Things can be related to a sex scandal while not concerning his sexual preference. Example: someone kills their gay lover for threatening to go public. Clearly the issues surrounding such would involve the sex scandal, but still raise concerns beyond sexual preference.
That would not be a sex scandal, that would be a murder scandal. I think your example pretty clearly proves your inability to understand this situation. Oh, and by the way, if their lover did come out and expose a politician for being gay, is it your position that would affect his ability to do his job? I'd hope not, so you can understand why your example fails in multiple ways.
His wife is a political figure herself. And his boy has not been exposed any more than any other child of a politician.When Carlos Danger exposed his penis to the public, he also exposed his wife and little boy.
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but the little boy would not exist if he did not have sex with his wife. Getting defensive about the idea he's a sexual creature seems a little hypocritical at this point, don't you think?That may not be troublesome for someone like you, but for a lot of public, his lewd actions and lies are troublesome.
How is that relevant to how well he'll do the job as mayor? That's what I mean when I say it's not a problem.If it wasn't a problem, why is he in therapy for it?
Unless you are his wife, has he given you a reason not to trust him? Is that reason based upon the job he'll do, and not based upon something to do with his sex life?Yes, T-R-U-S-T
Maybe he has. And if he has, THAT is why you shouldn't vote for him (assuming the other person hasn't given you a reason to not trust). But use reasons related to his job, not his private life.
But you're the one trying to pass it off in this conversation.I didn't make it, one of Carlo's "girlfriends" did.