Who would you choose to be in public office? There are only 2 choices.....NO, you can't fill in the blank with another choice. It is simple A or B.
2006-10-17 10:08:27 · 26 answers · asked by M G 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I choose AB. A homosexual atheist. I choose both choices. HA!
2006-10-18 01:21:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A, because she would probably be more aligned to my other ways of thinking, too.
It is harder in this country to be an "outed" atheist than a gay person.
I have been an atheist all my life and very few people know how I feel about that topic. I can't let people know, because I could get fired or my car "keyed" or other violence.
I had a fish with feet on my car once, and it was taken off and smashed in a parking lot, and left for me to find. I wouldn't do that to anyone.
I am a "live and let live" person, but fundies are hateful toward me and my heathen kind.
So, to answer, I would LOVE an atheist openly standing up for his beliefs in public office. He might get assasinated, tho.
I have nothing at all against gay people holding any office either, and I personally am more afraid of married perverts than any gay person.
2006-10-17 17:23:36 · answer #2 · answered by Lottie W 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't vote for a candidate based solely on those attributes.
I can't understand women who automatically vote for a female candidate. Isn't that saying that no man can, or would, faithfully represent the interests of his female constituents?
Likewise, I refuse to believe that an honest person who happened to be atheist would not faithfully represent his constituents of faith, or an honest homosexual politician would only look out for the interests of the gay community.
I have more faith in people than to make such blind assumptions. I'd have to know more about the candidates' positions.
2006-10-17 17:17:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Only an idiot would choose a candidate based on their religion or sexual preference instead of based on their competence and policy. You probably are not aware that religious tests for office are prohibited by the US Constitution. That doesn't keep you from using religion as a litmus test for your own voting of course, but it should give you pause to know that men of the caliber of the founders thought it no basis on which to qualify a candidate.
2006-10-17 17:15:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Atheist
2006-10-17 17:10:50 · answer #5 · answered by Lisa 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think there should be an Athieist, Black, Lesbian. Then things would really get done. Being an Athiest, all the religious-"right" crap would just sail out the window. Being Black, would give her plenty of spirit and experience of struggling through a tough political arena. Being a Lesbian, she wouldn't take any sh*t!
2006-10-17 17:15:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I can't vote for the Homosexual. Nothing against Homosexuals, I just don't have enough info and he might be a born again evangelical christian Republican with what I have seen lately, and I can't deal with that again.
If you give me more information on them i could make an educated choice though.
2006-10-17 17:12:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
This is stupid. If you truly vote according to this sort of characteristic instead of actual qualifications, we'd have complete morons in office... oh wait. That happened. Dang it!
Why are these chosen as equals anyway? They aren't related in the slightest.
2006-10-17 17:16:48 · answer #8 · answered by N 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't care because running a country should have nothing to do with sexual orientation or religious/non-religious beliefs. If she was a good candidate and she was an atheist homosexual (gasp!) she'd have my vote.
2006-10-17 17:11:16 · answer #9 · answered by leavemealonestalker 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
It's impossible to choose between the two without know any of their APPLICABLE qualifications. Orientation and religion aren't applicable in the least.
2006-10-17 17:11:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋