pig

Why not? Showing a pattern of habitually lying in some cases is bad, but in others is ok? Aside from sexual orientation, what else can you habitually lie about and be ok?

Let's see...Clinton committed perjury? Ah yes, 'tis true. The best commentary I've heard on that is from Eddie Izzard - essentially, that you should have degrees of perjury, just like you do for murder. Lying about something like whether the holocaust happened (or, I would say reasons for going to war...) are perjury in the first degree, lying about some girl you were shagging is like perjury 9. I'm glad Clinton got called on that shit - it was completely unethical. I just don't think impeachment was really prudent. But the important thing is - he lied, and he got called. About who he was fucking. Completely relevant, in my opinion. I'm not saying these politicians should be flayed, only that they sit around and blantantly lie, and then act surprised when someone says "Say friend, you sir - are full of shit." It just so happens the lie in the case is something people are really, really sensitive to.

For social agendas vs. political agendas: what I mean is that I wish all the social planning shit would be left out of it, and just let people make up their own minds about things that are directly harmful to other citizens. I would have to agree that these social agendas are political issues...I wish they weren't, and I don't consider them to be the issues we should have to be concerned with.

So, in the end, that divergence in the "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing is going to be what separates you and I on this issue. The rest of it is just interesting for discussion.
I'm going to have to go ahead, and sort of disagree with you right there. So, it's not relevant that he, um, actually doesn't? Me confused. Sounds like you're ok with politics being a dramatic play put on for the crowds, while the people behind the scenes make actual "decisions?"

No one is forcing anyone to adhere to a bad moral code, in my opinion you've got it backwards. Either espouse the moral code you actually live by, or don't run for office claiming you do. No is forcing this guy to be a politician. It seems to me that you're taking the stance that this is the only job this guy could have, and so he just has to further this agenda, and hell be damned if he lives a life diametrically opposed to it. I mean, as long as he says he doesn't, that's ok, right?

Quick question for an analogy: do you feel that a cheating spouse should be called out for cheating, even if he/she appears to love his/her wife/husband and acts accordingly? If functional fit is all that is important to you, is it only important to you in the case of politics, or do you live by functional fit across the board?

I would think that it would, for the reasons I outline above. Frankly, that's not a chance I'm willing to take, nor do I think I should have to. I don't think there's a conclusive experiment that can be performed for this case. I don't want the people I vote into office lying to me about the issues they chose to run on, and that they enact legislation on, period. I don't personally give a rats ass if its about who they fuck, or what school they went to, what they intend to do while in office. I don't really see where this is that difficult.

As I said, I'd settle for journalistic approaches, with sources. Frankly, I don't really like the idea of these guys being put in front of a microphone and asked probative questions about their sex lives. I can think of several reasons someone wouldn't want to get into that in public. However, if Jeff Gannon shows up and testifies that he was in a Mehlman/Dreier sandwich last weekend, I think he has the right to make it public if he wants to, and I can understand how there could be some public interest in knowing that key anti-gay-legislation Republicans are in fact, gay. That's all I'm saying.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style