Uh, the point is that the people of Dallas - Dallas! - are likely to elect someone who's gay, not that being gay makes you a better mayor. Is that too opaque or subtle a point?
Dennis:
It's not the person being in office that marks the difference, it's the fact that people in what you are always disparaging as a backward part of the country would elect an openly gay mayor. By the way,
[WS:] I do not disparage people as "backward" - I disparage ideologues who glorify "da people" as infallible authority. I am trying to understand how people actually think instead of imputing ideology-driven interpretations of that thinking.
With that in mind, I do not think that electing an openly gay mayor means what Left ideologues think it does ("progressive thinking by the electorate" etc.). I think it simply means that him being gay is simply a non-issue in this election, not an indicator of some progress. In some other context it may become a huge issue - or may not. This is not that unusual, as people thinking tends to be context specific and discrete rather than omnisciently consistent, as many lefties and rat-choicers often tend to think.
we're talking about Dallas so this is also more evidence that the conservative/progressive split is more country/city than red/blue.
[WS:] Ditto.
>Edgar Hoover was gay, afaik.
ROTFLMAO.
[WS:] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://hnn.us/articles/814.html http://www.geocities.com/hooversecret/ http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/hoover/6.html
Wojtek