My hypothetical was stated poorly. My point was that a candidate could score 99% on a conservative scorecard and the one point missing would be his/her sexual orientation. I was just wondering if that would be a deal killer for most here.
I would be inclined to accept 99% of what I’m looking for every time. That’s a theoretical situation in which I would probably vote for a homosexual. This is purely academic, I’m not campaigning for Richard Simmons for POTUS as some here seem to think.
That’s all well and good, but if you are assuming (even hypothetically) that the is a homosexual on this planet who could be counted on the to be a dependable Republican president, you’ve been brainwashed by liberals. You probably also think that men and women think and solve problems exactly the same way, and the only difference is genetalia. Here is a non-politically correct fact (but a fact none the less): There is no scientific basis whatsoever for the idea that homosexuality is innate. It is an aquired mental illness. Period. Any arguments to that fact are wishful thinking. Now, I have had many wonderful gay friends, and even two close family members, so please accept that I have nothing personal against homosexuality. What I’m saying is that if we ever get to the point where the only dependably conservative candidate we can come up with is gay, then we might as well surrender to the terrorists, because we’ve obviously already surrendered to the liberals and lost already.