It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: 50 percent say they'd support openly gay U.S. president

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Poll: 50 percent say they'd support openly gay U.S. president


thehill.com

Half of the country said they could support an openly gay president of the United States, a new poll found Monday.
Forty-four percent said they were opposed.

The question was posed in connection to the military's plans to do away with the "Don't ask, don't tell policy," which currently prohibits gay and lesbian members from serving openly in the military.

The poll tested people's comfort with an openly gay president against two other political positions: Supreme Court justice and secret
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

The poll, conducted Feb. 26-March 1, has a 3 percent margin of error.

Well i'd say that it has a much bigger margin of error than 3%.

MY personal opinion is that they will say that they would support an openly gay presidential candidate but once they would see him/her with their significant other their thoughts would change once in the ballots.

I mean now they say sure, but if they see a man running for president and the potential first man then..... I mean pictures are worth a thousand words right?

Personally, it's an interesting topic, I mean I would rather see a focus on foreign policy than anything, especially instead of a person's sexual orientation but it does make for an interesting discussion.

The other problem is that this candidate could potentially win for the wrong reasons, however on a good note it could perhaps strenghten ties with France.

Thoughts?

thehill.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The mere fact that there are people out there who would vote for an individual simy because that individual was a homosexual regardless of policies and practices and there are people out there who would vote against a homosexual individual regardless of policies and practices speaks volumes to the overall futility of voting.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I am pretty extreme left socially, but I dont believe I could support a gay commander and chief...

Not because I have issues with gays, Its just a realistic view of the world we live in...a gay POTUS in a world of theocracys and extreme religious views would make the whole foreign relations a disaster.

Believe it or not, Westboro Baptist Church is correct, and even though the political correctness and general acceptance in the west overlooks such stuff, the rest of the world would simply flip out at a gay person in the whitehouse...there could end up being idealistic wars and all sorts.

Until religion tones down alot in the world, then a gay POTUS would simply spell trouble on the world stage.

I think Sec/state would be about as high a rank as a gay could go currently without it being a meltdown overseas.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Whatever the sexuality of your next president, i'm sure he would be just as bent as the other crooks. Pun intended



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

MY personal opinion is that they will say that they would support an openly gay presidential candidate but once they would see him/her with their significant other their thoughts would change once in the ballots.


I disagree.

It would solely depend on how the candidate handled their significant other. In other words, if two men were standing side-by-side and were known to be partners, I don't think it would be much of an issue.

If two men were standing at the podium and decided to kiss each other for all the world to see, I think there would be much less acceptance.

Now, if you are talking about two females, I think the first step would be to elect a female President prior to electing a gay female President. Although, the above comments regarding the male candidate in my opinion would the same. However, I believe there would be less of an outcry if women were to kiss -- peck would probably be most acceptable -- than men.


I mean now they say sure, but if they see a man running for president and the potential first man then..... I mean pictures are worth a thousand words right?


I hardly think we are living in a day and age where people don't know what gays look like together. I don't think they would need to see the candidates and change their mind. I believe people already know what it means to be gay and also what it looks like.


Personally, it's an interesting topic, I mean I would rather see a focus on foreign policy than anything, especially instead of a person's sexual orientation but it does make for an interesting discussion.


I personally could care less about a person's sexual orientation. I see no reason to have a snapshot of them making out or anything -- but I would make the same statement if they were heterosexual.


The other problem is that this candidate could potentially win for the wrong reasons, however on a good note it could perhaps strenghten ties with France.


Candidates have been winning for the wrong reasons for decades since we seem to be left with very little "good reasons".

Just my two cents.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
oh my god could you imagine ellen degeneres as a president!!



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I would vote for a gay president as long as his/her policies are good. I don't care if a gay, atheist, arab woman was running for president, as long as her policies are good I would vote for her.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
For alot of us... Whether it's a majority or not, I haven't the slightest idea... The idea of an openly gay presidential candidate is less important than an openly qualified one with good ideas, and an idea of how to implement them...

Yes, there are going to be bigots that'll have an issue with him/her being gay...they need to get over it, IMHO. It's going to happen, it's only a matter of time. Will that person win? Who knows.

Gay. Woman. Gay Woman. Let's just smash all the political taboos and get that done. Then we can move on to much more important things, which is to say, almost anything.

Personally, I don't give a rip, one way or another...and I have an issue with people who do. What does one's orientation/preference have to do with whether or not you can lead a nation? None.

Ideas. Leadership. Courage. These are what we look for in a leader. I, for one, don't look at his/her orientation/preferences.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Interesting premise.

I think your right that they would not have a problem until POTUS was seen in public with his better half.

However, I do think it would take a public display of affection to really make people uncomfortable.

Just look at POTUS today, even when Michelle is there we don't see them making out or even a kiss on the cheek is a rare occasion.

I do think it will be a few decades before any party even considered running a gay POTUS.

As for the above poster who stated:


Not because I have issues with gays, Its just a realistic view of the world we live in...a gay POTUS in a world of theocracys and extreme religious views would make the whole foreign relations a disaster.

Believe it or not, Westboro Baptist Church is correct, and even though the political correctness and general acceptance in the west overlooks such stuff, the rest of the world would simply flip out at a gay person in the whitehouse...there could end up being idealistic wars and all sorts.

Until religion tones down alot in the world, then a gay POTUS would simply spell trouble on the world stage.

I think Sec/state would be about as high a rank as a gay could go currently without it being a meltdown overseas.


I disagree, the west is FAR more prudish than the rest of the world. If you think the West is the most liberal of all continents your a sorely mistaken.

The religious fringe would be up in arms, yes, but the major players: Europe, Most of Asia, Russia, South America would have no quams with this.

It's not like being gay would affect whatever position POTUS was taking on any given issue. Hell if they did make a big stint out of it, the US could actually say that the rest of the world is farther behind, lending more credibility to his policies and agenda.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I agree and think the margin of error is much larger.

Consider that only 56% of elligble voters voted in the 2008 elections. 100 million people didn't vote.

Many nations are very socially conservative, like Russia, China, India, and the many Muslim nations.

A very vocal minority, little over 25% of American voters, is pushing US culture in direct conflict with the majority of the humans on this planet. I don't see it being very productive.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I agree with you and think this is much like having a black president. Many people would reply they are cool with it even thought they aren't because they don't want to be racist/prejudice. Sadly it still makes them racist/prejudice but also somebody who can't even be truthful with themselves.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Agreed, that was shown in this last election by a large number of people who voted for Obama simply because he is black (well half anyways). It does make it look pretty futile at times, however, it is the best system we have. It also makes you wonder who was polled, I really don't trust any of these polls anymore....too easy to manipulate in one way or another.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
How about throwing this into the mix.

If a gay president was elected, wouldn't the U.S. be invaded the next day?

Perhaps it's not so much about what the american people think but what other nations and their military commanders think.

A gay commander and chief is not something to laugh about, and other commanders and chiefs of other countries would be doing just that.
They might not take the might of the U.S. seriously anymore.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I agree with you and think this is much like having a black president. Many people would reply they are cool with it even thought they aren't because they don't want to be racist/prejudice.


But now we have a black President so apparently the voters were not all talk. How can you be so sure the same premise would not apply to gay candidates?

[edit on 29-3-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

They might not take the might of the U.S. seriously anymore.


I think the days of being afraid of the "Mighty USA" are over anyway.

Many people have made the same reference when talking about electing a female President. Some countries wouldn't even recognize we have a President at that point let alone meet with her.

But I for one choose not to elect my leaders based on how other countries would feel about it.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How about throwing this into the mix.

If a gay president was elected, wouldn't the U.S. be invaded the next day?

Perhaps it's not so much about what the american people think but what other nations and their military commanders think.

A gay commander and chief is not something to laugh about, and other commanders and chiefs of other countries would be doing just that.
They might not take the might of the U.S. seriously anymore.


Modern, I love ya, but that is perhaps the silliest thing I have ever read.

If that was the case then we would have invaded Great Britain when they had Margaret...

If any country did attempt to do so, based on the fact that you have a gay POTUS, they would be met by the very very heavy hand of the US military.

You don't really wanna screw with a gay guy whose got an army of straight men behind him do you?

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I think it would bring us in a direct confrontation with Russia.

Consider that the Russians, still refuse to allow gay rights marches in Moscow on the grounds that the marches are Satanic. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church gets to review legislation before it is voted on by the Duma. Lastly, Russia has the highest percentage of Christians of any major power, far higher than the US.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
No way would I vote for a gay president, regardless of his or her policies.

The main reason is the foreign relations nightmare it would create. Sure, France and a lot of Europe would have a more favorable impression of us, but a gay president trying to deal with Muslim-leaders and nations? Forget it. Muslim nations and other religious nations who are wholely intolerant of homosexuality would probably not want to engage in talks with our POTUS, let alone be seen in the same room with them.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I guess for me it would depend on what "openly gay" means, know what I'm sayin'.

Another thought......It would sorta be fun to see what they did with decorating the White House, and how they might upgrade the rose garden and Camp David.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join