"I'm not gay" says another Republican.

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think I see Vic's point here...

(In my opinion) He's saying that there isn't anything necessarily inconsistent about a gay politician that votes for anti-gay legislation, (or against "pro-gay" legislation) if in so doing he is properly representing the attitudes and desires of his constituency by voting that way. That may or may not be the case in this particular circumstance, but the larger point is that it isn't really anybody's business whether or not a politician is gay or straight, so long as he/she is properly representing his constituency.

HE made sexual orientation the business of everyone, i agree that it shouldn't be.

HE is a self proclaimed gay antagonist, while being gay and pretending he's not so that he can get votes from other gay haters.

A man who is even lying about his own being is no man youd want in a seat of power.

This whole discriminate against gay thing stems from a lesson not learned, it's been done before and it'll be done again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think I see Vic's point here...

(In my opinion) He's saying that there isn't anything necessarily inconsistent about a gay politician that votes for anti-gay legislation, (or against "pro-gay" legislation) if in so doing he is properly representing the attitudes and desires of his constituency by voting that way. That may or may not be the case in this particular circumstance, but the larger point is that it isn't really anybody's business whether or not a politician is gay or straight, so long as he/she is properly representing his constituency.

Exactly. Thank you. IMO if a finger should be pointed, then IMO it should be pointed at the people who elected this person. In addition, the basic principles of democracy dictate that the constituency should be the ones to call their elected representative to task for his actions, not outsiders. Who runs this country? The people? Or the media? IMO the only reasons that most people can't see these neverending scandals du jour as the blatant attacks on the democratic system that they are are (1) blind partisanship, and (2) perpetual amnesia.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
I think I see Vic's point here...

(In my opinion) He's saying that there isn't anything necessarily inconsistent about a gay politician that votes for anti-gay legislation, (or against "pro-gay" legislation) if in so doing he is properly representing the attitudes and desires of his constituency by voting that way. That may or may not be the case in this particular circumstance, but the larger point is that it isn't really anybody's business whether or not a politician is gay or straight, so long as he/she is properly representing his constituency.

Exactly. Thank you. IMO if a finger should be pointed, then IMO it should be pointed at the people who elected this person. In addition, the basic principles of democracy dictate that the constituency should be the ones to call their elected representative to task for his actions, not outsiders. Who runs this country? The people? Or the media? IMO the only reasons that most people can't see these neverending scandals du jour as the blatant attacks on the democratic system that they are are (1) blind partisanship, and (2) perpetual amnesia.

I think this is an interesting question. I think it's generally accepted that a free press is absolutely necessary to maintain a democracy. Over the last several decades however all of the "free press" has been gobbled up by corporations, who are legally obligated to maximize profits at any cost. At the moment I'm having trouble drawing a distinction between this reality and the idea of a state-run press. Neither exist for the good of the people, and both seek nothing but to perpetuate their own success.

While the outing of this politician makes for salacious news, I can't see anything truly helpful that comes out of it. It's not like his constituency will say "oh man were we wrong to vote somebody with those viewpoints into office". Instead this type of backlash will likely cause them to vote for somebody similar or worse - somebody who surely won't make the same type of mistake. Ultimately it seems that exposing the sexuality of our politicians could cause more harm than good.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Garth
I think I see Vic's point here...

(In my opinion) He's saying that there isn't anything necessarily inconsistent about a gay politician that votes for anti-gay legislation, (or against "pro-gay" legislation) if in so doing he is properly representing the attitudes and desires of his constituency by voting that way. That may or may not be the case in this particular circumstance, but the larger point is that it isn't really anybody's business whether or not a politician is gay or straight, so long as he/she is properly representing his constituency.

HE made sexual orientation the business of everyone, i agree that it shouldn't be.

Actually, from the article, it would seem that Cody Castagna made it the business of everyone.

HE is a self proclaimed gay antagonist, while being gay and pretending he's not so that he can get votes from other gay haters.

I don't read anything in the article that would substantiate the claim that Richard Curtis is a "self-proclaimed gay antagonist." Perhaps you can point me to those statements in the article or elsewhere.

A man who is even lying about his own being is no man youd want in a seat of power.

That is a debatable issue. It doesn't necessarily follow that a closeted homosexual is incapable of upholding the duties and responsibilities of an elected representative.

This whole discriminate against gay thing stems from a lesson not learned, it's been done before and it'll be done again.

I'm sorry, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Red Dawn]

I guess if they want to keep their sexuality a secret and misrepresent themselves as typical family men that's fine but one has to question why they'd put themselves in a situation where they would have to vote on bills against their own self interest. It's like a Blacvk Politician voting for segregation or aparthied. I guess it's just a way to make a living and not a difference to them.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I guess if they want to keep their sexuality a secret and misrepresent themselves as typical family men that's fine but one has to question why they'd put themselves in a situation where they would have to vote on bills against their own self interest. It's like a Blacvk Politician voting for segregation or aparthied. I guess it's just a way to make a living and not a difference to them.

An astute observation, but why are so many of them R's??