Dowd-A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not- Wasn't this question answered?

[Mr. Shaman]

Dowd: A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?

I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. “It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,” he said. “It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.”
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, he added, “it’s not clear that a gay president could use federal funds to buy his husband dinner. Would his partner have to pay rent in the White House? There would be no Secret Service protection for the paramour.”


​

What a fucking bigot. Why does Frank automatically think of gay men when asked this question?

Because he didn't (equally) include the lesbian-perspective....as if he could....he should be considered a bigot?????

You (obviously) forget. Only "conservatives" are capable of speaking for other-people. It's one o' their "magical" (no doubt, God-given) skills.

​

I would bet that a lesbian couple would be able to win half the male votes simply by kissing on Prime Time TV.

Aw, c'mon....you sound like someone who'd know....that sophomoric-herd (who'd get excited over a lesbian-couple) is already committed to Sister Sarah. ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We already had a gay president... Buchanan.

Correction: He was never elected.......

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We already had a gay president... Buchanan.

That's what some historians say...

One has to wonder what future historians will make of Papa Obama's insistence of putting people like Kevin Jennings in power
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Picks a fellow community organizer, Kevin Jennings a Fistgate supporter, as Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools or Truth is stranger than Fiction.

Jennings' puts on his resume his organization's role in the Fistgate Incident:
Wikipedia: Fistgate was a political controversy in Massachusetts in the early 2000s related to the proposed teaching of sexual education in public schools. The scandal involved issues offree speech, privacy and proper conduct in education.

Whew!!!!!

Your envy is showing.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Don't get me wrong here Comrades. I support Liberty and Each's Right to have the opportunity to live their life to maximum potential. Don't confuse that with me being interested in any movement destructive to free will and self determination, or me wanting to take long warm showers with you. That ain't happening. I support each of us being true to who we are, not imposing will on others. The world is an imperfect play ground, all of us having baggage and shit to work out or through.

Agree, Libertarian calls for allowing each their own as long- assuming legal.

Of course, Marriage is still between a man a women. Allow for civil contract- sure. Gov't should be out of the marriage business (tax breaks and all)

What if a church wanted to marry two men? Would you be ok with that? There are plenty of Churches that support Gay Marriage.

I think they're required to get a Certified Waiver, from God.....that's authenticity can only be verified by the nearest-evangelical. ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm often amazed at the power of scapegoating. Evil requires a scapegoat for without them the mirror becomes a problem. Scapegoats can be religion, ethnicity, racial, class, or even the people who live across the tracks. Oddly even those who require help become scapegoats, especially in politics and economics. Something bad will surely happen, and when it does we know whose fault it is. Interesting phenomenon and one I would think is related to the conspiratorial nature of man. Causes must have culprits.

.....And, "conservatives" must create their Opposition (See: Frank Luntz)....seeing-as-how, dealing with real-people & real-issues is much-too-troublesome (for them)

....unless there's some-kind-o' SEX involved!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who cares if our leaders are gay or straight?

Only those who can't figure-out how to come-out....without (also) whacking their ca$h-cow base.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm often amazed at the power of scapegoating. Evil requires a scapegoat for without them the mirror becomes a problem. Scapegoats can be religion, ethnicity, racial, class, or even the people who live across the tracks. Oddly even those who require help become scapegoats, especially in politics and economics. Something bad will surely happen, and when it does we know whose fault it is. Interesting phenomenon and one I would think is related to the conspiratorial nature of man. Causes must have culprits.


Scapegoats

"In most of mankind's history, one of our more destructive propensities has been the need to find easy scapegoats whenever our lives become difficult. This is a process that the more radical leaders in each era have found very useful. It enables the few in power to distract the majority's attention away from the true causes of their distress, which is almost always the leaders themselves, and onto whatever minority these leaders believe are currently distrusted or disliked or that they can convince the many to distrust or dislike. The usual victims the leaders choose are the weak or defenseless or simply the minorities."

Is that like you scapegoating anyone who disagrees with you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't get me wrong here Comrades. I support Liberty and Each's Right to have the opportunity to live their life to maximum potential. Don't confuse that with me being interested in any movement destructive to free will and self determination, or me wanting to take long warm showers with you. That ain't happening. I support each of us being true to who we are, not imposing will on others. The world is an imperfect play ground, all of us having baggage and shit to work out or through.

Agree, Libertarian calls for allowing each their own as long- assuming legal.

Of course, Marriage is still between a man a women. Allow for civil contract- sure. Gov't should be out of the marriage business (tax breaks and all).

A marriage-contract isn't a civil contract?????

You (supposed) traditionalists need to get-over the idea you own Marriage (as some kind o' Divine Right).

As hard as it might be (for you to believe), Marriage isn't another o' your Private Clubs.

​

Marriage has been around a lot longer than any government's that sanction it. I think that makes you the one that has things backwards. People do not need the government's permission to marry, and your sanctioning of the ability of the government to interfere in people's lives needs to stop. One of these days people will wake up and kick the government out of their lives, and you will be sitting there looking confused because you will still think it is a good idea for the government to control people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dowd: A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?

I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. “It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,” he said. “It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.”
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, he added, “it’s not clear that a gay president could use federal funds to buy his husband dinner. Would his partner have to pay rent in the White House? There would be no Secret Service protection for the paramour.”


​

What a fucking bigot. Why does Frank automatically think of gay men when asked this question?

Because he didn't (equally) include the lesbian-perspective....as if he could....he should be considered a bigot?????

You (obviously) forget. Only "conservatives" are capable of speaking for other-people. It's one o' their "magical" (no doubt, God-given) skills.

​

I would bet that a lesbian couple would be able to win half the male votes simply by kissing on Prime Time TV.

Aw, c'mon....you sound like someone who'd know....that sophomoric-herd (who'd get excited over a lesbian-couple) is already committed to Sister Sarah. ​

No, he is a bigot because he assumed that only a man could get elected as president. I think that makes you the one who is attempting to speak for others, again. Just like you did with your attempt to make a funny about Sarah, you really need to get over your obsession with her. Even if she leaves Todd she won't pay any attention to you.

 

[rdean]

We have an openly gay mayor here in Houston, it has never even been an issue. She was city controller before, she did a good job. In the campaign, it came up very briefly, the press stated early on Annise Parker has a girl friend she lives with. Most folks looked at it and said, "Yea, but can she govern effectively?". Her partner goes out with her, was on the stage for her acceptance speech and swearing in. There is nothing overt, but its right there. I have never heard anyone in Houston mention it in conversation. I'm proud of Houston for their objective approach.

I wonder if Liz Cheney and her partner ever on stage at the Republican conventions?

 

[midcan5]

Is that like you scapegoating anyone who disagrees with you?

Interesting question, what is scapegoating and how does it differ from analysis, stereotyping, name calling, or just simply calling a spade a spade? You need to give me example of scapegoating, I may not agree. But I'll think about it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmus7clJTM[/ame]

 

[Neotrotsky]

Don't get me wrong here Comrades. I support Liberty and Each's Right to have the opportunity to live their life to maximum potential. Don't confuse that with me being interested in any movement destructive to free will and self determination, or me wanting to take long warm showers with you. That ain't happening. I support each of us being true to who we are, not imposing will on others. The world is an imperfect play ground, all of us having baggage and shit to work out or through.

Agree, Libertarian calls for allowing each their own as long- assuming legal.

Of course, Marriage is still between a man a women. Allow for civil contract- sure. Gov't should be out of the marriage business (tax breaks and all).

A marriage-contract isn't a civil contract?????

You (supposed) traditionalists need to get-over the idea you own Marriage (as some kind o' Divine Right).

As hard as it might be (for you to believe), Marriage isn't another o' your Private Clubs.

​

You are correct that I misspoke and should have said "civil union".
This is the more common expression

Traditionalist?

Nor does marriage belong to the gov't

 

[Neotrotsky]

Don't get me wrong here Comrades. I support Liberty and Each's Right to have the opportunity to live their life to maximum potential. Don't confuse that with me being interested in any movement destructive to free will and self determination, or me wanting to take long warm showers with you. That ain't happening. I support each of us being true to who we are, not imposing will on others. The world is an imperfect play ground, all of us having baggage and shit to work out or through.

Agree, Libertarian calls for allowing each their own as long- assuming legal.

Of course, Marriage is still between a man a women. Allow for civil contract- sure. Gov't should be out of the marriage business (tax breaks and all)

What if a church wanted to marry two men? Would you be ok with that? There are plenty of Churches that support Gay Marriage.

Sure- why not. As long as it is not being mandated by gov't

However, attempts by any group to redefine something does not mean that it will be the common and accepted definition for it.

I suppose a church could offer to marry someone to their dog and call it a marriage. It does not make it so in the majority.


Again, tax breaks and all, the gov't should really be out of the marriage business.

 

[beowolfe]

Dowd: A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?

I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. “It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,” he said. “It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.”
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, he added, “it’s not clear that a gay president could use federal funds to buy his husband dinner. Would his partner have to pay rent in the White House? There would be no Secret Service protection for the paramour.”



​

Baby steps.....

You're waaay late. We've already had a gay POTUS and it didn't destroy the country.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Dowd: A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?

I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. “It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,” he said. “It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.”
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, he added, “it’s not clear that a gay president could use federal funds to buy his husband dinner. Would his partner have to pay rent in the White House? There would be no Secret Service protection for the paramour.”



​

Baby steps.....

You're waaay late. We've already had a gay POTUS and it didn't destroy the country.

You mean Lincoln? His speculation is the most obvious in history I think, and it would give me yet another reason to be proud of him.

 

[beowolfe]

Baby steps.....

You're waaay late. We've already had a gay POTUS and it didn't destroy the country.

You mean Lincoln? His speculation is the most obvious in history I think, and it would give me yet another reason to be proud of him.

No, I don't mean Lincoln. I mean Buchanan.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

You're waaay late. We've already had a gay POTUS and it didn't destroy the country.

You mean Lincoln? His speculation is the most obvious in history I think, and it would give me yet another reason to be proud of him.

No, I don't mean Lincoln. I mean Buchanan.

Oh........much less exciting.

 

[beowolfe]

You mean Lincoln? His speculation is the most obvious in history I think, and it would give me yet another reason to be proud of him.

No, I don't mean Lincoln. I mean Buchanan.

Oh........much less exciting.

Only because you didn't know. But probably no more or less exciting that the next gay POTUS will be. But there will be more rancour because you'll know.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

No, I don't mean Lincoln. I mean Buchanan.

Oh........much less exciting.

Only because you didn't know. But probably no more or less exciting that the next gay POTUS will be. But there will be more rancour because you'll know.

Could be me.................................