CasualLurker
Verified User
I vote for the policy positions, not the person. That's why I don't split tickets and I vote straight blue.
As for boats, I don't understand the qurestion.
Does it disqualify Pete Buttigieg?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
As for boats, I don't understand the qurestion.
So if you agreed with him on important things, you would vote for a man married to a man? That would be okay with you to have a POTUS who is married to a man?
Very sneaky of you.
I wrote about people who are openly gay getting elected to office.
There are very few of those in your party. Being in the closet, or getting outed after already being in office doesn't count towards showing party tolerance
There is only one major party in the United States where openly gay people have a reasonable chance of success getting elected to state or municipal office.
cawacko
Well-known member
I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. Republicans aren't going to vote for a Democrat. Is this some new revelation?
Pete didn't win your own primary but you're worried about Republicans not voting for a Democrat?
QP!
Verified User
I am legit curious as to how you would define the difference in diagnosis? That you see as the core distinction?
Not asking this to be conflicting but to just see if you have an articulable belief you can share.
I am assuming you know the history of homosexuality being considered a mental health issue until society brute forced the retraction of that by accepting it openly (in mostly liberal areas) and then skeptical society being FORCED to see them as just normal humans with different wiring, which is something we should EXPECT in populations of billions.
We should EXPECT such aberrations to exist within what is the NORM, even if they are the edges of the norm as that is a key of how naturally evolutionary pressure tests all populations, human or other.
cawacko
Well-known member
Nothing sneaky about it, the word openly was implied but if it makes you feel better add it in.
You said there is only one party where an openly gay person can be elected. That is false as there have been openly gay Republicans elected to state or municipal office.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Looks like he made a typo.
The B is right next to the V
The classification change was not the result of some decisive scientific discovery showing that gender incongruence was no longer psychiatric pathology. It was a professional redefinition made amid substantial political and social pressure, alongside arguments about stigma, patient access, and what psychiatry should count as a disorder.
Transgender populations have an unusually high burden of depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidality and other psychiatric diagnoses. Reviews consistently find this. I would find this trait disqualifying when we make decisions on who we can trust, and I certainly have that right
ZenMode
Well-known member
Not for me, but I'm also not religious, so....
Extremely sneaky that you tried to include elected Republicans who are in the closet or who got outed.
Word games are all you have left?
I said there is only one major party where openly gay people can be expected to have success running for state or municipal official.
Finding a tiny, miniscule handful Republicans who ran as openly gay people is not evidence pointing towards success, or demonstrating a reasonable chance of succeeding in that party's electoral process.
The chances of an openly gay man wining an election in a Republican primary is so miniscule we can basically say it just virtually never happens.
That’s your entire debate style: make an absolute claim because it sounds powerful, get shown that the absolute is false, then quietly retreat to a much weaker claim and accuse everyone else of “word games.”
If your argument is that openly gay candidates have far better electoral prospects among Democrats than Republicans, then say that. There’s plenty of evidence for it.
But that is not what you originally claimed. You wanted the rhetorical punch of “only one party” without accepting the burden of proving “only one party.”
You are a moron...and about as anti-American as anyone around.
I did mention that you are a moron...right?
cawacko
Well-known member
It's pretty simple dude, I responded to your claim which was false. It was not accurate.
Now you're moving the goalposts. Have fun with it.
QP!
Verified User
See my prior post.
What you say here about trans 100% applies to how 'gay' got reconsidered as 'normal'. It was not some decisive scientific discovery showing that sexual preference incongruence was no longer psychiatric pathology. It was a professional redefinition made amid substantial political and social pressure, alongside arguments about stigma, patient access, and what psychiatry should count as a disorder.
Gay rates of suicide, especially amongst young men, used to be way higher when it was still stigmatized and actively hated against in public, by entertainers (comedians, etc) and politicians. Those rates of suicide came WAYYYYYYY down once society accepted and recognized it as just a deviation WITHIN the norm and not an abnormality or disease or wrong.
That is the strongest evidence that it was NOT the condition that lead to the high suicide rates, predominantly and was societies stigmatization and constant attack of the people, THE INDIVIDUALS, just trying to exist in a society that was screaming at them that they were 'deficient', 'sinful', 'wrong', an 'abomination against nature', etc, etc.
something i think any reasonable person, knowing how difficult it can be for so many straight, mostly boys to move from teen to adult, and how high that 'normal' population of males suicide rate is compared to the rest of the population.... can then easily see why rates of 'gays' and 'trans' under non stop attack had much higher ones.
Democratic voters have to consider experience, policy, electability.
I'm not sure if any mayor has ever leap frogged to the presidency in US history.
I don't think the nation is ready for an openly gay president, or a quadriplegic, or a devout Sunni Muslim, or an openly atheist person. Probably even a totally bald person.
That doesn't make one bigoted towards quadriplegics, gays, Muslims, atheists, and bald people. It's just an acknowledgement of national presidential politics.
Yakuda
Verified User
Why would a thinking person not vote for them for that reason? What you shit eating retards cant comprehend is people refuse to vote for him not because he is married to a man and has children but because his policies suck more dick than he does. Its a problem of political ideology not who hes married to.
interesting question I googled - we have only had 3 presidents serve as mayor - and they also became Governor or Lt. Governor
QP!
Verified User
What many people DO NOT understand is the concept of the NORM.
The norm is not only where the bulk of the population exists (heterosexual) but that norm ALSO includes a host of abnormal variants from that majority within the norm, that evolve naturally (gay and trans, etc).
They are all NORMAL while one is majoritarian norm and the other minority norm.
Variants in the norm are evolutionary responses to always test the majoritarian population but also to provide minority populations who might think and do things differently that ends up benefitting the majority population.
I am an example of a minority population, that are extreme risk takers. I have done almost every activity many normal people would never do and i embrace the risk as long as i do not see it as gratuitous risk by my standards.
Without that population of mostly young males, who embraced risk, embraced going on adventures, while not embracing, at an early age, the more normal path of marrying and settling down, much of the modern world would never have been discovered. For young men hoping on a ship and heading out into the middle of nowhere, not knowing if they fall off the edge of the planet (flat earth, etc) was not in the norm.
Brain science has shown that same chasing of risk is now tied most closely to entrepreneurs. Brain science has shown there is a percent of people, mostly young males, who struggle to 'feel' swings in happiness, exhilaration, joy, as others do unless they take risks.
These risk takes (often who die younger) were of great benefit to the 'norm', 'married young family type', who did not want that risk but wanted the job the risk took to build the company.
The norm is not only where the bulk of the population exists (heterosexual) but that norm ALSO includes a host of abnormal variants from that majority within the norm, that evolve naturally (gay and trans, etc).
They are all NORMAL while one is majoritarian norm and the other minority norm.
Variants in the norm are evolutionary responses to always test the majoritarian population but also to provide minority populations who might think and do things differently that ends up benefitting the majority population.
I am an example of a minority population, that are extreme risk takers. I have done almost every activity many normal people would never do and i embrace the risk as long as i do not see it as gratuitous risk by my standards.
Without that population of mostly young males, who embraced risk, embraced going on adventures, while not embracing, at an early age, the more normal path of marrying and settling down, much of the modern world would never have been discovered. For young men hoping on a ship and heading out into the middle of nowhere, not knowing if they fall off the edge of the planet (flat earth, etc) was not in the norm.
Brain science has shown that same chasing of risk is now tied most closely to entrepreneurs. Brain science has shown there is a percent of people, mostly young males, who struggle to 'feel' swings in happiness, exhilaration, joy, as others do unless they take risks.
These risk takes (often who die younger) were of great benefit to the 'norm', 'married young family type', who did not want that risk but wanted the job the risk took to build the company.
Last edited: