• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Great Night For Gays

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Gay Politics — Record number of LGBT candidates elected to office

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund today announced that more openly LGBT candidates won election to public office in the U.S. in 2010 than in any year in America’s history.

At least 106 of the group’s record-breaking 164 endorsed candidates were winners as of Wednesday morning, including Providence, R.I., Mayor David Cicilline (pictured), who will become the fourth openly gay Member of Congress when the House convenes in January.

We may lose some (see Iowa), but we win more.

And, when I say we, let me clarify...I'm not gay, but this fight is about basic human rights and dignities, and it involves all of us. When gays & lesbians attain equality in this nation, we will all win.

Ich bin ein homo. :peace
 
Last edited:
devil's advocate...what does a person's sexual orientation have to do with them being a good or bad politician?
 
devil's advocate...what does a person's sexual orientation have to do with them being a good or bad politician?

Nothing, but I think it shows that just because you are gay doesn't mean you can't get elected. I realize that in some places being gay or non religious won't get you elected, but I think it is a good sign that as a nation we can get beyond sexual orientation.
 
I don't vote for people based on what they do with thier genitalia.... :shrug:
 
but I think it is a good sign that as a nation we can get beyond sexual orientation.

If we were "beyond sexual orientation" so many people wouldn't feel the need to point it out. :shrug:
 
devil's advocate...what does a person's sexual orientation have to do with them being a good or bad politician?
Nothing. But, the fact that people are willing to vote for openly gay candidates is a good marker of how far we have come, nationally, in terms of tolerance and open-mindedness.

I would never vote for someone because he/she is gay. But, by the same token, I'd never NOT vote for someone because he/she is gay, black or has a vagina. And let's be clear...THAT WAS THE NORM not that long ago. Simply BEING GAY would completely eliminate your chances of ever serving in a local, state, or national office.

And that's a shame.

I'm proud of us. We've come a long ways in the last 20 years, but we still have a ways to go.
 
If we were "beyond sexual orientation" so many people wouldn't feel the need to point it out. :shrug:

We're nowhere near "beyond sexual orientation," which is why this still matters.

Of course, Soccerboy's generation is. It's our generation and our parents that are really still in the throes of queer fear.

I mean...scary. The "gay agenda" means that someone might look at your junk in the shower, right?
 
Last edited:
Nothing. But, the fact that people are willing to vote for openly gay candidates is a good marker of how far we have come, nationally, in terms of tolerance and open-mindedness.

I would never vote for someone because he/she is gay. But, by the same token, I'd never NOT vote for someone because he/she is gay, black or has a vagina. And let's be clear...THAT WAS THE NORM not that long ago. .

I guess that is my issue. there are way too many people who WILL vote for someone simply because they are gay, a minority, a female, etc because they want to make a statement about how "open minded" they are.
 
devil's advocate...what does a person's sexual orientation have to do with them being a good or bad politician?

Nothing. I think the point being that there was a time when being gay would be used against you and it would be very difficult for a gay person to be elected. This shows that we have come a long ways as a country in maturity level and that it ISN't something that makes them a good/bad politician.
 
I guess that is my issue. there are way too many people who WILL vote for someone simply because they are gay, a minority, a female, etc because they want to make a statement about how "open minded" they are.

Who? I've never heard/seen anyone who votes on those criteria.
 
I guess that is my issue. there are way too many people who WILL vote for someone simply because they are gay, a minority, a female, etc because they want to make a statement about how "open minded" they are.

I live in the south, bro, just as you do. There are plenty of folks down here who WON'T vote for an uppity niggra. I'd say the scales are pretty balanced between the lunatic fringe.
 
I guess that is my issue. there are way too many people who WILL vote for someone simply because they are gay, a minority, a female, etc because they want to make a statement about how "open minded" they are.

In the last election, BOTH of the mayoral candidates were black. Were people voting for them to show how tolerant they were? Lulz.
 
If we were "beyond sexual orientation" so many people wouldn't feel the need to point it out. :shrug:

I didn't say we were beyond it though. I said that we can get beyond it. We aren't there yet, but this is a positive sign.
 
Who? I've never heard/seen anyone who votes on those criteria.

yeah right. you've never heard of anyone who voted for Obama because they thought it would be "cool" to have voted for the first BLACK president? I'm sure that there were absolutely ZERO homosexuals who voted for a gay candidate simply because they were gay. No one voted for Hillary Clinton in the '08 primaries because she was a woman....

I'm sure all of those black folks that voted to re-elect Charles Rangel had perfectly legitimate reasons to vote for him...other than him being black.
 
In the last election, BOTH of the mayoral candidates were black. Were people voting for them to show how tolerant they were? Lulz.

so are you also asserting that there are not homosexuals who will vote for a gay candidate simply because he/she is gay, no blacks who will vote for a black candidate simply because he/she is black, no women who will vote for a woman candidate simply because she is female, no hispanics that will vote for a hispanic candidate simply because they are latino???

IMHO, that is just as stupid and bigotted as NOT voting for someone because of their race, creed, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
 
I live in the south, bro, just as you do. There are plenty of folks down here who WON'T vote for an uppity niggra. I'd say the scales are pretty balanced between the lunatic fringe.

yeah, but nobody ever calls the other guys to the carpet for their stupidity. :shrug:
 
so are you also asserting that there are not homosexuals who will vote for a gay candidate simply because he/she is gay, no blacks who will vote for a black candidate simply because he/she is black, no women who will vote for a woman candidate simply because she is female, no hispanics that will vote for a hispanic candidate simply because they are latino???

IMHO, that is just as stupid and bigotted as NOT voting for someone because of their race, creed, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Do you want me to pretend there aren't stupid people? Nonetheless, in this thread, you're attempting (poorly) to create a straw topic. Try to stay focused.
 
Do you want me to pretend there aren't stupid people? Nonetheless, in this thread, you're attempting (poorly) to create a straw topic. Try to stay focused.

it's not a straw topic. it is a legitimate fact that it does happen. stupid people on both sides of that fence but only one side ever gets called for it. :shrug:
 
I guess that is my issue. there are way too many people who WILL vote for someone simply because they are gay, a minority, a female, etc because they want to make a statement about how "open minded" they are.

Yeah, there are those people out there, but if they were nothing more than a fringe part of the electorate, then we would have SSM by now.
 
Yeah, there are those people out there, but if they were nothing more than a fringe part of the electorate, then we would have SSM by now.

Irrelevent, this thread is not about SSM. there are a billion of those on this forum if that is what you want to discuss.


IMHO, there are probably as many of them as there are people who would vote against a candidate simply for being gay today.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom