Poll: Would you support a Presidential candidate with gay spouse?

[Voltaire]

What are the "unusual" issues?

Lack of compatibility, to the extreme. Openness to liberal modes of living that common folks do not find appropriate. No different than if the president's wife were a pagan witch. This is a poor life decision either way.

Is that the only specific issue? So you are concerned that she will discuss in public that she finds women attractive, and you will be embarrassed. People at church would disapprove.

Of course there is the other possibility that you are not jealous of the other men because you have roughly the same equipment, but feel you can't compete with other women? If she stays faithful does that matter?

What if your church does not approve of alcohol. Are ex-drinkers permanently banned? Even the Mormons aren't that strict.

What if your perfect wife of 10 years one day says, "oh yeah, I had a bisexual experience in college. It was with my roommate. She looked like Jessica Alba and was so sexy I couldn't help myself, and we were drunk and stuff". Instant divorce? Out on the curb with a suitcase?

People can always change. I would only have a problem with a candidate whose wife was currently an open bisexual. A person who felt that it mattered enough to tell us about it.

On the other hand, what you don't know won't sicken you.

Statistics bear out the fact that bisexual women cannot compete with heterosexual men in the "equipment" department.

As for Mormons/Alcohol, Mormons are generally pro-life and do not vote for people that are pro-choice. So, that is an issue they feel is important enough to bring to the ballot box, while alcohol may not be. It is their determination.

 

[MelissaWV]

You certainly pretend to know an awful lot about a demographic that sickens and repulses you.

Furthermore, the implication is that the "equipment" is what's most vital in a relationship. "Equipment" can be very accurately simulated, but faking being a good person would be far more difficult. Compatibility is not up to you to decide, except where you are concerned. The candidate decided they are compatible with their spouse, and that is good enough for me. I'm still perplexed as to how this is an issue, but you wouldn't interview the incoming candidate's spouse about all their other habits. There's something about this particular possibility that rankles you. I'll never understand that, and I'm not really just picking on you, because there are a lot of people in the world who think precisely that way.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Lack of compatibility, to the extreme.

Still pretty vague.

Openness to liberal modes of living that common folks do not find appropriate.

So Democrats and many Libertarians are out of the picture too? How about neo-conservatives?

I would only have a problem with a candidate whose wife was currently an open bisexual. A person who felt that it mattered enough to tell us about it.

Ok, now that might be a problem. That would show a lack of discretion. It would also be a problem if she said how sexy Hugh Jackman was at every campaign stop.

Statistics bear out the fact that bisexual women cannot compete with heterosexual men in the "equipment" department.

Don't say that around lesbians!

As for Mormons/Alcohol, Mormons are generally pro-life and do not vote for people that are pro-choice. So, that is an issue they feel is important enough to bring to the ballot box, while alcohol may not be. It is their determination.

So ex-alcoholic wife is OK. But if the perfect wife admits she had an abortion in college, that would mean out on the curb for her?

 

[MelissaWV]

Still pretty vague.
So Democrats and many Libertarians are out of the picture too? How about neo-conservatives?
Ok, now that might be a problem. That would show a lack of discretion. It would also be a problem if she said how sexy Hugh Jackman was at every campaign stop.
Don't say that around lesbians!
So ex-alcoholic wife is OK. But if the perfect wife admits she had an abortion in college, that would mean out on the curb for her?

First italicized part: Yep. As I said earlier, a totally gross public display of affection from any gender or orientation during political events is inappropriate to me. My favorite example is Al Gore and Tipper, but there are others for sure. If you are ever more aware of a candidate's sexuality than their policies, something's wrong (and it's not necessarily the candidate's fault... see: Bill Clinton).

Second: This is a little different. One's choices regarding one's own wife can be pretty arbitrary. She could stop shaving her legs and you could decide that's gross and you want to divorce her Every aspect of one's spouse has an impact on one's life with one's spouse. Now, not every aspect of a candidate's life has an impact on their appropriateness to their position and decision-making.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is a little different. One's choices regarding one's own wife can be pretty arbitrary. She could stop shaving her legs and you could decide that's gross and you want to divorce her Every aspect of one's spouse has an impact on one's life with one's spouse. Now, not every aspect of a candidate's life has an impact on their appropriateness to their position and decision-making.

But everything gets italicized when it's in a quote!

Yeah, we don't have to live with candidates that we vote for (in the literal, in your house sense anyways).

 

[fgd]

Registered R here. I could care less if someone were a swinging homosexual who had orgies on the White House South Lawn if they wanted to abolish the Fed, repeal legal tender laws, bring all the troops home, and can half the federal bureaucracy.

Every time I see a theocrat R espousing "protection of marriage", "protection of the unborn", "fight terra", I cringe internally - these people are fast becoming a millstone around the neck of the Republican Party. If it ain't in the the Constitution to define marriage, outlaw (or fund) abortion, and fight wars without declaring war, the feds can't do it. Period.

 

[Met Income]

If you put sexual orientation over policies, you're a bigoted simpleton who doesn't think for yourself . Fix that.

 

[ChaosControl]

If you put sexual orientation over policies, you're a bigoted simpleton who doesn't think for yourself . Fix that.

Gotta love how tolerant and openminded people here are.

There is more to candidate than policy.
For one there is their character. Like are they honest and respectful?
Their personal values too can be important to a person.

There is a whole package to consider. Sorry if some of us look at a candidate in more than one dimension.

I don't want a leader who engages in a life style that I do not want promoted. I feel people have the right to live how they want when they do not harm others, but that doesn't mean I want such a life style encouraged.

Likewise I don't want a president who engages in promiscuous sex. It isn't a life style I want encouraged.

Their values and integrity, what kind of role model they will be, is just as important to me as their policy.

 

[Met Income]

Chaoscontrol,

I'd quote you but I can't from my phone.

Ok, so you think you're being open minded and tolerant? My take is backed up by logic. Policies matter, sexual orientation doesn't. Sexual orientation isn't character, it's a preference. It makes as much sense as not voting for someone because they eat bananas.

 

[RyanRSheets]

I don't think I would drop money or spend much time on their campaign, simply because I don't think they would stand a chance, but I would absolutely try to spread the word if they stood for what I stand for.

 

[anaconda]

I could not care less about their sexual orientation. Just their Constitutional orientation.

 

[MelissaWV]

Gotta love how tolerant and openminded people here are.

There is more to candidate than policy.
For one there is their character. Like are they honest and respectful?
Their personal values too can be important to a person.

There is a whole package to consider. Sorry if some of us look at a candidate in more than one dimension.

I don't want a leader who engages in a life style that I do not want promoted. I feel people have the right to live how they want when they do not harm others, but that doesn't mean I want such a life style encouraged.

Likewise I don't want a president who engages in promiscuous sex. It isn't a life style I want encouraged.

Their values and integrity, what kind of role model they will be, is just as important to me as their policy.

There's obviously quite a bit of truth in what you're saying, but I'd like to point something out: you're "hiring" a candidate to do a job. For President, I will agree that character is more important than, say, for Senator. Presidents fly around and cheerlead their policies quite a lot more than they actually vote for anything. In doing this, they interact with internal and international leaders, which means being courteous and having good character.

Having said that, one's personal idea of "oh he's a nice guy; I'll vote for him" is how we got a lot of our worst presidents elected. I think that's why it particularly rankles some of us, since we've seen people very recently say things like "I'm not interested in what that Ron Paul guy has to say. He wears ugly suits, and he sounds funny, and he doesn't tell jokes I can understand," and it made us roll our eyes as they pawed at Obama's "image." Now we're in the mess we're in, because personality won out over policy. Obama seems like a "nice guy" to me. He has a "good family." He was a "hard worker" in his youth. He speaks well, he smiles sincerely during his speeches (unless he's supposed to look grave/serious, in which case he does that). He even has good posture! He isn't overweight, and he hasn't been exposed as some kind of awfully immoral person in his personal life. Know what? His policies are awful. I don't care what a nice guy he is, Obama stinks as our President. Bush was "a good Christian" or whatever, if you asked enough people. Know what? His policies were very un-Christian. Clinton and Kennedy were promiscuous as all get-out, but history remembers them fondly! (Rightly or not?... that's an entirely different matter.)

So yeah, people are entitled to say "I'm not voting someone whose personal values don't jive with mine, no matter how much they would further the overall condition of this country and how sure I am that the person would not impose their values on everyone else." A lot of us will just sigh and say "not again."

 

[ChaosControl]

Chaoscontrol,

I'd quote you but I can't from my phone.

Ok, so you think you're being open minded and tolerant? My take is backed up by logic. Policies matter, sexual orientation doesn't. Sexual orientation isn't character, it's a preference. It makes as much sense as not voting for someone because they eat bananas.

I never said if I was open minded or tolerant. Although for the most part I think I am, I'm in favor of people doing what they want as long as no one is harmed. That includes voting or not voting for people based on any reason they want as well. I don't think they are stupid just because they have character traits that may be important to them but aren't to me.

For you its just a matter of a preference equivalent to food, it is not the same for everyone. To many people it is a form of sexual deviancy, whether you disagree or not is irrelevant, only to the individual voter is that relevant, and so to them it may be the same as voting for someone who cheats on their spouse or whatever else.

Perhaps some of us want a president, a leader, that is someone we can look up to. Someone we want to be able to be a role model to everyone. If they engage in behavior we find distasteful, something we don't want to promote, it is perfectly reasonable to disqualify them in our own mind from being an acceptable candidate.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

With the Clinton's we got two for the price of one! A sex addict President, and a bisexual wife.

 

[ChaosControl]

There's obviously quite a bit of truth in what you're saying, but I'd like to point something out: you're "hiring" a candidate to do a job. For President, I will agree that character is more important than, say, for Senator. Presidents fly around and cheerlead their policies quite a lot more than they actually vote for anything. In doing this, they interact with internal and international leaders, which means being courteous and having good character.

Having said that, one's personal idea of "oh he's a nice guy; I'll vote for him" is how we got a lot of our worst presidents elected. I think that's why it particularly rankles some of us, since we've seen people very recently say things like "I'm not interested in what that Ron Paul guy has to say. He wears ugly suits, and he sounds funny, and he doesn't tell jokes I can understand," and it made us roll our eyes as they pawed at Obama's "image." Now we're in the mess we're in, because personality won out over policy. Obama seems like a "nice guy" to me. He has a "good family." He was a "hard worker" in his youth. He speaks well, he smiles sincerely during his speeches (unless he's supposed to look grave/serious, in which case he does that). He even has good posture! He isn't overweight, and he hasn't been exposed as some kind of awfully immoral person in his personal life. Know what? His policies are awful. I don't care what a nice guy he is, Obama stinks as our President. Bush was "a good Christian" or whatever, if you asked enough people. Know what? His policies were very un-Christian. Clinton and Kennedy were promiscuous as all get-out, but history remembers them fondly! (Rightly or not?... that's an entirely different matter.)

So yeah, people are entitled to say "I'm not voting someone whose personal values don't jive with mine, no matter how much they would further the overall condition of this country and how sure I am that the person would not impose their values on everyone else." A lot of us will just sigh and say "not again."

Oh well see I think policy is important as well. I just happen to think character and their ability to be a good role model is just as important.

I wish for a person who cares about the nation, the people of the nation, who has integrity, who has values, and has policy positions I support. Ron Paul was pretty much that for me. If it was just policy, without having a record to back his honesty up, without having family values and integrity, I wouldn't have supported him as strongly as I did.

 

[anaconda]

Civil liberties allows for people to make their own choices as long as they don't directly harm anyone else. Voting for "family values" instead of the Constitution gets us tyranny, millions of innocent foreigners slaughtered, U.S. Troops killed, resources wasted, and worldwide economic ruin to all but a few scheming elites.

 

[ChaosControl]

I cannot believe this thread. Civil liberties allows for people to make their own choices as long as they don't directly harm anyone else. Voting for "family values" instead of the Constitution gets us tyranny, millions of innocent foreigners slaughtered, U.S. Troops killed, resources wasted, and worldwide economic ruin to all but a few scheming elites.

I don't see anyone denying someone else their civil liberties. I do see some people insulting others over some of the factors they may use in casting their vote though.

 

[Voltaire]

I don't see anyone denying someone else their civil liberties. I do see some people insulting others over some of the factors they may use in casting their vote though.

It seems that this thread is meant to elicit only one answer, and if you do not provide that answer as requested, then you are an ignorant bigoted simpleton.

It's no different than if you are being interviewed for a job and they ask you how you feel about diversity. Uhh, if you want that job, you'll say what they want you to say.

It's called GroupThink.

 

[MelissaWV]

It seems that this thread is meant to elicit only one answer, and if you do not provide that answer as requested, then you are an ignorant bigoted simpleton.

It's no different than if you are being interviewed for a job and they ask you how you feel about diversity. Uhh, if you want that job, you'll say what they want you to say.

It's called GroupThink.

Right, even though most people agreed that you were perfectly free to vote on whatever criteria you wanted (even though similar thinking got us leaders we've gotten of late), and even though others --- including an Admin --- said "No" and weren't pestered, it's only geared to get "yes" answers.

 

[Voltaire]

(even though similar thinking got us leaders we've gotten of late)

I'm not so sure about that. I doubt many people think about the Christian/gay stuff when they vote. It doesn't matter that much to me, on the whole. I was just considering this question if it was the only criterion being decided upon.

I know that the candidates I like are more like Pat Buchanan than Barney Frank.