Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mission17 OP t1_j1i2nzu wrote

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

I think the pretty critical difference here is that Obama didn’t conceal a divorce or lie about his entire resume. Context is pretty important here.

1

Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i3svy wrote

You can keep caveating why youre different but at the end of the day, being gay or straight has zero to do with your job as a politician.

Even if you succeeded in finding out if he had a heterosexual past, now what?

In every single scenario you’re the bad person here. Plain and simple.

Why are you so determined to find out this man’s true sexuality?

0

mission17 OP t1_j1i557p wrote

You seem to be confused about what the problem is here. If Obama had lies about where he grew up, where he went to college, what his ethnicity was, or where he went to school, and there was clear evidence of this, it would be actual concrete evidence indicating he’s a deceptive person and not fit for office.

Of course one can be gay and married to a woman. It’s quite a bit more difficult to be married and “openly gay.” While that is still possible, certainly, it poses some major questions about the truthfulness of this man and his integrity as an elected official that he owes his constituency an answer for.

This isn’t a case of your accountant or mailman not telling you about their divorce, this is a U.S. Representative who will certainly be voting on critical legislation implicating gay rights multiple times through his term. His identity could potentially have no bearing on his job as a politician, but this man has already used his identity to justify anti-LGBTQ legislation. It’s clear it does have a bearing.

I understand you feel any questions about this are off limits and would be totally fine with him lying about his personal life— I do not. I really don’t understand why you feel you should get a veto on these sorts of questions, either, when it’s clear it’s relevant to so many others.

1

Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i7lmc wrote

Sorry I apologize, I didn’t realize you had to be authenticated by the gay society as authentically gay to be allowed to vote on anti gay legislation without facing backlash.

0

mission17 OP t1_j1i8wtf wrote

I think you should refresh yourself on some gay history and how outing politicians who voted for anti-LGBTQ legislation was critical for the Queer rights movement: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/11/14/how-outing-republican-25-years-ago-changed-politics-forever

In this case the idea is the same. Hold your Representatives who have power over your human rights accountable to honesty.

If a politician wants to use their sexuality to justify an anti-LGBTQ agenda, they can be very much held to account to answer questions about it. I still don’t understand why your indifference to asking politicians difficult questions should preclude anybody else from doing so.

1

Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ixvia wrote

this is no way shape or form related to outing anti gay politicians. That was absolutely necessary.

Maybe you should form the legion of gays to start authorizing who is and isn’t gay since you’re obviously the authority.

0

mission17 OP t1_j1j4m5i wrote

> this is no way shape or form related to outing anti gay politicians

If you say so, then it must totally be true.

0