Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Is the United States ready for a female president?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is the United States ready for a female president?
    Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 18:28
Originally posted by Zagros

In Canada you cannot speak out in public, even in a church, or criticize gays at all, it is a hate crime.


And rtightly so if you're gonna spew the tired sh*t about gays being evil, the devil's minions, etc, etc as the typical wackjob bible belters in America do.


Let's put this in another thread if you want but to answer your question!
First, why is someone hateful if they want to criticize a very unhealthy lifestyle. If you look at the stats from the center for disease control gays have a much large rate of STD and they die on the average much younger. I have lived with gays and they knew were I stood but once they got to know me they realized I did not hate them. I am not a religious but there are many people besides Christians who oppose this lifestyle.
Let's move this if you want!!


As far as their right to criticize in public- it is our 1st Amendment right period and end of story!!If a religious figure preached to just kill all gays I would stand against them. If they ever should take it away you might see the culture war here get much worse.
As I said we should move this controversal topic. I will not veer from this topic anymore. I was only trying to answer constantine's question.
Yes I would vote for a female president if she shared many of the same values as me.


Edited by eaglecap
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 18:55

Let me quote my esteemed self (please make a note of letters displayed in bold):

Originally posted by Zagros

And rightly so, if you're gonna spew the tired sh*t about gays being evil, the devil's minions, etc, etc as the typical wackjob bible belters in America do.

Unhealthy lifestyle? And what is so healthy about the lifestyle of any other average American? And who are you to deem the lifestyles of gays unhealthy? Seriously WHAT difference do you think it's gonna make?

Gays will be gays no matter what... How is preaching hate against them gonna change anything?  Constructive criticism? Sure that is helpful, but calling them evil and preaching hate against them?

Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 19:28

Isn't a lifestyle usually a choice of living? If it is I'm missing something, because someone who is gay doesn't choose it neither do they have to live by any guidlines on being gay. Do you consider being straight a lifestyle too?

It'd be odd because everyone lives their lives differently, sexual preference isn't a way of living nor is it a choice.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 19:31
Yes, SearchAndDestroy, I agree with what you are saying. Lifestyles are choices. Sexuality is not a choice, and therefore, cannot be deemed a lifestyle.

Back to Top
Cellular View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 10-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Cellular Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 19:35

I believe the US will not be ready for a female president for at least 8 years. I believe a black president will take over 12 years. A latin american or mexican president will take 20 years.

I also believe we will not be seeing a middle eastern president (Indian, Morrocan, Turkish, Arabian) President for at least 50 years.

No insults intended to anyone, it is just what I believe to be true.

Photo shows a Mexican flag flown above an upside-down U.S. flag during a high school student protest over immigration reform. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mexicoflag.asp
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 19:50
Originally posted by eaglecap


First, why is someone hateful if they want to criticize a very unhealthy lifestyle.

We're not talking about critizing here, but about hate speach. Criticizing homosexuality because it is unhealthy is something different then saying all homsexuals are mentally, enemies of God and/or should be killed. Besides if they call things like that 'criticizing' then why don't they 'criticize' smokers, of fat people or people who drive cars. Smoking is always unhealthy, homosexuality is not nescecarily unhealthy, provided that they use condoms, which I don't think is something their 'critics' (which I assume are christian conservative) will promote.

Justifying hate speech because of they're 'unhealthy lifestyle' is really a hypocrite and lame excuse.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 21:19
Maybe Im confused here but how is that hate speech? Seems more like stating fact. Eaglecap has already stated that the center for disease control claims gays have a larger STD rate and they die on the norm much younger. Dont just render it "hate speech" because you dont like the facts.
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 21:22
Nobody said that was hate speech.

"Criticizing homosexuality because it is unhealthy is something different then saying all homsexuals are mentally, enemies of God and/or should be killed."-Mixcoatl

Where was the hate speech about the facts there?

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 21:32
Well seems the topic got derailed, but I will throw in my two cents.

Firstly, how can you claim there is one universal gay lifestyle? Isn't it just possible that homosexuals may vary greatly in how they live their lives? I have known ALOT of gays personally speaking and I can tell you that they are a mix just like straight people. Some are irresponsible, some are gentlemen, some are hard working, some like sports, some are masculine, some are passive. The list goes on, they come in all types. The only thing that this group of people with hugely differing lifestyles have in common is their sexual preference. And this does not mean they all have the same type of sex or do it without protection.

Another thing is that I live in the Victorian State of Australia where that law was recently enacted. So far to the best of my knowledge it has been employed against one cleric who was preaching jihad and violence to his congregation, he was arrested when evidence later surfaced showing him involved in a terrorist plot to attack the city of Melbourne. There has, to the best of my knowledge, been no use of the law to silence anyone expressing non-violent opinions or the like. It's application appears valid and seems to have had a beneficial effect on community welfare, the law enacted here is against the preaching of any violent or hateful agendas and not just against homosexuals.

Churches exist because people in the community have spiritual needs which require (for them) a religious institution. Because churches serve that need, they are allowed to go free of tax on the understanding they benefit community welfare. However, when fanatical or ignorant clerics begin advocating violence, intolerance or prejudice against members of the community they are using their special status and privileges for a purpose which is unlawful and wrong. As such they should no longer get tax breaks and special immunity.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:01

It seems we are getting off the subject so this will be my last post on this issue.  Very valid points Constantine. I to a certain extent  agree with you but lets again take a step back and look at this equation.

As you have already stated homosexuals come in every different shape and color and have all types of different personalities. Some like sports, others prefer less physical activities. Some are masculine and others passive so thus concluding they are just like straight people, and to that token i would have to agree wit you. So whats different about them? Their sexual preference. So if the above said facts are true then we can conclude that because homosexuals only differ from heterosexuals in sexual preference that this is the reason for their higher percentage of sexually transmitting diseases, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You can be the most filthiest person ever and still not contract an STD if youre careful or if apparently you dont sleep with the same sex. The only other conclusion I can think of is that if the homosexual life isnt more lets say "risky" in the aspect of contracting an STD then the homosexual community is more careless when it comes to protection, either way more of a percentage have STD's. nuff said.



Edited by arch.buff
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:21
Originally posted by arch.buff

So if the above said facts are true then we can conclude that because homosexuals only differ from heterosexuals in sexual preference that this is the reason for their higher percentage of sexually transmitting diseases, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out.


Not true. Among a minority of people in the gay culture there exists a hedonist attitude which leads some to not use sufficient protection. You won't simply contract an STD from changing your sexual preference. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have an STD.

Originally posted by arch.buff

You can be the most filthiest person ever and still not contract an STD if youre careful or if apparently you dont sleep with the same sex.

Not true. Homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy provided the parties involves take proper care. Exactly the same rule applies to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals contract STDs from eachother as easily as homosexuals. The issue is one of encouraging safe sex among the minority of both heterosexual and homosexual people who do not take proper care. If you have unprotected heterosexual sex or homosexual sex with someone who has an STD you are as likely to contract the STD either way.

Originally posted by arch.buff

The only other conclusion I can think of is that if the homosexual life isnt more lets say "risky" in the aspect of contracting an STD then the homosexual community is more careless when it comes to protection, either way more of a percentage have STD's. nuff said.



Certain individuals in the homosexual community are more careless and that is precisely the problem. However, the vast majority are careful and do not contract life threatening STDs. Therefore it is not justified for religious leaders to scream hate and abuse from the pulpit against a whole group, or to encourage violence against that group, when only a small minority of people in that group contract the disease. The issue was whether or not religious leaders should be allowed to preach hate and be publicly offensive to members of this group, the fact that a minority of homosexuals contract life threatening STDs does not justify such leaders doing that.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:35

Oh Im not in any way condoning religious leaders to oppress or encourage violence on ANY group, be they homosexual or heterosexual. What I thought was the question under the microscope was that Eaglecap was talking "hate speech" and I simply disagreed. You can give all the excuses you want Constantine but if the simple fact is that more of a percentage of homosexuals have some form of a STD than heterosexuals do, then the quote "homosexuals in general lead a more unhealthy sexual life than heterosexuals" is completely valid. Whether we agree with homosexuality or not, the statement has validity. 

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:40
Originally posted by arch.buff

 ... homosexuals only differ from heterosexuals in sexual preference that this is the reason for their higher percentage of sexually transmitting diseases, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You can be the most filthiest person ever and still not contract an STD if youre careful or if apparently you dont sleep with the same sex. The only other conclusion I can think of is that if the homosexual life isnt more lets say "risky" in the aspect of contracting an STD then the homosexual community is more careless when it comes to protection, either way more of a percentage have STD's. nuff said.

Teenagers only differ from non-teenagers in age that this is the reason for their higher percentage of sexually transmitting diseases, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You can be the most filthiest person ever and still not contract an STD if youre careful or if apparently you dont sleep with the opposite sex. The only other conclusion I can think of is that if the teenage sex life isnt more lets say "risky" in the aspect of contracting an STD then the teenage cohort is more careless when it comes to protection, either way more of a percentage have STD's. nuff said.

So let's start sending out hate messages to those filthy teens for having sex.

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:42
Originally posted by arch.buff

Oh Im not in any way condoning religious leaders to oppress or encourage violence on ANY group, be they homosexual or heterosexual. What I thought was the question under the microscope was that Eaglecap was talking "hate speech" and I simply disagreed. You can give all the excuses you want Constantine but if the simple fact is that more of a percentage of homosexuals have some form of a STD than heterosexuals do, then the quote "homosexuals in general lead a more unhealthy sexual life than heterosexuals" is completely valid. Whether we agree with homosexuality or not, the statement has validity. 

Oh Im not in any way condoning religious leaders to oppress or encourage violence on ANY group, be they teens or non-teens. What I thought was the question under the microscope was that Eaglecap was talking "hate speech" and I simply disagreed. You can give all the excuses you want Constantine but if the simple fact is that more of a percentage of teens have some form of a STD than non-teens do, then the quote "teens in general lead a more unhealthy sexual life than nonteens" is completely valid. Whether we agree with teenage sex or not, the statement has validity. 

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:44

Why single out the homosexuals? Why not single out heterosexual people who live a promiscuous lifestyle? Why not single out teens who have unprotected sex?

The fact that you are singling out one particular group, in this case, their sexual orientation, demonstrates that you are in fact a homophobic in denial (or not so much in denial?).

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:49

Originally posted by eaglecap

There are some Pastors in jail in both Canada and Australia.

Source please?

Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:58

Originally posted by eaglecap


In Canada you cannot speak out in public, even in a church, or criticize gays at all, it is a hate crime.

If a person - whether he or she is a sex educator, a teacher, a pastor, a social worker, etc. - is criticizing unprotected sex or prosmicuous sex, NO ONE will get arrested. But if someone uses whatever excuse to criticize any group because of its ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, etc., it should be a hate crime. But isn't this something that all countries should aspire to? Isn't the protection of minority, be it ethnic, racial, inguistic, religious, or sexual, be the basis of a fair and just society?

Why are all of you right-wingers so fixated on sex and who's sleeping with whom? This is something that I really really don't understand.

Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 23:11
Originally posted by flyingzone

Why single out the homosexuals? Why not single out heterosexual people who live a promiscuous lifestyle? Why not single out teens who have unprotected sex?

The fact that you are singling out one particular group, in this case, their sexual orientation, demonstrates that you are in fact a homophobic in denial (or not so much in denial?).

I like how you cast your judgement on me but thats fine, youre entitled to your opinion.

And your example of teens makes no sense regarding this issue. The issue of difference in teens and non-teens(heteros) is just age, whereas the issue of difference in homosexuals and heterosexuals is there in in the issue of the actual sex at hand. Heterosexual teens and non-teens are still having sex with opposite sex so the percentage of diseases lies there in there regard to safety or protection( as it also applies to gays and straights) but the main point being with homos and heteros is the actual difference in the sex being had between the two.........one has a higher STD rate per capita.

Back to Top
Cellular View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 10-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Cellular Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 23:14
Since when did this change into a gay/straight debate?
Photo shows a Mexican flag flown above an upside-down U.S. flag during a high school student protest over immigration reform. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mexicoflag.asp
Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 23:34
Originally posted by arch.buff

And your example of teens makes no sense regarding this issue. The issue of difference in teens and non-teens(heteros) is just age, whereas the issue of difference in homosexuals and heterosexuals is there in in the issue of the actual sex at hand. Heterosexual teens and non-teens are still having sex with opposite sex so the percentage of diseases lies there in there regard to safety or protection( as it also applies to gays and straights) but the main point being with homos and heteros is the actual difference in the sex being had between the two.........one has a higher STD rate per capita.

This is exactly where you are wrong. Homosexuals are not just people defined by whom they sleep with. They are people, like you and me. They eat. They sh*t. They have friends. Some are promiscuous. Some are celibate. Some are Democrat, and believe it or not, some are even Republican!!!!

And by the same token, as you implied, teens shouldn't be defined by whom they sleep with because they are people too, like you and me. They eat. They sh*t. They have friends. Some are promiscuous. Some are celibate. Some are Democrat and some are Republican.

Do you get it? The fact that you are focusing so much on who is sleeping with whom shows that you are fixating on sex too much. Sexual orienation is no different from age or ethnicity or race. You don't single out teenagers for being promiscuous and engaging in unsafe sex, do you (you do know that the STD rate of teenagers is A LOT higher than other age groups). If you don't, why do you single out the whole "group" called homosexuals?

Play some sports or read a book. That might get your mind off sex a little.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.