Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NetQuarterLatte t1_j1b0zt8 wrote

Reply to comment by mission17 in ‘Openly Gay’ Rep.-Elect George Santos Didn’t Disclose Divorce With Woman by mission17

They could’ve highlighted the string of lies directly in the headline, for example.

An abundance of alternatives that didn’t involve questioning whether he is gay based on a secret past marriage to a woman.

−4

mission17 OP t1_j1b1g57 wrote

> They could’ve highlighted the string of lies directly in the headline, for example.

You must have missed the dozens of other articles doing just this, including the ones that made this sub.

And once again, the disclosure is incredibly important, regardless of whether he is gay or not. You can quit the pearl clutching on behalf of gay people.

7

NetQuarterLatte t1_j1bbc8z wrote

Is there a form where candidates have to disclose past divorces and the nature of their sexual relationships?

−3

mission17 OP t1_j1bccnm wrote

Quickly: How many other politicians do you know have also hidden their past marriages? How many have hidden a marriage that ended months before their campaign began?

Did this man’s ex-wife know he was openly gay? And, even if so, did the people he was openly gay to (for a decade!) know he had a wife? Absent a total attitude of transparency, which this man certainly does not have, almost every potential answer to these questions is problematic.

Pretty much everyone else here has the ability to use context clues to realize concealing this marriage is a bad thing because he’s lied about so much else. Just because something isn’t mandatory doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to be dishonest about it.

Is there a single right-wing cause you’re not willing to go to bat for? Be honest. For once.

5

NetQuarterLatte t1_j1benj5 wrote

It’s much simpler to deduce he is a piece of shit based on his record (of what he supported or didn’t) than trying to decide based on guessing his identity.

There are factual stuff like resume and such that no politician should lie about.

But how do you verify those other things? Did the reporter even asked him? Or the ex-wife? We are assuming here it’s a woman based on the name, and all sort of assumptions going around here.

−1

mission17 OP t1_j1bfgxp wrote

> It’s much simpler to deduce he is a piece of shit based on his record (of what he supported or didn’t) than trying to decide based on guessing his identity.

To be absolutely clear: being gay is not what makes him a piece of shit. It’s the not being forthright about his background in light of the fact he’s an advocate for anti-LGBTQ legislation. Being that sort of advocate is one brand of evil, but potentially lying about your sexuality in order to do so is especially egregious.

> There are factual stuff like resume and such that no politician should lie about.

Politicians should not be lying about anything, really. Or concealing if they are material to your representation of others.

> But how do you verify those other things? Did the reporter even asked him? Or the ex-wife? We are assuming here it’s a woman based on the name, and all sort of assumptions going around here.

You ask the politician? Like the reporters certainly are?

6