A World of Cheese, For your Pleasure

For number 15, I'd probably answer that it's nobody's business, however, I am tempted to answer that it's nothing to be ashamed of. I don't know about the States, but in Canada, gay candidates have been running and winning with respect for a long time. They have been a key part in the acceptance of alternative sexual orientation (and you can accuse me of "othering" in that sentence if you like). Without them, things might very well be different in this country. But we make a pretty big assumption. When we speak about secual orientation, we immediately think of homosexuals. What about trannsexuals, bisexuals or even autosexuals?

Or what if we replace the term "sexual orientation" with "sexual behaviour"? Should this affect a person's ability to get elected, assuming that it did not affect their competence? I don't know, but it definitely would. People would be glad to know these things, and a great many people would styop taking them seriously at that point. Just as there are certain things that would prevent us from speaking to or associating with certain people based on things like sexual habits or political beliefs, so we will be affected by the sexual habits or orientations of candidates.

The question remains: Should we have a right to know those details? I guess it depends on how you view the position. Do you have the right to know if your elected official may do something immoral or illegal? Certainly. If these sex acts are immoral in your opinion, then you probably should know about them and vote for an otherwise equivalent person without that flaw. It is quite different than hiring someone in a private enterprise. Those are generally run for profit and very little else. And they are private institutions with certain highly regulated rights and responsibilities. Publicly elected officials should be held to a higher standard because they are supposedly there for everyone and affect everyone. You can waive your "right-to-know", of course—many of us do for varying reasons.

This is why I think that even though I generally do not care what the candidates do in their beds, I believe that depending on what the action is, it can and sometimes does reflect their moral character. Most people seem to believe that the witchhunt against Clinton was moralist bullshit at best. I am not so sure. The general view is that Slick Willy took advantage of someone over which he had power and betrayed his wife. Assuming that the Clintons had not decided previously that this was okay, is it so unreasonable to think that perhaps his moral fibre is not that strong? He sexually took advantage of a subordinate. is it unreasonable to think that perhaps he might take advantage of, say, foreigners and wage war on them? There was a series of things that could lead a person to reasonably think that this was not an isolated incident, although I am not interested in dredging all of that up here. Many think that Bush is immoral and/or misguided. Michael Moore is trying to show that his character, his moral character, is at fault. This allows him to commit what many consider to be atrocities around the world. Is there a connection? Probably.

Other examples: teachers and other professionals routinely get fired for having sex with people over whom they have power, and this doesn't include the ones that are actually having sex with minors. Others get in trouble for consensual relations outside of their marriage even when there is no imbalance of power, depending on their position in society. The point is, if there is reason to believe that a candidate needs solid moral platforms that they themselves live by, isn't it reasonable that this be taken into consideration when electing them? And shouldn't be know about it? Sure, they can be impeached if they lie about who they are, but we've seen how effective that is.

Any thoughts on this?