Why should gays have a say in the President's choice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter allsthrnlady8512
  • Start date Start date
Are they not citizens? Are they not taxpayers? And don't you have a sexual preference? Hell, doesn't everyone?Ok...now you're wrong. Where in the article did it say anything about sex? Did it describe any sexual acts and only you have access to that part of the information?Please, for the sake of everything, don't let your judgment of others that differ from you remove you from the facts. Oh...and gays also have freedom of expression and can disagree with decisions...just like you can.
 
why shouldn't gays have a say.......what two consenting adults( key word here my dear is CONSENTING) decide to do as sexual activity is their own damn business.. regardless of their gender.......bringing in beastiality is just your warped and sexually deviated mind... and trying to compare it to homosexuality shows more flaws in YOUR character than in the character of gay people........also ... what is really wrong with homosexuality ????? ( apart from the religious arguements) ... are you trying to tell me that you are unaware that hetrosexuals ALSO sometimes engage in anal sex .. because my dear... some do ... just check out the internet.. hire yourself some hetrosexual porn or buy some hetrosexual porn magazinesand what is your Issue with people who enjoy BJ's... heavens .. I am sure that 90% of male yahoo answerers over the age of consent ( and some below) would enjoy the odd BJ ....( i challenge you to prove that one wrong)Gay people are just like the rest of us ( stop gasping and pick yourself up off the floor) .. some are down right stupid and ignorant ( hmmm like some hetro posters I see around here...) and some are brilliant thinkers.... they have opinions and have the right to express them... and just for the record... I'm hetro .. married... pretty conservative in regards to our sex lives... BUT I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF STICKING MY NOSE INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS... as you seem to be!!!In regards to your freedom of speech .. YOU asked a question .. we've answered it... If you had of asked .." Have I the freedom of speech to say this .. ?"my answer would have been "yeah sure, but i disagree with what you say"The difference is between straight people and gay people is .. that Straight people do NOT have to fight the establishment to marry , adopt , have equal partner rights... GAY PEOPLE DO .. and THAT is why they have to be vocal .. and I fully support them to have the same status quo as the rest of us... because denying them that status IS based on their sexuality and THAT IS WHY they MUST be allowed a say .. when they have the same rights as the rest of us .. .. there won't be any need for them to mention their sexuality!!
 
Watkins' invitation has nothing to do with the controversy over Warren -- she was picked BEFORE the brouhaha over Warren occurred, according to the NYT article. The Warren issue was reported in the news earlier because Warren, a nationally known, vocal opponent of gay rights, is controversial while Watkins, a relatively unknown, mainstream Protestant is not. Further, the inauguration ceremony is far more newsworthy than the prayer breakfast the next day. The Times is scaping the bottom for articles related to the inauguration because so much has already been written, so now they publish this virtual non story because they can tie it slightly to the issue over Rev. Warren.
 
Back
Top