Presidential Debate on Gay Issues

thanx ^.^

 

Thank you Becky. I watched each video, it took forever, but I learned a lot. Personally, I like Obama.

 

yeah Obama would be my vote.. if i could vote

 

wow. sweet. very enlightening.

 

Thank you Becky, up to this point, I watched Senators Obama and Edwards, and Representative Kucinich. I hope to view all of the videos when I have more time.

 

omg thank you becky i dont get logo so thanx

 

Actually, I personally don't think Obama did himself justice this time. Although, he didn't do quite as poorly as Richardson. Personally I felt that Kucinich was the stand out this time, with Hillary coming in behind him (even though I don't personally like her). Gravel has potential this time...and then starting going off on drugs during questions that didn't even relate.

 

Oh, I thought Obama did a much better job here than in that YouTube "debate." Something about his manner of speaking still makes me think he's just a little too inexperienced to be seriously considered for President in 2008, but I'm definitely warming up to the idea that he might be Hillary's running mate -- and then run for the top spot again sometime later.

 

Between Obama and Hillary, Hillary came across as the more experienced politician, but Obama seemed slightly more in support of our issues. Kucinich seemed great, but being such a longshot candidate, he can be considerably more radical. Honestly, I think Obama and Hillary both do support marriage somewhere in their heart-of-hearts, but honestly, with 57% of the nation still against gay marriage (according to a recent CNN poll), it would be political suicide for them to jump out in full marriage support at this point.

But overall, I think it was well worth watching. With the exception of patronizing snake oil salesman John Edwards and "It's a choice" crash and burn Bill Richardson, I think the candidates did themselves some favors.

 

Hahaha, yeah, Richardson really did himself in with the "it's a choice" remark. And the attempts to resurrect himself that followed.

Obama would have my vote if I was old enough to vote in 2008 election, not just because of his stance on gay rights, but because of his entire "package". I don't think Hillary Clinton would do a bad job either, except that Bill would be running the country.

 

Let's pretend for a moment that he was the only one running the country when he was in office, because honestly, I think Hillary did a lot more behind the scenes than most think. I think either Obama or Hillary would be decent choices, with Obama being the better of the two IMO. But, Obama's too articulate for his own good. The unwashed masses can't identify with someone who's intelligent and sounds intelligent. Hillary can talk the talk, and that's going to keep her in the forefront and get her into the nomination, unless of course she does a "YYYEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!" in Iowa. :lol:

 

I don't think that believing that homosexuality is a choice should be a dealbreaker. It isn't for me anyway. I really, really dislike how "pro-choice" has become synonymous with "anti-gay" these days. Nobody knows if it's a choice or not -- or multifactorial, for that matter -- so I wish people would stop being so rigid about this. Because fundamentally there's really not that big a difference between a gay person who is 100% convinced, based on his life experience and what he feels deep within his heart, that he was born gay and an anti-gay person who is 100% convinced, based on his life experience and what he feels deep within his heart, that homosexuality is wrong.

Bill Richardson fumbled around a bit and didn't speak all that well in my opinion, but I don't get the sense that he's anti-gay. If anything, I feel like he's a little too honest to be a politician -- he doesn't want to say he'll do something that he won't.

Another thing: repeating the word 'faggot' doesn't make you anti-gay either, and I hate how Bill Richardson and even Isaiah Washington got so much flack for simpling repeating the word. Yes, it's an ugly, hateful word, and I'd much prefer it to be not used ever, but simply repeating the word and using it in a hateful context are completely different monsters.

When I was a kid, one day in Sunday School one of the verses had the word 'ass' in it, and my friend was just going along, reading the verse out loud as he was asked to do. And then a few words after he read the word 'ass' out loud, he stopped because he was horrified that he had just said that word out loud (in church, no less!). He was seven. Seven years old.

Ok, I've made my point.

No, one more thing: the music that they used as the candidates were coming onto the stage was AWFUL. Painful and awful.

 

I would almost agree with that, but I just have to say something. Straight people aren't gay, they don't know what it's like or how it feels to be gay, so of course they think it's completely unnatural and wrong. And because there is no evidence pointing in any direction as to why people are gay, they shouldn't open their mouthes about it and tell gay people they can't marry each other.

 

damit i missed it

 

Go Hillary Clinton!!! I like her a lot:icon_bigg :icon_bigg :icon_bigg :icon_bigg

 

I personally don't like Hillary even though she did good job this time. My vote would be Obama but I think he might be bit too young and inexperienced than other candidate so probably it's best if she made new president.

But I'm not living in the states now so what do I care:dry:

 

I Don't want to piss anyone off... but why did logo only have Democrap candidates? I can see why they didn't have any Repubichair candidates... but what about Greens and Libertarians? And the one republican, Ron Paul, who actually supports civil liberty wasn't invited. Why does the media Pick who we get to see?

 

Are you sure they weren't invited? Most Republican candidates probably still consider gay equality a third rail issue. Ron Paul, based on my estimation of his stances, would not do favorable in the format, as he is a strict constitutionalist. The Libertarian Party does not pick a candidate until next year, and don't have any named candidates. I believe the Green Party is in the same position. Besides both of these minor parties have a difficult time as it is to enter any forum with the major parties.

 

LOGO offered all of the Republican candidates the same opportunity as the Democratic candidates. EVERY single Republican declined.