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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I don't care. As long as they aren't biased toward gay issues.

Remember, gays are still a very small minority (even included those still in the closet). A gay candidate doesn't mean much, since he still has to dedicate at least 98% of his campaign toward satisfying the majority.




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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


Well, he hasn't kept it private. It's well-known that he's a heterosexual. His wife's name is Carol and she's been on TV many times.

Why is it that only gay people are expected to keep their sexual orientation private while the straights flaunt theirs right and left? They hold hands, procreate and are seen in public together all the time!

What I'm hearing here is that only if they're gay should keep their sexual orientation private because... well, because ... because they're GAY!

How's that for rhetoric, Kandinsky?


[edit on 3/29/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The reason they should keep it quiet is because of the very real possibility that many foreign countries wouldn't want to deal with a gay president.

I don't think America is ready for a gay president, and I'll guarantee you that Muslim nations whom the U.S. is trying to make peace with aren't ready for it either.

Do you not see how this could absolutely be a hindrance to their job with regard to dealing with foreign policy, BH?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What really bothers me about this whole thing has nothing to do with a persons sexual preferences. It is that the U.S. cannot seem to agree on anything. Seems that all polls on just about any subject are 50/50 or 48/48 or something along those lines.

We are polarized on every issue that comes up. If a gay president were elected it would just stir more problems with this whole nonsensical left/right paradigm.

See the forest through the trees.

A house divided cannot stand. I think this is the plan anyway.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
The reason they should keep it quiet is because of the very real possibility that many foreign countries wouldn't want to deal with a gay president.

I don't think America is ready for a gay president, and I'll guarantee you that Muslim nations whom the U.S. is trying to make peace with aren't ready for it either.


NOW you care what other countries think? And Muslim countries, no less? Puh-lease!



Do you not see how this could absolutely be a hindrance to their job with regard to dealing with foreign policy, BH?


I don't think it would be a hindrance, no. And if other countries don't like it, tough cookies. This is AMERICA. Where ALL citizens have equal rights. I can't believe you're suggesting that we should worry about what Muslim countries think all of a sudden!



[edit on 3/29/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
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?


No, we have a president who had one parent of sub-Saharan African descent. To make a comparison, we'd have to be discussing a potential president who drank light beer and watched American Idol.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
The reason they should keep it quiet is because of the very real possibility that many foreign countries wouldn't want to deal with a gay president.

I don't think America is ready for a gay president, and I'll guarantee you that Muslim nations whom the U.S. is trying to make peace with aren't ready for it either.


NOW you care what other countries think? And Muslim countries, no less? Puh-lease!



If it meant the Muslim nations forming a pact or alliance to invade or overthrow the U.S. because we elected an "evil" or "demonic" leader then you bet I care about it! Yeah, that's a worst-case scenario. But it's one that must be considered.




Do you not see how this could absolutely be a hindrance to their job with regard to dealing with foreign policy, BH?


I don't think it would be a hindrance, no. And if other countries don't like it, tough cookies. This is AMERICA. Where ALL citizens have equal rights. I can't believe you're suggesting that we should worry about what Muslim countries think all of a sudden!


[edit on 3/29/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]


I can't believe you're being so naive when it comes to foreign policy! Electing a gay man or woman might be just the rallying cry that some religious whacko over in the middle east needs to bring the Middle-eastern nations together that are currently on the fence about how they feel about us. Do you really think the U.S. would stand a chance against the COMBINED might of several middle-eastern nations including Iran, Pakistan, Syria, possibly Russia if this came down to a holy war? And yes I know Russia isn't a Muslim nation, but they do have a religion that abhors homosexuality. A holy war of this type could involve any nation ruled by a religion that feels the same way.

I think your bias on the whole gay/lesbian thing is seriously clouding your thinking on this issue. We're talking about nations based on religions that have NO PROBLEM executing their own countrymen for being gay.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
i wont support a gay president main reason being he will be a liberal

and ive had enough liberals in power right now.

as to women in power look at pelosi and clinton- two people who should not have those jobs.

id support a woman but one who lives in reality and not on power trips.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by neo96
 


Ohh you could not be more wrong. You should check into the Log Cabin Republicans. Political/fiscal conservatism knows not a sexual preference.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
really how wrong?

do you think a republican homosexual would be elected president?


we both know he wouldnt be



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
I think your bias on the whole gay/lesbian thing is seriously clouding your thinking on this issue.


Classic! I'm letting my bias cloud my thinking, huh? Interesting bit of projection, there.

Look, I've answered the question in the OP. I'm not interested in further arguing this point with you. You have made your feelings about gay people very clear. I just can't believe you're using some fantasy 'Muslim country holy war' scenario to justify your prejudices. Why don't you just admit it's because you hate the gays? Whatever...



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


So Ron Paul would pretend to not be married, will disavow being a father, or anything else alluding to his heterosexuality?

Of course not, but if he were gay, you'd expect him to pretend all that.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by neo96
 


What I'm saying is that you're taking an image you apparently have in your head and extrapolating from that a gross generalization that would have every likelihood of being wrong. All homosexuals are not liberal. You have to take people as individuals and not lump them into some biased, preconceived notion about what you think everyone with that particular "label" represents.

Whether they be liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, West Virginian, or Yankees fan.

It's counterproductive, and a lazy way of thinking.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Personally I'm amazed that all of a sudden, these people give a damn what Muslim countries think. Cute how the word "gay" can make conservatives swing a complete 180



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Personally, I would make jokes at it but I wouldn't care. Well, if he cheated on his wife with a man, I would care or if he was married to a man and cheated on him i would care and if he was single and had sex with a male intern I would care. I think it would be best if we had a gay president too. I would think he would be more honest about stuff.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I can honestly say I'd support an openly gay president. As long as he represented what I wanted for our country. It'll happen one day I'm sure. We all know they're has been at least one gay president already. I can honestly say that I think a gay or lesbian person would have a better chance of winning the seat then an atheist, which wouldn't bother me either.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright

reply to post by neo96
 


What I'm saying is that you're taking an image you apparently have in your head and extrapolating from that a gross generalization that would have every likelihood of being wrong. All homosexuals are not liberal. You have to take people as individuals and not lump them into some biased, preconceived notion about what you think everyone with that particular "label" represents.

Whether they be liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, West Virginian, or Yankees fan.

It's counterproductive, and a lazy way of thinking.






no mod thats not what i think.

im saying that when it comes to liberal minorities and conversative minorites

its always liberal- good conservative- bad

obviously there are conservative gays



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yes, there are conservative gays. Most - including the vaunted "log cabin" folks, are ignored or brushed aside by the rest of the conservative movement.

So yes, I agree, a gay president will most likely be a liberal president, simply because an openly gay conservative would never get the nomination from any conservative party.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by neo96
 


Okay well if you're not believing what you say, or saying what you believe, that makes a conversation problematic. Here was your comment from above that sparked the exchange-


i wont support a gay president main reason being he will be a liberal


One of us is confused. Carry on, I'll go elsewhere.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join