While I respect a person’s right to keep their sexual preference private, it is an interesting ethical dilemma when we have a situation where someone is a politician or a member of the clergy, and they speak publicly against such a lifestyle, yet engage in this lyfestyle in their personal life. One step removed from that dilemma is if they choose to be a member of an organization or support a party platform that is against the lifestyle they practice. Still one step further removed is if the people that elected them would not have cast their favorable vote had they known about this lifestyle.To make a similar comparison to homosexuality in terms of privacy, there was a time when a candidate admitting to smoking marijuana would have automatically disqualified them from receiving votes, as people would have judged them . Now our President admitted that he tried it before being elected. That probably would not have worked a decade or more ago, such as the famous Clinton episode where he said he “didn’t inhaleâ€.
Interesting right now is the case of the Republican Party or even Tea Party. While there may be some basic acceptance that homosexuals should have rights under their platform, an openly gay candidate would hardly stand a chance of being elected or even getting beyond the Republican primaries. I am reminded of this with the controversy swirling about the sexual preference of Patrick McHenry after some people who don’t care for him brought this to light after he called Elizabeth Warren a liar in Congressional Subcommittee today.
Should someone have the right to speak against their own lifestyle or support the party platform that goes contrary to their lifestyle? What do you make of this ethical dilemma?