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