Anti-gay married Republican quits after he is caught having gay sex in his office - Polidicks

[quote]A Republican representative who campaigned against gay rights has quit after he was caught having gay sex in his office. Wes Goodman, 33, admitted to the House Speaker that he had consensual sex with another man in his office in Ohio.[/quote] The stereotype keeps turning out to be true! [URL="http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/17/anti-gay-married-republican-quits-after-he-is-caught-having-gay-sex-in-his-office-7087203/"]Source[/URL]

i dont understand people like this why do you campaign against gay rights and then lead a secret gay life i mean isnt he essentially jeopardizing himself in the future if any of his campaigns were to succeed?? did he expect never to be uncovered????

[QUOTE=erkor;52900083]i dont understand people like this why do you campaign against gay rights and then lead a secret gay life i mean isnt he essentially jeopardizing himself in the future if any of his campaigns were to succeed?? did he expect never to be uncovered????[/QUOTE] The forbidden fruit makes itself the ultimate taboo, which in turn makes turns itself into the ultimate aphrodisiac. also decades of forced oppression and indoctrination to disown their own feelings.

[QUOTE=erkor;52900083]i dont understand people like this why do you campaign against gay rights and then lead a secret gay life i mean isnt he essentially jeopardizing himself in the future if any of his campaigns were to succeed?? did he expect never to be uncovered????[/QUOTE] It is entierly possible for him to back anti-gay bills and be gay himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.

I bet the balls touched so he had to come out clean.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900096][B]it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs[/B][/QUOTE] Please tell me you're being sarcastic [QUOTE=James xX;52900096]the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people who subscribe to identity politics.[/QUOTE] Or maybe they just have some basic human dignity?

[QUOTE=James xX;52900096]It is entierly possible for him to back anti-gay bills and be gay himself if that is what the majority of his constituents want, and in fact, if this is the case, it is commendable that he put the needs of his constituents before his own needs, and the only reason people would then think that he is wrong to do so are the people [B]who subscribe to identity politics.[/B][/QUOTE] Or people who like their policies to be based on evidence and logic. Politicians should act somewhat technocratically. You can hate gays all you want but I've never seen a decently formulated argument against gay marriage.

[QUOTE=mcharest;52900137]Please tell me you're being sarcastic Or maybe they just have some basic human dignity?[/QUOTE] If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that? [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900141]Or people who like their policies to be based on evidence and logic. Politicians should act somewhat technocratically. You can hate gays all you want but I've never seen a decently formulated argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Identity politics has nothing to do with evidence and logic, there are those who follow both, and there are those who follow one or the other, these are two separate issues. As for your claim that I hate gays, I myself am gay, and I also want gay marriage to be a thing everywhere, I am simply expressing the view that someone put into a possition of power to represent a number of people should not abuse it by ignoring their wishes. As you put it, this argument is based on logic.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that? Identity politics has nothing to do with evidence and logic, there are those who follow both, and there are those who follow one or the other, these are two separate issues. As for your claim that I hate gays, I myself am gay, and I also want gay marriage to be a thing everywhere, I am simply expressing the view that someone put into a possition of power to represent a number of people should not abuse it by ignoring their wishes. As you put it, this argument is based on logic.[/QUOTE] In a case like this, why would I trust said politician to be true to my wishes if he can't be true to himself?

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that? Identity politics has nothing to do with evidence and logic, there are those who follow both, and there are those who follow one or the other, these are two separate issues. As for your claim that I hate gays, I myself am gay, and I also want gay marriage to be a thing everywhere, I am simply expressing the view that someone put into a possition of power to represent a number of people should not abuse it by ignoring their wishes. As you put it, this argument is based on logic.[/QUOTE] I never said you hate gays. And a politician that blindly does what their constituency wants is a bad politician. People usually don't know much of what they're talking about. And, if we want to, we can spin it very slightly by saying that said representative is there to act in the interests of his constituency. They can vote him out of course if they decide he's done a bad job, but he'd be a better politician in that way, even if he's less electable.

From a [I]representative's viewpoint[/I], he is anti-gay because[I] the people he represents[/I] are, for the most part, anti-gay. He is representing his constituents viewpoints, which is exactly his job. It's unfortunate that the people he represents have these views, and it's unfortunate that he represents such views. It may suck, but if you run for office in an area where the citizens, say, absolutely hate [I]pet dogs[/I], you are going to find yourself pushing legislature against having pet dogs - because that's what your constituents want, and it's your job to represent them and their views. I just find it sad that a gay man in office would ever end up publicly holding anti-gay sentiments and views. It's sad..and it must have given the man internal conflicts on what he believes.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that?[/QUOTE] i feel like if The Voice Of The People is saying "hey, this group of people marginalised people should be stigmatised further and have less rights than this other group of people", then it should be fairly fucking easy to tell said Voice to fuck off

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that? Identity politics has nothing to do with evidence and logic, there are those who follow both, and there are those who follow one or the other, these are two separate issues. As for your claim that I hate gays, I myself am gay, and I also want gay marriage to be a thing everywhere, I am simply expressing the view that someone put into a possition of power to represent a number of people should not abuse it by ignoring their wishes. As you put it, this argument is based on logic.[/QUOTE] You are arguing for tyranny of the majority, plain and simple. If preventing minorities from being oppressed sounds like "identity politics" to you, then you can take it up with Alexander Hamilton and John Stuart Mill.

[QUOTE=erkor;52900083]i dont understand people like this did he expect never to be uncovered????[/QUOTE] yes to the latter and the reason he does it is because he is the true sexually deviant homosexual who does not wish to portray themselves as one, and project their frustrations on other people very openly alternatively his peers made him, an otherwise perfectly reasonable homosexual, hate himself and turn into the politician he is today through the hate culture that goes on [QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that?.[/QUOTE] Sadly that worldview involves ignoring the wishes of a group of people, so I'd say fuck em I guess? But I'm not even sure. The matter is well beyond politics in terms of abortion laws and taxes, etc, I feel.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;52900191]i feel like if The Voice Of The People is saying "hey, this group of people marginalised people should be stigmatised further and have less rights than this other group of people", then it should be fairly fucking easy to tell said Voice to fuck off[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900173]I never said you hate gays. And a politician that blindly does what their constituency wants is a bad politician. People usually don't know much of what they're talking about. And, if we want to, we can spin it very slightly by saying that said representative is there to act in the interests of his constituency. They can vote him out of course if they decide he's done a bad job, but he'd be a better politician in that way, even if he's less electable.[/QUOTE] I believe what you are arguing for is an oligarchy then, if you believe people shouldn't have their voices represented in government, and while you can believe that if you want, currently it's a democracy. [QUOTE=1STrandomman;52900200]You are arguing for tyranny of the majority, plain and simple. If preventing minorities from being oppressed sounds like "identity politics" to you, then you can take it up with Alexander Hamilton and John Stuart Mill.[/QUOTE] I believe I am arguing for democracy and representation, and if you believe preventing people from having their voices heard sounds like politics, then you should consider what democracy is, and take it up with the Founding Fathers.

:snip:

[QUOTE=James xX;52900231]I believe what you are arguing for is an oligarchy then, if you believe people shouldn't have their voices represented in government, and while you can believe that if you want, currently it's a democracy. I believe I am arguing for democracy and representation, and if you believe preventing people from having their voices heard sounds like politics, then you should consider what democracy is, and take it up with the Founding Fathers.[/QUOTE] No? I'm arguing for representative democracy. That's why I said it might make you less electable. Don't throw around words like oligarchy if you don't know what they mean. This is how elections work anyways. Candidates create policy platforms that they try to sell to their constituency, and we have a goddamn Constitution, an independent central bank, etc. for these reasons.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that? Identity politics has nothing to do with evidence and logic, there are those who follow both, and there are those who follow one or the other, these are two separate issues. As for your claim that I hate gays, I myself am gay, and I also want gay marriage to be a thing everywhere, I am simply expressing the view that someone put into a possition of power to represent a number of people should not abuse it by ignoring their wishes. As you put it, this argument is based on logic.[/QUOTE] Way to spin oppressing homosexuals into a positive thing

good riddance, theres enough wingnuts in this state's legislature to begin with

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900247]No? I'm arguing for representative democracy. That's why I said it might make you less electable. This is how elections work anyways. Candidates create policy platforms that they try to sell to their constituency, and we have a goddamn Constitution, an independent central bank, etc. for these reasons.[/QUOTE] To follow on from your post, it would therefore only be a logical outcome that the people elect someone who represents their values, and that person is then duty bound to do so. If a gay man wants to represent people who think gay marriage is wrong, that's sad that he puts himself in that position, but I am only arguing that the fact that he follows through with his duty and represents his people none-the-less, regardless of his personal circumstances, is good.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52900247]No? I'm arguing for representative democracy. That's why I said it might make you less electable. Don't throw around words like oligarchy if you don't know what they mean. This is how elections work anyways. Candidates create policy platforms that they try to sell to their constituency, and we have a goddamn Constitution, an independent central bank, etc. for these reasons.[/QUOTE] or they pick their constituency such that any platform they could put out will get them elected

[QUOTE=James xX;52900231]I believe what you are arguing for is an oligarchy then, if you believe people shouldn't have their voices represented in government, and while you can believe that if you want, currently it's a democracy. I believe I am arguing for democracy and representation, and if you believe preventing people from having their voices heard sounds like politics, then you should consider what democracy is, and take it up with the Founding Fathers.[/QUOTE] a majority opinion doesn't make things okay. a man isn't commendable because he passes laws that harms gay people because thats what his constituents wants the world isn't black and white, you can do shitty things in the name of democracy, just because its democratic doesn't suddenly make it okay and immune to criticism

[QUOTE=James xX;52900258]To follow on from your post, it would therefore only be a logical outcome that the people elect someone who represents their values, and that person is then duty bound to do so. If a gay man wants to represent people who think gay marriage is wrong, that's sad that he puts himself in that position, but I am only arguing that the fact that he follows through with his duty and represents his people none-the-less, regardless of his personal circumstances, is good.[/QUOTE] oh my god are you actually trying to make this guy out to be some selfless hero of justice for trying to take away rights from marginalized people? just stop lol

[QUOTE=James xX;52900258]To follow on from your post, it would therefore only be a logical outcome that the people elect someone who represents their values, and that person is then duty bound to do so. If a gay man wants to represent people who think gay marriage is wrong, that's sad that he puts himself in that position, but I am only arguing that the fact that he follows through with his duty and represents his people none-the-less, regardless of his personal circumstances, is good.[/QUOTE] You missed the point, the point is that the candidate is an individual person trying to sell his vision and prove that he has their interests at his heart, and not to render himself a slave to their whim. Maybe you outta "take it up with the founding fathers" as you put it, they were very much against the vision of democracy you put forth. It's behind a lot of decisions in the Constitution and why they gave us the two term tradition. They absolutely hated demagogury.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that?[/QUOTE] Imagine being given the choice of being true to your constituents or not oppressing minorities and trying to argue the former is the better option. Or hell, trying to argue that there's dignity in representing people who think oppressing minorities is awesome.

If this guy seriously gave a damn about gay rights he shouldn't have joined the Republican party in the first place.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900231]I believe what you are arguing for is an oligarchy then, if you believe people shouldn't have their voices represented in government, and while you can believe that if you want, currently it's a democracy. I believe I am arguing for democracy and representation, and if you believe preventing people from having their voices heard sounds like politics, then you should consider what democracy is, and take it up with the Founding Fathers.[/QUOTE] we should have openly neo-nazi senators since nazis deserve a voice too. have you thought about anything you just wrote for more than like 1 second

[QUOTE=TheHydra;52900347]we should have openly neo-nazi senators since nazis deserve a voice too. have you thought about anything you just wrote for more than like 1 second[/QUOTE] I have this sneaking suspicion that you're only going to get unironic agreement from him on that point.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900155]If you are suggesting that he should ignore the wishes of his constituents and promote his own worldview, leaving them without a voice, where is the dignity in that? Identity politics has nothing to do with evidence and logic, there are those who follow both, and there are those who follow one or the other, these are two separate issues. As for your claim that I hate gays, I myself am gay, and I also want gay marriage to be a thing everywhere, I am simply expressing the view that someone put into a possition of power to represent a number of people should not abuse it by ignoring their wishes. As you put it, this argument is based on logic.[/QUOTE] Let me know if I understand you correctly. You're saying that A: this (married) man was very pro-gay-rights in private but decided to run an anti-gay-rights campaign which got him elected, and B: it's commendable that he has put the ideology of his voters over his private ideology? Point A sounds really fucking stupid if that was true. But I don't think it's true because he had a wife so this was a secret relationship. He was openly anti-gay just to make sure nobody thinks he's gay when he's busy sucking dicks in lockers. Point B I can sorta understand if those views weren't fucking horrible.

[QUOTE=James xX;52900231] I believe I am arguing for democracy and representation, and if you believe preventing people from having their voices heard sounds like politics, then you should consider what democracy is, and take it up with the Founding Fathers.[/QUOTE] Do you not understand the concept of "tyranny of the majority?" How old are you?