Would you elect a homosexual?

[LSN80]

Dating back to Abraham Lincoln, and before him, James Buchanan, thers has been speculation that both men were secretly gay.

Famous author C.A. Tripp wrote a incomplete manifest assering that Lincolns relationships with women were either invented, or collossal failures. Lincoln did marry, but none of his relationships seemed to be intimate, or last very long, and showed that his closer "relationships" were of those with men. However, Tripp died in 2003, so any inaccuracies or cleanups in his manifesto were ever corrected or made.

James Buchanan, another example, is the only President to never marry. His neice served as the de facto First Lady, and his own chief executive, James Loewen, outed him as a supposed homosexual in his book, "Lies my teacher told me."

While there is much reason to doubt the accuracy of the claims that either Lincoln or Buchanan were gay, the truth remains that we live in a homophobic society. Although Indiana University sudies conducted as recently as 2005 have show that every 1 in 10 individuals are either homosexual or bi-sexual, we live in a society where it is very hard to "come out of the closet". This may be attributed to many things, whether it be the way we were raised by our parents, our surroundings, or what religion has told us.

I in fact, based upon reading exerpts from the stories on Buchanan and on Lincoln, most likely believe that Buchanan was in fact homosexual, and that Lincolnm could have possibly been. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest, or change how I view them in terms of historical perspective.But to this day, we have never had a candidate elected to represent a party for the presidency that has been openly homosexual.


So I ask of you: What if the day came when there was a candidate that was openly gay, yet he concurred with the values and ideals you hold for this country? Would you vote for him/her, or would the fact that this person is a homosexual give you pause?

 

[RockFan89]

James Buchanan, a more recent example

You do realize that James Buchanan was the president right before Lincoln, so why are you saying he is a more recent example.

With regards to the question, as long as the candidate holds to the positions I agree with most of the time, I'll support them.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Why do i care about his sexual orientation? He makes promises about what he and his party intend to do for your country. You can never truly trust those promises or fully expect them to come to light, but that's how they want to improve the quality of life for everyone in the country. If i agree completely with that, why does it matter to me that he's a same sex relationship?

I gotta say, i seem to be saying the same thing in these threads that seem to crop up once a week. Their personal lives are irrelevent, what they want to do as the leader of your country is all that matters, and then once they're elected, what they actually do, is all that matters.

If David Cameron comes out on TV tomorrow and says 'I'm secretly having an affiar with a man' i'm going to say 'And? Get back to fixing the country and stop wasting time telling us about stuff that's none of our business anyway.'

When the papers suddenly come across a photo of a politician smoking a joint 30 years ago and they make a big deal about it, know what i say?

'Who-really-gives a shit?'

So would i vote for a gay person? That wouldn't even factor into the equation, just like i wouldn't care if they were Atheists, amputees, bi-sexuals or any other person from any other walk of life, as long as their policies are sound, they'd get my vote.

 

[LSN80]

Why do i care about his sexual orientation? He makes promises about what he and his party intend to do for your country. You can never truly trust those promises or fully expect them to come to light, but that's how they want to improve the quality of life for everyone in the country. If i agree completely with that, why does it matter to me that he's a same sex relationship?

I gotta say, i seem to be saying the same thing in these threads that seem to crop up once a week. Their personal lives are irrelevent, what they want to do as the leader of your country is all that matters, and then once they're elected, what they actually do, is all that matters.

If David Cameron comes out on TV tomorrow and says 'I'm secretly having an affiar with a man' i'm going to say 'And? Get back to fixing the country and stop wasting time telling us about stuff that's none of our business anyway.'

When the papers suddenly come across a photo of a politician smoking a joint 30 years ago and they make a big deal about it, know what i say?

'Who-really-gives a shit?'

So would i vote for a gay person? That wouldn't even factor into the equation, just like i wouldn't care if they were Atheists, amputees, bi-sexuals or any other person from any other walk of life, as long as their policies are sound, they'd get my vote.

because we live in a culture permeated by people who would care. good post.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

With Barney Frank in Congress, I think this is kind of a moot point. But, to answer your question, no, I wouldn't care if my political officials were gay, although I'm pretty sure that, if they lost, they'd say it was because of how close-minded the electorate was.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Sure, don't see any particular reason why I shouldn't based on his/her sexual orientation. What makes me give my vote to someone does have a bit to do with whether or not I like the person, but it has much more to do with a candidate's stance on the issues and whether or not I have a similar opinion.

Far too much time, energy and money are wasted on little things like what two consensual adults are doing with each other behind closed doors. Whether a person is a redblooded heterosesual through and through or a "flaming queen" isn't going to balance the budget, lower taxes, create jobs, kickstart the economy or make the country safer from its enemies.

Personally, I think people that allow themselves to be distracted by a political candidate's sexual orientation at the expense of the issues and where said candidate stands on them is someone too stupid to vote. Unfortunately, there are LOTS of people out there that would be swayed by something as inconsequential as a candidate's sex life. Look at the Bill Clinton situation. He did nothing that half the politicians in Washington weren't doing themselves. Here's how I looked at it: the economy was the strongest it'd been in a long time, the national debt had been reduced big time, jobs were plentiful, gas didn't cost $2.75 a gallon and we weren't at war. The fact that he got himself a little ass on the side didn't mean squat to me, nor would a politician's sexual orientation.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

I'll vote based on political views, not sexual preference. Simply put, why should I care if the person I vote for is a homosexual? I'm not homophobic. If a candidate has the right views, and I agree with them, I will vote for them. Like Jack-Hammer said, people these days concentrate on the "little" things too much. People are too afraid to have somebody who's "different" lead a town, state, or even a country. But in reality, these people arent "different" at all. They're human beings just like you and I, and if they are gay, who cares? People should be voting for somebody because they agree with what they want to do to install change in a certain area. If you were to vote for somebody who would be a horrible leader over somebody who would be a good one because they were a homosexual, then you can just go ahead and classify yourself as an idiot. Vote based on merit and political views, not sexual orientation.

 

[Xemmy]

Ah, love this one. YES YES YES YES YES!

In a heart-beat, as long he was qualified then yes, including if he or she used his position of power to promote equality. Hell, I'm still waiting on that First Gay President. Unfortunately in this era of American history, It would be a cold day in hell if we managed to get one within 60 years time. And ofcourse because this country is so damn Religious, it may take much longer than just half a century. Unfortunately because of Religion's power and influence, Homophobia is much more socially acceptable compared to racism. Most will openly say that they don't hate gays, but they'll still treat them differently.

Luckily not every part of the country cares about private life, and not all religious people are homophobic. It takes combinations to make homophobia, and I admit Religion can't do it alone. That's why we have men like Barney Frank around, but he was elected to office locally. There's a reason their aren't any openly gay Senators. You can expect some people to be smart, but in this country I never expect the majority to be.

 

[#hamler]

Would I elect a homosexual to office? That's kind of like asking would you elect a black guy to office in the 1960s. Most wouldn't (back then), but they knew it was if they didn't elect them if they based their votes soley on the fact that they were black. Just like today with homosexuals. So yes I would, here's why; I've yet to meet a homosexual Republican. I'm a huge democrat. While I don't agree with all the homosexual agenda, it doesn't bother me too much. If they want to get married, ok, it doesn't affect me in any way. Electing a homosexual would not bother me mainly because your sexual orientation has nothing to do with your views. If you think somethings wrong or right, its not because your a hetero or homosexual. HOWEVER, I think of you elect a homosexual to office, what issues will they focus on more? Homosexuality and gay rights which IMO, isn't the worst thing going on in this country at the moment. Its an issue, but its not a necessity like health care or our huge and growing defficit. They would focus to hard on issues that don't matter at the time. If their veiws are straight with mine, yes, if not no. Its that simple. We shouldn't base our opinions on somebody on whether they're a homosexual or not.

 

[Spunky]

Yes, Yes I would. I couldn't give a shit where someone sticks their dick, In fact for all I care you could be into animal love and I wouldn't give a shit, So long as they have the right polacies, And I think they will follow through with them.

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Let the hate flow, to be honest. Gays in american culture are that hate for people to unjustly put bias on. Being gay was considered a disease for fucks sake.

Gay's are the redheaded stepchild in america today, we use them as stepping stones for political policiys. People who want them to be able to marry use that as a large policy and people who don't do the same thing.

People said that before jfk got in that they wouldn't let a person with that religious faith into office blah blah blah. And no many consider him to be a great president. People said that when obama went in he would of got shot within the first whatever days. He didn't, the people know if you do things like that you will be found and basicaly your group will get the Mudd treatment. You will never do another thing in the usa again without someone oposing it.

Now on to a gay or lesbian seat holder or anything. Yes i would elect him or her. He is a human, if we can give the nazi party a chance like we have before for election why can't we have a gay leader of some sorts. Unless he has some outlandish party ideas he should be considered a legitimit threat to winning the seat.

People will allways be aganst this, and honestly its a funny thing. You can't pull the gay card in elections because they gay voters you would have had would instantly just go to the gay canadate. If you were to pull out his or her's gay past in an election you would unleash a shit storm and You would NEVER be even considered for a place other than burger king manager ever again.

So bacially this is kind of pointless no person going for office knowing the ramifications would pull that.

This will be all yess i will vote for a openly gay or lesiban office holder.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I don't see what the elect's personal life has to do with his professional, political life. Sure, I would vote a homosexual elect. Because I don't care. Nobody else should, either.

 

[Sparky]

Yeah, Most of the answers will be the same. Why should it matter what the person is in too. As long as it's not incest or bestiality what ever he does while he isn't running the country is his on choice. It wouldn't affect the way he ran the country. infact it might even improve it for the gay people out there. gay marriage, gay adaption would become avaliable everywhere. so if a gay person was running and he was labor (in Aus) Yes, I would vote for him. or her.

 

[Dave]

Uh? What difference does being a homosexual make to being a good politician?

I would assume that only the most ignorant and ridiculous of people would actually say no to this question because it is a truly sad state of affairs if we are discriminating about people before we hear what they stand for.

Would being a homosexual make you less able to carry out the duties of a politician? Absolutely not! I would think that this question is mainly aimed at the Americans on the boards. Not because they are more ignorant than the rest of us but they are more Christian and the Christian Church has had some problems with the gay community. However, I honestly think that if you have already made up your mind about someone before you hear what they have to say, then you are fucking foolish.

All of these questions that people have posed about the electorate are very intriguing but I would be very surprised if anyone thought that being openly gay would make you less able to govern a country. What is so different about a gay man/woman after all? Do they lack the intelligence to make good decisions or is it something else.

This topic actually hurts my head so much that it is insane. There is no difference in openly gay people than people who are heterosexual and the fact that this thread even exists speaks volumes for how ignorant people really are. In a perfect world, I wouldn’t even need to say things like this.

The short answer would be that being gay has no difference on the way I will think about people. So yes, regardless of their sexual preference, if they are the right person to lead a country, I would certainly vote for them.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Yeah, Most of the answers will be the same. Why should it matter what the person is in too. As long as it's not incest or bestiality what ever he does while he isn't running the country is his on choice.

I don't think there's anything wrong with incest either, as long as it involves two consenting adults. If my candidate offers his viewpoint, and it happens to concede with mine, then I sure as hell will give him my vote. I don't care if he's having sex with his full-blood sister, as long as she's over the age of 18.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I wouldn't give a second thought in electing a homosexual Prime Minister. Who honestly cares what your leader's sexual orientation is? You vote for somebody that you believe has the right policies that will benefit your country. That is the be all and end all.

Gay, straight, black, white, man, woman... I would vote for the right person, someone I believe in.

 

[Djm]

In this day and age, I think a better question is "Would you elect an atheist?"

To answer this one, yes. A person's sexual orientation wouldn't have anything to do with my opinion on their political stance.

 

[The Doctor]

I'd elect a homosexual if he shared my views on various political issues. Sexual orientation shouldn't matter when picking your leaders. People should vote based on what their leaders believe in, and if those views correlate to their own. It's not like homosexuals are inferior in any way, unable to lead, or less human than any other candidates.

Truth be told, I'd probably more likely to vote for a homosexual, because they seem to be less "Business-as-usual" and more open-minded than most. Obviously, this isn't so with all, so I'd take the time to learn the candidate's platform before placing my vote.

 

[La Parka]

I would for a Klondike Bar!

No, but seriously, I would because who cares? Alexander the Great was gay-ish, although really, I'd rather vote an asexual to office, as he wouldn't be thinking with his cock all the time and getting us into trouble.

So, if the president looked like a good candidate, and if I voted, sure, I'd vote a gay dude.

 

[brighamosity]

I've yet to meet a homosexual Republican.

I'm sure there's just as many gay Republicans as Democrats. The difference is that while a Democrat is more likely to accept his homosexuality as a part of who he is, a Republican will be ashamed of it and deny it their whole lives. Look at Senator Craig. The guy was soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom. But he still claims to be straight. If a republican is gay, the only way anyone will ever find out is if he gets caught, and even then he'll likely deny it.

Assuming the gay candidate shared my views, I'd probably be more inclined to vote for her just because he has balls. I'm still waiting for a non-Christian candidate. Everyone who runs tries to be the person everyone wants them to be, so it would take a lot of balls for someone to come out and admit they aren't a Christian. It'd be the same for being gay.

 

[Tastycles]

While I don't agree with all the homosexual agenda, it doesn't bother me too much.

What is the homosexual agenda exactly? I'm pretty sure the only thing homosexuals have in common with each other is that they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, that's hardly an agenda. Anyway, no I wouldn't care. There's gays in our parliament now, and the man who shaped the last 15 years of British policy Peter Mandelson is gay, and the vast majority of evidence would suggest that in Ted Heath this country elected a gay man before a woman. It wouldn't affect my decision to vote, and it's not even something I would be aware of.

 

[Calderownz]

Personally, I wouldn't care. I don't worry about heterosexual men or women that don't affect me, why the hell would I worry about homosexuals that don't affect me?

Obviously, a homosexual president would affect me with his policy and what have you, but that would have nothing to do with sexual orientation and that part of his life would have nothing to do with me.

The biggest thing that he'd hope to change would be gay marriage (in terms of issues that have to do with homosexuality). OKay. I'm fine with that. It's not like it'd ruin the sanctity of marriage. People get married on game shows in this country. People marry for money. People have arranged marriages in this and other countries. The sanctity of marriage has long since been gone and two loving homosexuals getting married would only be a small step in potentially restoring it.

Otherwise, I'd either agree with his policy or I wouldn't. And that's what I would base my decision on. However, I don't vote. If I did, I would be more than willing to vote for a decent presidential candidate. I couldn't care less if he or she preferred the same sex.

Hell, the Roman empire had it's gay moments. They did OKay for a while. ;]

 

[ABMorales787]

Unless the person in question is a dictator of sorts that makes us dress to his liking, I fail to see the problem. Leadership isn't laced to one's sexual orientation. Sometimes a man leads the family and sometimes the woman does it. The job falls to who's the best leader. So if the best leader we can find just happens to be a homosexual, I say give it to him. Are we really going to jeopardize ourselves over sexual orientations and fear of unusual slavery?