Would you vote for a Homosexual?

[TheLoneGunman]

I am curious about this question.
The Surgeon General just came out with a report that homosexuality is biological and it is not possibly to "change" your preference.
The president disagrees.
Now, one of the top 3 candidates for President and one of the Governors of one of the top 5 states (soon to be up for reelection) are both Homosexual.
In one case, it was widely reported and pretty obvious and in the other case, I know first hand (I knew one of his male sex partners -- who traded sex for political favors -- although the man always said it was consensual). Also, the politician categorically refused to deny the incident or his sexual persuasion when specifically asked by me (it wasn't one of those "I take the fifth" or "I won't dignify the question" responses, he clearly implied that it was a yes, but the voters wouldn't accept it)

My question -- Would this affect your vote?

[chrissy]

Why would it?
If they are doing a good job, and have the same goals for the country that I do, sure, I would vote for them. It wouldn't matter to me.

[coleslaw]

I would only vote for a homosexual on the "exit" poll... :D

[eSDee]

I agree with crabbie. If the person was working for the same political goals that I believe in, then I don't think his being a homosexual make me not vote for him. Besides variety is the spice of life. Even though I think Jesse Ventura is an idiot, I think that it is cool that a non- career politician made was elected to such a high position. It stirs things up a bit, and gives hope for those who don't believe that normal people can hold office.

Did that make any sense? I'm still recovering from a kick ass party last night(you missed it mojo). I'm a little scatterbrained right now.

Summary: Yes, I would vote for a homosexual. :thumbup:

[fakesurfers]

I already have (our county sheriff is a gay female). If you take the low end of estimates, at least 5% of the population is gay. Therefore, if you have voted for more than 20 people in your life, the odds are that you have too.

TLG, spill it. The governor is Jeb Bush, isnt it? :laugh:

[mojo]

ahhh....i keep forgetting that homosexuality is funny. clumsy me.

honestly i wouldn't know if i have or not. you can't tell a homosexual by how they look and whatnot (whatever "whatnot" is).

[fakesurfers]

Originally posted by mojorisin
ahhh....i keep forgetting that homosexuality is funny. clumsy me.



No, homosexuals can be funny, but arent necessarily so. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, just kills me.

[sbp]

I wonder if my liberal neighbors across the street would vote for someone just because that politician is homosexual. They voted for someone running for office because that person was black. I asked them what was the difference between what they did versus people who vote against someone on account of race. They didn't answer but I could tell they didn't like the question.

[TheLoneGunman]

I specifically related how I knew each were homosexual and neither was based on looks or "whatnot"

As far as it making a difference, if it isn't an issue, why are both of these people deathly afraid of it getting out?

In fact the Presidential candidate used his influence to squelch the source of the leak and this person suffered (career-wise) greatly.

[mojo]

Originally posted by fakesurfers

Originally posted by mojorisin
ahhh....i keep forgetting that homosexuality is funny. clumsy me.



No, homosexuals can be funny, but arent necessarily so. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, just kills me.

i missed something

[fakesurfers]

Well, the implication is that there are 'family values' politicians that are closeted homosexuals. That's where the hypocrisy comes. In Florida, Jeb Bush is beholden to the Religious Right, which generally frowns on homosexuality (and oral sex), therefore it would be an excellent example of hypocrisy. Capice?

[mojo]

ahhh...well, since you put it that way...conosco che cosa significate.

however, i would have to give him props for knowing to keep such a secret. some things are best hidden for some people in certain circumstances. i am not saying that i would have done the same thing, but i am also not saying that i would not. people have had to hide preference in sexuality, religion, and other things, for years. as far as defining such an action as anything in particular....i would have to think on the subject. hopefully it is not an issue tho. cuz i hate thinking these days.

[fakesurfers]

That, my friend, is hypocrisy. I see it as an abominable trait.

[mojo]

thanks for referring to me as "friend" :) (no, i am not being sarcastic)

i see similar traits by just about every politician. so...that is a lot of abomination

[TheLoneGunman]

Ok, now that this is a hot topic, I will offer that the governor I was referring to was NOT Jeb. (Although I am unsure of his sexuality)

[ufcrusher]

I personally subscribe to the "do what you like, but dont flaunt it" way of thinking. I could care less, whether someone is has their fire lit by a member of the opposite sex, or someone of the same sex, but at the same time, I really dont like it being thrown up in my face that someone is homosexual. I have a bunch of friends who could be described as flamers, and most of them were in the closet when we became friends, but either came out to me or have generally shown their preference through the years. I have unfortunately witnessed unabashed anti gay sentiment that was hidden behind a facade of general apathy toward the individual. (Everyone taunted him, called him a focking queer, who liked to smoke pole, but said it was just because he was an *******. - yeah right) Now, while I personally could care less about which way anyone swings, I would probably have a problem with an elected official being homosexual IF their platform is that they are homosexual.

I am sure everyone is scratching their collective heads. To clarify, I think that there would be so much negative backlash aimed at the fact that the politician is gay, that it would serve as an impedement to actually achieving anything good in office. That doesnt mean that because they are gay, they couldnt do the job, it just means that if they are openly gay it could create hostilities in what until recently was the good old boys club, which would prevent work from being done.

Imagine a gay senator trying to push through a bill promoting same sex marriages and partner rights. Now compare that with a straight senator championing the same legislation. On the one hand, people who oppose it are going to say," See what that there ****** is trying to do! He is screwing with our fundamental rights. It aint right for two men to be sleeping together" However, if a straight senator brought it, they cant personalize it against the senator and will have to look at it from a more detached perspective. There still is going to be a backlash to it, but it cant be magnified as much.

In general, I dont think that the american public could handle the truth. Everyone wants to pretend that nothing bad ever happens, that what goes on elsewhere is not our problem, and there can be no divergent points of view. If you notice, even the political parties seem to be slowly mirroring each others views. While they will never say it, the old chinese proverb of the nail which sticks out the farthest gets hammered down first truly does work. If you are way off to either side, you are going to be attacked on that basis.

One last thought - the puritanical public couldnt deal with Clinton getting head in the oval office from an Intern. It wasnt the fact that he lied about the incident, but the thought that he sullied the american presidency. Imagine what the public would say about a gay senator. It doesnt matter what happens, where it happens, or when it happens. The only thing that matters to the public is that it happens, and if there is a gay senator - you know the first day will bring a breaking story, that the senator has violated the anti sodomy laws of Washington DC because there are used condoms in his trash. Mark my words, it would happen, because some person would push for the enforcement of a law that hasnt been enforced in decades to be reinstated.



FYI - Sodomy - as defined in criminal law is a crime against nature consisting of anal intercourse, oral stimulation of the sexual organs of another, or intercourse with an animal. - on that basis, we are all guilty of sodomy - if we have had any sex, because humans are animals.

[Memo]

I won't lie, I wouldn't vote for him, enough said. Don't want to start an argument about it :)

[mojo]

of course i could go "perspective" on this one and say:

no! i would never vote for a homosexual! i would vote for the person. the homosexuality is incidental.

[TheLoneGunman]

Well, here's another consideration.

If the politician is in the closet, then aren't they at much greater risk for being blackmailed and controlled?

When the NSA was polygraphing me they wanted to know stuff like whether I had sex with sheep. They said it was less important that I did it but more about how honest I was. If they knew, then some Commie agent couldn't blackmail me with it. (I knew some people dismissed from minor White House jobs for just that reason. They lied about minor past indiscretions. Had they been upfront, it would have been dealt with)

[Burzhui]

nah it shouldn't really matter, if they are a <S>good, honest</s> politiician.... no scratch that, main point is no it wouldn't affect my vote

[Burzhui]

Damn it my strikethrough tag didn't work :(

[sbp]

http://sbp777777.homestead.com/files/loveewetroll.jpg


Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Well, here's another consideration.

If the politician is in the closet, then aren't they at much greater risk for being blackmailed and controlled?

When the NSA was polygraphing me they wanted to know stuff like whether I had sex with sheep. They said it was less important that I did it but more about how honest I was. If they knew, then some Commie agent couldn't blackmail me with it. (I knew some people dismissed from minor White House jobs for just that reason. They lied about minor past indiscretions. Had they been upfront, it would have been dealt with)

http://thelonegunman.wasarrested.com/sheep :eek2:


-------

html is disabled Burzhui

[jase71]

Hell, I don't care if you sleep with men, women, or sheep in drag at night, as long as you can do your job during the day.

I've seen so many incredibly inept politicians (why is it so many "straight" politicians are "crooked"? :) ) who can't even do their job that I don't think we should be nitpicking over sexual preference at this point.

And on a lighter note: Why are those on the "right" so concerned about politicians being in bed with one person, male OR female? Seems to me that most of our politicians are in bed with whole CORPORATIONS! And I thought polygamy was wrong! :)

[oblongmelon]

As long they don't raise my taxes anymore than they already are. I could care less. I'm sure there are hundreds of politians in office now that are doing things that no one knows about. What people do on their own time is their own business.So long as it doesn't affect the performance of their job.

[molecularfire]

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem voting for someone that was a homosexual if I was able to vote (although I wouldn't vote for someone because they were gay. They would have to be able to lie just as good as any other politician). That being said, in my opinion there is no way at this point in time that a openly homosexual person could get elected to president (and I wouldn't hold too much hope that one would get elected senator either). I have an openly gay friend and have had to deal with too many idiots to believe that society is ready for an openly gay person in a high office. It doesn't matter whether a person is qualified. "If we as a society allow openly gay people to have the same rights as normal people, what is going to stop other people from becoming gay" (I actually had someone tell me this during a debate).

[Blu]

Originally posted by ufcrusher
...I would probably have a problem with an elected official being homosexual IF their platform is that they are homosexual.

I am sure everyone is scratching their collective heads. To clarify, I think that there would be so much negative backlash aimed at the fact that the politician is gay, that it would serve as an impedement to actually achieving anything good in office. That doesnt mean that because they are gay, they couldnt do the job, it just means that if they are openly gay it could create hostilities in what until recently was the good old boys club, which would prevent work from being done.

Imagine a gay senator trying to push through a bill promoting same sex marriages and partner rights. Now compare that with a straight senator championing the same legislation. On the one hand, people who oppose it are going to say," See what that there ****** is trying to do! He is screwing with our fundamental rights. It aint right for two men to be sleeping together" However, if a straight senator brought it, they cant personalize it against the senator and will have to look at it from a more detached perspective. There still is going to be a backlash to it, but it cant be magnified as much.


You scenario is something we've already witnessed in politics. Just replaces homosexual with Black. Most champions of black civil rights issues were/are black people. Why is it unfair for a member of a different minority to have special interest bills? As far as work stopping b/c of a disruption the Good Ol' Boys Network, it also happened before with the election of women and blacks to office. Why should we not elect someone who might inspire change just to keep the efficiency of the political process. It's not that fast moving anyway. I'm sure a gay/lesbian senator or congressman wouldn't screw things up too much more.

Blu

[bella]

If I feel that this person can do the job then more power to them :)

[hapoo]

Damn it SBP, stop posting pictures of my girlfriend!! :P

[Ice-9]

Doesn't matter to me in the slightest. In fact, I may be slightly more likely to vote for a homosexual, since without knowing a politician's entire history and set of beliefs, I find it more likely that a homosexual would share my (liberal) social and political views. If a straight person agrees with me more, so be it. But in general, there is more solidarity and less variation in the political views of homosexuals - they tend to believe the way I do, so I would find it likely that I would agree with a particular individual running for office and would therefore vote for him/her.

[M_A_C]

Nah

[joe52985]

gay people are normal people, people, what about if a bunch of gay people started a thread if they should vote for some hic or sumthing, or a bunch of black people started a thread about if they should vote for a white guy? i dont get it why cant we be equals in our own right?

[M_A_C]

Originally posted by joe52985
gay people are normal people, people, what about if a bunch of gay people started a thread if they should vote for some hic or sumthing, or a bunch of black people started a thread about if they should vote for a white guy? i dont get it why cant we be equals in our own right?

Thats so gay.

[fakesurfers]

TLG: When are you going to tell these people that Nader's gay?

For all those of you that said 'no': Let me reiterate, you already have.

ufcrusher: Do you really believe what you wrote? It has more inconsistencies than the Bible.

[Twilight]

Do you all really think that not one of the past presidents was a closet homosexual?

[Speedfreak]

All that matters is that a candidate can get the job done. If the person happens to be a homo, well, as long as that doesn't affect their decision (sex for favors), then who cares.

I just wouldn't want to see on of Monica's gay brothers (or sisters, if there is a gay female pres down the line) in a scandal with the pres. :D

[ufcrusher]

Fakesurfers: what inconsistencies? I read back through my original post and didnt see anything which is inconsistent with what I was trying to say. If there is something that I said that you see as inconsistent, let me know what it is, so I can either try to clarify the point or if there is something that I cant explain away, either stand affirmative or concede.

[joe52985]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by joe52985
gay people are normal people, people, what about if a bunch of gay people started a thread if they should vote for some hic or sumthing, or a bunch of black people started a thread about if they should vote for a white guy? i dont get it why cant we be equals in our own right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thats so gay.



wow, smart comment, i like the women

[M_A_C]

Originally posted by joe52985

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by joe52985
gay people are normal people, people, what about if a bunch of gay people started a thread if they should vote for some hic or sumthing, or a bunch of black people started a thread about if they should vote for a white guy? i dont get it why cant we be equals in our own right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thats so gay.



wow, smart comment, i like the women

I was just trying to be an antagonist.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by UT Memo
I won't lie, I wouldn't vote for him, enough said. Don't want to start an argument about it :) My feelings exactly.

[jstreet]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie
[QUOTE]My feelings exactly.

I wondered when you'd crawl back out of the metaphorical woodwork to spout some more of your unjustified drivel, maggiebirdie.

Other people not familiar with maggiebirdie's history here will have to forgive me that seemingly harsh comment, but I have no tolerance or respect for those who will not stand by what they believe. Your style, maggiebirdie, as has been shown countless times, is to come running in with an opinion and then running away equally quickly. This is a country that was built upon the fundamental right to free speech, but don't expect - even for one moment - that anyone will listen to you or respect you if you can't explain the things that you say.

Cordially yours,
Ben Williams

[mojo]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie

Originally posted by UT Memo
I won't lie, I wouldn't vote for him, enough said. Don't want to start an argument about it :) My feelings exactly.

who said this person was a "he"? :umm:

[Doomer]

I think all politicians should be castrated. Then it would be a non-issue. :(

[jstreet]

Originally posted by Doomer
I think all politicians should be castrated. Then it would be a non-issue. :(


I hear that stings :o

[welfareloser]

nothing wrong with gay. i can understand staying in the clost, tho, cuz plenny of people would not vote for a gay man or woman, either consciously or unconsciously. let's say a gay man decides to run for something... a smear campaign to desstroy him would be so easy and so effective. "there are reports from a former neighbor of the candidate, a 12 year old boy, that the candidate tried to fondle him." the opposition could pull that out of their collective ass, have it totally disproven in a matter of days, and it would still totally ruin the guy. forever. in the closet is an understandable strategy. look at rosie odonnel, for chrissakes. she's just a talking head, but do you think her 45-65 year old audience of white women would continue to watch her show and find her funny and respect her opinions if they knew about her perky little blonde life partner?

[TheLoneGunman]

Madonna, a perky blonde???

Anyway, it seems that George W (who deliberately refused to acknowledge Gay Pride) now supports using government money to fund organizations that discriminate against gays:

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010710/17/bush-gays

If he is coming out this way, is there any way he could support an openly gay candidate?

Also, not sure if you are familiar with the Log Cabin Society. They are gay Republicans (primarily in Southern California). Certain candidates made it very public that they DON"T take money from this group.

[apmiller]

I don't see how being gay should stop you from doing anything in the world. I'd vote for gay pres if he stood for something other than "Duh...and now here is what my Vice President has to say..."

Heck I'd vote for a dwarf with a bad temper and second head coming out of his butt as the next president if I thought it would improve anything in the country.

[TheLoneGunman]

Hmmm... Bush backed down on supporting discrimination against gays...

Perhaps it was because someone was reading this thread to him