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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
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.


Agreed.

Let's be honest though, Liberals are the only ones who are pushing change in your country. Conservatism is literally about CONSERVING what you have now, not moving forward with new ideas.

Now I know obviously that's not the point, but today's conservatives seem confused on this point.

~Keeper




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colt122
 


Your beautiful tact brings a tear to my eye. There is nothing that you said that wasn't horrible sounding. I thought we didn't use that language around here.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
We all know they're has been at least one gay president already.


Really? I didn't know that. Who? James Buchanan? Wow! I did not know that!



n his book, Lies Across America, James W. Loewen points out that in May 1844, during one of the interruptions in Buchanan and King's relationship that resulted from King's appointment as minister to France, Buchanan wrote to a Mrs. Roosevelt about his social life, "I am now 'solitary and alone', having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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...



Sure, attack the poster but completely ignore the validity of the posting content. Isn't that against the T&C?

You have seen in news stories how some Muslim nations treat their own when they are found to be gay, when they want to marry outside of their religion, etc. And yet you completely dismiss the possibility that this could be the "straw that broke the camel's back" when it comes to their tolerating "infidels".



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Interesting, not that I would make much of a percent, but I don't remember voting in this poll. So it is inaccurate to say that half the population supports this, maybe half of the polling population.

I would not support this president.
I just don't agree with that lifestyle.
I'm not condemning it nor am I condoning it; I simply just don't agree.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

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.


would you support homophobics keeping their homophobia to themselves?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   


Sure, attack the poster but completely ignore the validity of the posting content. Isn't that against the T&C?

You have seen in news stories how some Muslim nations treat their own when they are found to be gay, when they want to marry outside of their religion, etc. And yet you completely dismiss the possibility that this could be the "straw that broke the camel's back" when it comes to their tolerating "infidels".


I have to agree with Benevolent Heretic. It certainly does seem that your judgment is clouded by your prejudices. The idea that electing an openly gay person as president would start some holy war to destroy the U.S. is absurd at best. There would be some leaders that wouldn't want to deal with our president, but remember the president doesn't meet with every single leader in the world. The Vice President, the Secretary of State, etc... meet with leaders all the time. Most likely at least one of them would be straight.

Plus, at the end of the day, we still have the most powerful military in the world. The combined military of every Muslim country in the world wouldn't stand a chance if they decided to invade us. Like I said, it's absurd at best.

It's a moot point anyway since, sadly, we'll probably all be long dead before an openly gay president gets elected in the U.S.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I always believed that poll was to bias the thoughts of the people to believe that there really is bipartisanship in the world of thought. Such silly tactics but they DO work.

There are WAYYY more people okay with homosexual politicians than that poll lets on!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I am not trying to take this off-topic, but I don't think many gay people in the West realise how lucky they have it compared to most other parts of the world. Sure, there is still room for tolerance and acceptance, but there is room for improvement for other minorities too in those areas.

But anyway when it comes down to it, do you really think polls make a difference? You could have a poll asking if people would support an openly Jewish or openly Muslim president and it wouldn't matter. Public opinion means little if TPTB are not secretly backing the candidate. If they truly wanted a gay president, there would be one...

[edit on 30/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




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


Personally, I don't care whether a president is white, black or green... male, female or in between. The quality of leadership is the prime factor.

What a person does in their sex life, is entirely private and should not become the play thing for those with a penchant to scratch and sniff bedsheets.

I don't vote for saints. I vote for presidents.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Polls are tools of the NWO to herd the public. One of the key pacifiers of the public disapproval is a poll that suckers people into feeling they don't belong or are inferior if they don't go along with the herd. It's the fault of the people themselves that they are so vain and inferior. Polls can never be trusted.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
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.


Keep telling yourself that. Having a gay president wouldn't change a damn thing. We already have terrible relations with the muslim community. We don't respect their differences as it is.

If anyone stops voting for a candidate they believe in simply because he is gay they have issues. It speaks volumes of how screwed up the world we live in is.

If you make your decisions based on sexual orientation it is no wonder we are doomed.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by macaronicaesar]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hadrian
would you support homophobics keeping their homophobia to themselves?




What exactly are you asking me here?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Considereing the condition this country is in now, I would be cool with a gay Prez.
Certainly couldn't do any worse,
...but for Pete's sake, just please don't bow!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What exactly are you asking me here?


I thought that was a great question by Hadrian. People don't think a thing of asking gay people to "keep it to themselves", as if it's something that they should be ashamed of, but if we were to ask homophobes to "keep it to themselves" or not voice their opinions of gay people, it's suddenly a whole different thing.

Seems homophobes' freedom of expression is just assumed. But when it comes to gay people's freedom of expression? Nah, they should just "keep it private".


Think about what you're expecting your fellow citizens to do.

[edit on 3/30/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I thought that was a great question by Hadrian. People don't think a thing of asking gay people to "keep it to themselves", as if it's something that they should be ashamed of, but if we were to ask homophobics to "keep it to themselves" or not voice their opinions of gay people, it's suddenly a whole different thing.

Seems homophobics' freedom of expression is just assumed. But when it comes to gay people's freedom of expression? Nah, they should just "keep it private".


Interesting comment indeed
I'm kind of on the fence on that one

it's hard to relate the two a little for me
I kind of see it as apples and oranges

homosexuals, at least at rallies and such, really put their sexuality in front of you.. like really!

homophobics however is a misused word however while homosexual is not. I just mada thread called homosexuality is not a choice and someone said it was a homophobic thread. The fear or hatred of homosexuals had zero relevancy to the thread. I'm sure this is a title that some label others with every hour of everyday somewhere on this planet.

So if you are only talking about let's say conservatives then they are talking about it from a social standpoint.

It's completely different but an argument worth nothing too.
You know what I mean?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by ModernAcademia

homosexuals, at least at rallies and such, really put their sexuality in front of you.. like really!




And once again we're at the point of taking a small sample size and using that as a labeling exercise to draw conclusions. Using the participants at the Gay Pride parades and "rallies and such" as representative of the group as a whole is even less valid (IMHO) than considering the "Wild Spring Break" videos as representative of every 20 year old female.

We all do this to a degree. We assign labels to different groups and then use that as a template for judgment when encountering a person we believe can also have that label applied.

Humans have a much wider variation than that. To say whether or not I'd support an openly gay US President requires much more information. A better statement from my standpoint would be to say that a person's sexual orientation is irrelevant when considering the qualifications for the position. That is, I wouldn't reject a person for consideration as president based solely on whether or not he (or she) was gay.


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



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
it's hard to relate the two a little for me


I understand the difficulty, but I'm certain you could do it if you wanted to.




homosexuals, at least at rallies and such, really put their sexuality in front of you.. like really!


So do heterosexuals. Het men are not at all interested in hiding the fact that they like girls. They whistle, whoop and holler, they strut their stuff, kiss girls, hold hands with them, talk about their wives, kids, lives, etc., and no one would EVER think of telling them to "keep it to themselves".



homophobics however is a misused word


That has absolutely ZERO to do with the point.




Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.


Source

I don't know you very well, but I'm pretty sure I know your position on homosexuals. Whether someone calls you a homophobe or not is totally irrelevant and really, just a way to avoid the discussion of having people 'keep it to themselves". I'm pretty sure you have a negative and prejudiced attitude toward homosexuals, whatever you want to call it.
And you're free to have that. I'm just trying to help you see it from a different perspective.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
And once again we're at the point of taking a small sample size and using that as a labeling exercise to draw conclusions. Using the participants at the Gay Pride parades and "rallies and such" as representative of the group as a whole is even less valid (IMHO) than considering the "Wild Spring Break" videos as representative of every 20 year old female.


So very wrong!
I specifically said at least those at rallies thereby distancing myself from generalizing.

that was my sole purpose in saying speficially those at rallies at least.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Which is also btw why the premise of the "poll" is fatally flawed to begin with ...

I put "poll" in quotations because having looked a little more into it, it is not really a valid poll.

www.cbsnews.com...

It's an internet poll which by definition bears no scientific validity or predictability worth.

In fact it is question 8/10 of rather scattered and unrelated general questions which seems to have been lifted by the OP's source for the sake of sensationalism.

EFSpelling

[edit on 30 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join