Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I say or hear anarchy, I'm not talking about punk kids running around disrupting G-8 summits. I've had some interesting conversations with my sister, who identifies as and anarcho-communist.
I'd definitely have some interesting conversations with her too. lol
America once sent an openly gay diplomat of sorts to Iraq...what were they thinking...These cultures can barely tolerate woman in authority let alone a man who is neither. If there ever is a gay President..it will be in 140 years and all people born in the UNITED STATES if it still exist will be gestated in test tubes...and gender will be some sort of illegal identity.
Why did someone start this thread? The premise is similar to asking if anyone can be President? So far there have been a few of late that should have been janitors at the local high school...Enough all ready..more and more inept human beings are taking the high office...and some how their vice Presidents all seem to be sinister puppet masters..
How about just finding a great spokes man or woman with great ideas...who is backed up by a great team that is not comprised of political hacks who ask for favors?
It's a very important issue to me, and damn right it's partly for selfish reasons - why in God's name should I have fewer rights than you simply because I happen to be gay? And it's much more than a social issue. It's a Constitutional issue - it goes right to the heart of fundamental American values.
Our nation has a promise - enshrined in our Constitution - that all people will be treated equally under our laws. What we have now is a collection of states, as well as a federal government, that have crafted laws but with the added provision that gays are excluded. Theses laws confer a large set of legal rights (privileges if you want), and then say "but gays can't have them." That is fundamentally un-American. It should disturb anyone who claims to love this country. And quite frankly, I can't understand how anybody can support such a thing if not from a place of homophobia, bigotry, and hatred of gay people.
The answer is no....not now, not ever. And less so 50 years from now than today, in this short-lived bizarre period of social experimentation nonsense.
It wasn't that long ago, that blacks weren't even considered a full human. Now we have a black president. Never say never.....
The Constitution is just a preference too! That being said.. I am not entirely sure how much the founding fathers had homosexuals on their mind when they drafted it. But I digress...
Again, I am not for denying homosexuals the same rights as citizens....and me not personally agreeing with homosexuality doesn't fly in the face of that. I just find the need for recognition in an institution that wasn't made for them puzzling. It's kinda/sorta like a black man wanting to assimilate into the KKK.
And lastly, I have issues with people who vote with a single-minded alignment...which many homosexuals do...Not saying this is you.
I won't go into the reasons or mechanisms why I don't agree with homosexuality...it's neither here nor there. Not a big deal.
That's ridiculous! The military wasn't originally "made for" women. Women weren't allowed to join until not that long ago. Should women not get recognition for having served in the military?
Anyway, we are talking about civil marriage not religious marriage. Our government is not a theocracy, so we do not have to define marriage according your particular religious discriminatory definition. Our government can define marriage in whatever way it feels is necessary to guarantee equal rights for all of its citizens. If you don't like it, then don't partake in a civil marriage. Churches are still free to discriminate when it comes to religious marriages.
Let's go back to a more proper time history...If it was 1860 and there was a scandal involving a sitting President..and it was found out and made public that he was predisposed to sodomy of other males...They would impeach the guy. I don't think the code of proper behavior has changed that much.
In Toronto during the last mayoral election there was a gay candidate running against our mayor...He lost...they failed to realize that our immigrant population is huge..that they come from nations where gays are not held in high regard. Besides the gay candidate was a typical urban gay...who liked his party drugs...multiple partners and frankly he looked nasty,
Why would you want someone from gay CULTURE ruling over a majority that was not of that culture It would be like electing someone who was born in another country who was really not part of mainstream America. In my observation fatherhood is a very important aspect of social maturity and grants a person the ability to think of someone else other than them selves....Gays for the most part are like aging teenagers...the culture is superficial and materialist to a fault...I am not saying this of all gays but in my experience the stereo typical gay is more common than....Gays will always be a subculture and never the main culture.
Nuclear families will always be around...and they are strengthening as of late...You want a real family man or woman with family experience to run the national family...I say NO.
What is this gay "culture" that you are talking about? Are you referring to the gay "culture" where monogamous gay couples go to work, come home, do housework, pay bills, go to church, cookout with family and friends, etc.? Or are you thinking of the caricatures on tv, and those in parades (similar to the "heterosexual" mardi gras)? I take it, you probably don't know too many gays in "real life" or don't even realize that some of the "normal" people you see everyday....are gay! If your only experience with gays is with those who are flamboyantly public about it, then you must not know very many gays.
What is the heterosexual "culture"? Should we judge heterosexuals based on their behavior during mardi gras? What about the rampant sexuality visible at spring break or along the streets in Las Vegas? Or all the heterosexuals that spill out of bars groping each other and hooking up? What about having to see heterosexuals kissing and in sexually suggestive scenarios on tv? Should we judge all heterosexuals based on these examples? Why do they have to "shove" their sexuality in our faces?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is America Ready for a Gay President?
