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

[ChaosControl]

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.

The problem that got us leaders we got is people didn't take the whole package into consideration and only looked at a few elements. For some that may have been "guy I can have a beer with", for others it may have been a single issue or two. The whole package needs to be considered.

 

[Met Income]

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.

If you're not saying you're open minded and tolerant, how could you possibly use that as a criticism against me?

Anyways, how is a deviation from the norm immoral or something that should matter to you? How does it show that they cannot be a leader/role model? Policies matter because they actually have an affect on you. Who they PREFER to have sex with doesn't.

 

[Met Income]

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.

How is it Groupthink? Lots of people think rocks falls down -- it doesn't mean it's GroupThink.

 

[John E]

I dont care who they are married too. That's their business.

 

[ChaosControl]

If you're not saying you're open minded and tolerant, how could you possibly use that as a criticism against me?

Anyways, how is a deviation from the norm immoral or something that should matter to you? How does it show that they cannot be a leader/role model? Policies matter because they actually have an affect on you. Who they PREFER to have sex with doesn't.

Because social relativists seem to love to claim they are open minded and tolerant when they are some of the most intolerant people on the planet. They cannot handle anyone having an opposing view point. They think being open minded just means accepting various life styles that they have no problem with, they do not realize it also means being open to alternative view points and giving multiple ideas consideration and attempting to understand where others are coming from.

It is immoral in my own code of morality, which obviously differs from yours. This isn't a topic on morality though and I have no need to justify my own to you. I didn't say they couldn't be a leader or a role model, I said I do not want them as a leader or role model due to that. I only want role models out there that I find live an acceptable life style.

You're free to vote or not vote for someone based on your own view and I'm free to vote for them based on my own. All about liberty right, or does that not matter if people have opposing views?

 

[TonySutton]

I totally agree. Myself, I will not vote for anyone who is not left handed. It really narrows down who I can support but I just can not see having a right handed person as a role model.

 

[ChaosControl]

I can see why so many people were turned off from CFL/RP08 due to the supporters now...

 

[Voltaire]

You're free to vote or not vote for someone based on your own view and I'm free to vote for them based on my own. All about liberty right, or does that not matter if people have opposing views?

A homosexual man should be allowed to teach your 7 year old son's swimming class, and you better not have a problem with that. If you have a problem with that, you don't support liberty.

At some point, the extent to which we must sacrifice our beliefs, prescriptions, and even prejudices for hyper-rationalist mediocrity is ridiculous.

 

[Met Income]

Because social relativists seem to love to claim they are open minded and tolerant when they are some of the most intolerant people on the planet. They cannot handle anyone having an opposing view point. They think being open minded just means accepting various life styles that they have no problem with, they do not realize it also means being open to alternative view points and giving multiple ideas consideration and attempting to understand where others are coming from.

It is immoral in my own code of morality, which obviously differs from yours. This isn't a topic on morality though and I have no need to justify my own to you. I didn't say they couldn't be a leader or a role model, I said I do not want them as a leader or role model due to that. I only want role models out there that I find live an acceptable life style.

You're free to vote or not vote for someone based on your own view and I'm free to vote for them based on my own. All about liberty right, or does that not matter if people have opposing views?

Why would you assume I'm a social relativist? What about my posts have suggested that?

Who says I cannot handle your belief system? I'm trying to get you to explain the logic, because it's really not apparent. You can't justify your beliefs? Makes sense, I couldn't justify the logic that sexual orientation is immoral, either. It makes no sense.

If you can make the case, go for it. If you can't, that's what I figured.

Oh, and please spare me the "am I free" argument. I've never suggested otherwise.

 

[Met Income]

A homosexual man should be allowed to teach your 7 year old son's swimming class, and you better not have a problem with that. If you have a problem with that, you don't support liberty.

At some point, the extent to which we must sacrifice our beliefs, prescriptions, and even prejudices for hyper-rationalist mediocrity is ridiculous.

Why are you putting words in our mouths? Who here said "if you don't support X, then you don't support liberty." Please stop making straw man arguments.

I'm not asking you to sacrifice anything -- I'm asking you to back up your reasoning.

Finally, I might not let an adult male babysit my 7 year old daughter. That has nothing to do with picking a politician, though.

 

[MelissaWV]

Why are you putting words in our mouths? Who here said "if you don't support X, then you don't support liberty." Please stop making straw man arguments.

I'm not asking you to sacrifice anything -- I'm asking you to back up your reasoning.

Finally, I might not let an adult male babysit my 7 year old daughter. That has nothing to do with picking a politician, though.

It means you hate heterosexuality!

 

[ChaosControl]

Why would you assume I'm a social relativist? What about my posts have suggested that?

Who says I cannot handle your belief system? I'm trying to get you to explain the logic, because it's really not apparent. You can't justify your beliefs? Makes sense, I couldn't justify the logic that sexual orientation is immoral, either. It makes no sense.

If you can make the case, go for it. If you can't, that's what I figured.

Oh, and please spare me the "am I free" argument. I've never suggested otherwise.

I may be jumping to conclusions but generally the people who throw around the excessively overused term "bigot" are generally the people who are social relativists. Sure that isn't always the case, but it generally is. Even more likely under this situation where one person is merely refusing to support someone because that person lives a lifestyle they disagree with. Although I still think you are based on your thought process.

When I say you cannot handle it, it means it disagrees with you, that you cannot tolerate it. Hence why I originally responded saying how you're being just as close-minded as you apparently consider others to be just because they have an opposing viewpoint.

I already explained my rationale for not supporting them. I want a leader to be someone I can respect, I want them to have integrity and morals. I want them to be a good role model for all citizens, including children. So I do not want them engaging in a lifestyle I consider immoral. Likewise I do not want a drug addict or a drunk as president.

Is everything about this special word "logic" to you? Do you lack human emotion or just personal gut feeling on things, do you lack personal views? Not everything boils down to logic in this world. I'm not making the case that a candidate cannot be, or that you cannot vote for them, so I don't have to prove to you. To ME it is an immoral lifestyle, so to ME they are not someone I can support. As for why, I simply feel it is a lifestyle that is both disgusting and one that is not intended for us. If it was intended for us then there would not be two sexes. Even in homosexual relationships you will most often see a "male" and a "female" in terms of how they behave in a relationship. The two sexes are designed to be with one another, both mentally and biologically. You can disagree, fine, but I simply do not want someone who is meant to be a role model and a leader to be someone engaging in a lifestyle I disapprove of. This extends far beyond this issue, but this issue is included in that.

If you don't agree with it, tough.