• 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 gay president ?

gay president ??


  • Total voters
    81
All things being equal, sure. I wouldn't do it just because he was gay, any more than I would because he was black or a woman or whatever. Their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to perform the job.
 
Yea I would vote for president based simply on the fact he is gay. Lets get real people. I don't care if he is gay or not. Either I agree with this persons views or not, that is how I decide my vote. Not on someones sexuality, that is just moronic.
 
I would vote for a gay person assuming that I thought they would make a good President.
 
according to your statement

you are the one who should give some examples

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?
 
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.

1.) oh lucky me, seems silly to have an ignore list IMO but i know lots of people use it, if you dont want to talk to someone just dont :shrug:

2.) this explain your concern you simply dont think SSM is an equal right and that makes you worry that a gay president make focus on it, eventhough a straight on might too.

3.) SO not real LBGT agenda issues but made up stereotypical ones, got it
3a.) I agree it shouldn't be a spectacle 100%
3b.) two things the super vast majority of gays couldnt care less about acceptance further than simply not being discriminated against and more than the average person. There is some acceptance wanted but not much past what the normal person wants. Everything being equal you would prefer not to be fired, dis-owned, barred from jobs, have special rules placed on you, assaulted, killed or judged to be a child rapist simply based on who you love and date. I have no problem with people wanted that type of acceptance and i would how you wouldnt either. Knowing many gays and of course i cant speak for them all and i would NEVER say that types of gays you are describing dont exist but i dont know one that wants more than what i describe. The all could care less if you think its gross or a sin or wrong, they just want left alone like other people.

So im not so sure about this ramming down the throat thing, i think thats empty rhetoric that when looked at honestly doesnt exists but there are flamboyant gays just like there are flamboyant heteros :shrug:

4.) i agree in the current atmosphere the part would not back them and that sad

5.) you may be right


i noticed you didnt answer 2 questions still, one here and one previouly

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

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
" 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. "

thanks for your answers
 
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.

if it is a big problem to have a gay president

it means we have lots of reasons not to vote them as president
 
I would vote for a gay person assuming that I thought they would make a good President.

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.
 
So you're telling me that their being gay doesn't affect their decision making ability?

in general no, why would it?
and if you disagree tell me why striaght, black, or catholic wouldn't also then?

in general race, religion, sexuality etc should have a very minor or secondary at best influence on a presidential decisions. THis goes for all men/women. If they are incapable of this they shouldnt be president.
 
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.

1.)so then simply answer the question head like the majority instead of assuming negative variables. DO it from an even plane.
all things being equal, good candidate, right for the job etc. does being gay effect your vote?

2.) these minions that you describe in your opinion why do they not exist with EVERY president? you seem to insinuate they would only be present for black and gay presidents or did you just.
 
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.

Definitely, the speculation swirls around James Buchanan. Never married, known to have lived with Rufus King...

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]

James Buchanan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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?
 
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?

If they matched my views better than the person they running against, I would vote for a homosexual candidate.

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

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.

thanks for your answers

No problem.
 
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.

1.) off then that you wouldnt simply answer yes in the poll, doesnt make you wrong but odd that you just assume negatives because of the gay, NOT saying you equate gay with negative, dont misunderstand just saying that the majority just simply assumed if all was equal.

2.) now many instead of just one?
just curious what policies do you suspect wouldnt match yours because of them being gay

3.) thanks again
 
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?

have you seen pics of some of the world leaders? if one is going to be so shallow (meaning world leaders no you) one should simply look in the mirror

not to mention on a world stage everything can be judged shallowly

height, weight, skin color, race, religion, wife, etc etc who cares what they thing if thats all the brain power they are capable off.
 
would you vote for a gay presidential candidate ?

If I agreed with his policies. His sexual orientation plays zero bearing on my decision making process.

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?

They'd be shocked for about 5 minutes, then they'd keep suckling on the American power-tit.
 
Can he balance a budget? Ensure liberty and freedom? End corporatism? Those are the only things that matter.
 
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.

Lmao. I suppose you're right. I know when it comes to the world stage and world leaders perception of strength and all that crap is important. And if that is true then would some of our less than forward thinking neighbors perceive our leader, and the nation by extension, as weak? But I guess that's what diplomats and ambassadors are for. I'm no expert on foreign affairs so maybe none of that matters. I don't know. Guess there's only one way to find out for certain. We'd survive though, always have and always will.
 
would you vote for a gay presidential candidate ?

Depends entirely on his/her qualifications, ideology, and leadership abilities. Probably not, though, because I don't see it being very likely that he would have any military experience (important, since the POTUS is also commander in Chief of US Military forces), nor do I find it likely that they would be of a conservative lean.
 
So you're telling me that their being gay doesn't affect their decision making ability?

Does a candidate's being straight 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.

This is a reasonable answer.

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.

This is not. Every candidate has their "minions" looking for perks. It's part of the landscape of politics.
 
Does a candidate's being straight affect their decision making ability?

What doesn't affect our decision making ability? I'd say that if it's a part of us, defines us individually, then it is going to affect our decision making ability. Sure, you can pony up, play the public relations game, and spew pleasant propaganda stating how unbiased you are. But those $.05 ploys don't work with real people living in the real world. As robotic and removed as we try to be, we are involved and very much human.
 
Back
Top Bottom