete and total nonsense and you have nothing to base it on

Also if adopting a child isn't a "right", drinking out of certain water fountains isn't a "right" either. Nor is going to certain movie theaters or eating in certain restaurants. Yet we had to make laws that stopped people from banning black people from doing all the same things and going to the same places white people were able to go to.

There is nothing inherently inferior about the health and relationship of same sex couples compared to heterosexuals and they should be allowed all the same rights heterosexual couples have

Why is that a false assumption? Many gay people themselves don't come out (you know any gay, active footballer?) and hide it for a long time until they are stable, independent and mature enough. Then why deliberately expose little children to deal with the same social conflicts about their parents? There is a theoretical part and then there is reality.

The analogy with black people and restaurants is alluring but different. In the case of prohibiting black people to visit certain restaurants you are restricting them from doing something which they are naturally capable of doing. Moving from A to B. Which is wrong.

If you are gay you are naturally not able to reproduce. And since homosexuality is not an illness/disfunction (unlike, say, infertility) but something natural, this means you are naturally not meant to have children. From this I logically deduct that allowing gay couples to "workaround" their inability to have children is actually unnatural and therefore children mustn't be exposed to something unnatural. So if the state is prohibiting gay people to adopt children, it is not actually hindering them from doing something which they are naturally capable of doing. Unlike the restaurant analogy.

Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Nature!

I guess this might make some gays turn to employ surrogate mothers in countries where this is not illegal. Dunno if that is something the authorities would wish for, but if they get a woman to carry the baby of one of the guys to term for a certain fee, that baby would be the biological child of one of the guys and they would have the right to raise it.

Unfortunately this leads to other problems, though, as loan mothers likely desperately need the money and then might get into psychological problems. Thus it would probably be the better solution to let them go through the proper procedure of adoption which would likely lead to less trouble for all involved.

Goddam was trying to get Hitler

It's a shame that gay people won't get to reproduce.

Studies have shown Gays are among the top 3% smartest people on earth....if they don't reproduce, their genes won't pass on and humanity will suffer as a whole in the long-term.

I wish they could get some girl pregnant in a one night stand, before marrying their love-guy...so at least a baby can be born that carries the intelligence of usually exceptionally talented gay people.

Lmao, I got this

Right on point

futbol wrote:I'm Ghandi confirmed:

u mean Gandhi

Not many rightists

Didn't think I was that far left. I didn't care too much for the questions, though. As Hans and Futbol have pointed out, whenever you ask this kind of stuff in a format like this and only have four options, it doesn't give you the proper ability to respond in a way you feel is most appropriate for yourself. That being said, this is probably one of the better ideology tests I've taken.

Not surprised to see I'm in an area that caters more to the European population than American

Having posted this, I don't like to classify my way of thinking. Ideologies are categories that simplify the world but are not useful to rightfully decide wether something is good or bad. They are irrational. So I try to analyse issue to issue my stance on it depending on the pros and cons.

This means to many issues I don't have any stance, as I didn't have the time to get informed. Currently the TTIP is an important issue in Europe, and tbh I have no idea if I'm for or against it, for example. Being "center-left" as I'm supposed to, I should be against TTIP.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

And here's me, you beautiful, Bavarian bastard.



(Me favoring regulation probably pushed me a bit into the autoritarian direction)

*bleep* fascist

I just laughed way harder at that than I should have.

You anarchist pigdog.

rwo power wrote:I'm Pjotr Kropotkin XD


(click to enlarge)

Why is the anti religion, pro choice, pro gay marriage, Ayn Rand, that far right?

I tried this test and stopped after first two questions

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve HUMANITY rather than the interests of trans-national corporations"

"I'd always support my country, whether it was right or WRONG."

They're not messing about are they  

DuringTheWar wrote:Why is the anti religion, pro choice, pro gay marriage, Ayn Rand, that far right?

What do you mean? The right is the economic axis and I can hardly think of anyone far more to the right on these issues than Ayn Rand. All the things you mentioned belong to the social axis so she is rightly put pretty high up on the libertarian axis on that account.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:Why is the anti religion, pro choice, pro gay marriage, Ayn Rand, that far right?

What do you mean? The right is the economic axis and I can hardly think of anyone far more to the right on these issues than Ayn Rand. All the things you mentioned belong to the social axis so she is rightly put pretty high up on the libertarian axis on that account.

Ok, I didn't notice they extracted all the social issues out of the terms "left/right". Authoritarian in my mind is a word more associated with economic matters.

DuringTheWar wrote:
I tried this test and stopped after first two questions

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve HUMANITY rather than the interests of trans-national corporations"

"I'd always support my country, whether it was right or WRONG."

They're not messing about are they  

Yes you're right.
It's no surprise the test produces lefties galore, the way it is worded.
If the statements about these topics were framed in a way that they are rather infused with right wing talking points, let's say

"Economic growth due to global free trade will ultimately benefit the whole of humanity"
"It's important to always put the interests of your country ahead of your own"

people would quite possibly give different responses.

My result would be the same though

Yep. If you have any questions on my views shoot away

Also, viva