“Senator Clinton, if you become President how do you propose to keep Bill from playing slap’n’tickle with the staff?”

Regards,
Peter H.

I also did not say Egypt was a democracy. I wrote “the more democratic states like Egypt and Indonesia” Of course Egypt isn’t a democracy, but it is more democratic than countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria, which are both totalitarian monarchies.

And I do think human rights abuses by the government of Iran, Nigeria and others would have been an appropriate question at the Logo candidate forum.

Among his well-stated conclusions:

The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law – gays, women, freethinkers – are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it. What we have on our Left is a culture of denial equal to, if not exceeding, the German Jews of the 1930s…

Also, sorry but Egypt isn’t democratic. It’s a one-party police state, kind of like Chavez’ Venezuela. Having said that: There are degrees of evil, and Egypt, for all its faults, still is not as bad on gays as Iran is.

Now, what I came to say – The “missing question at the gay debate” – I was chatting with a friend about it. He pointed out, the war with Islamo-fascism (or I-f’s war on us and civilization – however you want to put it) is not a specifically gay issue, so why expect the question? True. But Iran hanging gay teenagers, is a gay issue. And Iran is a nuclear proliferator that has announced its intention to start a war in the Middle East. So, both because Iran is a general issue and because Iran is a gay issue, Presidential candidates of both parties should be asked about it.

Regards,
Peter H.

Philosophically, I don’t see why it even matters if homosexuality is a choice or not.

Narrowly considered i.e. in the sense that in an ideal free society, it shouldn’t matter which gender a person is attracted to and falls in love with, I agree with you. However, the science is pretty much settled that for most people, sexual orientation is hard-wired. To ignore that and continue to spout unscientific “beliefs” as facts denigrates science itself. That’s why I have a problem with what Richardson said especially since the interviewer gave him every opportunity to correct himself and he didn’t. It suggests to me that Richardson is more of a gut-feel kind of guy and not very analytical and after eight years of Bush, I want a President who emphasizes analysis over his or her gut feelings.

Furthermore, we don’t live in an ideal free society and the unsubstantiated belief that sexual orientation is a choice makes it easier for the homohaters and groups like Exodus to sell their snake oil and curb our rights.

And they’re doing and saying WHAT, exactly, about it? C’mon! Libs are the ones who supposedly give a damn about gays. They run around blowing smoke on a regular basis. What’s their position?

“There are some people who would rather homosexuals be stoned to death than that they be liberated by George W. Bush and the ‘Right.’”

I just worry that we are too easily divided. It seems that elements of the left say ‘If it’s good for Bush, we can’t say anything” and the right “If it’s bad, we can’t say anything?”