Presidential Candidates In First Ever Gay Debate

**Logan13** · 07-10-2007, 03:08 PM

Presidential Candidates In First Ever Gay Debate
Drudgereport.com
(Los Angeles, California) For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues.

The one-hour event will be held on August 9 and broadcast on gay network LOGO at 9:00 pm ET (6:00 pm ET) and through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.

The debate will be conducted with a live audience in Los Angeles. On the panel questioning the two Democrats will be Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge.

The debate was put together by LOGO and HRC.

"In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,” said Solmonese.

"From the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” to the recent signing of a civil unions bill in New Hampshire, there is no doubt that voters will demand answers to important questions affecting our community."

The panelists in a statement said they plan to cover a range of issues including relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS and other important issues.

The LGBT vote is considered a decisive electoral force and according to exit poll data make up approximately 4 percent of the voting population.

Los Angeles was chosen as the site for the event because of the state’s early primary election, on February 5th, 2008.

"We're honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience," Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President, LOGO said in a statement.

"This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process."

In addition to questioning by Solmonese and Etheridge people will be able to pose their own questions through LOGOonline.com and HRC.org.

LOGO is the owner of 365Gay.com.

**Tock** · 07-10-2007, 07:22 PM

Cool.

**Logan13** · 07-10-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Cool.

What other minority groups that compose just 2-3% of the US population will they have a debate about next? That's the Dems for you though.........

**Tock** · 07-10-2007, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

What other minority groups that compose just 2-3% of the US population will they have a debate about next? That's the Dems for you though.........

I suspect that the debates will be less about the 3% of the population that's gay, as much as it will be about everyone else's reaction to gay people. Also, it's a debate over a particular issue, and I suppose later on they may have debates that focus exclusively on energy, or foreign relations, or education, or taxes.

If you think that viewing these debates might evoke distressing emotions in yourself, then you might consider watching something else that evening.

**Coop77** · 07-10-2007, 10:37 PM

Doesn't surprise me. Gays vote. They're especially an important group in the democratic primary.

In '92 Clinton was the first candidate to go on MTV and court the young vote, and he cleaned up big time. This year it's Logo.

**Logan13** · 07-10-2007, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

I suspect that the debates will be less about the 3% of the population that's gay, as much as it will be about everyone else's reaction to gay people. Also, it's a debate over a particular issue, and I suppose later on they may have debates that focus exclusively on energy, or foreign relations, or education, or taxes.

If you think that viewing these debates might evoke distressing emotions in yourself, then you might consider watching something else that evening.

Until they announce the upcoming debates on the additional issues you listed, I will maintain that it is just a pandering party with politically correct motives, and nothing more. It is just more waste from the do-nothing party.

**Tock** · 07-10-2007, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Until they announce the upcoming debates on the additional issues you listed, I will maintain that it is just a pandering party with politically correct motives, and nothing more. It is just more waste from the do-nothing party.

Gay issues are huge nowadays. The Anglican church is on the verge of a big nasty denominational split over the gay issue. Lots of people want to keep gays out of the military. Lots more think they should be allowed to get shot up in Iraq just like anyone else. Republicans in the US worked their butts off and spent many millions of $$$ trying to amend the US Constitution so that gays can never get married. This is an issue of tremendous importance and concern to the 97% of people who are not gay. For gays, it's no biggie -- just let us serve in the military, let us get married just like everyone else, and let us do our thing like y'all do your thing, and everything will be just fine. But no, lots of heterosexuals are extremely upset that gays might get married and end up shooting r***es at terrorists in Iraq.

Anyway, there's lots of pandering that goes on in both political parties. If you hate to watch such things, then don't. I'm sure you can find something else to do . . .

**Logan13** · 07-10-2007, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Gay issues are huge nowadays. The Anglican church is on the verge of a big nasty denominational split over the gay issue. Lots of people want to keep gays out of the military. Lots more think they should be allowed to get shot up in Iraq just like anyone else. Republicans in the US worked their butts off and spent many millions of $$$ trying to amend the US Constitution so that gays can never get married. This is an issue of tremendous importance and concern to the 97% of people who are not gay. For gays, it's no biggie -- just let us serve in the military, let us get married just like everyone else, and let us do our thing like y'all do your thing, and everything will be just fine. But no, lots of heterosexuals are extremely upset that gays might get married and end up shooting r***es at terrorists in Iraq.

Let me correct you.

Defense of Marriage Act
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

1. No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Quit throwing the term Republican around on this.
It is not only Republicans who hold these beliefs.

**Tock** · 07-10-2007, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Let me correct you.

Defense of Marriage Act
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

1. No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Quit throwing the term Republican around on this.
It is not only Republicans who hold these beliefs.

The Defense of Marriage Act isn't constitutional, and I suspect that Clinton knew this.

And maybe you haven't noticed it, but it's the Republican party that's rabidly anti-gay, not the Democrats. Sure, there are a few progressive Republicans who understand that gays who marry in Massachusetts aren't going to adversely affect their marriage in California. And there are a few conservative Democrats who are certain that gay marriage will make their own heterosexual relationship untenable.
So, tough it out, mon petite -- I'm gonna keep "throwing the Republican around on this."
Republican Republican Republican.

Ugh.

**Information** · 07-11-2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Gay issues are huge nowadays. The Anglican church is on the verge of a big nasty denominational split over the gay issue. Lots of people want to keep gays out of the military. Lots more think they should be allowed to get shot up in Iraq just like anyone else. Republicans in the US worked their butts off and spent many millions of $$$ trying to amend the US Constitution so that gays can never get married. This is an issue of tremendous importance and concern to the 97% of people who are not gay. For gays, it's no biggie -- just let us serve in the military, let us get married just like everyone else, and let us do our thing like y'all do your thing, and everything will be just fine. But no, lots of heterosexuals are extremely upset that gays might get married and end up shooting r***es at terrorists in Iraq.

Anyway, there's lots of pandering that goes on in both political parties. If you hate to watch such things, then don't. I'm sure you can find something else to do . . . If not, then come over to my place, and I'll see if I can't keep you otherwise amused . . .

Check your PMs.

**Hoggage_54** · 07-11-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

What other minority groups that compose just 2-3% of the US population will they have a debate about next? That's the Dems for you though.........

Illegal immigrants make up 5% of the population, so why bother talking about them?

**kfrost06** · 07-11-2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Gay issues are huge nowadays. The Anglican church is on the verge of a big nasty denominational split over the gay issue. Lots of people want to keep gays out of the military. Lots more think they should be allowed to get shot up in Iraq just like anyone else. Republicans in the US worked their butts off and spent many millions of $$$ trying to amend the US Constitution so that gays can never get married. This is an issue of tremendous importance and concern to the 97% of people who are not gay. For gays, it's no biggie -- just let us serve in the military, let us get married just like everyone else, and let us do our thing like y'all do your thing, and everything will be just fine. But no, lots of heterosexuals are extremely upset that gays might get married and end up shooting r***es at terrorists in Iraq.

Anyway, there's lots of pandering that goes on in both political parties. If you hate to watch such things, then don't. I'm sure you can find something else to do . . . If not, then come over to my place, and I'll see if I can't keep you otherwise amused . . .

You can serve in the military and get married, like everyone else, the thing is you don't want to get married like everyone else, you want to re-define marriage to meet your special needs! get it?

**kfrost06** · 07-11-2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Hoggage_54

Illegal immigrants make up 5% of the population, so why bother talking about them?

They do talk about them and the gays too they just do not go on there own networks to cater to them to get there votes but rather talk about the issue and how it effects the whole population and the country which is the greater issue.

**Logan13** · 07-11-2007, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

The Defense of Marriage Act isn't constitutional, and I suspect that Clinton knew this.

And maybe you haven't noticed it, but it's the Republican party that's rabidly anti-gay, not the Democrats. Sure, there are a few progressive Republicans who understand that gays who marry in Massachusetts aren't going to adversely affect their marriage in California. And there are a few conservative Democrats who are certain that gay marriage will make their own heterosexual relationship untenable.
So, tough it out, mon petite -- I'm gonna keep "throwing the Republican around on this."
Republican Republican Republican.

Ugh.

There is only one bill that has been passed and made into law with the clear objective to stiffle gay marriage. This is the Defense of Marriage Act. If you truely care about this cause and not just the politics, you would put aside your ideals and speak out against this Act, the one that was created by a Democrat President........

**Tock** · 07-11-2007, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

You can serve in the military and get married, like everyone else, the thing is you don't want to get married like everyone else, you want to re-define marriage to meet your special needs!

If gays could serve in the military and get married just like everyone else does, there wouldn't be a problem.

There's no need to re-define anything, us gay folks will have some of what the rest of y'all are doing, and that will be just fine, thank you very much.

**Tock** · 07-11-2007, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

There is only one bill that has been passed and made into law with the clear objective to stiffle gay marriage. This is the Defense of Marriage Act. If you truely care about this cause and not just the politics, you would put aside your ideals and speak out against this Act, the one that was created by a Democrat President........

Well, if it will make you happy, ok, I will speak out against this Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act s---s chancred penii.

I hope you're happy now, but I rather suspect that you are not.

**Logan13** · 07-11-2007, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Well, if it will make you happy, ok, I will speak out against this Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act s---s chancred penii.

I hope you're happy now, but I rather suspect that you are not.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Let's just be honest about how we divvy it up. Ideals should not cloud the facts.

**Tock** · 07-11-2007, 10:36 PM

I'm still puzzled about why this issue -- this business of the Democrats having a debate on gay issues - has got this much of your attention.

**Logan13** · 07-12-2007, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

I'm still puzzled about why this issue -- this business of the Democrats having a debate on gay issues - has got this much of your attention.

Not my attention. You are not giving them the same attention that you give Conservatives on the same issue.

**Tock** · 07-12-2007, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Not my attention. You are not giving them the same attention that you give Conservatives on the same issue.

Hmmm . . . and you're giving me extra attention to make sure I give them the same attention I give to conservatives?

Sounds like someone doesn't have enough to do . . .

**Logan13** · 07-13-2007, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Hmmm . . . and you're giving me extra attention to make sure I give them the same attention I give to conservatives?

Sounds like someone doesn't have enough to do . . .

Sounds like someone just doesn't like being held responsible for their stupid, uninformed statements..............

**thetank** · 07-13-2007, 03:16 PM

ile definately tune in to watch that debat..should be interesting

**Logan13** · 07-13-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by thetank

ile definately tune in to watch that debat..should be interesting

how can it be coined a "debate" if all parties there are on the same side?

**Tock** · 07-13-2007, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

how can it be coined a "debate" if all parties there are on the same side?

What do you care if it's a debate or not? Are you gonna watch it?

I wanna watch it . . . I want to see what Senator Mike Gravel has to say on the subject. I'll bet it'll be good . . . I like that guy because he's willing to decriminalize drugs and dismantle the IRS . . .