Printable View
there are 2 candidates running for president/senate/govenor...whichever you wish to choose as an example.
candiadte #1 has a manifesto that you agree with 90% of but is a homosexual.
candiadte #2 has a manifesto that you agree with 80% of and is hetrosexual.
The question is:
would you accept the 10% disagreement and vote for candidate #2 because candidate #1 is gay ?
No.
What has his sexuality got to do with anything?
However, if he is putting himself forward as hetrosexual whilst having Homosexual affairs, then he is opening himself up to Blackmail.
In that case, i'd rather go with a Candidate that I agree with only 50%, never mind 80%
I posted this in a different thread to stray away from the nj situation to see if homosexuality was considered a reason for not being eligable for public life. I made no mention of affairs or blackmail.
I never mentioned NJ either :P
I was stating that it depends upon all the circustances.
Someone that is openly Gay would get my vote in the circumstances you outlined.
Someone that, for whatever reason, was trying to hide the fact... wouldnt.
I have no idea why the candidates sexual preferences would be of any significances. Pick the best person for the job I say.
Though I am interested to understand the phrases
"but is a homosexual."
"and is heterosexual."
The former implies the candidates sexuality is a problem. The latter implies that it is a plus point.
One wonder whether the poster is aware of their latent homophobia.
I dont care about what someones sexuality is. Ide rather go with the candidate that I agree with more since I am not superficial enough to care about who the candidate wants to have sex with.
What if the candidate was openly bi-sexual? Would that please everyone or no-one? :huh:
Rat the question didn't imply any covering up at all. But the fact that you feel that a homosexual needs to state so makes me think that the question raises more than the obvious.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 August 2004 - 14:56
I never mentioned NJ either :P
I was stating that it depends upon all the circustances.
Someone that is openly Gay would get my vote in the circumstances you outlined.
Someone that, for whatever reason, was trying to hide the fact... wouldnt.
The question makes no leaning to any moral wrong doing such as was the case in NJ. You said you didn't mention NJ yet you instantly drew reference to the sort of thing that went on there.
the question is 2 candidates....no other circumstances than those in the question.
Jpol...go read this thread in wn&e.the reason the question was raised
this is what the question is supposed to determine...that's why i asked itQuote:
The former implies the candidates sexuality is a problem. The latter implies that it is a plus point.
Read any of my posts when it come to homsexuals and you will see i don't hold any homophobia at all. and i raised this question to see just if homosexuality is a big issue in public life to people because of recent events.Quote:
One wonder whether the poster is aware of their latent homophobia.
That would be a No.
I couldn't care less about who is sharing a bed with an elected official. It's none of my business anyway. And I'm quite certain it's none of anyone else's either, unless they happen to be directly involved.
:ninja:
Given your proposed scenario I would definitely vote for the gay guy ( or girl, as it were).
Mainly because he has already admitted that he's a sexual being, hence a human.
So many politicians ( of any stripe) are so interested in catering to the religious Right that they come across as completely asexual, abnormal drones.
Say what you will about Clinton, but he saw a chance to get his rocks off and he took it!.
Now there's a man who's motivations I can identify with.
Not exactly a strategy that would get you elected.Quote:
Originally posted by Sprocket@13 August 2004 - 18:59
So many politicians ( of any stripe) are so interested in catering to the religious Right...
Do you consider everyone who would vote for Bush to be a member of the "Religious Right"?
As an aside, whom do you imagine a member of the "Religious Left" voting for?
Not exactly a strategy that would get you elected.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+14 August 2004 - 12:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 14 August 2004 - 12:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sprocket@13 August 2004 - 18:59
So many politicians ( of any stripe) are so interested in catering to the religious Right...
[/b][/quote]
Don't tell Bush.
Evangelical Christians are a major portion of his core support group.
I started thinking about this, and I had an answer on about 2 seconds,but the more I thought about it the more confused I became. How many homosexual conservatives are out there?
Well it happens that this was your lucky day and it was in your state :DQuote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@14 August 2004 - 16:33
I started thinking about this, and I had an answer on about 2 seconds,but the more I thought about it the more confused I became. How many homosexual conservatives are out there?
It would be interesting to hear what your 2 second decision was
What has rubber got to do with it JP? :smilie4:Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@13 August 2004 - 21:11
One wonder whether the poster is aware of their latent homophobia.
Everything you want to know, Manny:Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@14 August 2004 - 17:33
I started thinking about this, and I had an answer on about 2 seconds,but the more I thought about it the more confused I became. How many homosexual conservatives are out there?
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html
Boab-
This is complicated enough without interjecting fetishism. :lol:
Speaking for said group, I would definitely vote for the better person for the job.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@14 August 2004 - 19:37
As an aside, whom do you imagine a member of the "Religious Left" voting for?
Speaking for said group, I would definitely vote for the better person for the job.[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+15 August 2004 - 03:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 15 August 2004 - 03:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@14 August 2004 - 19:37
As an aside, whom do you imagine a member of the "Religious Left" voting for?
I think that qualifies as a confession of sorts.
Congratulations, sir.
You are the first member of this group to emerge from that heretofore un-noticed closet.
It may further develop that you have no company; not officially, anyway; I'm not sure you officially exist, as I've never heard the media report of your existence.
This last, of course, being the largest obstacle to recognizing you.
Officially, I mean. :)
:blink: Hole-ley crap, they do exist, and in a more vocal number then thought. Its probably easier to find a gay conservative then a pro life liberal...
Surely.Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@15 August 2004 - 12:11
:blink: Hole-ley crap, they do exist, and in a more vocal number then thought. Its probably easier to find a gay conservative then a pro life liberal...
The gay Republicans have their Log Cabin group; they are quite numerous.
The media doesn't even have a broad brush for people like our J'Pol.
He's an anomaly, an anachronism, a renaissance man!
He's J'Pol! :D
Would that all "liberals" were similarly built; we'd have a return to reason, I think.
I find it interesting that the people that are probably "liberal" by our definition are the ones that gave a direct answer and said they would vote for the homosexual...and yet the ones that could be labled "conservative" have chosen not to make a choice.
I would always go with the policies so i vote for the homosexual
Who is this "Our" you speak of, vid? :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 14:33
I find it interesting that the people that are probably "liberal" by our definition...
I am sure you and I have a different understanding of what constitutes a "liberal". ;)
You are correct in assuming I haven't voted in your poll, but it is because I find such attempts to gauge public sentiment overly simplistic.
If, for example, you had added to your poll a caveat to the effect that "Neither of the candidate's lifestyles would impact their political actions and conduct in any way so as to constitute a difference between them", then we can talk about my voting in your poll. :)
Ok i thought i cleared that up with thisQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@15 August 2004 - 13:49
If, for example, you had added to your poll a caveat to the effect that "Neither of the candidate's lifestyles would impact their political actions and conduct in any way so as to constitute a difference between them", then we can talk about my voting in your poll. :)
it was a simple question. It doesn't need to be complicated. You have their policies and the % of which you agree.Quote:
The question makes no leaning to any moral wrong doing
the question is 2 candidates....no other circumstances than those in the question.
i get the impression that you feel that non hetrosexuality would be a unbeneficial to the way the candidate carries out his job.
however you may add your sentence if it helps you answer.
I am and always have been of the opinion that Our Lord preached socialism. His whole attitude towards not amassing wealth, sharing, giving to the needy etc is all very straightforward to my simple viewpoint. The chap was a socialist and taught his deciples to be the same.
As such I chose to follow His lead from both a spiritual and political perspective.
I believe this makes me part of the Religious Left.
I also come from good working class carpentry stock, which probably helps with my empathy. In fact thinking about it I also come from stock who were forced to flee their homeland as a direct result of an occupying force.
Where we really part company is that I am only able to turn apple into water and have never been able to master the Cana thing.
Simple questions don't require additional qualification, vid.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 15:05
it was a simple question. It doesn't need to be complicated. You have their policies and the % of which you agree.
i get the impression that you feel that non hetrosexuality would be a unbeneficial to the way the candidate carries out his job.
J'Pol-
I can turn any number of things into water.
Perhaps a bit more practice?
In any case, if said homosexual candidate ran for office and the sum total of my disagreement with him was due to his promise to pursue a pro-gay agenda, I'm sorry, he cannot have my vote, because I'd object to my representative wearing his sexuality on his political sleeve.
That said, my answer to your question (clarified by my addition) would be yes, I'd vote for a gay candidate.
honest answer J2...however...... :lol:does this stand the same if the hetrosexual candidate "wears his sexuality on his political sleeve"?.Quote:
I'd object to my representative wearing his sexuality on his political sleeve.
I feel fully justified in asking this one because you have asked several times on various threads if i am able to apply my thinking to boths "sides"
BTW what is a "pro gay" agenda?
To me there is no "pro gay" agenda, all they want is equal rights...however there definately is an "anti gay" agenda
Simple questions don't require additional qualification, vid.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+15 August 2004 - 22:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 August 2004 - 22:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@15 August 2004 - 15:05
it was a simple question. It doesn't need to be complicated. You have their policies and the % of which you agree.
i get the impression that you feel that non hetrosexuality would be a unbeneficial to the way the candidate carries out his job.
J'Pol-
I can turn any number of things into water.
Perhaps a bit more practice?
In any case, if said homosexual candidate ran for office and the sum total of my disagreement with him was due to his promise to pursue a pro-gay agenda, I'm sorry, he cannot have my vote, because I'd object to my representative wearing his sexuality on his political sleeve.
That said, my answer to your question (clarified by my addition) would be yes, I'd vote for a gay candidate. [/b][/quote]
j2,
Bloody good point.
We must weight the areas of agreement / disagreement.
If the 10% you disagree with is of critical importance to you then the 90% agreement matters not one jot. We must not consider only that with which we agree , we must also consider the areas on which we disagree and how important they are to us.
So if the chap with the 80 % agreement disagrees on trivial matter then they matter not one jot. Particularly if the chap with whom we agree 90% disagrees on a major issue.
It really isn't that simple a question as it stands. Thanks for removing the metaphorical scales old bean.
I have never had a heterosexual introduce him/herself by offering sexual orientation as a defining trait, however I have had gays introduce themselves and immediately announce their sexual status; I'm sure that this phenomenon is borne of a felt need to "get that out in the open" owing to historical prejudice.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 16:17
does this stand the same if the hetrosexual candidate "wears his sexuality on his political sleeve"?.
I feel fully justified in asking this one because you have asked several times on various threads if i am able to apply my thinking to boths "sides"
BTW what is a "pro gay" agenda?
Just the same, I always wished they'd defer passing along that particular bit of information, because normal everyday social intercourse certainly doesn't demand it.
As to the question of a "Pro-Gay" agenda:
Such things as hate-crimes legislation (which, let's be honest, are driven mainly by Black/Gay interests) I regard as an effort to set apart certain sections of society for special treatment.
I say if they want equality, they should have it, and so should heteros.
The more time spent legislating compensatory laws and punishments, the more time is spent perpetuating the problem.
You're welcome, and that is why polls are, in the main, untrustworthy.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@15 August 2004 - 16:40
It really isn't that simple a question as it stands. Thanks for removing the metaphorical scales old bean.
There is literally no greater tool for creating and/or reinforcing SPIN.
My opinion, of course. ;)