|
|
|
August 31, 2009
Vote openly (but keep the narrative in the closet)
I just voted "Yes" in a Facebook poll which asks, Would you vote for an openly gay candidate for president if you agreed with his or her other positions?So far, it seems to be winning handily. However, because I'm a contrarian, it almost makes me want to do a poll along the lines of ""Would you vote for a closeted gay candidate for president if you agreed with his or her other positions?" But there are such obvious logical problems with such a question that I'm not sure it can be answered intelligently. Maybe "openly closeted," or "blatantly closeted." Nah, that's too surreal. It does an injustice to a perfectly unjust word, and tortures the meaning of already meaningless words beyond all meaninglessness. I'm not sure that this issue breaks neatly as a Republican versus Democrat issue, though. For while there is no denying the existence of a certain hard core conservative enclave which believes homosexuality is a dire threat to Western civilization itself, the vast majority of the rank and file don't agree with that. (Being against gay marriage or thinking homosexuality is immoral is a far cry from believing it threatens Western civilization or is a "thermonuclear device aimed at the soul of America.") While it was never widely reported (although I've pointed it out before), back in 1999 John McCain said that he would be "comfortable with a homosexual as president of the United States." And then there's Dick Cheney, who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay rights. But I don't expect to see that widely reported either. It might have a chilling effect on the narrative. posted by Eric on 08.31.09 at 04:44 PM
Comments
What are the other positions of this openly-gay candidate? 69? Bottom-on-top? Plain vanilla missionary? While I may agree with this candidate on some of those positions, I feel I've lived far too many decades to have sufficient flexibility to agree with him on all. In actuality, the question is idiotic primarily because of the use of the term "other" as a modifier to the noun "position." Being gay is not a political "position." It's a sexual orientation. I know the personal is supposed to be the political, but this is ridiculous. Rhodium Heart · August 31, 2009 07:22 PM "And then there's Dick Cheney, who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay rights." (Sigh.) The one guy who embodies pretty much every characteristic I can think of when filling out my "who's your absolute first choice for President" contest entry-form - the one guy who, if they could be bothered to stop hissing at him and made to listen to him instead, about fifty percent of the Dems would line up behind - quietly competent, secure enough to leave most of us to our own values and choices while enjoying his own - and he's been reduced to a caricature. So we go with the McCains. And the Romneys. And . . . (small mouth-gag) . . . The Huckaby. Bizarro world. bobby b · September 1, 2009 01:44 AM Bobby, So we go with the McCains. And the Romneys. And . . . (small mouth-gag) . . . The Huckaby. Bizarro world. Yeah. But Palin is coming along. One way or another. BTW did you note her endorsement of libertarian Glenn Beck? She could have picked Hannity or Limbaugh, or any of a number of others. And yet it was libertarian Beck. Now I'm a big fan of Beck's philosophy (what I know of it) not so much of his style. Although he has done a few things I liked. The "leave me alone" people are coming out in American politics. This is good. M. Simon · September 1, 2009 08:25 AM The issue is not whether a candidate is gay/black/female/Republican/Democrat, etc., but what their positions are and, importantly, if they define themselves within the scope of identity politics. I would not vote for any candidate who saw themselves more as a GAY candidate than as a gay CANDIDATE. I want them to focus on the issues of state, not the issues of identity politics. T · September 1, 2009 10:03 AM Why do you say Cheney is to the Left of Obama on gay rights? I would say he's to the Right. What business is it of mine whether a guy is gay or not? Now if you start talking about government involvement in issues that are referred to as "gay rights issues", I don't think that my opposition to create newly found rights is incompatible with the view of "not my business". This includes civil domestic partnership. If a coupla guys or gals wanna link up, I can't think of a reason to want to deter them. If they want to agree to it, how can I effect a wall of separation that would nix such a plan? What motive would drive me to do so? Liberty and freedom means the ability to do dumb. And if they are able to find a vicar to tie the knot? Let them call it a marriage. Why would I care? Would being married make them any more or less gay? OregonGuy · September 1, 2009 11:18 AM OregonGuy: I like the cut of your jib. Rhodium Heart · September 1, 2009 02:59 PM If we could just get Cheney to see reason on drug policy, he's be a liberhawkian. TallDave · September 2, 2009 06:42 PM |
|
September 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2009
August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Are they elected, or are they rulers?
• My inner toddler wants to remain in denial! • Come out, come out, wherever you are! • Acorn Encourages Child Prostitution And Tax Cheating • Ham At A Tea Party • Suicide Run • Why saving a billion people is just not cool... • The Police Will Be Sticking It To You • Can anti-idiotarianism be kept alive? • Prostitution Is Prohibited
Links
Site Credits
|
|
That's not an interesting question.
The interesting question is "Would you vote for an openly gay candidate if you didn't agree with his/her positions?"
I suspect that would still win. We already know that a good number of people voted for a black candidate even though they did not agree with his positions.