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.
I do not care what anyone does in thier own bedroom however, having a gay POTUS could be a disadvantage in foreign policy.
Just one more problem we do not need.
So you would not allow an American to fully participate as a citizen because of what someone overseas thinks? If that was the case, there would have never been a United States.
I agree. It's clear that the Communist Democrats have taken over. It won't be long before they try to make heterosexuality illegal. We must fight back and protect our children!
Lol that's the most hilarious thing I've heard. I've never heard of a liberal person who is anti-heterosexuality. In fact most liberals ARE heterosexual, because most people are heterosexual.
Absolutely not. And Palin? She's too attractive to be a lesbian, but it wouldn't matter anyway because she is a woman. Women don't have the temperament required for the job, and there's always the risk that they might get pregnant.
That's why they invented this awesome thing called birth control.
So you would not allow an American to fully participate as a citizen because of what someone overseas thinks? If that was the case, there would have never been a United States.
I don't think Driller1 is necessarily saying a gay candidate shouldn't run. It could pose problems on the international level. Having worked in human rights I have seen some of the awful things done to gay people on the global level. I know some people personally who have been the target of really heinous crimes because of their homosexuality or bisexuality.
A gay POTUS would be the target of a lot of assassination attempts for one, and a lot of people would not take him or her seriously. But that's already happened with Obama. It's nothing we haven't seen before. It's just an obstacle we would have to acknowledge, but that doesn't mean we just stop dead in our tracks and give up. We just recognize what we have to do and keep moving.
I don't think Driller1 is necessarily saying a gay candidate shouldn't run. It could pose problems on the international level. Having worked in human rights I have seen some of the awful things done to gay people on the global level. I know some people personally who have been the target of really heinous crimes because of their homosexuality or bisexuality.
A gay POTUS would be the target of a lot of assassination attempts for one, and a lot of people would not take him or her seriously. But that's already happened with Obama. It's nothing we haven't seen before. It's just an obstacle we would have to acknowledge, but that doesn't mean we just stop dead in our tracks and give up. We just recognize what we have to do and keep moving.
Driller1 has a point.
Obama's emerged as a very strong and respected leader with high approval ratings despite a dramatic increase in assassination threats and attempts for being a half-black man in power. It takes more vigilance to proceed beyond bigotry, but it has a proven track record of being very doable.
So you would not allow an American to fully participate as a citizen because of what someone overseas thinks? If that was the case, there would have never been a United States.
Not if he's the type of gay guy that wants to create special laws just for them. It would also be embarrassing if he were flamingly effeminate. Other than that I dont care.
Not if he's the type of gay guy that wants to create special laws just for them. It would also be embarrassing if he were flamingly effeminate. Other than that I dont care.
That's like saying black people and women wanted to create special laws for themselves. The existing laws actively oppressed them, just as they do for homosexuals. It's a simple civil rights issue: the law institutionalizes favoritism to a segment of the population that results in significant benefits to one group that another group is forbidden to attain (unless, of course, they live a lie and marry someone they're not attracted to just for money - but we wouldn't want to disgrace the institution of marriage for such crass financial gain, now would we?)
I didn't vote in the poll, to my recollection, because I didn't want my answer misinterpreted. I do not vote in any elections, because I do not support the system, and will not support the lie that the average citizen has any real effect on the political landscape.
I'm not really interested in an exercise in futility, though I appear to have one going with another poster here at C-D.
Of course, if the majority of the citizens share your attitude, they don't have any 'real effect' do they? And I'm afraid that's how we ended up with so many of the 'wrong' people in office - too many decided they had no voice, no effect, and simply stayed home on election day.
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.
