|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The President of the United States and the... what?... "First Man"
i'm not american...but don't see a problem with a leader of a country being g/l...how about first woman too? i don't see how a person's sexuality would make a difference on whether or not they could represent and lead a country .....there already have been folks in positions of power that are/have been g/l...but unfortunately are forced into the closet. my 2 cents since you asked.
I don't think the country would be ready for it for at least 50 + years. A gay man is just a man. Same for a lesbian. If a gay man or woman were to become president, his/her orientation should be irrelevant. The day when there are very few people asking questions of this nature is the day that we'll be ready to handle it. Maybe more than 50 years.
This is the 21st century, there is a Black president, hopefully there will be a woman president, and a LGBT president. IT'S ABOUT TIME, don't YOU think! Hopefully, there will be a non-traditionally religious president! America is for ALL people, groups, and beliefs, not just for the SELECTED AND APPROVED!
Interesting. I'm not being combative here, but I find it interesting that we would consider ourselves so open minded as to consider a gay president, but we still assume that it would be a gay male. So, we're discussing the possibility of a gay president, but never a female one?
Interesting... you mention "gay" president, but not "lesbian" president.
I believe the OP's statement of "First Man" was just an example of one of many changes we may face, if the time comes.
How about an unmarried president, for once?
G/L president, yes. Unmarried president, no.
Funny thing, though, if it was to be a gay man, then his partner should have to be called the "second man," not the first.
Why not an unmarried president? It would mean less distraction from the country surely, though at the same time, family is a good distraction to have, to leave work at work. I see both sides, but I can't say a lack of marriage wouldn't sway my vote either way. Sometimes it takes people longer to find "the one".
Quite, some of our best Presidents have been estranged from their wives so not in a "real" marraige. Roosevelt comes to mind.
Haha but no speeches by Michelle Obama or Anne Romney would have occured if not for being married
Perhaps we should only elect unmarried people, as it would save campaigns a lot of money; money which would go to better use on, uhh, just about anything. I know; give it to meeee.
Turns out there has been only one unmarried president (and three widowed.)
http://www.unmarried.org/unmarried-peop … presidents
You could be single and president in the 19th century. ha ha
Also, I searched unsuccessfully for female presidents. They must only occur in the movies.
I think the term gay is a broader blanket term for same-gender oriented. But a lesbian president would be a pretty awesome first as well as a gay president. Especially if our first woman president was a lesbian. That would be such an amazing win for woman kind
Lesbians are also gay. The term does not differentiate between men and women. Oops... sorry, I felt the need to comment on this too.
If a President was single all the country would be talking about was who he/she is dating now
now a single president would be VERY interesting...
Hell, Motown....as long as we're reaching so far.....How about a male trans-sexual, who likes MEN? Why stop at the simple things? This is just what I love.......creative minds, that come up with even MORE for us to concern ourselves with.......I love mass-confusion and hysteria. It's all soooo healthy for all of us....
Ask and you shall receive....
"Arizona elects first openly bisexual member of US Congress"
http://now.msn.com/kyrsten-sinema-wins- … o-congress
It's a start...
We currently have a gay President.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama- … president/
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/09/gay-ob … s-gay.html
Must be true I read it on the interwebs!
No problem here, either -- or with a gay woman and her first lady.
I don't see a problem with that...that might be a better choice than we had...
Another first I would love to see in my lifetime.
Inching closer with recent election of our first openly gay senator.
I'm thinking possibly the next barrier to break will be Obama appointing a gay SCOTUS justice.
Just a hunch.
The religionists would burn down the White House. Other than that, no problem.
But, I don't think that will be an issue for our gay prez.
The religionists are busy seceding from the country at present.
Likely they will declare Texas their country's capital.
So the White House will no longer be their domain.
Everything, everywhere is such a mess these days...
Oh yes, Texas is where I live and it's perfect for the secessionists. I thought people were going to start leaping off of bridges on election night when it became clear that Obama was the winner.
Indeed. It's unfortunate how right you could be. I knew that racism was still existent in this country, but I didn't realize how bad it still was until it was announced that Obama had been reelected. I feared for his life in 2008, but now I do more than ever. Sometimes the people in the country frighten me. Martin Luther King, Jr was a man simply saying "hey, black people are people, too. We have rights. Treat us as equals. Etc, etc." But he was killed for simply standing up for the rights of people. I don't see the struggle for gay people to be too too different. Of course there are differences. BUt the problem is the similarities.
I wouldn't care. I honestly don't see why it would matter. Of course, I don't see why being a Muslim would matter, either, but people seem to care about that, too.
As if being gay defines your leadership skills. Maybe we need to stop seeing differences and start accepting?
G/L - no problem. Muslim I'm not so sure about; my concept of that religion does not include much tolerance or acceptance of differences. Something absolutely necessary in a society as diverse as ours is.
Outside of the radical idiots, though, I'm also not sure at all that that is a reasonable assessment. In truth the average American muslim may be far more accepting and tolerant than the far right Christian is.
I only have enough time and energy to be concerned with what our Prez does from the OVAL OFFICE.....not the bedroom..
As long as he can get the economy on track, keep the country safe and protect our civil liberties, why should we care about his sexual preferences... because at the end of the day... these wives/first ladies could be nothing more than a front for the public and we could have already had homosexual President
It wouldn't matter to me as long as they were qualified and had the countries best interest at heart. I don't see how their sexual orientation would effect that.
I would not care. Gay, trans, single, whatever. That is not relevant to doing a good job.
And we already have leaders of countries with male partners, for example Australia. So it seems they work out what to call them.
An official person's sexual life of preferences isn't any one's business, but their own. As long as they have a level head and can do good things for the country, that is what matters. The Clinton thing so many years ago was also none of our business, but we decided it was. Clinton was a good president, though perhaps not a top-notch husband. But what does running a country have to do with being a part of a marriage?
What people do behind closed doors with the people they love is none of our business and unless it is harming someone, then we need to let them be.
I wouldn't feel anything about it because it doesn't matter.
We had a female president last time. Anyways, I find gender as an irrelevant factor if we talk about good governance. It's all right as long as the leader is decent, honest, and skillful.
Oh, I can't believe no one's said it yet.
Man or woman, I'd feel FABULOUS.
Probably 90 to 95% on HP see no problem with it since you are educated but the stats show that 50% will disagree. So, it's like Bush/Gore or Obama/Romney in those close elections. It would probably happen sooner than you think
Anyone think a black president would've won at the turn of the millenium?
A congresswomen elected who is gay?
Try a gay senator elected this year
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/ … index.html
Hate will continue to exist from radical groups. If she or he can balance a budget and create jobs, and make America a leader nobody has a problem. I'll tell you what though, there may be more secession petitions than ever. I am just not a fan of flamboyant gays, or people who are ghetto, cholo, or redneck. Tthat is a personality thing. I personally think the younger George P. Bush could win before a gay official since he is latino and has some good credentials. If the gay candidate has similar credentials, it will be close. It's a non-issue for me.
I doubt you could find someone that would get elected that would be more radical or controversial than our last 3 Presidents.
I wouldn't care, honestly. The sexuality of an individual wouldn't matter at all to me, since I vote on policies and record instead of who they're attracted to, gender, race or anything else they can't help.
I'm pretty darn gay and I've never found it too mind boggling to live under a straight president. I'm pretty sure when the day comes that there's a gay male or lesbian president, straight people will likewise be able to manage just fine.
LoL. One I day I promise people will realize the absurdity to questions like this being asked.
Thank YOU , we all are one! LGBT, atheist, Black, Latino, Asian, Wiccan, Pagan, New Age, Buddhist, Muslim- who cares as long as he/she can do the job at hand! Superficial constructs have no place in the 21st century! Everyone is "in", there are no "outsiders"!
When it happens, I feel that the majority of the nation will be okay with it. However, there will be a female president before a homosexual president. (Anybody wanna wager?) Workplace sexism and racism was supposed to hit the road shortly after the 60's when women's and civil rights movements were as common as McDonald's, but they didn't. Unfortunately, it took about 50 years for a colored man to call the White House home, then, during a time of toasts, a significant portion of the small-minded population decided that he only won because he captured the black vote. I believe this thoroughly investigated accusation to be of the utter variety of bullshit. However, I do almost wish it was true because poetic beauty and street justice are two notions that I am too young and stupid to give up on. In the mean time, yeah, still waiting on sexism to come around... so, given that we are still climbing toward the apex of the gay rights movement mountain, I'd say we should expect our dear American brethren to elect a homosexual man in, say, 70 years-- and that's the saddest and most generous prediction I have ever made barring my annual prediction of the Philadelphia 76ers going to the 'ship.
What about a lesbian Native American POTUS? I'd love to see a woman and a NA in the office. How come we rarely see NA politicians?
Most Native Americans live on Reservations. Reservations work slightly differently and exist kind of outside of our system of government. Not completely, but certain things are different for them. More recently however, they have started to become lawyers and a part of other professions of that nature. But the NA community is pretty separate from most others comparatively speaking. In the coming years you'll probably start to see more.
I hate to be a downer, but they aren't represented in our politics because our government has treated them as an independent issue. In America, we have plenty of whites, blacks, latinos, and rapidly growing Asian and Indian populations. What we do not have, however, is a growing population of Native Americans. We are only as strong as our weakest link; in this case, the weakest link, being racism. Unfortunately, I do not doubt that we still have a strong racist population in America. We may not base the bigotry on skin color alone anymore, but as a nation we do not like/trust/want what is unfamiliar. In 2008 leading up to the election, the simple fact that race was a major talking point shows just how little progress we have made on a societal scale. An insignificant voting population combined with the common American man's lack of knowledge regarding native practices, belief structures, and daily life creates a near impossible hurdle. I hope I am wrong, but the fact that we have not even had a single NA candidate reach the national stage speaks volumes.
how would i feel a homosexual president?
If I was gay too, I would probably start by rubbing his shoulders and then work my way down.
I think Jews living in Israel, well trying to, might take up that debate, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a white guy in America, the world honestly, who has felt cultural oppression to the slightest extent of any minority race. Although, I bet you would be hard pressed to find an average American that remotely comprehends the term "sacred." It's just not in the vocabulary; it was replaced with "manifest destiny," which we later replaced with "mine."
by Victoria Van Ness5 years ago
How do you feel about gay marriage?The Bible says absolutely not, but we are a country about everyone being equal. Where do you stand?
by Tessa Schlesinger2 years ago
I have a question going. Two or three hubbers are a) not answering the questionb) harrassing me with accusations.What is the correct procedure for this. So far I have simply deleted the comments, but this gets tedious.
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
Why it is that some religionists become quite threatened when atheists, agnostics, & skepticspresent a different opinion/premise?
by mandybeau9 years ago
Big fan of the Guillotine for these Guys, Happy to operate it, I personally don;t see why we need to keep this pondscum alive, costing our Governments a fortune in food med. exps, dentistry.New zealand has quite a few...
by gmwillams4 years ago
Controversy seeking people, WHAT IS your PROBLEM that you always need to stir up controversy???!!! HMMM??? Why do such vitriolic anti-religionists stir up debates with religionists minding their own business? Why...
by mdawson178 years ago
In the recent years I have seen more men come out of the closet after being married for more than 5 years. This concerns me becuase I think of the spouse that has dedicated her complete life to him!I have seen children...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.