Should the personal life of any politician who opposes same-sex marriage be investigated?

Question

Do not assume I think the answer is yes.

As far as I know, NO major candidate on either the Republican or Democratic side supports same-sex marriage.

So if they are gay (or lesbian) themselves, would you support "outing" them to expose hypocrisy? Or is it nobody's business?

Thanks!

PS I am straight. Don't hate me - I was born this way! :)

If it makes no sense, then why bother to answer?

The question was prompted by those here and elsewhere who apparently take great delight in "outing" gay politicians who are not seen as supportive enough with respect to gay rights. I'll put you down as a "no."

Hwy did I add the last sentence? Good question. Honest answer? I did not want to be mistaken for gay. Is that bad on my part? Maybe. But any other time I post a question like this the issue invariably is raised by a poster.

I don't like being mistaken for something I am not.

Answer 1

First, let me say that I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, though I'd rather they didn't call it that--and I'm a conservative Republican.

That said, this is a tough question. On the one had, there is that privacy but on the other hand, if they're gay and pretending not to be then it's somewhat like Kerry pretending he got all 3 of those Purple Hearts in 3 months actually in combat. Both are pretending to be someone they're not just to get votes. So, I guess I'd have to say, "yes, they should."

Nice to see a question you have to think about once in a while.

Answer 2

I hate to say this, but in terms of politics, the persons sex life unless criminal should be off the table. Barney Franks sex life was a crime, running prostitutes from his condo. And what Gary Studds did was a crime as well and rather than force him out, the democrats in congress gave him a standing ovation.

Overwhelmingly Americans and Congress do not support gay marriage, and if it were put to a national vote, gay marriage would not be approved that is why it was so important for them to defeat the proposed amendment, they know what I say is correct and hope to circumvent the will of America through political machinations.

Answer 3

I would say that a homosexual politician pushing for expanded gay rights is acting in their own self interest, and not in the interest of the country. How and if same-sex marriage laws are created should be determined by the country's citizens, and not a handful of politicians with an interest in it for themselves. I think the sexual orientation and sex lives of politicians is a non-issue and it's nobody's business but their own.

Answer 4

Since the personal lives of politicians affect their ability to perform their duties, and we pay their salaries, we have every right to investigate every aspect of the personal lives of politicians, not just into whether or not they have ever practiced sodomy.

Personal faults, such as sexual deviance, will undoubtedly carry over to their professional lives, as they did with New Jersey Governor Tim McGreevy, who embezzled state funds to funnel money to the man he was engaging in sodomy with, and therefore must be investigated.

However, we must make sure that the correct people are performing these investigations, since the homosexual lobby has a tendency to attempt to manipulate facts in order to make it appear as thought famous people were/are Sodomites. A perfect example of this is their attempt to take a single passage from George Washington's dairy, in which he claims that, while working as a surveyor for the British military, he and the rest of his survey party were caught in a blizzard, snowbound for several weeks, and forced to huddle together for warmth. While huddling together for warmth while in a survival situation is a time honored survival skill, various members of the homosexual lobby have attempted to claim that this single passage "proves" that our first president was a sexual deviant (it's clear, given how far they are reaching, that the Homosexual Lobby is getting desperate).

Answer 5

Gay Marriage Does NOT mean tey are forcing their beliefs on anyone...how f'ing stupid and narrow minded.

That is the same as saying if a Baptist marries a Catholic and the Baptist has to convert, that the Catholic church is right?!

All of you that think gays are 'cool' but gay marriage is not...you are fooling yourselves.

Why on earth would gay marriage be wrong?

It is saying they, gays, are less of a citizen then straight.

Hell, parents can sign consent forms so their children UNDER the age of 18 can get married, can't vote, are not even adults, and they can marry?

There is no harm, crime, threat, from gay marriage...just ignorance and hate from those who deny it.

Answer 6

no, its not hypocrisy in my book to be gay but not support gay marriage.

The difference is this: we have (as well we should) the right to do anything behind closed doors with other consenting adults

However gay marriage is a form of coming out from behind closed doors and trying to force other people to accept your actions as morally acceptable, it is a form of forcing your moral beliefs upon others.

There is a difference between allowing an activity in the name of freedom, verses forcing people to call it morally acceptable dispite their beliefs.

Answer 7

Your question makes no sense.

No one's PERSONAL life should be investigated. Their actions, maybe, if it looks like they're doing something illegal. But last I heard, being gay is not illegal in this country, so you can't investigate someone because you think they might be gay; it's none of your business.

I'm straight too. Born that way too. But I still think your question doesn't make any sense.

Answer 8

It is my understanding that our elected officials are put their to represent the people who elected them - not to promote a personal agenda.

So I'm going to say no. Whether a Senator is gay, straight, married, divorced 3 times, black, white....these things should not determine how they choose to legislate. It is how their constituency feels about the matter that is important.

Answer 9

Wrong because the difference between supporting or allowing others to choose is at issue .
We have Candidates that want you to have the choice .

Answer 10

No... A personal life is a personal life. Besides of which, politicians are meant to convy the beliefs of the people who elected them.