this world has always been governed by gays and that is why we have lots of problems
so as a result of this fact we cant trust any gay
Yep, I'd have no problem with a gay president. Hell, we've probably already had at least one and didn't know it.
Examples?
according to your statement
you are the one who should give some examples
1.)Posts from blocked users come up as a header stating the poster's name, but lacking any of the actual body text. There is a button right underneath the name that says "view post" which lets you view the message like you would normally
It would frankly be far more convenient if the input of ignored posters simply disappeared from your view entirely, but that is, sadly, not the case. We would not be having this conversation if it were.
2.)The rights in question are subjective. Ideally, a homosexual candidate would be able to acknowledge this fact, and be willing to allow for the normal democratic and legislative process to run its course.
They can certainly support gay rights, but undue focus on executive or federal action meant to enforce their own views on the matter would be a definite turn off.
3.)Simply put, the version of the homosexuality put forward by Gay Pride parades and most of the MSM media. Any given candidate's sexuality is frankly no one's business but their own.
3a.)It should not be deliberately made into a spectacle
3b.) for the purposes of trying to force artifical notions of social acceptance down the public's throat.
4.)Call me a cynic, but I simply do not see a Conservative (or even moderate) homosexual coming to the forefront of the American political scene any time soon.
5.)Case in point...
Media and popular attitudes have such a polarizing impact on public perceptions of the personal lives of politicians that the idea of a homosexual presidential candidate being able to keep focus away from this particular aspect of their character in today's society simply cannot be taken as a serious possibility. This is exactly why I answered the poll above with a "no" response, instead of a more objective "not sure."
While I am certainly capable of thinking of a wide variety of situations in which I would theoretically vote for a homosexual candidate, absolutely none of them are even remotely plausible given how the issue of homosexuality is treated by so many people today. Virtually the only context I can think of in which a homosexual would have even a minute chance of attaining the presidency in today's society would be as some sort of demagogic "one note" Far Left publicity stunt focused almost entirely around gay rights and activism.
This is simply not the sort of thing that I would ever support.
The Obama Presidency already stinks to high heaven of this kind of thinking, and modern attitudes towards race relations are massively more advanced than those surrounding sexuality.
" he/she would have to show themselves to be so socially and economically Right Wing in every other regard that they made Ronald Reagan look like Al Gore before I'd even consider voting for them. "
You stated that homosexuals have always "governed the world" and that this was "why we have lots of problems."
What are you basing this claim off of?
I understand the queston fine. Given today's political climate, I merely don't believe that the matter would be as simplistic as a lot of people here seem to think.
I would vote for a gay person assuming that I thought they would make a good President.
So you're telling me that their being gay doesn't affect their decision making ability?
1.)If you understand conditional probability then you should understand why I said no. Read my sig block again if you need to. Based on a history of disagreeing with most of the gays, odds aren't too good I'd agree with a gay candidate.
2.)Even if I did, then you'll have the gay minions with expectations just like Obama's black minions wanting Obama phones and the bacon brought to Detroit in return for voting for him.
We may have already had a gay president ... who knows ... there was a famous study done many years ago, the book was called Tearoom Trade, I believe, in which the researcher studied gay men having sex in public bathrooms. He was the "Watch Queen." He let the men inside know whether someone was coming. Anyway, he would write down the men's car's license plate numbers and he had a friend in the DMV who gave him their addresses. What he did was unethical and what the DMV guy did was unlawful. Anyway, he then disguised himself and visited these men's houses to conduct a survey on marriage or family life (don't remember). Most of the men were married, with kids. It was at a time that coming out was much more dangerous than it is now. So, it's not at all inconceivable that we've had a gay president.
The source of this interest has been Buchanan's close and intimate relationship with William Rufus King (who became Vice President under Franklin Pierce). The two men lived together for 13 years from 1840 until King's death in 1853. Buchanan referred to the relationship as a "communion,"[62] and the two attended all parties together. Contemporaries also noted the closeness. Andrew Jackson called them "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy" (the former being a 19th century euphemism for an effeminate man[64]), while Aaron V. Brown referred to King as Buchanan’s "better half."[65] James Loewen has described Buchanan and King as "siamese twins." In later years, Kat Thompson, the wife of a cabinet member expressed her anxiety that "there was something unhealthy in the president’s attitude."[62]
well try to answer the question head on like the majority of us did and assume the candidate matches your views and dont assume negatives.
So all things being equal, they are a good candidate and right for the job does being gay impact your vote?
and what does every other regard mean? what regard are they nor right wing simply by being gay?
this question was in response to you saying
thanks for your answers
1.)If they matched my views better than the person they running against, I would vote for a homosexual candidate.
2.)I strongly suspect that many of a homosexual president's policy decisions might run contrary to my social views. This would be a rather problematic thing for me to reconcile if I were to decide to vote for them, but it would not necessarily be a deal breaker in and of itself.
As I said before, I would still vote for a homsexual candidate if they matched my views on matters like foreign policy, economics, and domestic reform more so than the the candidate they were running against.
No problem.
I wouldn't let sexual preference stand in my way of voting for presidential candidate. But I wonder how a gay POTUS would be viewed by other world leaders. I wonder what impact it might have on foreign relations?
would you vote for a gay presidential candidate ?
I wouldn't let sexual preference stand in my way of voting for presidential candidate. But I wonder how a gay POTUS would be viewed by other world leaders. I wonder what impact it might have on foreign relations?
If I agreed with his policies. His sexual orientation plays zero bearing on my decision making process.
They'd be shocked for about 5 minutes, then they'd keep suckling on the American power-tit.
would you vote for a gay presidential candidate ?
would you vote for a gay presidential candidate ?
So you're telling me that their being gay doesn't affect their decision making ability?
If you understand conditional probability then you should understand why I said no. Read my sig block again if you need to. Based on a history of disagreeing with most of the gays, odds aren't too good I'd agree with a gay candidate.
Even if I did, then you'll have the gay minions with expectations just like Obama's black minions wanting Obama phones and the bacon brought to Detroit in return for voting for him.
Does a candidate's being straight affect their decision making ability?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?