Quick poll on gay PM

[Bakunin]

--------------------------

I just want to know if it would affect you.

[ScottBrison]

not in the slightest. Of course my favorite MP, and my name sake on this board, happen to be openly gay as well, and I couldn't care less.

[Newfie Canadian]

I think there should be a third answer in your poll Bakunin.

Something like "Doesn't Matter" or "Makes No Difference" or "Who Cares".

Either one of those would be my vote, as I wouldn't take their sexual orientation into account.

[PocketRocket]

NEWFIE: (gotta love that name) I think the "it doesn't matter" goes along with the vote for a good, gay, PM.

A vote FOR the gay PM is a vote advocating quality of leadership as being more important than sexual orientation.

IOW, it doesn't matter what his/her sexual orientation, as long as he/she is a great PM.

[willy]

Of course it doesn't matter. Stupid poll.

[Guest eureka]

It is not necessarily a "stupid" poll. The underlying thought may be that many people mught believe that a "Gay" person could not be a good leader and how prevalent is that belief in society.

Not many years ago an openly "gay" person could not have been a good leader and would have had a restricted following. I suspect that under the newly discovered tolerance of society there are an awful lot who have not really become "sophisticated.

The poll, though, is hardly likely to reveal the truth if that is correct.

I can't vote for the reasons given by others: the choices are too limited.

[Bakunin]

I was asking that because the most interesting candidate in the leadership course of the pq is gay. First i thought evryone was mature enough not to consider it as a negative element but somehow, i just can't beleive what i heard on another forum anyway im glad that the poll doesn't seem to be as much divised like the gay marriage and people seems to have a common sens.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Bakunin,

I echo eureka's sentiment...

I can't vote for the reasons given by others: the choices are too limited.

If there was a choice between 'good gay' vs. good straight', or bad & bad, there might be a difference in opinions, but I doubt it. The people would mostly say 'it doesn't matter', and then vote how they truly felt. That is why the ballot box is secret.

[August1991]

Bakunin, not only do I agree with others that the poll lacks a few other choices, I also think the poll misses the point entirely.

A better question to ask is how many people in Quebec will switch their votes to the PQ and how many to another party simply because Boisclair is gay. In a sense, the question is if Boisclair were identical in every way but not gay, would the PQ do better or worse?

In 1975, when Margaret Thatcher became Conservative leader in the UK, some people expressly stated that they would no longer vote Tory because the leader was a woman. (BTW, Thatcher went on to win three majority governments.)

It would be nice to say that voters judge candidates on competence and policies but, as I have tried to argue in another thread, perceptions matter greatly in politics. Quebecers may well like the idea that their PM, leading a trade delegation to Saudi Arabia, is openly gay.

[kimmy]

I suspect that under the newly discovered tolerance of society there are an awful lot who have not really become "sophisticated."

The poll, though, is hardly likely to reveal the truth if that is correct.

True, that. Just because somebody says they're tolerant and openminded doesn't actually mean they are, and they're certainly not likely to admit that they aren't in today's climate.

As for sending an openly gay PM to Saudi Arabia, that's an interesting point (the Saudis seem willing to deal with powerful women-- Madeline Albright, Condoleeza Rice-- despite being culturally unaccustomed to doing so. They may have had little choice, however.) What about a recent example-- Paul Martin's visit to India and his meeting with the leader of the Sikh Golden Temple, where PMPM received an earful from the Sikh leader on the issue of SSM. The Sikhs are apparently not noted for tolerance of homosexuals either. Would an openly gay PM have even been allowed to meet with the Sikh leader? Perhaps that's not a terribly important issue, except for the fact that the Liberals consider the Sikh community to be an important segment of its voters in many areas of the country. The Sikh leader admonished Canadian Sikhs to not support homosexuality.

Imagine you were a voting deligate at your party's leadership convention, and one of the candidates is openly gay. No matter how tolerant you might personally be, doesn't strategic thinking have to come into this?

If you're a Conservative, choosing an openly gay party leader would quite likely cost you support within one of your core constituencies-- social conservative voters.

If you're a Liberal, choosing an openly gay party leader would quite likely cost you support within one of your core constituencies-- Sikh and Muslim voters.

Even if you personally are very tolerant and openminded... don't you have to consider whether choosing an openly gay leader has the potential to hurt your party when you go to the polls?

-k

[Bakunin]

I agree i had a hard time to write down the question, maybe its not clear.

I didnt want to make it a ideology debate like pq vs plq.

I guess a better question is if ppl would be shocked and maybe vote against him because of that.

[willy]

If you're a Conservative, choosing an openly gay party leader would quite likely cost you support within one of your core constituencies-- social conservative voters.

A man by the name of Brian Mitchell was one vote away from being the head of the Conservative national council. He is an openly gay Montreal lawyer. The party members were not concerned. If the leader doesn't represent the policy of the party, is another question.

An aside, Brian is still a prominant member of the national council.

[Melanie_]

Here in Winnipeg, we had an openly gay mayor for 6 years; it was never really an issue that I was aware of, and when he left municipal politics to run (and unfortunately lose) for federal office, the general consensus was we lost a great mayor.

[Big Blue Machine]

How dare you think that it would be an issue.

[ScottBrison]

Whose the lone homophobe vote?

[jimrahn]

Ya know, this poll is actually areal toughie.

It's not like we've ever actually had an openly gay PM.

If we ever do, will he be any good?

On the other hand, we've had more than our share of openly heterosexual Prime Ministers who were bad...

cheers!

[Sir Chauncy]

Talk to homophobes abroad and it matters. It seems to matter big time to many.

Gay, straight, who cares, as long as they got enough balls to do what's best for Canada and Canadians and dont worry about kissing up to our southern neighbors all the time.

Sir Chauncy

[Argus]

Whose the lone homophobe vote?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think people like you need to restrain your knee jerk reflex to accuse anyone who has the slightest hesitation about homosexuality of being "homophobic".

As for myself, I don't care where someone dips their wick. I care about their politics and their integrity. I don't know if I'd support a gay candidate because I don't know what kind of person this theoretical gay candidate is. Most gay politicians in my experience are fairly left of centre, which might mean I wouldn't vote for most. But it depends. There is a local gay politician named Alex Munter who I respect, and who will probably be mayor one day soon. I respect him even though he is clearly left of centre. Generally he is a reasonable man, and seems to be quite honest. And while he is openly and obviously gay he doesn't push it into everyone's face. I could see myself voting for him as opposed to the present idiotic incumbent.

[ScottBrison]

What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay? If they truly wern't a homophobe then they would see the poll like this:

IF ever you had to choose between a good PM or a bad PM for who would you vote ?

The good PM?

The bad PM?

[cybercoma]

What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay? If they truly wern't a homophobe then they would see the poll like this:

IF ever you had to choose between a good PM or a bad PM for who would you vote ?

The good PM?

The bad PM?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good and bad are too subjective. The point is whether you'd vote for a gay or straight prime minister. Like Argus said, most gay politicians are left of center, so if you're a right supporter...why would you vote for a gay PM?

Worse yet, if you're strongly opposed to homosexuality and perhaps the agenda that the gay prime minister would push, would he not be a BAD PM in your eyes?

This poll is obviously absurd. So the true point is whether you'd vote for a gay prime minister or not.

[jimrahn]

What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay? If they truly wern't a homophobe then they would see the poll like this:

IF ever you had to choose between a good PM or a bad PM for who would you vote ?

The good PM?

The bad PM?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C'mon, here. You really think that's a reasonable statement?

You honestly believe you know definitively how someone else would vote based on a question that, as seems to be the consensus, has nothing to do with political ability?

How can anyone claim to know that about another person?

I think I get your point though. People reading the poll question zero in on the gay/straight aspect of it.

Unfortunately, that happens to be the way the question IS written, so you just can't ignore it wothout changing the sense of what's being asked.

Actually, I have to confess -- I voted for the bad prime minister who's also a raging hetero. Looks like I'm not exactly a "lone" homophobe, though.

But you never know. Maybe I just voted for the straight PM to get people ticked. Maybe that's NOT really how I feel. Unless I tell you, you never know, right?

You can't slap a "homophobe" label on someone unless you are completely sure what they say and do is the truth all the time. And there's no way to be absolutely sure of that. Just depends what a person's motive is for saying or doing something.

tsk, tsk.

I suppose we all see what we wan't to see, and thus create our own reality.

Of course, following that line of thought would mean that if I'm a homophobe and anyone has a problem with it, it's really their fault and not mine.

But lest anyone think I'm intolerant, I respect your reality and in no way wish to impose my own on you, so I hope you respect mine the same way.

So if in fact, we do respect each other's moral universe, tell me then, am I wrong?

Cheers all!

[ScottBrison]

That's cool, I mean if you guys want to live in la la land who am I to stop you?

[Argus]

What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay?

Let me ask you a question. If a gay guy ran against a straight guy and the straight guy was the better candidate - how many homosexuals would vote for the gay guy regardless? Just because he's gay. And what pejorative term would you then invoke against them?

[The Terrible Sweal]

What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay? If they truly wern't a homophobe then they would see the poll like this:

IF ever you had to choose between a good PM or a bad PM for who would you vote ?

The good PM?

The bad PM?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good and bad are too subjective. The point is whether you'd vote for a gay or straight prime minister. Like Argus said, most gay politicians are left of center, so if you're a right supporter...why would you vote for a gay PM?

Worse yet, if you're strongly opposed to homosexuality and perhaps the agenda that the gay prime minister would push, would he not be a BAD PM in your eyes?

This poll is obviously absurd. So the true point is whether you'd vote for a gay prime minister or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is absurd is the many prevaricating efforts to evade the simple meaning of this poll. Injecting extraneous elements (like a presumed leftwingness in a gay leader), or attempting to reinterpret the neutrality of the simple premise of 'good' or 'bad' merely highlight the value of this poll: it is constructed perfectly the quantify extreme 'homophobia' among respondents.

Res ipsa loquitur, almost.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay?

Let me ask you a question. If a gay guy ran against a straight guy and the straight guy was the better candidate - how many homosexuals would vote for the gay guy regardless? Just because he's gay. And what pejorative term would you then invoke against them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a screwball question. What light do you think it adds to the issue here, I wonder.

Anyway, in the case you describe, the term I would apply is 'bigotted'. What other answer would you expect?