Would you vote for a gay or atheist president?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You're right, but there's also nothing patriotic about religion, no matter how you twist it.

Actually there is.  Our country was founded by religious people not atheists.

It wasn't founded because of religion. They just happened to be religous.

Actually they were escaping religious persecution because of their religion.  Proud to be my religion...proud to be an American.

no. There was many reasons for the American Revolution, but religious persecution was not one of them.

[A18]

He's not talking about the American Revolution.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

well that's how our country was founded.

[A18]

The country begins with the colonies, unless you consider the country to be the Union, but that's not what he means.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Some colonies were founded because of religious reasons, but that's doesn't really mean anything. Australia was founded as a prison.

[A18]

It's part of history. How important it is isn't of any significance to me, but I'm just defending his post.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

it's a part of history, but it has no relevance to the law of the country: The Constitution. And it says nowhere in the Constitution that this is a religious or a Christian nation.

[A18]

I didn't see the context in which you were arguing. I just responded to that one statement of yours.

[ilikeverin]

Yeah, are you kidding? Of course gays do that often enough for it to prevent them from holding office!

And atheists would ban religion, just like Christian presidents ban Judaism and JFK banned everything but Catholicism, right?

Bushforever is a really rational guy, folks - kind of like Bush himself.

Atheists are trying to ban religion already.  Take a law class.  No student-led prayers at football games.  An attempt to remove it from the pledge.  Attempts to disallow prayers at public places.  No prayers or pastors at graduation ceremonies.  No nativity scenes.  The whole politically correct aura of "Happy Holidays."

You are steryotyping all athiests. Most athiests just want to live their lives away from religion, but they respect the right of others to pray and sing Christmas carols. At public school, there should be no public prayers. Don't favor certain religions. It's common sense, IMHO.

Yes, but student-led prayers at football games where most everyone agrees and prays.  And what about my right to pray individually or quote the bible at school.  Or not teaching evolution.  If you get an atheist president, you will get all these complaining atheist special interests groups trying to have the president inflict their views on the country.

I don't have a problem with you sitting at your desk praying. Just it shouldn't be lead by anyone. If you and some friends want to pray in a corner during lunch, be my guest. If we have a Christian President, wouldn't we have Christian special interest groups trying to inflict their views?

What is so bad about science?

Not all science is true.

And if I want to preach to the crowd and lead a prayer, I should be able to.  And it does not matter about religious special interest groups trying to inflict their views, because religion is a part of our country not atheism.  I have no problem with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus...whatever.  If any of those people want to lead prayers, go right ahead.  I don't have to follow, and neither do they if it's a Christian prayer.  It's important to be acceptful and tolerant and try to relate to the words of spirit they have to offer.  It's just atheists I have issues with.

Not all science is true, but learning commonly accepted scientific theory cannot harm you in any way.

Lead your prayer in church, or somewhere that isn't school ground.

You say it's important to be acceptful and tolerant, yet you hate gays and atheists?

It also doesn't hurt to believe in God.

This is America.  I can lead prayer wherever I want. 

It's important to be acceptful and tolerant of OTHER RELIGIONS.

Except belief systems you don't like, right?

Except lack of religion or religious principles.

Which leads me back to my point. Religion and Policy shouldn't mix because they don't mix. Whether I pray or not has NO effect on whether I support a certain environmental policy.

But my point is having a president who has a personal relationship with God makes the country stronger because the president is spiritually whole.  Kind of like Bush.  He also knows it is more important to act with his heart, not people's taxes. 

I know I for one would not be in any way weaker with an athiest President than my community currently is with Bush.

Your heart can't think. Act with your brain.

You're spirtuality should be what guides your brain.  I sure wouldn't want a president who acts strictly on brain impulses.

There is always the hypothesis that faith may be (MAY BE) based off brain impulses.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gay: People's sexuality shouldn't be an issue in deciding who to vote for.
Atheist: What exactly do you mean by "atheist"?

[bushforever]

Here's news for ya.  I'm not a religious righty wacko.  To tell you the truth, I haven't gone to church regularly in probably 5 years.  However, I do have a personal relationship with God.  I know He exists.  I know he is the Creator.  I believe in Afterlife.  I pray to him.  I seek his guidance in times of trouble.  I also believe in spreading the word of God and seeking his guidance in times of trouble.

Personally, I just do not want an atheist in office, that's all.  Not to say they're bad people, but I just won't vote for an atheist.  Just like I won't vote for a democrat, unless the political spectrum singnificantly changes.  But it doesn't mean all democrats are bad people.

I really believe it is important to have someone in office who seeks the guidance of a higher authority (esp. God, or even Allah, Buddha, etc.) in making important decisions for a country and such.  Someone who I can relate to, someone I can identify with.  Someone who's well-being is stronger, because of their sense of spirituality, which in turn makes the country stronger.

[Nation]

Here's news for ya.  I'm not a religious righty wacko.  To tell you the truth, I haven't gone to church regularly in probably 5 years.  However, I do have a personal relationship with God.  I know He exists.  I know he is the Creator.  I believe in Afterlife.  I pray to him.  I seek his guidance in times of trouble.  I also believe in spreading the word of God and seeking his guidance in times of trouble.

Personally, I just do not want an atheist in office, that's all.  Not to say they're bad people, but I just won't vote for an atheist.  Just like I won't vote for a democrat, unless the political spectrum singnificantly changes.  But it doesn't mean all democrats are bad people.

I really believe it is important to have someone in office who seeks the guidance of a higher authority (esp. God, or even Allah, Buddha, etc.) in making important decisions for a country and such.  Someone who I can relate to, someone I can identify with.  Someone who's well-being is stronger, because of their sense of spirituality, which in turn makes the country stronger.

I think that was a very reasonable defense of your POV, I agree mostly with your last paragraph.

[J-Mann]

J-Mann, I agree with you.  I think it's wrong for people to say that homosexuality is a choice.  The choice is whether to act on it, or reveal it.

Having said that, I can't really say that I think homosexuality is as desirable as heterosexuality.  I know it's politically incorrect to say that, but I think that most people, even those who are publicly tolerant of homosexuality, believe that deep down.  Of all the non-gay people who are sympathetic to the gay agenda, how many would actually want one of their kids to be gay?  They may accept it if it happened, but the vast majority would prefer otherwise.  Almost nobody would choose it.

Ah, I meant to respond to something you had posted earlier, but this is even better.  Short response - I agree.

I personally can't see homosexuality being desirable; I'm straight, and despite my repeated fumbles in the dating/relationship arena, I'm planning on staying straight.  It wasn't a choice for me, it's just always been that way.  And no, I don't think I'd want a homosexual lifestyle for anyone, nor do I think that's politically incorrect to say.  If someday I have a gay child, I don't care so much about what he or she does in the bedroom, but it bothers me how he'll be treated by society. 

[Cashcow]

I personally can't see homosexuality being desirable; I'm straight, and despite my repeated fumbles in the dating/relationship arena, I'm planning on staying straight.  It wasn't a choice for me, it's just always been that way.  And no, I don't think I'd want a homosexual lifestyle for anyone, nor do I think that's politically incorrect to say.  If someday I have a gay child, I don't care so much about what he or she does in the bedroom, but it bothers me how he'll be treated by society. 

And that's exactly it. Why would anyone wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "Today I think I want to go against my natural impulses, ruin my chance for a normal life, and be treated like a dog by society"? Let's think about it, people: would you be able to wake up tomorrow and decide to be gay? It's impossible, because all natural heterosexuals would find such an idea to be personally disgusting.

Homosexuality has never been and never will be a choice.

[bushforever]

I will probably never vote for a homosexual for president.  I guess because I am a traditionalist and would want a first lady.  And because their policies might allow gay marriage, something which goes against tradition and the laws of God.  Most gays generally are part of the "peace man" crowd and the San Francisco crowd, which I hate with a vengeance.

I guess I just know what I like in a president, and a homesexual one is something I don't think I'm ready for and I don't think the country's ready for.

[danwxman]

Most gays generally are part of the "peace man" crowd and the San Francisco crowd, which I hate with a vengeance.

lol...I can't wait until you get out in the real world.

[bushforever]

Most gays generally are part of the "peace man" crowd and the San Francisco crowd, which I hate with a vengeance.

lol...I can't wait until you get out in the real world.

What?   Shall I add college campuses, and Seattle, Chicago's Lincoln Park, NYC, Boston, and the Florida Keys to the list??  And old perverts and catholic priests??  Non-closet gays are a small minority my friend.

[??????????]

Most gays generally are part of the "peace man" crowd and the San Francisco crowd, which I hate with a vengeance.

lol...I can't wait until you get out in the real world.

What?   Shall I add college campuses, and Seattle, Chicago's Lincoln Park, NYC, Boston, and the Florida Keys to the list??  And old perverts and catholic priests??  Non-closet gays are a small minority my friend.

Bush,

Read your own signature quote. Thats all you need to know about Danwxman.

[Nation]

Most gays generally are part of the "peace man" crowd and the San Francisco crowd, which I hate with a vengeance.

lol...I can't wait until you get out in the real world.

What?   Shall I add college campuses, and Seattle, Chicago's Lincoln Park, NYC, Boston, and the Florida Keys to the list??  And old perverts and catholic priests??  Non-closet gays are a small minority my friend.

Bush,

Read your own signature quote. Thats all you need to know about Danwxman.

BUH-BUH-BUH-BULLSEYE

</dodgeball>

[Redefeatbush04]

bump for the hell of it

[angus]

Would you vote for someone who is gay?
Would you vote for someone who is atheist?

what an odd pairing.  how about a gay atheist.  actually, I prefer asexuals for president.  Like priests, they'd be less likely to forego their primary responsibilities if other primary responsibilities didn't get in the way.  But then, I've only met one asexual in my life, and he was a history teacher.  Well, no two.  The other is a mathematics professor.  Still, the overwhelming majority of folks I've met are either homosexual or heterosexual, so the odds of a true asexual being nominated by any party are probably slim.

as for atheists, I see them pretty much the same way I see mono- and polytheists.  I wouldn't vote for or against anyone based on their admitted atheism or theism.  Though, admittedly it's a bit creepy, since atheism requires as much faith in the abstract as abject monotheism does, and probably much more, truth be told, and such faithful people are subject to bouts of fascism and fanaticism at times.  Still, I don't have a problem with mono-, poly-, or atheists, but it would be refreshing to see someone with the intellectual curiosity and balls to admit to agnosticism run for any party's nomination. 

mainly, they just need to be entertaining, like Clinton and Bush, to win.  You're voting on the face that fills your screen for the next four years.  I don't think Americans would lose sight of that.  They have consistently chosen the class clown over the class dud since 1980 (well, except for 1988 when our choices were dull and sleazy versus dull and upper-crust), and I don't see things like sexual orientation getting in the way.  A gay man with the personality of Bill Clinton would soundly defeat a straight man with the personality of Al Gore, hands down, don't you think?  Same goes for eschatological proclivities. 

Give peas a chance.

[© tweed]

Yes/Yes, for the reasons I pointed out in the other two threads.

[Ebowed]

Yes/No

[AkSaber]

Yes/No

[Emsworth]

I don't see why either homosexuality or religion should be an issue. Policy issues are of the greatest importance.