Buttigieg's Elephant
A late night conversation around a campfire at a recent Indian Guides campout (after the boys had gone to bed) turned to a discussion of Buttigieg's "elephant in the room", namely his gay marriage and what that portends for the White House should he be elected. I was surprised at a comment of one of our tribe's African-American dads that his faith and its opposition to gay marriage would make it very difficult, even as a Democrat, to vote to have a "dude" as a "first lady". He's Southern Baptist. This led to wonder if the candidate's gay marriage will ever be openly discussed from a standpoint of how the country and/or presidency will be acceptable to people of faith both in the US and internationally, especially both fundamental Christians and Muslims. While I've always assumed that sooner or later we'd have a female President and a male "First Gentleman", I admit I'm not sure I'm ready for the President of the United States publicly holding hands, or having other public display's of affection,with his husband. Comments appreciated.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Right with you there.
Though I have happily worked alongside admittedly queer people, it still disgusts me to see acts, normally acceptable between men and women, shared by two of the same sex.
I have no concerns about the religious beliefs of a Presidential candidate and possibly would consider a female, should she exhibit the necessary attributes. However, I will never accept a candidate who openly exhibits attributes that many consider "unnatural" in human society.
A completely agree that interaction and negotations with muslim countries can be absolutely affected. I seriously doubt he would be "allowed" to bring his "husband" to their country. America can allow what it wants within its borders. But, we cannot force it on others. It is just another problem we DO NOT need. International negotiations/treaties complicated by this??? We do not need it.
There were enough rumors floating around about NObama.
That said, he IS a democrat and wants bigger government, which kicks him out of the running for me. He will probably never make it as the democratic nominee, as their bent is to get a woman in there before a gay dude. Unfortunately this time around, democrats are so intent on getting rid of Trump that they have very little to offer the country.
Currently, about 4.5% of the population is gay. A little over 7 millions. That may seem like a lot. To me that is a very small number compared to the rest of the population. Therefore, I don't believe that Buttigieg's lifestyle of choice represents me or the rest of the American voters. Not to mention Buttigieg's cuck ideas on issues affecting America. I also think his pandering to specific groups for votes is nauseating.
Perhaps I am generalizing too much in this day and age, but as a Hispanic, someone like Buttigieg would not draw too many Hispanic votes from any other candidate. Backwards or not, we Hispanic men still hold a streak of machismo in which men and women act and have different roles in relationships. Right now the DNC doesn't really have a worthy candidate to go against Trump. I guess they'll have to come up with a swim suit competition to determine a winner. If so, Trump can give them guidance on that too.
THAT is how far the liberal agenda has infiltrated our consciousness. We can't even say we don't like a certain behavior, or that we think it's wrong!
As things develop, I'm betting we will find that Hispanic voters are just as uncomfortable with the idea of a gay president. Ironically, both black and Hispanic voters are more morally conservative than their white counterparts, who are very much into virtue signalling their tolerance for deviant practices. That's the real "war" in the Democrat party, moral progressives vs moral conservatives.
Oh, yeah, new thought. Open borders.
I don't generally make blanket statements, but I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people across the country who agree with you, who just aren't ready for a President and his husband in the White House.
It could pose some logistic problems, as I don't think his marriage would be recognized everywhere he went. And I quite agree that could very well cause some serious problems with certain cultures (one of which throws gay men off rooftops).
(Warning: Completely subjective opinion to follow.) My issue with the idea is the radical push he would make to further shove the so-called LGBTAtoZ "rights" deeper and deeper into mainstream America (no pun intended; I just don't know how else to word that idea).
And I hope nobody accepts the media like that this guy is a moderate Dem. He's just as radical as any other D running; he's just being quiet about it.
However, if he is the candidate, I don't think the media will "allow" President Trump to make a campaign issue of it. He'll be branded as "Homophobe In Chief" if he utters even one word about it.
So while it may be an elephant, I don't think it's one that can or will be a campaign topic. Trump can blast the Sanders/et al Medicare for All plans, and he can show the utter idiocy of any kind of Green New Deal. But the alphabet groups? Totally off limits. It might be the biggest mistake Trump could make that could seriously jeopardize his re-election chances.
Time to stop it.
Then, some of that kind of objection may dissipate, comment on the policies and actions not the sex/gender of the current squeeze.