Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Rights Will Skewer Bachmann

HisFlyness
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.
"Not All Those Who Wander Are Lost." - Tolkein...or Babe Ruth. One of those guys.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 11:25:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

lol id vote for her.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 11:31:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 11:25:00 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

lol id vote for her.

So would I.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 11:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
She should run in Uganda.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:22:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 11:31:18 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 7/14/2011 11:25:00 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

lol id vote for her.

So would I.

A "disease"? Thats great. What Hitler called the jews before Night of Broken glass. Lets see where this goes.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:49:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:22:46 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/14/2011 11:31:18 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 7/14/2011 11:25:00 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

lol id vote for her.

So would I.

A "disease"? Thats great. What Hitler called the jews before Night of Broken glass. Lets see where this goes.

She said homosexuality was a disease, not homosexuals. It would be analogous if Hitler called Judaism a disease, but not if he called Jews a disease.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:52:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:49:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/15/2011 1:22:46 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/14/2011 11:31:18 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 7/14/2011 11:25:00 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

lol id vote for her.

So would I.

A "disease"? Thats great. What Hitler called the jews before Night of Broken glass. Lets see where this goes.

She said homosexuality was a disease, not homosexuals. It would be analogous if Hitler called Judaism a disease, but not if he called Jews a disease.

Good point. But still, one step down from Hitler.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:54:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm an independent and I will always vote against gay rights.

Gay people shouldn't have rights. It's wrong on all levels. It goes against the laws of spirituality and the laws of physicality. The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah". No you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want. You have a mental/chemical disorder called homosexuality. Get some hormones to fix the chemical imbalance and the disorder will go away. People should be free, but only when it is healthy. Our modern society accepts too much.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:57:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Disorders have consequences. Like your disorder, puritanism, that makes you obsess over other people having different preferences.

Also, do you have evidence that any hormones will convert a homosexual into a heterosexual?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:57:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
*negative* consequences.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 9:12:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:54:16 AM, Lionheart wrote:
I'm an independent and I will always vote against gay rights.

Gay people shouldn't have rights.

Don't you mean to say "people shouldn't have the right to be gay?" Because what you actually said has a far different meaning. Your callousness in wording is testament to your warped sense of morality.

It's wrong on all levels.

A crude statement. "All levels" is some spiritual concoction of yours.

It goes against the laws of spirituality and the laws of physicality.

Laws which are understood, recognized and respected by no one, as far as I can tell.

The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah". No you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want.

Good point. But you could say this about any person or any group of people.

You have a mental/chemical disorder called homosexuality. Get some hormones to fix the chemical imbalance and the disorder will go away.

I couldn't imagine any mainstream medical practitioner supporting this statement in the least. This would appear to be the epitome of ignorance on the subject, only occasionally reached by the far right.

People should be free, but only when it is healthy. Our modern society accepts too much.

I agree. That is why I believe our habits of consumption should not be acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable to drive an SUV, to have others cook and clean for us, or to use any goods or services that we wouldn't want to produce ourselves. But my use of this argument as an economic instrument is much more demonstratable than your use of it to attack gays. I can cite studies on the environment, energy, usage, and economics, while you only have vague and dubious "laws of spirituality" and such that are rather laughable, intellectually speaking. The fact that you don't bother to define them is, again, a testament to the lack of strength of your position.
Rob
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 10:53:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

I agree with your conclusion but not your warrants. She could win the primary but I dont think she would lose the general election due to her stance on gay rights. Most independents would rank economic issues as their primary concern and not gay rights. But those who would hold gay rights as paramount wouldnt be voting for her anyway so she would only be losing a minimal to negligible amount.
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 10:53:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 9:12:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I agree. That is why I believe our habits of consumption should not be acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable to drive an SUV, to have others cook and clean for us, or to use any goods or services that we wouldn't want to produce ourselves.

Interesting views. Care to explain them, even briefly?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 10:58:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 10:53:50 AM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/15/2011 9:12:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I agree. That is why I believe our habits of consumption should not be acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable to drive an SUV, to have others cook and clean for us, or to use any goods or services that we wouldn't want to produce ourselves.

Interesting views. Care to explain them, even briefly?

He's basically saying right now, gay rights are not a top priority. More people are focused on the economy and jobs. And people will vote for jobs and against gay marriage, before voting for gay marriage and against jobs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 11:03:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Gay people shouldn't have rights. It's wrong on all levels. It goes against the laws of spirituality and the laws of physicality.:

Perhaps you can enlighten us on these laws of spirituality and physicality.

The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah".:

What right do you have to tell two consenting adults what they should or shouldn't do? If you don't like homosexuality, then don't engage in it. Why should other people be compelled to subscribe to your version of morality?

No you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want. You have a mental/chemical disorder called homosexuality. Get some hormones to fix the chemical imbalance and the disorder will go away.:

Prove that homosexuality is a disorder. Actually, prove that anyone definitively knows why homosexuality exists, even in the animal kingdom.

People should be free, but only when it is healthy. Our modern society accepts too much.:

Oh, I see. People should be free, but only when it's healthy. I guess that means we should shut down McDonalds, bring back Prohibition, and stop cigarette companies from making them.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:01:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that Bachman's views on homosexuality are nuts. However, only the extreme left thinks that is an important issue for the Presdent. It's an issue for the states. Obama will get all the extreme left votes anyway. Note that Obama ran opposing gay marriage, and has not changed his position. He enjoys the leftist exemption such matters - he has a license to lie to achieve victory for the advance of socialism, and everyone on the left knows that.

There are some right-wingers who hold gay rights and abortion to be extremely important issues, and Bachman would get those votes regardless.

For most people the election is about the economy.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:54:16 AM, Lionheart wrote:
I'm an independent and I will always vote against gay rights.

Gay people shouldn't have rights. It's wrong on all levels. It goes against the laws of spirituality and the laws of physicality. The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah". No you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want. You have a mental/chemical disorder called homosexuality. Get some hormones to fix the chemical imbalance and the disorder will go away.

Yeah, cause that worked out so well for Alan Turing.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:25:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People should be free, but only when it is healthy. Our modern society accepts too much.

I agree. That is why I believe our habits of consumption should not be acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable to drive an SUV, to have others cook and clean for us, or to use any goods or services that we wouldn't want to produce ourselves.

Interesting views. Care to explain them, even briefly?

He's basically saying right now, gay rights are not a top priority. More people are focused on the economy and jobs. And people will vote for jobs and against gay marriage, before voting for gay marriage and against jobs.

While I do agree with your assessment, Or-ee-ell, I was actually taking a more extreme position than you give me credit for.

I believe that Americans have a problem with consumption. Lion said we should be free, but only when it's healthy... Which I agree with and I say that our consumptive habits are indeed unhealthy. We shouldn't be consuming goods that we know to:
- cause damage to the environment
- necessitate menial labor to be performed, or
- to be unsustainable
Rob
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 7:54:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 10:53:42 AM, CiRrK wrote:
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

I agree with your conclusion but not your warrants. She could win the primary but I dont think she would lose the general election due to her stance on gay rights. Most independents would rank economic issues as their primary concern and not gay rights. But those who would hold gay rights as paramount wouldnt be voting for her anyway so she would only be losing a minimal to negligible amount.

Plus, it's not like any Republican aside from Paul would be particularly supportive of gay rights. So many LGBT people are voting for Obama regardless, because many of them are single issue voters.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 9:02:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:54:16 AM, Lionheart wrote:
I'm an independent and I will always vote against gay rights.

Gay people shouldn't have rights. It's wrong on all levels. It goes against the laws of spirituality and the laws of physicality. The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah". No you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want. You have a mental/chemical disorder called homosexuality. Get some hormones to fix the chemical imbalance and the disorder will go away. People should be free, but only when it is healthy. Our modern society accepts too much.

So you are hating on lesbians?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:43:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:54:16 AM, Lionheart wrote:
Gay people shouldn't have rights. It's wrong on all levels.

Which levels? Maybe on Christianity, but that's a maybe. See: http://www.soulforce.org...

It goes against the laws of spirituality and the laws of physicality.

Lolwut? Spirituality seems to indicate some sort of religion, which as we all should know, banning something because of religion violates the rights of all who don't share that religion.

Physicality seems to be... it's natural? Because real Americans refuse to touch unnatural things like polyester and eyeglasses and computers?

The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah".

People petitioning for the right to eat chocolate and how to successfully stop them in their tracks "The only thing they can say in their favor is " I should be able to do what I want...Waaaaah" Isn't freedom our default? And if you can't give any decent argument against it, it should be allowed.

No you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want. You have a mental/chemical :disorder called homosexuality. Get some hormones to fix the chemical imbalance and :the disorder will go away.

Why shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want if there is no argument against it? And you can't "cure" homosexuality.

Couldn't you make the same exact argument against heterosexuality? "You darned hetero, go get some hormones and fix yourself up"

People should be free, but only when it is healthy. Our modern society accepts too :much.

On the off chance you don't drive a car (which has harmful fumes, and you could walk instead) and don't eat any junk food, you still sit in front of a computer which hurts your eyes and it wastes time when you could be exercising.

Arguing against someone's basic rights is a extremely weak position, and I don't blame you for those arguments. I couldn't come up with any decent ones either.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 8:01:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Homosexuality may be a side issue, as Roy points out, but her expressed views on the subject demonstrate that she is out of touch with the views f the average American and is happy to reflect the opinions of right-wing extremists.

Perhaps she would be happy to pander to their opinions once in power on more mainstream issues such as the economy, immigration and foreign policy?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:03:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 11:57:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
inb4 theLwerd

I'm actually surprised (disappointed) she didn't read that and fillet him alive.
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:25:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really don't see Bachmann as a legitimate candidate for President. After all the hoopla, she will be just another Palin.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 11:31:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:03:34 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/15/2011 11:57:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
inb4 theLwerd

I'm actually surprised (disappointed) she didn't read that and fillet him alive.

Me too. I think that level of stupidity just bores me beyond fathomable belief. I can't take it seriously.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 11:46:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:01:04 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I agree that Bachman's views on homosexuality are nuts. However, only the extreme left thinks that is an important issue for the Presdent. It's an issue for the states. Obama will get all the extreme left votes anyway. Note that Obama ran opposing gay marriage, and has not changed his position. He enjoys the leftist exemption such matters - he has a license to lie to achieve victory for the advance of socialism, and everyone on the left knows that.

There are some right-wingers who hold gay rights and abortion to be extremely important issues, and Bachman would get those votes regardless.

For most people the election is about the economy.

I agree with this exactly, though I don't think it's "the extreme left" who prioritizes those issues as opposed to the specific demographic those issues primarily affect (i.e. gays and young women). I know a lot of gay people who aren't extreme leftists by any means, and many who are Republican (ew). After all, a lot of extreme leftists care most about the economy.

Elections are games; it's what is done in office that is (somewhat) more important though that is often based on games too. While Obama can certainly do more for the gay community, so far he has already

1. Stopped defending DOMA in courts
2. Opposed all anti-gay marriage bills, including Proposition 8
3. Supported Civil Unions and full equal rights under the State for gay couples
4. Extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees
5. Hired an openly gay White House Social Director (I'm not pro AA, but yeah)
6. Made the first ever federal appointment of a transgendered person
7. Lobbied for and Signed the Matthew Shepherd Act
8. Supported a UN Resolution to oppose government mistreatment of gays on a global scale
9. Campaigned on, vehemently Ppushed for and signed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
10. Supports states that have opted to enact same-sex marriage

This officially makes him the most progressive president ever on gay rights. No other president in American history was on board for any of these issues. This is directly after GWB, who was incredibly antagonistic on the gays. I'm pretty sure Obama will endorse gay marriage after the 2012 election. He can't afford to lose religious voters in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, etc. My friend Jay campaigned for him and pointed all of this out, including the fact that Obama has said his views on gay marriage are "evolving..." i.e., he is likely going to support it once he wins. The only reason he wouldn't is if the Dems need to trade off gay marriage support in exchange for votes on other issues. This is again why politics = games = a lot of BS.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 5:54:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh and another thing.

I love how Republicans have the audacity to complain about tax payer money being used to fund things they don't agree with (i.e. abortion), yet have absolutely no problem with using tax payer money to fund things like Michelle Bachmann's ANTI-GAY CLINC -- a.k.a gay conversion therapy (which has been denounced by the scientific, medical and psychological communities as completely ineffective and potentially dangerous). This practice is being performed at a clinic owned by Bachmann and her husband, and has received over $137,000 in federal funds in addition to $24,000 in state funds.

This is all particularly hilarious considering Bachmann's family was collecting over $160,000 in Medicaid and other public funds, as she was leading Tea Party calls for drastic cuts to social safety nets - especially to Medicaid which she has said swell the "welfare rolls" - and even voted to shut down the government rather than continue funding Planned Parenthood and the Health Care Reform Act. What a completely hypocritical D-BAG. What a joke. Does she honestly not see the BLATANT hypocrisy in this?! And are the people who all claim they would vote for her honestly that retarded? Hmm, I guess so.
President of DDO
Libertaire
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 9:49:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 7:54:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/15/2011 10:53:42 AM, CiRrK wrote:
At 7/14/2011 2:38:26 PM, HisFlyness wrote:
Michelle Bachmann may get some help from the Far Right for her firm opposition against gay rights, it may even help her win the primary, but there's no way she'll get elected with that rhetoric. Most moderate and independent voters don't look at gay people the way she, and more specifically her husband, does. Most people outside of the Far Right are okay with homosexuals, and her past of calling it a curable disease won't help.

I agree with your conclusion but not your warrants. She could win the primary but I dont think she would lose the general election due to her stance on gay rights. Most independents would rank economic issues as their primary concern and not gay rights. But those who would hold gay rights as paramount wouldnt be voting for her anyway so she would only be losing a minimal to negligible amount.

Plus, it's not like any Republican aside from Paul would be particularly supportive of gay rights. So many LGBT people are voting for Obama regardless, because many of them are single issue voters.

Why would they? I think homosexuals might have a higher probability of having libertarian leanings at least socially. Homosexuals in the United States have been discriminated against by their own government for hundreds of years. If that were me, I would want a president who didn't give either the bigoted right or the liberal left special privileges. Just don't discriminate and I'd be fine. Plus Obama is openly against gay marriage. Paul seems to be the best choice for a homosexual.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 10:28:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 9:49:57 PM, Libertaire wrote:
Plus Obama is openly against gay marriage. Paul seems to be the best choice for a homosexual.

Apparently you missed my post about how Obama is the most progressive president ever when it comes to gay rights. This is also not true, as Paul would encourage State rights (as in defending DOMA) whereas Obama would be far more likely to legalize gay marriage at the federal level.
President of DDO