mission17 OP t1_j1fynjo wrote
Reply to comment by Shame_On_Matt in ‘Openly Gay’ Rep.-Elect George Santos Didn’t Disclose Divorce With Woman by mission17
No. But politicians lying about every aspect of their identity to deceive voters is incredibly material to their role as a member of the U.S. House, one of the most powerful people in the country.
It’s our business because he elected to become a public figure and represent himself as openly gay.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fz7sv wrote
It’s not though. It’s your business if youre a constituent to hold him accountable to the platform you voted him in to execute.
Are you even his constituent?
mission17 OP t1_j1fzvxt wrote
It’s permissible for politicians to lie directly to their constituents so long as he votes for the platform he promised? The bar is in hell.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1g2pj5 wrote
What? it’s not permissible to lie to constituents about anything regarding your platform, your priorities, your strategy, where you get your money, etc.
When did I say it was?
Im done with this argument.
mission17 OP t1_j1g339m wrote
Only okay to lie about your background and who you actually are. Gotcha.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1g6uc2 wrote
Can you prove he’s not gay?
mission17 OP t1_j1g73c1 wrote
Is is incredibly plausible to prove he was not “openly gay.”
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gs8k3 wrote
What constitutes openly gay?
mission17 OP t1_j1gtwq5 wrote
Sounds like a question he should answer for the public.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i0hok wrote
You sound just like the truthers convinced Obama wasn’t born in the United States. You realize that?
mission17 OP t1_j1i2nzu wrote
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments