Weedkiller - Staying On The Safe Side
Home & Garden6 mins ago
Politicians sex lives?
68 Answers
What the hell does it matter if an MP, party leader or prime minister is gay, straight or bi-sexual? I cannot believe in 2006 this is a "problem" that is being discussed in national newspapers, if i was unsure of employing someone to serve customers cause they were gay, i would be had up.
Leave them alone.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Goodsoulette. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sorry due to my drunkness cant be ``bovered`` to look at everyones elses replies but personally dont think it is a matter of sexuality mor e a case of honesty - if a politician is upfront and honest about their sexuality then no question can be brought about them - however, even tho i dont think this should necessarily b the case - it shouldnt matter whether they r str8, gay or bi or whateverly inevitably as a politician - their sexualiity will always matter - for whatever reason that is - we just have to accept that - if i was to be a politician then i would be upfront and honest and say i was a full time lezza from the outset - then at least i cannot be accused of dishonesty xx
It would seem that being in the public eye some how relieves you of all rights to be a human being. Its truly disgusting that media and public cannot accept some one for who they are. I do feel that the recent stories were blown up because of the so called lying and the term 'rent boy' was used which is illegal. But the media do/say pretty much anything to get a good story, because people buy the papers. I just give up with the press now, I refuse to pay my what ever pence to read the rubbish that is printed, yes they have a job to do but we choose to read it.
A public figure (politician, sportsman, entertainer etc.) derives their power/career/wealth from the public through election/adulation/subscription.
If your position in society is dependent on the public then you have a responsibility to those people and if you break the trust they have in you there is no longer any reason for you to remain in that position.
Time and again I see the phrase 'it was only a lie'; in this thread it is even 'a "so called" lie'. Rest assured, if you give an answer that is untrue, it is a lie. Oh for the days when a person's word was their bond. When did it become commonplace for lying to be thought so insignificant?
I was once told 'Society gets the Government it deserves'. I would extend that to 'Society gets the public figures it deserves', although I'm pretty certain it isn't what all of us deserve. That's democracy for you.
If your position in society is dependent on the public then you have a responsibility to those people and if you break the trust they have in you there is no longer any reason for you to remain in that position.
Time and again I see the phrase 'it was only a lie'; in this thread it is even 'a "so called" lie'. Rest assured, if you give an answer that is untrue, it is a lie. Oh for the days when a person's word was their bond. When did it become commonplace for lying to be thought so insignificant?
I was once told 'Society gets the Government it deserves'. I would extend that to 'Society gets the public figures it deserves', although I'm pretty certain it isn't what all of us deserve. That's democracy for you.
The thing is not to mix the two issues. One is of sexuality and one is of integrity. If an MP chose to lie and harness some of the country's anti gay voters to increase his vote against someone who was honest about their sexuality then than makes me feel that there is a question about their character and honesty. If they are honest and open about themselves then of course it does not matter what their sexuality is. As far as WM's comments I am sure he must realise that there will have been many strong leaders in the past both in the military and in politics who were gay, and have lead strongly and wisely,they just couldn't say so at the time. However the day when we are not able to include his views in the cut and thrust of debate is a day I hope never comes. Being open and honest is the key and that gains respect.
As stated before you people are not reading the question, I said what does it matter and how is it our business if a politician is gay, straight or bi.
If you are gonna be specific he was asked if he was gay, he said no, no lie there he is bisexual. You do not have the right to know about there personal life, it does not effect there abilty to do the job. The press should be more respectful; and be asking them about their prospective policies not who they enjoy having sex with, if you people cant see that i expect you are the very people that dont even excercise your right to vote.
Well, Ward Minter, Alexander the Great was gay and I would argue, a tough cookie, too. He only really bothered with women for dynastic reasons, not that it helped much, as his wife and children were murdered after his death.
Julius Caesar dabbled. Lord Kitchener, Cecil Rhodes, Monty and even Lord Baden Powell were all suspected in their own day, as was Richard the Lionheart, who like Alexander married to fulfill dynastic obligations- unsuccessfully, in his case.
i appreciate that julius ceasar took stabbings to the back, but I don't think he was gay, was he???
However, Churchill was straight and Thatcher was not a lesbian. Therefore ergo, I am right.
However, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein,Yasa Arafat, Ayatolla Houmeni, Col. Gadaffi and Tony Blair have all dabbled in man on man love I believe. And so has Elton John.
I just remembered the Spartans, WM.
The entire warrior culture was based on male bonding, so much so, that a woman's head was shaved on her wedding night and she was expected to kneel in a darkened room awaiting the arrival of her husband who would consumate the marriage from behind, then leave.
This was intended to make the culture shock of heterosexual acts less traumatising for him.
Goodsoulette - I am confused by which particular case you are citing when you say there was no lie.
SH has apologised for lying (ipso facto he lied) and MO lived a secret life which was a lie to his family and everyone else.
As to the sexuality of a person, I don't care, but your constant defence of a liar is symptomatic of what is wrong with our society.
SH has apologised for lying (ipso facto he lied) and MO lived a secret life which was a lie to his family and everyone else.
As to the sexuality of a person, I don't care, but your constant defence of a liar is symptomatic of what is wrong with our society.
i wasnt refering to anyone when i posed this question, other people started citing it.
Other people started mentioning the sh case and he had denied being gay, but he has had both male and female relationships so surely that makes him bisexual, so techincally not lying. I believe he apologised for misleading people not lying.
At the end of the day this comes down to the fact that subconciously people dont want a gay pm. I watched a programme that polled this q the other day and 70 % said they wouldnt vote for a gay candidate.
Like I said if a reporter had asked him if he masturbated and said no and then got caught out, would you be so outraged by the lie. Surely another thing that is noones business.
Where SH went wrong is that he did not say "it's nobody else's business" but instead he lied (and has admitted and apologised for the lie).
The "gay" or "bisexual" distinction is a get out. SH, when asked if he had engaged in homosexual relations, denied the allegation. Shades of Clinton/Lewinsky, which led to impeachment proceedings because of the lie.
Latest Posts
Technology11 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Food & Drink16 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.