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

delete post plz

[edit on 29-3-2010 by ModernAcademia]

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

I, personally, would very much distance a female president from a gay president.

It's really about perspective, and women CAN portray themselves as strong and someone who puts their foot down.

Gays, well that's another topic.

And i'm not saying gays couldn't do it, i'm saying the audience wouldn't buy it even if it was his real 'mojo' that he was portraying.

Originally posted by sos37
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.

Good point

[edit on 29-3-2010 by ModernAcademia]

My views on this and many other matters have changed over the years so I will explain it this way. The old me, would have protested against a gay or lesbian even running for the office. However, now I don't care if they are gay, lesbian, or even a damned talking Gecko, if they can do better than the last two idiots elected I say let them.

Honestly, does it effect you, me or anyone else in this world if the POTUS is gay? No, it doesn't. The only problem is if you want your morals enforced on everyone else.

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?
.

invaded. heh...erm..no

but plenty of nations on earth would shun the US during the term.
Again, not a gay hate comment, just a reality of todays society.

Is Rahm going to run for President?

Is he going to get in the whole country's shower and poke his finger at us?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I still disagree Modern. I will agree that perception is a key factor, however it's not on the POTUS demeanor that we garnor respect or admirability, it's his actions.

If the gay POTUS was strong willed, spoke well and got things done, then I would not see there being a problem.

I will admit that in the beginning, there would be a huge uprising, but change brings dissent, regardless of it's positivity or negavitity.

The world would soon adjust. No such decision has caused anything ridiculously life changing to occur yet. I doubt something like this would cause that.

~Keeper

What are the person's ideals, what will they do ... those are the ONLY things that matter imho.

Think of it this way ... we have a lot of Ron Paul fans on ATS.

If RP were to come 'out' tomorrow and declare that he's gay, or if a young man championing his same libertarian ideals were to land on the national political scene, would you support either of them less simply because they happen to be gay?

That is to say, if you are in complete agreement with a politician's ideology would you shun him/her because of your morality?

Wouldn't that be great. The president and his first husband visiting foreign dignitaries.......

The perception is that homosexuals have mental problems and are highly emotional.
That is the way it is.
I don't think the military would like serving for a homosexual.

And another thing... why did homosexuals have to steal the word ''gay'' from the entire world? Why couldn't they make up their own word? Aren't they supposed to be creative?

How about flamdoozle? Why couldn't they all be flamdoozles?

The fact that the homosexuals and the radical media stole the word gay and began using it to describe people who are homosexual is evidence of a dishonesty involved in the whole charade.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by Cabaret Voltaire]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
If RP were to come 'out' tomorrow and declare that he's gay, or if a young man championing his same libertarian ideals were to land on the national political scene, would you support either of them less simply because they happen to be gay?

Starred.
Well, you MIGHT have just made me do a complete 180 here.

If Ron Paul tomorrow said he was gay then yes I would still support him.
I guess I didn't think of it that way.

However if he was gay, I would hope he would keep it to himself.
As the guy above me said(above me in this post) the military might not like serving for a gay commander and chief.

He's been married for 32yrs to the same woman though
She also has a cookbook for great tasting cookies!!!

But good post though
I would still support him

[edit on 29-3-2010 by ModernAcademia]

The WORLD is crumbling around us and they are doing polls on frelling homosexual presidents!

Let us see. Border violence with Mexico. Militias being arrested. Government taxing money out of country. Economy sinking like a rock. Commodity fraud. Whistleblower attempted murder.



Hey, what does everybody feel about taupe in the spring for a tie? Too much?

Has the world gone insane?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


A politician of Ron Paul's caliber would keep his sexual orientation private for the good of the country.

Nation first, bedroom second.

[edit on 29/3/10 by MikeboydUS]

The ability to procreate is one of our most treasured gifts .. the ability to create life. That gift should be respected and used appropriately as nature had intended. I would not vote for anyone that would threat that gift inappropriately, is if it were some kind of joy toy meant to be abuse and used incorrectly.

wonders why being gay or the gay subject is so a common topic on ATS right now.......

I would support an openly gay/lesbian POTUS .......... UNLESS their campaign seemed hinged on that very ideal.

I could care less the sexuality of a POTUS, but if I felt they were using it as a means to gain office -- basically politicizing their sexuality -- that would be offputting, at least for me, as that's the very least of the qualifications that I believe are important in electing the Commander-in-Chief[ess].

Oh man. I think I just proved once again, that you cannot dig yourself out of a hole. You know what I mean, though, right?

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
The perception is that homosexuals have mental problems and are highly emotional.
That is the way it is.
I don't think the military would like serving for a homosexual.

And another thing... why did homosexuals have to steal the word ''gay'' from the entire world? Why couldn't they make up their own word? Aren't they supposed to be creative?

How about flamdoozle? Why couldn't they all be flamdoozles?

The fact that the homosexuals and the radical media stole the word gay and began using it to describe people who are homosexual is evidence of a dishonesty involved in the whole charade.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by Cabaret Voltaire]

Actually Wiki, would disagree, we didn't steal anything...

The term later began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century.[1] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, that refers to the people, practices, and culture associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex.[2][3] At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger generations of speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so that it can be used, for example, of an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves, but the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated.[4][5]

~Keeper

reply to post by ModernAcademia
Gay Presidents? Who cares? A few years ago, it was unimaginable to have a President that wasn't a white male. Times change. Clinton, Palin and Obama have shown that people aren't as set in their ways as we sometimes like to think they are...

Gays, child abuse and Israel? Your recent threads are developing a theme.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

If RP were to come 'out' tomorrow and declare that he's gay, or if a young man championing his same libertarian ideals were to land on the national political scene, would you support either of them less simply because they happen to be gay?

That is to say, if you are in complete agreement with a politician's ideology would you shun him/her because of your morality?

That is correct. If Ron Paul "came out" so to speak I would no longer support him. I'll say the same be said for any other conservative or libertarian candidate.

And I won't lie - I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle. But in the case of POTUS my concern would be him/her dealing directly with nations who run their countries based on religion. Would he/she be welcome at the United Nations? Which countries would cut off communications with the U.S. completely? How could a gay POTUS ever hope to deal with middle-eastern nations?

I'll bet Israel would shun the U.S. completely, as would the Palestinians. Given the "unbreakable pledge" that 300+ members of Congress just signed in a pact with Israel, I very much doubt this would be "allowed" to happen.

I would support a gay president. Certainly not BECAUSE he or she was gay, but if they were a good candidate for president, in my opinion, who they love is no concern of mine.

Not so long ago, many people would have said that they wouldn't support a black president. We see how that turned out.

Yeah, I don't support a politician because of the color of their skin or who they sleep with. Those have nothing to do with one's ability to do the job.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would support a gay president. Certainly not BECAUSE he or she was gay, but if they were a good candidate for president, in my opinion, who they love is no concern of mine.

Not so long ago, many people would have said that they wouldn't support a black president. We see how that turned out.

Yeah, I don't support a politician because of the color of their skin or who they sleep with. Those have nothing to do with one's ability to do the job.

I'm tempted to alert the mods. There's barely a hint of unseasoned rhetoric here. No overt political affiliation and a reasonable point made. Perhaps you'd like to try again?