Does a gay person have the right to be President?

[rjstew317]

Gets my vote for question of the week!



(Three pages later and nobody wants to touch it)

i'll touch that one. i say yes, as an individual i have the right to discriminate against anything i don't like or agree with.

 

[Expat]

i'll touch that one. i say yes, as an individual i have the right to discriminate against anything i don't like or agree with.

But we all know the PC police want to stamp out the free exercise of &#^#$).

 

[nawainwright]

If a person's preferences matter when they are a soldier, then surely preferences matter when they are the Commander-in-Chief.

Aren't soldiers afraid that a gay President might come molest them in a foxhole on one of his surprise visits to the Iraq? Maybe chase some Marines around with a wet towel in the shower?

There were female troops who worried about that with slick willy

 

[clgustaveson]

Does a gay person have the right to be President?

If a gay person can be voted into the office of President of the United States, they he/she becomes Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.

Certainly if you can be the leader of the U.S. Military, you can enlist in the U.S. Military.

I think logically you cannot support the former without supporting the latter.

Discuss.

Depends on his* birthdate and where he was on that day...

*Women can be gay too... but I'd prefer they continue making videos and refrain from becoming president.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Slow news day under the bridge?

 

[Disposable Heart]

Without words, I don't know whether to throw up on my keyboard or grab a box of tissues...

 

[Expat]

*Women can be gay too... but I'd prefer they continue making videos and refrain from becoming president.

Why is it all of them I see in real life never look like the ones in the videos... the ones I see all look like they could whip my butt.

 

[4sarge]

Does a gay person have the right to be President?

James Buchanan, first Gay President

For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., before his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, Alabama Senator William Rufus King.[45][46] King became Vice President under Franklin Pierce. He became ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan's and King's close relationship prompted Andrew Jackson to call King "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy", while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife."[47] Some of the contemporary press also speculated about Buchanan's and King's relationship. The two men's nieces destroyed their uncles' correspondence, leaving some questions about their relationship; but the length and intimacy of surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship",[47] and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate.[48] In May 1844, during one of King's absences that resulted from King's appointment as minister to France, Buchanan wrote to a Mrs. Roosevelt, "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 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."[49][50][51]
Circumstances surrounding Buchanan's and King's close emotional ties have led to speculation that Buchanan was homosexual.[47] Buchanan's correspondence during this period with Thomas Kittera, however, mentions his romance with Mary K. Snyder. In Buchanan's letter to Mrs. Francis Preston Blair, he declines an invitation and expresses an expectation of marriage.[52] The only President to remain a bachelor, Buchanan turned to Harriet Lane, an orphaned niece, whom he had earlier adopted, to act as his official hostess.

 

[jedi]

Does a gay person have the right to be President?

If a gay person can be voted into the office of President of the United States, they he/she becomes Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.

Certainly if you can be the leader of the U.S. Military, you can enlist in the U.S. Military.

I think logically you cannot support the former without supporting the latter.

Discuss.

Your logic is flaw. The "Commander-In-Chief" while the highest authority in the US military is NOT part of the military (ie. that position is not a solider position) but instead housed by a civilian. The Chain of Command is even more muddy since it goes.

CIC -> Secretarty of Defense (another civilian) > ten Unified Combatant Commands the US forced have.

The Joint Chief of Staff BTW are not in this COC as they do not command any mil forces.

 

[96firephoenix]

does a straight person have the right to be freaked out by homosexuals and not want to associate with people who actively practice that behaviour while they are practicing it? I think so.

does that mean that someone should let that cloud their judgement as to whether someone is qualified to be president? I think not.

personally, I don't give a **** who/what the president is so long as he or she does what is good and right for this country. I think that homosexuality is disordered and unnatural but I also think that whether someone prefers sausage to taco doesn't affect how the country ought to be run. If someone is in line with how I think the country ought to be run, what gives if there's a man in office and a first gentleman?

 

[ghostinthewood]

Does a gay person have the right to be President?

If a gay person can be voted into the office of President of the United States, they he/she becomes Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.

Certainly if you can be the leader of the U.S. Military, you can enlist in the U.S. Military.

I think logically you cannot support the former without supporting the latter.

Discuss.

I don't have time to read through the whole thread yet, but this is a great argument.

 

[MinuteMan47]

You are using sex with minors as a comparison.

I do not think anyone is advocating sex with minors is ok. It was back in that time because the average life exp was around 45 for males IIRC. The point was that our perception of moral issues is ingrained into us buy our upbringing and society during that time.
Truth is a mans morality changes when he becomes a father! Be honest guys don't we all attempt to keep our boys from treating girls the way we did in our teens? I know I work very hard at keeping my girls away from guys just like I was between puberty and marriage!

I never said anyone was advocating sex with minors, but I did say that it was being used as a comparison of being the same as a gay President.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Why is it all of them I see in real life never look like the ones in the videos... the ones I see all look like they could whip my butt.

Go to Bloomington. Thats where Indiana herds them der liberals.

No but for real...

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I believe its a personal opinion. By not voting for someone that is gay, I am exercising my right to opinion. I also question their decision making on moral grounds.
Many years ago homosexuality was social no-no, now it's becoming more commonplace. Long ago and stgill currerntly, sex with minors was and is considered extremely bad. How much longer until this "progressive" way of thinking, eats away at our current veiwpoint. Ever hear of the Overton Window theory?(not the book by Glenn Beck)

That is the most idiotic argument against gay rights you will ever hear. Go think of a legitimate reason and come back.

Do you want to go back to not allowing women or blacks equal rights. Its called being tolerant of other people. The ironic thing is the people who are anti gay the most are the religious people. Those are the ones who are supposed to be taught tolerance and being kind to your neighbor. Those rules only apply if you believe in the same god apparently.

 

[ghostinthewood]

That is the most idiotic argument against gay rights you will ever hear. Go think of a legitimate reason and come back.

Do you want to go back to not allowing women or blacks equal rights. Its called being tolerant of other people. The ironic thing is the people who are anti gay the most are the religious people. Those are the ones who are supposed to be taught tolerance and being kind to your neighbor. Those rules only apply if you believe in the same god apparently.

Especially when a lot of the justifications come from the Old Testament and I see a lot of people picking and choosing which rules from the Old Testament they follow (assuming they're even getting the correct translations, let alone interpretations). However, thats for another forum. =p

 

[grizman]

I never said anyone was advocating sex with minors, but I did say that it was being used as a comparison of being the same as a gay President.

I did not say you were either. Was using it to point out that socially acceptible behavior changes over time. Sometimes for the better, like children not getting married young, sometimes for the worse!

 

[ghostinthewood]

There are always reasons for social changes though. Like tattoos becoming more acceptable, interracial marriage, etc. Most of them have to do with the death of certain stereotypes...Hmm...

For example, I work at a Christian Tattoo Shop. Some less informed people of yonder years would think that tattoos are sinful, or only bikers and con's have tattoos. Nowadays, any person with any sort of proper education knows neither of those are true. Tattoos are more acceptable. It isn't such a testament to someone's character nowadays as it is to professionalism of certain jobs (although some more narrow minded people would beg to differ).

Building more on that, my boss used to work for the schools as a sign language interpreter, another coworker family used to be missionaries in Mexico, his fiance used to print t shirts, the co-owner used to part of the Knox County reserve, and I'm a student at VU for Homeland Security. No con's here. =p

Building on the interracial marriage thing too, my gf is a Closser (German) and I'm a McCormick (not mack, Irish) so I don't think thats a big deal either...

As far as pedphilia goes, thats a strawman argument if I ever saw one...

 

[rockhopper46038]

You know, way back on page 1 when I argued that regardless of the underlying question, the logic was flawed that the President (in his/her capacity as Commander-in-Chief) would automatically be conferred the qualifications to enlist in the armed forces, I thought about stating that the Commander-in-Chief was a civilian position, not a military one. Another poster did make that assertion, and although I have always thought/believed that (and still feel that way), the searches I have done today of the Constitution and the discussions of the Framers do not make that a clear distinction, and in most cases the Framer's records of their discussions actually clearly state that the Commander-in-Chief is the "General of the generals", and "unless surpassed in generalship, shall command the forces"...now my curiosity is piqued. Does anyone have a reference that definitively calls the Commander-in-Chief position a civilian position? There is no question that the military is subservient to the Civilian authority. That is clearly the intent of the Framers, as evidenced throughout the Federalist papers; but now I want to SEE where the Commander-in-Chief is defined as a non-military position. Sorry about the thread jack, but anybody have a citation?

 

[Pocketman]

You know, way back on page 1 when I argued that regardless of the underlying question, the logic was flawed that the President (in his/her capacity as Commander-in-Chief) would automatically be conferred the qualifications to enlist in the armed forces, I thought about stating that the Commander-in-Chief was a civilian position, not a military one. Another poster did make that assertion, and although I have always thought/believed that (and still feel that way), the searches I have done today of the Constitution and the discussions of the Framers do not make that a clear distinction, and in most cases the Framer's records of their discussions actually clearly state that the Commander-in-Chief is the "General of the generals", and "unless surpassed in generalship, shall command the forces"...now my curiosity is piqued. Does anyone have a reference that definitively calls the Commander-in-Chief position a civilian position? There is no question that the military is subservient to the Civilian authority. That is clearly the intent of the Framers, as evidenced throughout the Federalist papers; but now I want to SEE where the Commander-in-Chief is defined as a non-military position. Sorry about the thread jack, but anybody have a citation?

U.S. Constitution
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ..."

 

[ruger1800]

Today the dadt policy was repealed in 60 days gays will be able to inlist and serve openly.
I would vote for a gay president just to anger the islamic world.