Is Charlie Crist a homosexual?

[Fireblade]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/report-crist-circulating_n_103856.html

YOU be the judge!

[Phillip V]

Who cares?

[Fate]

Here we go again, everyone. Can both sides of the homosexuality debate agree that it is incumbent on political candidates to be completely open and honest about their involvement in homosexual behavior — or any other sexual misconduct?

Too many politicians with a homosexual problem are hiding this special interest from the voters. They should run as openly homosexual Republicans or Democrats so we can avoid these pathetic post-election surprises.

[DontSayBanana]

I voted both because FB didn't make the poll mutually exclusive.

Counting the current votes, looks like somebody else noticed that, too.

[Fireblade]

I voted both because FB didn't make the poll mutually exclusive.

Counting the current votes, looks like somebody else noticed that, too.

Yeah, I saw that too. I also thought I had set it to allowing each user 999 votes.

This incarnation of Languish = FAIL

[katmai]

I voted both because FB didn't make the poll mutually exclusive.

Counting the current votes, looks like somebody else noticed that, too.

Yeah, I saw that too. I also thought I had set it to allowing each user 999 votes.

This incarnation of Languish = FAIL

No just you are teh fail.

[Martinus]

Here we go again, everyone. Can both sides of the homosexuality debate agree that it is incumbent on political candidates to be completely open and honest about their involvement in homosexual behavior — or any other sexual misconduct?

How the fuck is homosexual behaviour a "sexual misconduct"?

[jimmy olsen]

Here we go again, everyone. Can both sides of the homosexuality debate agree that it is incumbent on political candidates to be completely open and honest about their involvement in homosexual behavior — or any other sexual misconduct?

How the fuck is homosexual behaviour a "sexual misconduct"?

Why are you taking what Fate says seriously?

[Martinus]

True enough.

Anyway, my take on involuntary outings of politicians and other public figures is this: as long as the person in question is not trying to build a political or personal popularity on an explicitly anti-gay agenda, then their personal life is their own business and noone else's. I realize there is a bit of a slippery slope in this approach (e.g. what if someone does not express anti-gay views personally, but belongs to a party or a religious organization that does) but I think in most cases you can draw a line between being expressly anti-gay and just being a conservative.

[grumbler]

True enough.

Anyway, my take on involuntary outings of politicians and other public figures is this: as long as the person in question is not trying to build a political or personal popularity on an explicitly anti-gay agenda, then their personal life is their own business and noone else's. I realize there is a bit of a slippery slope in this approach (e.g. what if someone does not express anti-gay views personally, but belongs to a party or a religious organization that does) but I think in most cases you can draw a line between being expressly anti-gay and just being a conservative.

  So, if they agree with you they are to be allowed privacy, but if they disagree, then they are not? 

I say a person's private life is private, period.  The worth of words should in those words and not by the speaker.

[Sheilbh]

  So, if they agree with you they are to be allowed privacy, but if they disagree, then they are not? 

If they make homophobia and sexuality part of their public persona then I think that the public have a right to know if they're actually indulging in private.  If that isn't part of the way they behave or are in public then there's no public interest.

[grumbler]

If they make homophobia and sexuality part of their public persona then I think that the public have a right to know if they're actually indulging in private.  If that isn't part of the way they behave or are in public then there's no public interest.

I disagree utterly.  Whatever they make part of their "public persona," the public has no right to intrude into their private life.  Hell, they could support welfare and I still wouldn't think it right that they be revealed as wargamers!

[Faeelin]

  So, if they agree with you they are to be allowed privacy, but if they disagree, then they are not? 

I say a person's private life is private, period.  The worth of words should in those words and not by the speaker.

I actually think it should be public in both cases. If you want to represent the people of a state, district, whatever, why should you get to keep something private that would affect how a significant number of people would vote?

[Neil]

I actually think it should be public in both cases. If you want to represent the people of a state, district, whatever, why should you get to keep something private that would affect how a significant number of people would vote?

Because that's how the west works, and that's also the only way you can attract decent people to office.

Go back to Iran and get hanged, you fucking faggot.

[Neil]

Here we go again, everyone. Can both sides of the homosexuality debate agree that it is incumbent on political candidates to be completely open and honest about their involvement in homosexual behavior — or any other sexual misconduct?

How the fuck is homosexual behaviour a "sexual misconduct"?

Because it's not normal sex?