posted February 09, 2013 11:57 AM            

My Saturn is Capricorn house 9
Sun Aries 11 Square Saturn
Moon Scorpio Sextile Saturn

My parents where never the type to shove their political beliefs down my throat. Elections my mom swings back and forth often from Dem and Rep.
Her voting pattern is like this
Bush 00
Kerry 04
Obama 08
Romney 12

My dad however would express disliking both parties. I didn't understand how that was possible.
My dad is way more private about who he votes for. Think he usually votes independent. But will vote Rep sometimes.

08 I Voted for Obama (I even got to see Obama give a speech in Detroit with my hardcore democrat friend)
some of my transits around this time where
Jupiter Conjunction Neptune
Neptune Sextile Sun

by 2010...I realized I wasn't sure if I was gonna vote for him again.
Neptune Conjunction Mars
Pluto oppose Jupiter

posted February 09, 2013 06:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stawr:
in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson. He was not even on the ballot in my state, I had to write his name in.
Pluto Opposition Jupiter
Pluto conjunct Uranus

---

I'm afraid the Republicans scared the crap out of me too much in 2012 to be idealistic in voting Third Party in our broken electoral system which makes "Third Party" voting pointless no matter how good it feels, but if we had IRV he'd have been my first choice. But it's because of his views, and I supported him back when he called himself a Republican as well, I wouldn't identify myself as belonging to Republicans or Libertarians. Not all Libertarians are like Johnson just like not all Republicans are.

My 2nd vote would've been for Jill Stein of the Green Party and I'd still have been happy if she'd won it, which is what would really confuse most people who think tribally rather than independently. Simply put I'm more concerned with values over ideology and their ability to work with others and make compromises without selling out and being trustworthy, which I consider true of both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

posted February 10, 2013 12:07 PM            

Virgo
Sagittarius
Jupiter in Aquarius Singleton

I don't buy into the corrupt two party system.

posted February 11, 2013 02:14 AM            

That way there would be no patting a donor on the back after presidency or vested interest.

I also wanted ron paul to win.

I dont like any party as they pander to the one that has the largest vote muscle and leave the rest of us out in the cold and unrepresented.

Value wise I would be a fiscal conservative, capitalist, and social moderate (pro abortion, gay marriage neutral actually probably for gay marriage, but against porn, lack of cencorship with media in terms of violence, sex, nudity.)

Top signs accoring to water pullen:

posted February 11, 2013 05:17 AM            

i believe in national health care but not the free for all the the NHS has become, just the basics, past that you pay.

im anti censorship, pro legalisation of all drugs, pro abortions, anti gay marriage, pro gay adoption, not exactly anti immigration but anti uncontrolled immigration, anti foreign aid.

posted February 11, 2013 05:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharpei:
anti gay marriage, pro gay adoption

---

posted February 17, 2013 12:05 PM            

They are all the same thing to me.

I am an independant.

posted February 17, 2013 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharpei:

anti gay marriage

---

posted February 17, 2013 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerosene:
I honestly can't understand that point of view, how can you be against human rights... Thats the equivalent of anti interracial marriages..
How can you be pro gay adoption?

---

well i totally support equal rights for gays re: employment, adoption etc i mean if a gay woman can get pregnant and bring up a child with her lover why can she not adopt?

but marriage has been defined as between a man and woman for millenia- i see no good reason to change that definition-that is what marriage IS- so it seems strange to change the definition just for sentimental reasons, i mean why not let Muslims have legal marriages of 3 wives, or woman have 2 husbands in the interests of equality as well, or a woman marry her horse, whatever.

the definition of marriage in western europe is between a man and a woman and it is rediculous to change it imo.

posted February 17, 2013 01:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharpei:
well i totally support equal rights for gays re: employment, adoption etc i mean if a gay woman can get pregnant and bring up a child with her lover why can she not adopt?

---

Okayy that sounds like such bs to me.

I see gay marriage happening in a America soon so it does not really matter. Do you realize people like Kim Kardashian were allowed to get married while people who are soul mates are not allowed to have a union?
Do you realize how much of a joke marriage is anyways? I'm against marriage personally, but it bothers me that gays do NOT have equal rights..

Lmao actually I'm from a muslim family and thats look down upon now, that use to happen in ancient times because it was WAY before modern society. Things change just like you silly idea of marriage will change.

There many reason why people decide to get married. Not just for religious reasons. Joint incomes too. I remember watching youtube about a gay couple and unfortunately his partner died and his parents who were against his sexuality came and took everything because they were not allowed to get married... He could not even ntend his funeral..

posted February 17, 2013 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharpei:

but marriage has been defined as between a man and woman for millenia- i see no good reason to change that definition-that is what marriage IS- so it seems strange to change the definition just for sentimental reasons, i mean why not let Muslims have legal marriages of 3 wives, or woman have 2 husbands in the interests of equality as well, or a woman marry her horse, whatever.

---

Oh dear, you just really showed your ignorance right there with the horse comment. The last time that I checked, a horse wasn't a consenting adult, so. And as for the multiple spouses thing, well, it sure as hell isn't my thing, I don't do polygamy, but if someone else wants to and all the wives/husbands know about each other and don't mind it, who the hell cares? It doesn't affect you.

Sorry for the derailing the thread a bit here, but to answer the question, I consider myself to be very Progressive socially, and a Socialist otherwise.

Most important placements are in my signature.

posted February 17, 2013 01:32 PM            

i am all about compromise- i think people should be allowed to leave their property or whatever to whomever they choose and many times a man has died leaving his girlfriend with nothing- get a will!

i guess i am not rabidly anti gay marriage but if say i was asked to vote on it i would vote against.

posted February 17, 2013 01:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunflower-moon:
What would you consider yourself? Also, I know some people wouldn't consider themselves either but if you could specify which side you lean towards that'd be great!

Leave your top 3 signs according to Walter Pullen, please!

---

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.(Benjamin Franklin)

posted February 17, 2013 04:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharpei:
well i totally support equal rights for gays re: employment, adoption etc i mean if a gay woman can get pregnant and bring up a child with her lover why can she not adopt?

but marriage has been defined as between a man and woman for millenia- i see no good reason to change that definition-that is what marriage IS- so it seems strange to change the definition just for sentimental reasons, i mean why not let Muslims have legal marriages of 3 wives, or woman have 2 husbands in the interests of equality as well, or a woman marry her horse, whatever.

the definition of marriage in western europe is between a man and a woman and it is rediculous to change it imo.

i mean ultimately i do not care that much but i think it cheapens marriage when we allow gays to marry. having said that when i see wedding pics of two happily married women or men i feel happy for them- i guess i can still feel joy on other peoples behalf whilst disagreeing with the concept.

---

I get this.

Also, I think that it is anyones freedom to believe what they want. So you shouldnt get burned because you disagree with gay marriage.

I dont like kids learning about sexuality at all. I mean yes they should be warned that no one is allowed to touch them inappropriately and that certain areas should not be touched at all by anyone. I think that would be good enough for a child to at least when presented with the idea of sex to have that warning burned into their minds that *no one touches you down there or with any of their private parts*.

This is how most of my friends and I were taught. We also didnt have allowances, access to private internet, phones, or allowed to walk to a party etc. Everything was chaperoned. And because that was just how things were we never rebelled against it. It was just second nature. There was no angst about not being able to sleep over someone elses house. My parents did for work related reasons have us sleep over at their trusted friends homes But we never slept over our friends homes.

I dont need people to teach my future kids about sexuality, how to have sex, how to use protection. I honestly didnt know what an orgasm was until I was 23. I didnt know that girls masturbated. I was so focused on school and I guess my friends and I never talked about sex etc. We were so busy with projects and deadlines. Yes there were scandals at my college and even a case sexual blackmail. Yes I knew what sex was starting at age 9 and have sex ed in 5th and 6th grade. Still, none of my friends put so much emphasis on it.

I think the main idea is to keep busy in life, to focus and have high goals. That way you dont let your mind go idles and focus all your energy into that stuff.

Anyway, I had a problem when a preschool teacher in vermont took it upin herself to introduce a gay fairytale story. She brought in the book with a picture of two males kissing. I dont need my preschooler asking me if that is appropriate or anything.

I would rather not see any kissing in any childrens books. I find it totally unnecessary.

My theory is out of sight out of mind. Its ok to be innoncet/ naive/ ignorant about romance and sex when you are a child.
Its ok to think that girls have cooties. lol

Let kids play nad have fun as opposed to have then think grown up thoughts. We all wish we could live as we did with innocence and happiness so I dont see the need of any of that. Teach your kids to be nice to any color or race of kid. You dont need to specifically point out...ok be nice to gays, heteros, bis, pansexuals...it is totally unnecessary to start distinguishing groups at that or any age. If you tell your kids how to be safe and respect and be kind to other people, you dont need to talk about all the different preferences of sex. And that is why I have a huge problem with those people in the media and the people making a big issue out of sexual orientation. That is a minor part of a whole person. Give it a rest. We dont need to hear that you are homosexual and proud of it nad prance on the streets in a G string and clown hair (Gay pride parades of San Francisco). You dont hear people say, hey Im asexual and thump their chests. You dont hear people who are virgins marh on streets with underwear in locks screaming at the top of their lungs that they are soo cool. No one friggin cares that you are homosexual except you. Sometimes I think people blow their situation out of proportion and feed off the attention.

posted February 17, 2013 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerosene:
Okayy that sounds like such bs to me.

I see gay marriage happening in a America soon so it does not really matter. Do you realize people like Kim Kardashian were allowed to get married while people who are soul mates are not allowed to have a union?
Do you realize how much of a joke marriage is anyways? I'm against marriage personally, but it bothers me that gays do NOT have equal rights..

Lmao actually I'm from a muslim family and thats look down upon now, that use to happen in ancient times because it was WAY before modern society. Things change just like you silly idea of marriage will change.

There many reason why people decide to get married. Not just for religious reasons. Joint incomes too. I remember watching youtube about a gay couple and unfortunately his partner died and his parents who were against his sexuality came and took everything because they were not allowed to get married... He could not even ntend his funeral..

---

In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh it still happens. Muslims in India demanded a law to be place to allow them to have multiple wives. Hindus used to have multiple wives but for a Hindu today no one accepts this and it is illegal to have multiple wives but for Muslims today its accepted and ok.

That guy from that youtube video actually maligned the parents and made it seem like his boyfriend committed suicide. The real fact was that his boyfriend fell off a roof while shooting a pilot show. But he didnt add that important info into the video but misled people into think that his boyfriend was under so much duress that he committed suicide.

Also, even straight couples dont get along with their in laws. There are so many cases where the in laws treat the straight partner badly. That video was really onesided. How can you just assume he was honest and not exaggerating, lying? No one knows that he was 100% honest. Just because someone cries does not make them right. I hate that stance that people have: the first to cry or scream the loudest and voice his/her opinion must automatically be the poor vicitim. Everyone should always demand two sides before ruching to judgement. A family lost their son. I think they are grieving and dont need that bull from that guy. I mean if he really loved his boyfriend why would he try to make this boyfriends family suffer more because of the video? Pointless. Selfish. Thoughtless. He was an ass to do that.

If the two really loved one another and wanted to get married all they had to do was go to a state that has legal marriage. Easy. I mean, if its what they wanted then nothing should have stopped them. They were freely living together and really didnt care what the family thought about their relationship, so then why stop and not get married? If that was what they wanted so bad, why stop and not get married? Fact is they were only boyfriends. And even in a heterosexual relationship if they are only living together and unless they bought property together, the things get divided based on original ownership. The parents had the right to take their sons belongings and to have a funeral that they would be at peace with. This applies to heterosexual boyfriend and girlfriend relationships too. It was not his call.

No court of law would dispute what the parents did even in a state where same sex marriages are legal. Before they prove that they are married, it isnt different from rooming with a boyfriend or girlfriend. You dont get to make sole decisions.

posted February 17, 2013 04:40 PM            

I'm not against it but thats not norm and not a good example.

posted February 17, 2013 05:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerosene:
It happens in rural areas like in america where we have those Mormon families in the midwest
Modern south east asians do not believe in it.

I'm not against it but thats not norm and not a good example.

---

posted February 17, 2013 07:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharpei:
change the definition just for sentimental reasons, i mean why not let Muslims have legal marriages of 3 wives, or woman have 2 husbands in the interests of equality as well, or a woman marry her horse, whatever.

---

Wow.

First, marriage is a contract, it's not even religious, that is atheists have no problems getting married. In our bureaucratic societies it defines things like tax and domestic obligations (so if there's a divorce, for example, then both are typically obligated to continue to care for a child, including children adopted by gays), visitation rights (like if one were imprisoned or hospitalized), and perhaps most importantly, medical decisions. Gays who have been "married" (that is, not legally recognized, but still domestic partners, and this includes those with all the other legal documents) have been denied not only the right to make medical decisions, but even to be with their loved one while dying (sometimes their children are kept out as well) because they're "not family." Furthermore, gay partners have been kept out of funerals and the like after, and their entire memories erased, and possessions by a loved one seized by family after. And if you don't see any "good reason" for why this is wrong and should be corrected (such as allowing them to become family via marriage) then you have no compassion.

While I suppose things like polygamy (which doesn't concern me too much) and adult incest is a remote possibility, this "slippery slope" argument (which is very silly in of itself, if you're against polygamy, then vote against that, not gays!) was also a possibility of interracial marriage (in fact the very same arguments against gay marriage were made against interracial marriage, including this) but it's just as ridiculous to ban gay marriage over it as it was interracial marriage. And btw, fun fact, in about half the states in the United States first cousins are legally allowed to marry with full rights, including in some of the most antigay states in the country. Ironically, I could marry my first cousin and have his children in California, but not a woman. Apparently allowing first cousins to marry doesn't necessarily lead to gay marriage so why would the opposite be true? In any case, cousins marrying remain extremely rare and I imagine any other kind of incestuous marriage would be even more taboo.

Some very "moral" countries execute gays and yet allow full grown men to marry preteen girls. If being allowed to marry and rape children doesn't lead to gay marriage then why would gay marriage lead to something like adults marrying children? (Btw, back when gay marriage was unthinkable, 27-year-old Edgar Allan Poe married his 13-year-old cousin.)

And finally...these arguments in favor of gay marriage do not apply to relatives and animals because they're already family or owners or whatever. MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, life is not a Disney movie and here in the real world a horse cannot sign contracts nor say "I do." Therefore a horse can never be legally married to a human being. And I don't know what astrological placements could make someone think that because adult humans of the same gender (or of different races a century ago) could say "I do" that animals would then acquire language, gain the rights of an adult, and start saying "I do," but I'm glad I don't have them.

And finally...our society has adapted to the internet, planes, longer life expectancies (about doubled), and more, and if society can handle that...and can handle the once controversial interracial marriage...then it can handle gay marriage. I haven't heard any complaints from countries that have already allowed it, such as Canada or how it was "ruining" anyone else's marriage.

posted February 17, 2013 10:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerosene:
Okayy that sounds like such bs to me.

I see gay marriage happening in a America soon so it does not really matter. Do you realize people like Kim Kardashian were allowed to get married while people who are soul mates are not allowed to have a union?
Do you realize how much of a joke marriage is anyways? I'm against marriage personally, but it bothers me that gays do NOT have equal rights..

---

I totally agree with you on this. This 'sanctity of marriage' crap is a bunch of baloney. People get married for money, fame, because they're DRUNK, etc., but two people who love each other can't get married because they're of the same sex? Ridiculous.

The idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is an outdated concept that should disappear ASAP.

posted February 17, 2013 10:41 PM            

They have been together for 11 years. They are going to get married. They are very sweet to eachother. They have pets and once rescued a homeless kitty together.

They bake and cook and live together.

posted February 17, 2013 10:48 PM            

quote:

---

I haven't heard any complaints from countries that have already allowed it, such as Canada or how it was "ruining" anyone else's marriage.

[/B]

---

I'm from Canada, and I can vouch for this. I've lived in Canada my entire life, and I have not ever heard anyone say gay marriage is ruining anyone else's marriage.

Canada is a liberal country, and I'm proud to be Canadian!!

posted February 17, 2013 10:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dreaming111:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kerosene:
[b]It happens in rural areas like in america where we have those Mormon families in the midwest
Modern south east asians do not believe in it.

I'm not against it but thats not norm and not a good example.

---