Smallville said:
I'm glad Dallas wouldn't elect someone not running on a conservative and family value platform, gay or straight.
I have nothing against homosexuals, I don't agree with the campaign above that has to mention he's a homosexual. I believe homosexuals should be allowed civil unions, and marriage for those churches who are willing to do ceremonies.
Irvine511 said:
Smallville said:others seem to think that and have twisted my statements.
LemonMelon said:Flaunting your sexuality is completely unimportant in regards to your actual ability to run a city. Why use it to campaign? Because you're a crappy politician who needs a platform? Damn. I don't care if he's gay, I just want him to govern properly. Same with Mitt Romney...I don't care if his religion is insane, I just want him to be the best presidential candidate possible. Going to great lengths to flaunt your religion and/or sexuality will just skewer the votes. I don't care what you are...I want to know what you can do for us!
LemonMelon said:Flaunting your sexuality is completely unimportant in regards to your actual ability to run a city. Why use it to campaign? Because you're a crappy politician who needs a platform? Damn. I don't care if he's gay, I just want him to govern properly. Same with Mitt Romney...I don't care if his religion is insane, I just want him to be the best presidential candidate possible. Going to great lengths to flaunt your religion and/or sexuality will just skewer the votes. I don't care what you are...I want to know what you can do for us!
Irvine511 said:
erm, did you pay attention to the articles?
he never made an issue about it; it was right-wing pressure groups who used sexuality -- heterosexuality -- as a reason to vote for someone.
and i love how gay people get accused of "flaunting" their seuxality when they choose to not live inside a closet. the whole phrase "openly gay" reeks of heterosexism. how many of you are "openly straight"?
BonoVoxSupastar said:Assholes are assholes, but there's no such thing as irritatingly gay.
Are you irritatingly straight?
LemonMelon said:
guess what, it's pretty damn annoying when heterosexual men choose to be overly masculine (RE: macho) to prove their lack of gayness. Also, quite pathetic. It goes both ways.
guess what, it's pretty damn annoying when heterosexual men choose to be overly masculine (RE: macho) to prove their lack of gayness. Also, quite pathetic. It goes both ways.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But that's not being irritatingly straight, you would never call them "irritatingly straight", that's the difference.
LemonMelon said:
Well, actually I would.
LemonMelon said:
Anyway, my point is that sexuality doesn't really matter much at all in the grand scheme of things, and it's annoying when it's brought up.
LemonMelon said:
The only reason I think this thread serves any purpose is because, if Oakley were to win, it would be historical (though, let's face it, there have probably been dozens of political figures that were still in the closet )
LemonMelon said:So, I chose not to be redundant by avoiding to use the "RE: irritatingly ______" pattern a second time, and suddenly my point becomes invalid?
maycocksean said:Some people find certain people of color to be "irritatingly 'black'" so . . .
Stereotypes maybe?