To say that you'd not vote for a homosexual is to say that you are aware of all political situations you will face and can face. But this is not true. Moreover, a conversation is a kind of vote.

Heterosexuality can also go against humanity especially when spirituality is forgotten or ignored. In fact, it is when sexuality has been taken for granted that people will start seeking 'other forms of experience'.

After all, cats, dogs, ducks. . . also exhibit heterosexuality.

Red light n u may call me crazy names and how i drink cheap liquor but ukweli utasemwa kama unapatiana boot ni shida yako n dont force us to accept ur views since u live in Obama land.

@tycho

A leaders morality affects their capacity to make morally-correct decisions.

Morally correct decisions are not limited to the sexual context only, but also spans to other contexts such as matters of truth, honesty and integrity. It is immoral to steal (corruption) to lie etc... If one does not have a problem being immoral sexually, I do not know what can prevent them from being immoral in other contexts, hence I cannot trust them in positions of leadership.

Would like mention that you mentioned something that is key in this discussion "in the end I see the onus of morality lying entirely on the individual", will comment on this in a moment, but first, a question that needs to be answered is "Do the moral values that leaders hold, affect the decisions that leaders make?"

The question comes from "I cannot see how a 'leader's' morality has had a noticeable and important effect in the course of politics and the body politic."

While in a position of leadership in society, it all boils down to the decisions that the leaders makes, good decisions will have positive results that the society can benefit from, while bad decisions will have negative results, of which the society can suffer from.

So, how does one's morality affects their decision making? Homosexuals compromise morals pertaining to sex - with pride. Now, supposing that the same is in a position of leadership, and then a situation occurs where the leader has an opportunity to gain from a corrupt deal - at the cost of the society, such as, the societies funds being depleted without accountability. Since a homosexual already compromised morals pertaining to sex - with pride, can anything stop such a one from compromising other morals such as to lie and steal? - Should the individual decide to pursue that course?

If the leader decides to pursue that course, the society will be at a loss - Hence the leaders moral values, affecting the leaders decisions, affecting the society.

This is not to say that heterosexuals do not break morals such as to lie and steal, rather, this is to say that if there is an array of candidates requesting for your vote, the homosexual has by their lifestyle, declared that morals do not guide his or her decision making - "By their fruits, ye shall know them".

"Like now, would you say that there is a presidential candidate whose moral back bone is strong enough to make you give him/her your vote?"

Even if they are all heterosexuals, the same applies to them as above, "By their fruits, ye shall know them". Heterosexuals are also capable of breaking morals, and at the end of the day, it is the voters personal responsibility to look at their "fruits" and make a judgement on who best deserves their vote, if any.

What I can say is that I do not know enough about them to be able to make that call. Those who have been been keeping up with the candidates over the years are at a better position to answer. I came back not long ago, had been out the country since childhood (with exception of visitations), and had not been keeping up with the loop.

I hope that there are candidates with moral back-bones that are worth the nations vote.

Regarding "in the end I see the onus of morality lying entirely on the individual".

Herein is the key to the matter.

Others view morality as absolute (like I do), while others view it as relative (like you do).

Morals are principles defining right from wrong.

When morality is absolute, what is right and what is wrong is the same to all humans. When morality is relative, what is wrong and what is right depends on the individual, so, what is considered right by one person, can be considered as wrong by another, and have both be correct, because morality is being considered as relative.

The questions that needs to be answered are:

- Are morals relative or are they absolute?

- And if morals are absolute, who defines them?

---

Will have to leave it there for now.

Answering the questions above requires a long write-up, which is not possible right now due to time constraints, but will be working on it whenever I get the opportunity, till it's complete, which may or may not be soon.

Hapo umenena yenyewe

Business is life. As you think, so goes your business.

I've lived in a community where I was called a straight up nigger monkey. By people who considered themselves Christians, even quoting the Bible. So forgive me if I take people who pretend they are more moral than others with a bit of skepticism.

I lived in a town where people who called themselves gay lived. It did not make me gay, neither did it make my family members gay. In fact taxes never went up or down because of the ratio of gay people around.

Maybe shouting "I hate gay people" makes you more of a "man". But I've not seen any evidence of that.

It always reminds me of the people who scream "I will not have a ruo become president" or " Kikuyus are sangiri". Same patern of hate. Again based on religious values that simply aren't backed up by any teachings just plain hatred.

Some gay people say that it is biological. I think many should support this notion. The alternative is that they are created by their society. Starting with their families.

How sure are you that you aren't raising a gay fellow in your house right now? If it isn't biological that is.

Instead of stoning these fellows,why not start stoning their families since they obviously were not raised well? Heck close their schools. Even better, test the gayness of every teacher in Kenya and make the entry exam in schools a gay test.

Logical thinking is a very strange concept. We still think we are very logical when our arguments are totally illogical.

Just in case you are referring to my comments, nowhere have I said that I hate gay people. Maybe you missed this:





Also, the bible teaches that "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15

Regarding business, this thread is entitled "Would you vote for an openly gay candidate?", not "Would you trade with a gay?"

Have answered why I would not vote for a gay candidate, the core issue being morality, because this is not simply a matter of trading with someone, but of leadership - decision making that affects society. Morality, being the issue that will also disqualify straight candidates from deserving my vote.





Would I purchase goods or services from a gay? Yes I would.



Know that there are believers and professed-believers.



Have explained why I would not vote for a gay candidate, and it is not a matter of ethnicity, but is a matter of morality.



There is no pattern of hate, and it is not just plain hatred - (The collective comments in this post have answered why there is no hate.)



We'll first need to answer the above questions before you can say: "... based on religious values that simply aren't backed up by any teachings..."



Maybe it was they way they were raised up, maybe it was third-party influences, maybe they decided by themselves or maybe it was biological (I do not know if homosexuality can be passed to the offspring. The parent would have to be bisexual.)



I explained why I would not vote such a candidate.

During my tertiary education, I had a lecturer that was gay for a few years, I payed my tuition fees, he got his salary.



Please feel free to ask where you do not understand.

Alma, yaani you're blaming high grades? Lol. But I see you smoking something yourself!

Even if the reason for not voting was. irrational, it would still not conversing and not agreeing. And so would not voting.