First openly gay presidential Canidate!!!!!

[Mytical]

The day we no longer care the color of a persons skin, the day we no longer care what sex a person is, the day that it doesn't matter what sexuality a person has. That day will be a great day.

It shouldn't matter that a person is gay..or black, or female, or from mars and has pink pokadotted skin. What should matter is are they able to do the job. The best person should get the job, but we all know that is not what happens. Media hype gets in the way, the water is so muddy that we can't tell up from down let alone who is the best candidate.

[lordlundar]

and do you have any proof of this?

Right here at 5:18 in.

Despite what you think about Jon Stewart, it doesn't change the fact the question of how the future RNC chairman was going to fight gay marriage was brought up as important.

[daleduke17]

And this is a big deal how? He's just another candidate. Just like Obama was back in 2008. People are just going to vote for this guy based on him being gay.

We saw (or are seeing) how well voting for someone for some superficial reason is going right now.

[FArchivist]

We saw (or are seeing) how well voting for someone for some superficial reason is going right now.

*raises a brow*
Clarify that sentence there? Exactly what do you mean?

[daleduke17]

*raises a brow*
Clarify that sentence there? Exactly what do you mean?

A lot of people were shown on the news stating they had voted for Obama merely because he was black. Which, to me, is a very superficial reason to vote for someone to lead a major country. This guy who just announced his candidacy would have the same effect, just cross out "black" and put "gay" in its place. So, we wouldn't get the best candidate, just the more contemporary one.

Now, if Obama had been the best candidate, and people didn't harp on the fact he was black and make that his main selling point, then this wouldn't be an issue.

[AdminAssistant]

Thing is, we aren't saying "people will vote for him because he's gay." The issue is, that he won't be able to secure his party's nomination because he's gay, because Republicans as a whole* are anti-LGBT and anti-equal rights. He's running on a platform that is contrary to the party whose banner that he wants to run under. It doesn't make sense.

*There are exceptions, YMMV.

[Greenday]

Thing is, we aren't saying "people will vote for him because he's gay."

I'll say it. There are plenty of people who would only vote for him for he was gay, just like there were plenty of people who voted for Obama because he was black. Then again, there were also plenty of people who voted for McCain because he was white.

[Mr. Anubite]

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

In my experience, usually. However, it depends on which area the person is conservative in. For example, my parents are rather Libertarian. They are conservative on the fiscal issues, but they also believe very strongly in Gay rights. It helps that my Dad's sister and son are both Gay

He does vote Republican, though; then he whines to me about how unfair it is that I can't get married.

[AdminAssistant]

There are plenty of people who would only vote for him for he was gay

Most Republicans/conservatives won't vote for him because he's gay and even the most pro-LGBT rights liberal will NOT vote for a Republican/conservative. So...there's that.

Again - I really don't understand LGBT Republicans (or women for that matter). Being conservative, okay. Libertarian? Mkay. But signing up to be a card-carrying member of the GOP, an organization that wants to strip you (or deny you) of your basic rights? WHY?

[Greenday]

Most Republicans/conservatives won't vote for him because he's gay and even the most pro-LGBT rights liberal will NOT vote for a Republican/conservative. So...there's that.

A lot would if he's openly gay and the whole reason he seems to be running is that he wants to promote LGBT rights.

[FArchivist]

A lot of people were shown on the news stating they had voted for Obama merely because he was black....Now, if Obama had been the best candidate, and people didn't harp on the fact he was black and make that his main selling point, then this wouldn't be an issue.

1) I never encountered a period during the Obama campaign where the campaign made "He's BLACK!" a selling point. Or the Democratic Party. Or anyone outside of a few meaningless blogs.

2) Black people are remarkably tired of being told they voted for Obama because he was black.

3) Aside from the paid shills who I presumed were put-up jobs, I haven't been able to locate anyone who ACTUALLY voted for Obama because he's black. On the other hand, I found a whole helluva lotta people who voted against him because, y'know, we can't have Negro in the White House! It wouldn't be the WHITE House anymore!

I'm sorry, but I find the whole people voted for Obama because he's black myth to be some of the most fallacious bullcrap to be spewed across the internet, along with the whole Birther horse-hockey. The numbers don't support the myth. Research doesn't support the myth.

There are plenty of people who would only vote for him for he was gay, just like there were plenty of people who voted for Obama because he was black.

Citation needed, preferably an academic study on the subject with double-blind testing.

[Greenday]

Citation needed, preferably an academic study on the subject with double-blind testing.

You're joking, right?

[FArchivist]

You're joking, right?

Not really, no. I hate anecdotal, "everyone knows", and "common sense" information. Common sense is most often absolutely wrong. "everyone knows" usually isn't and is also most often absolutely wrong. Anecdotes aren't reliable information either.

Really, with the internet we can Google up college-level references and citations on command. There's no reason why we shouldn't, either.

[Greenday]

Not really, no. I hate anecdotal, "everyone knows", and "common sense" information. Common sense is most often absolutely wrong. "everyone knows" usually isn't and is also most often absolutely wrong. Anecdotes aren't reliable information either.

Really, with the internet we can Google up college-level references and citations on command. There's no reason why we shouldn't, either.

This is like having a conversation about gravity and someone stepping in and saying, "I need a citation for this that there is a thing called gravity." A lot of people at my college voted for Obama because they wanted to be part of voting in the first black president. They couldn't tell you anything about how either candidate's opinions on various issues, but that's it. Then there were people, who came right out in public and said they weren't voting for some black guy to run our country. Videos of racist people clearly stating they wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black were all over the internet during the campaign period. This meant they were voting for McCain because he was white and not black. There were plenty of open groups during the time who admitted they were voting for their candidate because of the color of their skin.

This doesn't mean everyone voted because of this, but there were plenty of people who were very public about doing so. There are plenty of people racist enough who will vote for a person based on the color of their skin. Logically, it'd follow that there are plenty of bigoted people who would vote against a person because they are gay. In fact, it's been happening to gay politicians for years, Harvey Milk being a prime example.

[AdminAssistant]

Logically, it'd follow that there are plenty of bigoted people who would vote against kill a person because they are gay. In fact, it's been happening to gay politicians for years, Harvey Milk being a prime example.

Fixed that for ya.