Quick poll on gay PM

[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? 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think most of us were pointing out that it was simplistic. Clearly that's not a problem for you.

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think most of us were pointing out that it was simplistic. Clearly that's not a problem for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So 'simplistic' is the new malapropism you intend to attempt on this, is it? The question was simple. The construction/selection of the question was anything but. It was careful and effective.

[August1991]

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.

Sweal, please provide a translation.

Res ipsa loquitur, almost.

Translation too, please.

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?

I'll take that to mean that you would not have voted for Maurice Duplessis or J. Edgar Hoover simply because they were gay. Sweal, an honest but occasionally pedantic poster!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Res ipsa loquitur, almost.

Translation too, please.

Res ipsa loquitur... the thing proves itself.

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?

I'll take that to mean that you would not have voted for Maurice Duplessis or J. Edgar Hoover simply because they were gay.

I have no idea where you are getting that notion.

I would not vote for either of them because they were both corrupt crypto-fascists.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Whose the lone homophobe vote?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If this current topic (the poll) is intended to spark debate about SSM in this country, it misses the mark. The debate abobut SSM has nothing to do with tolerance. I know plenty of people who oppose or question the validity of SSM without having a problem with gays in general. Today's SSM debate has to do with the definition of a word and whether or not we should change the definition of words arbitrarily to accomodate WANTS (not RIGHTS) of minorities.

[Bakunin]

Right now there is very good chance for the next quebec pm to be andre boisclair who his gay, i heard ppl mostly opponent use it as an argument not to vote for him, i was shocked. There is also a woman, pauline marois that could win. The media wich like story like that keep asking if quebec is ready for a woman or a gay PM. I guess its ok to ask the question once but not to make it like a negative point.

I wanted to know if people here are seeing this as a negative point and qould make it an issue. It was a very hard question to formulate.

[mona]

I have to agree that a pm's sexual preference who not deter me from making the right choice. however, it would certainly be interesting to see if canada is biased in a real life scenario. Actually what would be a riot is if Klein found out that one of his friends/family members was gay. Or harper for that matter. It would be interesting.

[August1991]

Actually what would be a riot is if Klein found out that one of his friends/family members was gay. Or harper for that matter. It would be interesting.

Dick Cheney, VP in the US, has a lesbian daughter. The general reaction has been, "so what".