If you wer a homosexual...?

Question

and you had to presidents running for election, one that is for gay marriage the other against it, who would you vote for and why?

Answer 1

Well I wouldn't base everything just on that topic, but I would be inclined to vote for the one that supported gay marriage.

Answer 2

Good question, because laws regarding homosexuality (at least in the US) are unconstitutionally based on religion, unfortunately.

And one doesn't have to be homosexual (I'm straight) to recognize unjust discrimination against homos.

Everything else being equal (which is a huge assumption, of course) I would vote for the president that is for allowing gay marriage.

Laws against gay marriage are a clear form of inappropriate discrimination. All law-abiding adults should have the right to marry any other law-abiding adult, especially since society bestows certain legal rights only to married couples (which is something that should also be remedied).

Gay marriage harms no one, threatens no one, and shouldn't even bother anyone. Who could possibly be concerned about it other than the marriage party, their friends, and family?

Bans against it usually stem from religion-based politics and confused "morality" - even though the politicians typically won't admit that they are voting based on their religion. It's amusing to watch the right wing politicians try to rationalize a cogent argument against it without invoking their obviously religious bias. The smart ones (in the US) know that, because of the first amendment, they can't just say that it's against the bible or a particular religion. But the best argument they can come up with is a complete failure: that gay marriage "threatens the institution of marriage". Obviously, this use of the word "institution" is symbolic or amorphous -- so one has to wonder: how is it possible for a conceptual "institution" to be "threatened" by law-abiding adults being joined together legally? That's like saying the "institution" of veterans is threatened by allowing homos into the army, or that the art industry is threatened by allowing homos to practice art.

If they are not just being mindlessly obedient to their religious dogma, then the answer must be that they just want marriage rights reserved for themselves. On what legal basis can they try to argue for such unjust discrimination?

Answer 3

For it.the goverment should not have the right to
mandate a person's private life.

There are those that argue against it because it would allow gay couples to get the same tax breaks as het couples.I still don't buy it.

This is a smokescreen issue to divert attention form the war.There are so many other issues in fact
that our represenatives should be addressing that
this should be at the bottom of our nation's priorities.
I don't care what person's orientation is.If I have to work with somebody different I don't care,as long as
they do their job effectively.Why do people get so wound up over this?Do they think that they will become gay or something by being near a
"homashexshull" or that their children will be gay as a
result of having a homo set of parents?

Gimmee a break.

Answer 4

My sexuality has nothing to do with it. Regardless of my sexual choices (str8, for the record), Id usually vote for the person who is best fit for the job - and someone who actually agrees that all people are equal and deserve equal protection of the law is obviously more well suited to run the country and make decisions affecting EVERYONE IN IT than some boob who thinks that gay marriage is bad because his Bible tells him so.

Can ANYONE provide for me a GOOD reason why gays shouldnt be afforded the same rights as str8 people?? (I said a good reason - the Bible doesnt count as a good reason. Is there any OTHER reason besides it being against God?)

Answer 5

No matter what their stance on this issue, I would look at their position on other issues first:
Foreign Affairs
National Defense
Domestic Spending
Health Care
If they were exactly the same on the bigger issues, and the only difference was the gay marriage issue, then I would vote for the one who is FOR gay marriage.

Answer 6

I would vote for the guy who wanted to Kick As# on the Muslim Terrorist. Hopefully he was for gay marriage but if not... Destroying the Terrorist is much more important than a Broke Back Mountain Sequel. I really could don't care either way on the whole gay thing. That is their choice and that is over there not over here. I do like watching two women get it on gay or not.

Hope this helps.

Answer 7

I have talked to professed homosexuals that believe that making gay marriage equal to marriage would be immoral, especially as marriage is far more ideal of a circumstance for the formation of children.

So, what do you think about that?

I love the voting on this anwer. Are they "traitors" if they are gay and don't believe in gay marriage?

Answer 8

I would vote for the one against it, because it seems that he doesn't let his behavior dictate truth, and try to change the important definition of marraige. Unequal things are unequal, equal things are equal, a man and a woman together is not equal to a man and a man. They are unchangeably different and this connects to the contents and laws of mind and definition of truth.This concerns reality, logic, and laws of identity. So I consider this to be a homosexual mockery of marriage, immoral and a form of direspect to truth and abuse of our compassion,especially when it involves children, then it is mental child abuse. It takes a man and a woman to create life, thank God and they are even trying to work to change that by all sorts of false means and artifice.
Again as the philosopher Aristotel said, inequality for unequal things, equality for equal things. There is no way to equate the union of a man and a woman that has the evidence of blessing by producing life naturally , to the unnatural , non-life producing, unnecessary, joining of a woman and a woman or a man and a man as a artificial copy. They are totally different and therefore should go by different names.

Answer 9

That issue would not be a factor for me in choosing a president. Anyway the president doesn't get to decide that issue, that issue is for the individual states to decide. Even if the Constitution was ammended it would be ammended by Congress, not the president.

Answer 10

it depends a lot on what ELSE they were for or against. unlike the christian right, most of us don't base our vote solely on whether or not gays should marry. anyway, don't read too much that i write because i am gay and it might rub off on you... in fact if you read this, know that i have already sent a pixie flower to you over the rainbow and you are now just a little bit gay.

in other words, GET OVER IT...