quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkMsSusan

Being lesbian myself I find that anyone in the bdsm community thinking that they have a right to even say this when their lifestyle would be put to task in every aspect of human relations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CucholdsLady

I don't care what they do in their bedroom as long as they are not violating other people, killing, or screwing the public out of their rights, but are actually leading the nation into a better future and are not war mongers....hmmm...guess that means I am anti-republican....LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: rc4otkVA

I'm really surprised that in this day in age, on this website, that anyone thinks that the quality of who's in charge of our country has anything to do with what that person likes to do in bed. You don't think that's the pot calling the kettle black?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

mnottertail: Sometimes, I just want to reach through the screen and hug you.

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69

I find it laughable that people get upset about concepts but allow genecide to continue because they are too f*cking lazy to get off their asses and do the right thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: boy43

I dont know about states specially, but in all countries would be a surprise, gays arent still, as any other minorities, considered as normal people in the XXI century.
But i am sure the politics will put any woman/man as candidate as far as they have huge options to be elected, no matter how is She/he. Besides i think that to have a president of other isnt really significant, but the economic and social groups that suport the candidate and to whom the president will be looking at during the years it is in the power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69

Do you feel that a gay person should be the President of The United States?

I do not.

It goes against everything the Unted States and the Founding Fathers established and outlined in their writings.

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

quote:

ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl
please direct me to which part of the U.S. Constitution where it states that a gay/bi/transgender/lesbian cannot be president.  also please direct me to the part where it goes against what the Founding Fathers outlined. 

i suppose you're a male who believes women don't have the right to vote or that all persons aren't created equal if you really want to take what the Founding Fathers actually thought deeper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rc4otkVA

I'm not saying I haven't met some oddly closeminded people here.

I'm saying that this site is full of people from all walks of life. Many of them lead successful business lives in public, and what they like to do behind closed doors has nothing to do with that. This includes average joes, CEOs, and even some in politics. Their sexual interests don't have anything with their abilities to be good or suitable leaders. I don't see how this is any different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl

keep just wondering about differences of my avatar and picture ...i don't have to explain anything to you here.  the next time you wonder, send a note.

Seems misleading at best as it looks like NOTHING like you in ANY way....
 

still seems sexist to me that you feel a gay/bi or whatever their sexual orientation cannot perform the duties and job as president.

Well that is your perception of what you thought I said.
 
Bottom line United States is NOT ready for it.
 
Period.


if Hillary was a bi or lesbian,  would you still vote for her? 


Based on what she has done..havng done work for her hubby...yes...
 
Just who have you voted for in the past or do you vote?
 
 

i highly doubt it because as according to you, it goes against what the US Constitution outlined and Founding Fathers (you so adamently pointed out to me) had written. 


Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person.

 

i'm still waiting for you to clarify at which point of the U.S. Constitution where it states that a bi/gay/transgender/lesbian cannot be elected as president to support your arrogant reasoning. 

There is nothing holy nor sacred to those who have abandoned God and reason in order to follow their perverse desires.
François Rabelais (1494–1553), French author, evangelist



does it really what sexual orientation a presidential candidate is?

Yes if there is a bias toward what policies are enacted or prejudice towards. Yes.
 



does there need to be an amendment stating that ALL future leaders of this free need to be a moral Christian, married with no checkered past, drug and alcohol-free, english speaking American citizen and family man?

Now that is a thought... I will get right on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69

So do you feel there is no possiblity to a conflict of interest regarding their sexual proclivities?

So are you sayig that knowing someone enjoyts the same activities as you do you do not favor or show a partiality to them in public or private dealings or communications?


Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

You asked a question, I answered it. 

Well I am glad you actually went back and editted it...so really you are answering it twice



am not quite sure how to interpret your responses,

That is a good start...an intelligent look at it is always a strat rather than falling back on the emotion aspect.


and think they really only serve to bolster what I said to begin with, actually, in many ways. As far as what you think I know, I read 3 major news magazines a week, so I consider myself fairly well in formed (at least, above average, maybe). Sorry if that's not enough. My Oops.

I am not going to bore you with the reams of paper I read...it really doesn't matter...what does matter is what We are doing about it.
 
Through discussion there is examination and reaffirmation of core values.
 
Politcal and social rammifications happen all the time due to peoples acceptance and complacency
 
 


Your responses (to me anyway) also seemed to completely change the original topic, IMO. In order (for me) to be able to have a discussion, there must be an original topic, that one sticks with, and discusses, IMO. Your responses were kind of all over the place (but maybe that was just my interpretation of it). Again, I am not trying to be insulting. Still, I find it hard to discuss anything, when that happens.


Yes it may be hard to read but there are so many examples of injustices and it seemed better to put them all in my post rather than flood the forums and have mod 11 message Me with a daily tidbit.
 
 


IMO, you can't debate someone's opinions, you can only disagree, (or agree) which is what you really are doing (always disagreeing). Which is fine, I suppose, But - IMO a real debate (or discussion)  usually includes facts, site references, etc.

Yes I do follow a drummer of a different calling...nothing wrong with that as I never have been an aimless follower...yes I play devils advocate to stregnthen My core values....and I can do it is a socratic manner where some stoop to mudslinging and name calling simply because of lack of social graces.
 
I have not found you ever to be in that company.
 
Yes it was meant to get you thinking.
 
Obviously it has made some start to think and with a little bit of practice they will get good at it.
 

You did toss a few of those in during your responses, but - each of those responses is a topic unto itself - and could be debated for eons, and all of those responses were more opinions, not facts. This will probably serve to confuse respondents, or throw the thread off-track (it did me, anyway). So, yeah, you'll "win" any "debate"  - via default, actually, which isn't a fair and square way to do it, IMO.

Not looking for a "win" and so what if  each reply is a subject unto itself?
 
Is there a time limit imposed here?...just limitation of some attention spands...
 
Is there a posting limit imposed?...not that I am aware of...
 
Confused? Call Me on it and I will attempt to clarrify.
 
If I made a mistake I will admit to it.
 
But do not expect Me to just sit here and take the garbage some spewn forth...I am in real face to face this way so this is no cyber facade.
 
 

It can pay to at least aknowledging another POV, even if one isn't in total agreement with it. Not much of this appears to be happening, because your POV is very polarized to begin with - but maybe it's not intentional, I have no idea, really.

What is the topic? I don't understand what the topic is, really. It is actually a very polarized opinion, IMO, not a topic of discussion in which POVs will be given equal weight, or discussed in a balanced way. There doesn't appear to be much (if any) room for discussion, in  fact.

Sorry you feel that way but if you didn't you wouldn't of changed your original closed remark to explain all this.
 
 


Is the topic is really that times have changed? Well, yes they have. Of course they have. And.....? Not much to debate there, really, IMO. I am not trying to hurt your feelings, I am just not understanding what is going on.

I answered the original question, though. At least I thought I did. I am really pretty confused about what happened, actually. But I am not trying to be disrespectful, truly.

I never thought you were dismissive  (well yes I did) but not disrespectful at all.
 
Thanks for coming back...good minds are hard to find.... just ask Dan Quayle