Would you support gay marriage as a 1916 presidential candidate?

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Velocity

The attitude of many posters seems to be, “What ultimately matters in a political issue is what stance will get me votes.”

And? You posited a hypothetical where you’re asking whether we would take a stand in favor of an issue that was completely nonexistent at the time. As has been pointed out already, there was no “gay marriage” stance in 1916. You’re asking whether we would, if we woke up tomorrow as the 1916 presidential candidate, call a press conference to declare support for an issue that’s on nobody’s radar because radar won’t be invented for another decade.

Meanwhile, learning that politicians place political expedience before personal morals isn’t exactly an earthshattering revelation.

[Boyo_Jim]

I’ve rethought this. After all, America had just passed through the “Gay Nineties.” Who would come out against happy marriages?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Velocity

The attitude of many posters seems to be, “What ultimately matters in a political issue is what stance will get me votes.”

Personally, I applaud them for remaining aware of reality even when confronted by the ridiculous.

[Futurist110]

@Velocity

Say you were a presidential candidate in the year 1916; around a century ago. Would you support gay marriage (a popular position in 2016, but almost unfathomable in 1916,) or not?

I myself would support same-sex marriage in 2016 but certainly not in 1916. After all, politicians certainly need to get elected.