CNN A married gay man is running for president. That's a big deal?...Not if you are a DemonRAT!

[Polishprince]

You didn’t watch the announcement video, that’s obvious. He never brought up being gay. A brief flash of him at home with his husband is all it showed. The video mentions him being a veteran, does not talk about him being gay.

Yeah. So a man married to another man isn’t gay. I think it’s safe to presume he is.

Do you feel the same as mdk? Do you think he won’t get the DNC nod because he has a husband instead of a wife (is gay)? Seems otherwise like a good one to promote. Young but not too young. Heartland public servant (purple state votes). Nice face. Just needs DNC promotion like any of them would.

Yes or no on this guy?

Seawitch??

No. I don't believe he will get the nomination because he's a no name mayor from the middle of no where, not because he's gay.

South Bend is the 5th biggest city in all of Indiana, and is the home town of one of America's greatest universities. Hardly "nowhere".

 

[Cecilie1200]

More to the point, he could have started out with a commercial highlighting his political qualifications. He chose to start out highlighting his relationship. I understand why; it generated a lot more press and attention, things that he really needs at the beginning. I'm not even saying it was a bad choice, publicity-wise. I'm just saying I'm tired of Democrats bringing something up, and then acting all butthurt because people actually talk about it.

You didn't watch his announcement video. He didn't highlight his relationship. His husband makes the briefest appearance in the middle.

Yet more irrelevant excuses and tangents. Did he bring it up first? Yes. Are we talking about it because he brought it up first? Yes. Are we going to swallow your bullshit about "We say it, but you can't respond?" Piss off.

You didn’t watch the announcement video, that’s obvious. He never brought up being gay. A brief flash of him at home with his husband is all it showed. The video mentions him being a veteran, does not talk about him being gay.

"He didn't bring up being gay. He just showed himself with his husband. How can you call that "bringing it up" when I VERY CLEARLY am telling you I don't want it to be?"



It's pretty clear I watched it, and you're pissed that I didn't just listen to it. Maybe with a list of "thoughts to have approved by Seabiscuit" next to me.

Your ludicrous claim is that he made being gay central to his campaign. If you HAD watched the video, you couldn't make that claim. So you can try to lie, but its obvious you hadn't watched it when you made your silly initial claim.

"If you disagree with me, that just means you're STUPID!"

Amazingly enough, it's entirely possible for someone to see the exact same information you do, and to STILL DISAGREE WITH YOUR VIEWPOINT. Tell your friends; this is a game-changer!

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn’t watch the announcement video, that’s obvious. He never brought up being gay. A brief flash of him at home with his husband is all it showed. The video mentions him being a veteran, does not talk about him being gay.

Yeah. So a man married to another man isn’t gay. I think it’s safe to presume he is.

Do you feel the same as mdk? Do you think he won’t get the DNC nod because he has a husband instead of a wife (is gay)? Seems otherwise like a good one to promote. Young but not too young. Heartland public servant (purple state votes). Nice face. Just needs DNC promotion like any of them would.

Yes or no on this guy?

Seawitch??

No. I don't believe he will get the nomination because he's a no name mayor from the middle of no where, not because he's gay.

The no-name thing doesn't seem to make a difference to Democrats (nor should it, necessarily). Seems to matter more whether or not they want to hype the person in question. From a strictly political-strategy standpoint, Sil's right and he wouldn't be a bad choice for the Dems.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn’t watch the announcement video, that’s obvious. He never brought up being gay. A brief flash of him at home with his husband is all it showed. The video mentions him being a veteran, does not talk about him being gay.

Yeah. So a man married to another man isn’t gay. I think it’s safe to presume he is.

Do you feel the same as mdk? Do you think he won’t get the DNC nod because he has a husband instead of a wife (is gay)? Seems otherwise like a good one to promote. Young but not too young. Heartland public servant (purple state votes). Nice face. Just needs DNC promotion like any of them would.

Yes or no on this guy?

Seawitch??

No. I don't believe he will get the nomination because he's a no name mayor from the middle of no where, not because he's gay.

South Bend is the 5th biggest city in all of Indiana, and is the home town of one of America's greatest universities. Hardly "nowhere".

Except that anywhere that isn't coastal or pseudo-coastal (Chicago) is nowhere to Democrats.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race for president on Wednesday, announcing his intentions with a video featuring scenes of him and his husband, Chasten, cooking and playing with their dog, Buddy.

Should Buttigieg win his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, he will become the first nominee of a major political party who publicly identifies as gay. If he goes on to defeat President Donald Trump, it'd be a historic win.

Read more at msn.com ...

These candidates pose a real problem for a party that has used race and gender warfare to attract constituents; in the end, they can only accommodate so many of those groups - and those omitted can be hard to placate.

Blacks could have delivered PA, WI, and MI to Hillary - and they didn’t. The party has learned, and I’m curious to see how they deal with the 2020 primaries. They already have white women, Hispanic men, a halfrican woman (Harris), and now a deviant mental case; real problems ahead as they try to keep the freak show together.

so?

I thought conservatives were tolerant.....

you keep SAYING you are TOLERANT and it is the libs/dems who are IN-tolerant.....

so...

what's the problem?

Does it bother you to realize that even modern conservatives are too liberal for you?

MOST conservatives WOULD VOTE for a woman or a black man.....

something they never would have done 20 years ago.

If a gay married male is the best man for the job then why not hire him?

Is his marriage a legally recognized marriage? If so, that’s fascism. No reason people should be forced to subsidize a behavior which at best is personal and at worst exacerbates disease transmission.
Not a good idea to elect a fascist.

Oh, you're concerned about disease? Really? How exactly does not allowing gays to marry prevent disease. Perhaps you would prefer to confine their relationships to anonymous sex in XXX Movie theaters and the bygone bath houses. What do you think that would do for preventing disease?

Also, please explain exactly what same sex marriage is costing you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race for president on Wednesday, announcing his intentions with a video featuring scenes of him and his husband, Chasten, cooking and playing with their dog, Buddy.

Should Buttigieg win his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, he will become the first nominee of a major political party who publicly identifies as gay. If he goes on to defeat President Donald Trump, it'd be a historic win.

Read more at msn.com ...

These candidates pose a real problem for a party that has used race and gender warfare to attract constituents; in the end, they can only accommodate so many of those groups - and those omitted can be hard to placate.

Blacks could have delivered PA, WI, and MI to Hillary - and they didn’t. The party has learned, and I’m curious to see how they deal with the 2020 primaries. They already have white women, Hispanic men, a halfrican woman (Harris), and now a deviant mental case; real problems ahead as they try to keep the freak show together.

so?

I thought conservatives were tolerant.....

you keep SAYING you are TOLERANT and it is the libs/dems who are IN-tolerant.....

so...

what's the problem?

Does it bother you to realize that even modern conservatives are too liberal for you?

MOST conservatives WOULD VOTE for a woman or a black man.....

something they never would have done 20 years ago.

If a gay married male is the best man for the job then why not hire him?

Is his marriage a legally recognized marriage? If so, that’s fascism. No reason people should be forced to subsidize a behavior which at best is personal and at worst exacerbates disease transmission.
Not a good idea to elect a fascist.

Oh, you're concerned about disease? Really? How exactly does not allowing gays to marry prevent disease. Perhaps you would prefer to confine their relationships to anonymous sex in XXX Movie theaters and the bygone bath houses. What do you think that would do for preventing disease?

Also, please explain exactly what same sex marriage is costing you.

The behavior exacerbates disease transmission and legal marriage affords unnecessary tax breaks that have to be covered by the rest of the taxpayers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race for president on Wednesday, announcing his intentions with a video featuring scenes of him and his husband, Chasten, cooking and playing with their dog, Buddy.

Should Buttigieg win his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, he will become the first nominee of a major political party who publicly identifies as gay. If he goes on to defeat President Donald Trump, it'd be a historic win.

Read more at msn.com ...

These candidates pose a real problem for a party that has used race and gender warfare to attract constituents; in the end, they can only accommodate so many of those groups - and those omitted can be hard to placate.

Blacks could have delivered PA, WI, and MI to Hillary - and they didn’t. The party has learned, and I’m curious to see how they deal with the 2020 primaries. They already have white women, Hispanic men, a halfrican woman (Harris), and now a deviant mental case; real problems ahead as they try to keep the freak show together.

so?

I thought conservatives were tolerant.....

you keep SAYING you are TOLERANT and it is the libs/dems who are IN-tolerant.....

so...

what's the problem?

Does it bother you to realize that even modern conservatives are too liberal for you?

MOST conservatives WOULD VOTE for a woman or a black man.....

something they never would have done 20 years ago.

If a gay married male is the best man for the job then why not hire him?

Is his marriage a legally recognized marriage? If so, that’s fascism. No reason people should be forced to subsidize a behavior which at best is personal and at worst exacerbates disease transmission.
Not a good idea to elect a fascist.

Oh, you're concerned about disease? Really? How exactly does not allowing gays to marry prevent disease. Perhaps you would prefer to confine their relationships to anonymous sex in XXX Movie theaters and the bygone bath houses. What do you think that would do for preventing disease?

Also, please explain exactly what same sex marriage is costing you.

The behavior exacerbates disease transmission and legal marriage affords unnecessary tax breaks that have to be covered by the rest of the taxpayers.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people. Married people do not necessarily get tax breaks. They get to file a joint return. Tax breaks are for dependants which both married and single people have. Could you possibly be this stupid?

 

[Polishprince]

Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people.

Do you have a link to document this theorem?


The opposite would seem intuitive to me, when talking about the institution of Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage is a pretty extreme display of camp. Someone who has gone that far would seem to me to be more likely to push the envelope even further in many areas including sexuality.

 

[Silhouette]

Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people.

Do you have a link to document this theorem?


The opposite would seem intuitive to me, when talking about the institution of Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage is a pretty extreme display of camp. Someone who has gone that far would seem to me to be more likely to push the envelope even further in many areas including sexuality.

I saw a study that said 100% of all committed gay men are unfaithful within 5 years or less. And that they pretty much expect it will be that way. Two men who identify by sexuality notorious for promiscuity are a poor prognosis for a committed marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you have a link to document this theorem?

As Marriage Rates Decline, Reports of STDs Rise

 

[Polishprince]

Do you have a link to document this theorem?

As Marriage Rates Decline, Reports of STDs Rise

That document does not reference Gay Marriage specifically. And that's what we're talking about, no?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The opposite would seem intuitive to me, when talking about the institution of Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage is a pretty extreme display of camp. Someone who has gone that far would seem to me to be more likely to push the envelope even further in many areas including sexuality.

Let me tell you something princess. Some people push the envelope on sexuality and some do not. I am a straight guy married to a woman and my wife and I have hosted numerous group sex parties and attended many more . The sex was always safe, Promiscuity is not only a gay thing and it does not necessarily correlate with disease.

 

[Silhouette]

Let me tell you something princess. Some people push the envelope on sexuality and some do not. I am a straight guy married to a woman and my wife and I have hosted numerous group sex parties and attended many more . The sex was always safe, Promiscuity is not only a gay thing and it does not necessarily correlate with disease.

Wow. Ain’t love grand...

When you hit a wall in life, and you will, you will come to understand the emptiness of that lifestyle. You will know that the moral folk who focus on love & avoiding indulgences of all types have a corner on wisdom. Until then you will insist there’s no harm in what you do.

Put another way, if sex was food you would weigh about 500lbs.

 

[g5000]

Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people.

Do you have a link to document this theorem?

It's common sense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people.

Do you have a link to document this theorem?


The opposite would seem intuitive to me, when talking about the institution of Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage is a pretty extreme display of camp. Someone who has gone that far would seem to me to be more likely to push the envelope even further in many areas including sexuality.

I saw a study that said 100% of all committed gay men are unfaithful within 5 years or less. And that they pretty much expect it will be that way. Two men who identify by sexuality notorious for promiscuity are a poor prognosis for a committed marriage.

\\

Yea you saw a study. You also saw a bogyman every time gay is mentioned. You might want to look at this

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Couple_Longevity_Forthcoming_JMF.pdf

Abstract:
I employ a new longitudinal dataset, the How Couples Meet and Stay Together surveys, N=3009,
to generate the first nationally representative comparison of same-sex couple stability and
heterosexual couple stability in the US. I measure the association between marriage (by several
definitions of marriage) and couple longevity for same-sex couples in the US. Reports of same
sex relationship instability in the past were due in part to the low rate of marriages among same
sex couples. After controlling for marriage and marriage-like commitments, the break-up rate for
same-sex couples is comparable to (and not statistically distinguishable from) the break-up rate
for heterosexual couples. I find that same-sex couples who had a marriage-like commitment had
stable unions regardless of government recognition. I explore a variety of predictors of
relationship dissolution, for heterosexual and for same-sex couples.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race for president on Wednesday, announcing his intentions with a video featuring scenes of him and his husband, Chasten, cooking and playing with their dog, Buddy.

Should Buttigieg win his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, he will become the first nominee of a major political party who publicly identifies as gay. If he goes on to defeat President Donald Trump, it'd be a historic win.

Read more at msn.com ...

These candidates pose a real problem for a party that has used race and gender warfare to attract constituents; in the end, they can only accommodate so many of those groups - and those omitted can be hard to placate.

Blacks could have delivered PA, WI, and MI to Hillary - and they didn’t. The party has learned, and I’m curious to see how they deal with the 2020 primaries. They already have white women, Hispanic men, a halfrican woman (Harris), and now a deviant mental case; real problems ahead as they try to keep the freak show together.

so?

I thought conservatives were tolerant.....

you keep SAYING you are TOLERANT and it is the libs/dems who are IN-tolerant.....

so...

what's the problem?

Does it bother you to realize that even modern conservatives are too liberal for you?

MOST conservatives WOULD VOTE for a woman or a black man.....

something they never would have done 20 years ago.

If a gay married male is the best man for the job then why not hire him?

Is his marriage a legally recognized marriage? If so, that’s fascism. No reason people should be forced to subsidize a behavior which at best is personal and at worst exacerbates disease transmission.
Not a good idea to elect a fascist.

Oh, you're concerned about disease? Really? How exactly does not allowing gays to marry prevent disease. Perhaps you would prefer to confine their relationships to anonymous sex in XXX Movie theaters and the bygone bath houses. What do you think that would do for preventing disease?

Also, please explain exactly what same sex marriage is costing you.

The behavior exacerbates disease transmission and legal marriage affords unnecessary tax breaks that have to be covered by the rest of the taxpayers.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people. Married people do not necessarily get tax breaks. They get to file a joint return. Tax breaks are for dependants which both married and single people have. Could you possibly be this stupid?

Legal marriage provides tax breaks unafforded to single people.
Promiscuous and frequent anal sex associated with male homosexuality is way more risky than sex of average heterosexuals.
Homo males are at least (and likely higher) 300 times more likely to transmit HIV than hetero males. CDC stats. That is a health crisis.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you have a link to document this theorem?

As Marriage Rates Decline, Reports of STDs Rise

That document does not reference Gay Marriage specifically. And that's what we're talking about, no?

It refers to marriage in general and there is no reason to believe that gay marriage is different, no?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let me tell you something princess. Some people push the envelope on sexuality and some do not. I am a straight guy married to a woman and my wife and I have hosted numerous group sex parties and attended many more . The sex was always safe, Promiscuity is not only a gay thing and it does not necessarily correlate with disease.

Wow. Ain’t love grand...

When you hit a wall in life, and you will, you will come to understand the emptiness of that lifestyle. You will know that the moral folk who focus on love & avoiding indulgences of all types have a corner on wisdom. Until then you will insist there’s no harm in what you do.

Put another way, if sex was food you would weigh about 500lbs.

I think you're jealous !! Not to mention puritanical.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

so?

I thought conservatives were tolerant.....

you keep SAYING you are TOLERANT and it is the libs/dems who are IN-tolerant.....

so...

what's the problem?

Does it bother you to realize that even modern conservatives are too liberal for you?

MOST conservatives WOULD VOTE for a woman or a black man.....

something they never would have done 20 years ago.

If a gay married male is the best man for the job then why not hire him?

Is his marriage a legally recognized marriage? If so, that’s fascism. No reason people should be forced to subsidize a behavior which at best is personal and at worst exacerbates disease transmission.
Not a good idea to elect a fascist.

Oh, you're concerned about disease? Really? How exactly does not allowing gays to marry prevent disease. Perhaps you would prefer to confine their relationships to anonymous sex in XXX Movie theaters and the bygone bath houses. What do you think that would do for preventing disease?

Also, please explain exactly what same sex marriage is costing you.

The behavior exacerbates disease transmission and legal marriage affords unnecessary tax breaks that have to be covered by the rest of the taxpayers.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Unmarried people have more risky sex than married people. Married people do not necessarily get tax breaks. They get to file a joint return. Tax breaks are for dependants which both married and single people have. Could you possibly be this stupid?

Legal marriage provides tax breaks unafforded to single people.
Promiscuous and frequent anal sex associated with male homosexuality is way more risky than sex of average heterosexuals.
Homo males are at least (and likely higher) 300 times more likely to transmit HIV than hetero males. CDC stats. That is a health crisis.

You sure seem to know a lot about anal sex Dude.

 

[Lesh]

Put another way, if sex was food you would weigh about 500lbs.

My ex-wife was sexually anorexic..

Note..."ex"