Jimmy Carter: U.S. Ready For Homosexual President

[RoBoTeq]

On your Buchanan point- I find it hard to believe that a homo[sexual] can only be considered a homo in your eyes if he acts physically upon it. That's like saying that you and I weren't straight until after we got laid for the first time- I disagree with this logic entirely. Choosing not to get married and instead to live with a male "life partner" makes him gay from where I'm standing. Perhaps you set the bar higher for what makes someone gay but I for one don't.

On your second point- I will concede that even though Jefferson has been openly called an atheist since 1775, the term deist is probably a better fit. But again, that's splitting hairs in my opinion. The difference between an atheist and a deist is that a deist believes that the big bang was a result of an outside supernatural force and an atheist believes it was a natural force. That's literally the only difference.

On the other hand, the differences between a deist and a theist are vast. A deist doesn't believe in heaven or hell or any sort of afterlife. A deist doesn't believe that there is anyone listening to prayers. A deist doesn't believe in miracles. A deist doesn't believe that there is any meaning to life.

So while you may be correct that Jefferson was indeed a deist, I don't think that diminishes the potency of the 235 straight years of people calling him an atheist. It's a splitting of the hairs at best.

OK then, let's rewrite history so homosexual's can make absurd claims that Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid were homo's and that the Three Musketeers were a homo threesome. Sorry, but the only type of people I find wanting to justify that Buchannan was homosexual are homosexuals. Of course, homosexuals also claim that Lincoln was a homo because of a letter he wrote to a friend telling his friend he is looking forward to sharing a bed with him again.

As for Jefferson, he was a Deist, and a Deist is a theist. Jefferson believed in God...period. I am far from what mainstream Christians consider a Christian in that I don't participate in any of the RCC concocted celebrations that have become associated with Christianity. That does not make me any less a Christian. Many of the founding fathers of the U.S. rebelled against Catholisism and the Church of England because of how those organizations were being used to persecute those who did not adhere to their religious policies. For that reason, those great men of God chose Deism as a way to be God fearing believers while removing themselves from the wrongs that England was using religion for.

Seriously, look deeper into the reason that some things are written about great persons in history and you will find personal motives. Homosexuals portray as many men as they can to have been homosexual in order to perpetuate homosexuallity as somehow being acceptable. Atheist's consider great men and women as being atheist in order to make it appear that great people don't believe in some Guy in the Sky Daddy. It's all concocted hype that does not hold up under rational scrutiny.

[RoBoTeq]

You guys sure waste a lot of time with drawn out statements of how gays bother you.


Haven't yet had one bother me. Make me laugh? Sure they have, but most people do that!!!


If we had a gay president you guys wouldn't know any different. What if he did a good job? Then what could you say??


Bunch of homophobes on here.....waste your energy on something worth it.

I don't know who you are directing this at, but I could care less if our president happened to be homosexual as long as he was not an advocate for perpetuating homosexuallity. As has been mentioned, we may have already had homosexual presidents. If so, it supports how well the don't ask/don't tell attitude works when considering alternative life styles.

No, I would not support a candidate for the presidency who had an agenda to perpetuate homosexuallity in any way, any more then I would support a candidate who had an agenda to banish homosexuallity.

[BACnet]

Yeah, I'm sorry this digressed so much.

My only points were that it is arguable that this country has already had a gay president and also that these "firsts" seem to rarely be followed up by a second.

[glennac]

................................... I could care less if our president happened to be homosexual as long as he was not an advocate for perpetuating homosexuallity. As has been mentioned, we may have already had homosexual presidents. If so, it supports how well the don't ask/don't tell attitude works when considering alternative life styles. No, I would not support a candidate for the presidency who had an agenda to perpetuate homosexuallity in any way, any more then I would support a candidate who had an agenda to banish homosexuallity.

Robo why would you support someone with a mental disease for President?

PC and liberalism started taking hold of this country during the late 60's and just because in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder and the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975 that is still isn't a mental disease.

I think it is a disease and effects most of their actions and would never want one as President of the US. Think about it, give me a break here, may have to reclassify you as a liberal . Thank you, thank you very much

[RoBoTeq]

Robo why would you support someone with a mental disease for President?

PC and liberalism started taking hold of this country during the late 60's and just because in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder and the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975 that is still isn't a mental disease.

I think it is a disease and effects most of their actions and would never want one as President of the US. Think about it, give me a break here, may have to reclassify you as a liberal . Thank you, thank you very much

I don't believe that homosexuallity is a mental disease. If it were a mental disease, it could be cured, like depression or bi-polar.

Homosexuallity is a choice of how to live. I don't believe anyone is born destined to be a homosexual. It may be developed in certain men as a result of environmental stimuli that is beyond their control, and for that it is a shame, but it is not a disease.

We all have things that we believe in and act upon that could be considered by others to be improper. As long as an otherwise good person who has the leadership skills and other abilities to lead the U.S. happens to prefer homosexuallity to heterosexuallity, I really could care less. I'm sure there are things about every president that I don't like and would not support them in if they made those things an issue. Don't make homosexuallity an issue and I don't care what you do behind closed doors.

[2cool4us]

Homosexuality in men!

http://www.antiaging-systems.com/ART...le-hormone.htm

[RoBoTeq]

Homosexuality in men!

http://www.antiaging-systems.com/ART...le-hormone.htm

Geesh! According to this, we're all destined to become homo's

While testosterone levels naturally decline with age, a number of other lifestyle factors including stress, physical inactivity, over-training, lack of sleep, chronic illness, smoking, drinking and the use of prescription medications and drugs can also contribute to the onset of low testosterone.

So, if I avoid stress, am somewhat active but don't over do it, get enough sleep and stay healthy, don't smoke, drink or use prescription meds.....old age is going to make me a homo eventually anyway

[2cool4us]

Great nation is on a slipperly slope!

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12...is-inevitable/

[printer2]

I don't believe that homosexuallity is a mental disease. If it were a mental disease, it could be cured, like depression or bi-polar.

Homosexuallity is a choice of how to live. I don't believe anyone is born destined to be a homosexual. It may be developed in certain men as a result of environmental stimuli that is beyond their control, and for that it is a shame, but it is not a disease.

We all have things that we believe in and act upon that could be considered by others to be improper. As long as an otherwise good person who has the leadership skills and other abilities to lead the U.S. happens to prefer homosexuallity to heterosexuallity, I really could care less. I'm sure there are things about every president that I don't like and would not support them in if they made those things an issue. Don't make homosexuallity an issue and I don't care what you do behind closed doors.

I do agree it comes down to how well someone can do the job for you. Their sexuality should not come into it what they do behind closed doors is their business. But in politics it is fair game and there will be a segment of the population that will reject the best man (or woman) for the job based on their sexuality. So either they have to hide it and not get caught, which can leave them open to any with the knowledge and will to exploit the fact, or they decline to run for the job.

[RoBoTeq]

Great nation is on a slipperly slope!

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12...is-inevitable/

Joe Biden? Really? We are going to actually take something that lying Joe Biden says seriously? This is the guy who used some British politicians life as his own and told flat out lies during the election campaign. If it isn't evident why Obama chose the man who inferred that Obama was well spoken and clean "for a Black man" as his VP, let's consider that Obama figured with Biden as the back up, no one was going to assassinate him.

[RoBoTeq]

I do agree it comes down to how well someone can do the job for you. Their sexuality should not come into it what they do behind closed doors is their business. But in politics it is fair game and there will be a segment of the population that will reject the best man (or woman) for the job based on their sexuality. So either they have to hide it and not get caught, which can leave them open to any with the knowledge and will to exploit the fact, or they decline to run for the job.

This is true for a lot of things. A large portion of the country did not vote for Clinton on the basis that they believed he was a druggie, even though he admitted he wasn't even smart enough to inhale. Voters shyed away from voting for W Bush because of the accusations that he is not very bright, despite the evidence that he must be an intelligent person who is just not very articulate. The fact is that if a homosexual contender for the presidency comes out using a rainbow flag with cucumbers and bananas on it as his campaign logo, he won't have much chance at getting elected. But if that same man stays low key about his sexuallity and he is a good campaigner, he could become president.

[2cool4us]

Joe Biden? Really? We are going to actually take something that lying Joe Biden says seriously? This is the guy who used some British politicians life as his own and told flat out lies during the election campaign. If it isn't evident why Obama chose the man who inferred that Obama was well spoken and clean "for a Black man" as his VP, let's consider that Obama figured with Biden as the back up, no one was going to assassinate him.

Echoing the mindset of the electorate that put him and Mohamed Obama in office.

[air2spare]

Former President Jimmy Carter says U.S. voters have reached the point where they would be willing to elect a gay president “in the near future.”

“I think the entire population of America has come tremendous strides forward in dealing with the issue of gays,” Carter said in the video. He also compared the emergence of gay-rights concerns with the rise of the Civil Rights movement some 50 years ago. ...

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/J...2/17/id/380318

He should have compared us with the fall of Rome