A question for the Escapist community

[OniaPL]

So, I recently got into a debate with a friend of mine. Let me give you some background on this:

I live in Finland and right now we are in the middle of electing our president. It is the 2nd round of the election, and one of the two options will obviously be chosen as the president. One of them, Pekka Haavisto, who did alternate service instead of military service (national service in Finland is obligatory; it usually is military service, but if it clashes with your beliefs or you just can't do it physically you can do alternate service), is openly gay and in a relationship with a Ecuadorian barber named Antonio Flores.

My friend stated that it would be an absolute travesty to have such an president, because
a)The commander-in-chief of the defense forces can't be a person who has done alternate service instead of military service
b) The partner of the president must be of opposite gender
c) It would be unfitting for a president to be homosexual.

The reason I am telling you this is because I am interested in getting views from people who don't live here and therefore maybe gain a perspective to this that I would not otherwise attain... What do you think? Would that be unnatural and/or unacceptable? Or is he just blowing smoke?

Edit: My own personal view is that politicians should be judged by their politics and by how they do their job, not based on their personal lives or similar unrelated stuff.

 

[evilneko]

Nothing wrong with it at all.

Sorry, your friend is a bigot. You should tell him that as bluntly as possible.

 

[Jonluw]

"a" is a somewhat relevant point, but not one I'd consider important.
The other two points are retarded. You should ask him about them more closely and, depending on the answer, perhaps give him a smack.

 

[Suicida1 Midget]

As long as it dosnt stop him from leading its ok. A guy could be his wife's ***** and be unfit to lead- therefore he shouldnt lead. I am afraid to break it to ya, but your friend seems to be homophobic.

His first point is the only one that holds some sway. Not much though.

 

[Talshere]

So, I recently got into a debate with a friend of mine. Let me give you some background on this:

I live in Finland and right now we are in the middle of electing our president. It is the 2nd round of the election, and one of the two options will obviously be chosen as the president. One of them, Pekka Haavisto, who did alternate service instead of military service (national service in Finland is obligatory; it usually is military service, but if it clashes with your beliefs or you just can't do it physically you can do alternate service), is openly gay and in a relationship with a Ecuadorian barber named Antonio Flores.

My friend stated that it would be an absolute travesty to have such an president, because
a)The commander-in-chief of the defense forces can't be a person who has done alternate service instead of military service
b) The partner of the president must be of opposite gender
c) It would be unfitting for a president to be homosexual.

The reason I am telling you this is because I am interested in getting views from people who don't live here and therefore maybe gain a perspective to this that I would not otherwise attain... What do you think? Would that be unnatural and/or unacceptable? Or is he just blowing smoke?

Edit: My own personal view is that politicians should be judged by their politics and by how they do their job, not based on their personal lives or similar unrelated stuff.

For point a:

Do you really want someone who was effectively a grunt as your Commander in Chief? I cant see that what are effectively conscripts held any serious rank and most upper officers dont join as bullet catchers. Most of the great Generals in History were never foot soldiers. Many never saw a battle except from the back line, because having a general on the front line is dumb.

For b:

When does he think this is 1750? Noone gives a shit if he is gay as long as he does his job well, as the people want and to the best of his ability.

For c:

The same as b...


Tbh if "I" were your friend my first prominent question and really my only one, would be "can we trust his partner"? After all we all discuss our lives with our nearest and dearest, even bits we maybe shouldn't. As the president he will likely have some fairly sensitive material so his partners loyalty must be beyond reproach. This has nothing to do with his sexuality but rather nationality.

 

[kouriichi]

I see nothing wrong with him being homosexual.
Its not like butsects are going to impede is ability to think rationally, and do what is best for his people.

If anything the bigotry he has faced may make him a BETTER president because hes seen problems a straight male may not have. Hes probably far more open-minded then the average man running for pres.

If i lived in Finland, cared about politics and knew most of his views and political stances, id probably vote for him.

 

[Tiger Sora]

So he didn't do the military service. Hasn't affected other leaders from other countries do their job.
As for him being homosexual, the only negative of that is peoples ignorant views on homosexuality. Theres nothing wrong with being gay.

Your friend is homophobic and ignorant. I wouldn't be friends anymore with this dude if I were.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

My friend stated that it would be an absolute travesty to have such an president, because
a)The commander-in-chief of the defense forces can't be a person who has done alternate service instead of military service
b) The partner of the president must be of opposite gender
c) It would be unfitting for a president to be homosexual.

a) suggests to me that he prefers to avoid conflict, and for me, that is a great quality in a leader.
b) just, what?
c) that's ridiculous. I would hope that him no doubt receiving some hatred for being openly homosexual in such a public position would make him more understanding of other peoples possible difficulties.

 

[Bobic]

Well, the first argument could possibly be debated, I don't really think military service would be necessary, but it's possible that it could help give perspective when concerning matters of defence.

But then your friend proves himself to be a complete homophobic jackass. He shouldn't be debated with, he should be slapped and told not to be such a stuck behind the times scumbucket. Seriously, that is ridiculous. How you even thought there would be a discussion about whether your friend is right or wrong is shocking.

 

[Lilani]

Nothing wrong with it at all.

Sorry, your friend is a bigot. You should tell him that as bluntly as possible.

I'm with evilneko on this one. I mean really, how does sexual orientation have ANYTHING to do with competence and leadership? And I don't see a problem with the alternate service, either. We haven't had a President with roots in the military for quite a while now here in the US. For God's sake we had one that was wheelchair-bound, and he's still considered to be one of the best Presidents in the last century.

 

[Realitycrash]

Why would it be unfitting to have done "alternative"-service? The commander-in-chief isn't even calling the shots in a wartime campaign, that's the generals job. The commander is hopefully more of a diplomat.

Your friend is just a bigot, as previously stated.

 

[Vampire cat]

Those arguments are rubbish. Only politics should matter in politics. If you get caught up in shit like this you just expose yourself as bigot. Such people I find it's just best to ignore when possible =3.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Its nice to see other people in the world are as homophobic as they like to say the US is.

Anyway, no, i dont agree. A person's sexual preference shouldnt matter. towards the alternative service I dont know hat the circumstances were or what you have to do instead, but not every leader has to be a fighting.

 

[WWmelb]

If he's a good leader with good politics, then no problem at all. I'm of the stance that having grown up, i assume, as an open homosexual, he has undoubtedly had enough training in conflict resolution, moreso than he would have had as a grunt in the military.

None of the above points matter, it's everything else about him that does.

 

[Erttheking]

Living in a country where the military is comprised entirely of volunteers, I can't really comment on the first one. Your friend needs to pull his head out of his ass on the other two points though.

 

[cookyy2k]

Its nice to see other people in the world are as homophobic as they like to say the US is.

Anyway, no, i dont agree. A person's sexual preference shouldnt matter. towards the alternative service I dont know hat the circumstances were or what you have to do instead, but not every leader has to be a fighting.

I wouldn't say they were "as homophobic" as the US or UK since this guy got through the first round of voting, I doubt in the US an openly gay man could get through the primaries to be selected and in the Uk he may have half a chance of being a party leader but he'd get a tiny percentage of the vote because of it.

OT of course sexuality has no baring on your ability to lead, I know gay guys who'd be great at it and hetero guys who'd fail massively in any position of authority. As for the military service thing, I don't think it matters in the slightest. Also the reason behind taking alternative service is relevant, if it was due to physical reasons then you can't hold it against the guy. If it was for belief reasons then he'd be a good diplomat who doesn't go throwing out the army over every little spat.

 

[Flames66]

Nothing wrong with it at all.

Sorry, your friend is a bigot. You should tell him that as bluntly as possible.

I agree, get him in the bin.

 

[kurupt87]

His response is, at its most basic, that he wants his leader to be like him. This is because this person represents him. He just views those two things as being sufficiently different from him to actually mention.

In every day life your mate might have nothing against gays or "alternates". Apparently I'm in the mood to defend anyone tonight.

And yeah, you've gone wrong with how you've judged your politicians there. You've said how they should be judged, not how they are judged.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

snip

Well, of course everyone in this forum is going to say that your friend is a bigot, and surely there must be more to it than that. Are you sure you didn't misrepresent anything he said in your original post? Like why the partner of the president must be of opposite gender, or why it would be unfitting for a president to be homosexual? The most supportive thing anyone here would say on your friends behalf is that it's his own opinion, which is still in disagreement of said opinion.