It's not a question you can answer in a vacuum.  Would it be an automatic disqualifier?  No.  Long before I was old enough to vote, California came within a few percentage points of electing Bruce Herschenson (sp?) to the Senate over Barbara Boxer.  Right before his election, it came out that he had frequented a strip club, and many people think it cost him the election.  So now we've had almost two decades of a liberal embarrassment in the Senate defending abortion, gay marriage, and taking away people's freedoms.  Not really a net moral win in my book.
However, in a primary between two equally conservative, equally qualified candidates, I'd most likely vote for the guy who doesn't spend his free time stuffing money down g-strings.

I think, to piggyback off of Aaron's point, that many of us would make different choices in the grip of strong emotions than we do sitting at our computer.  My initial reaction is that my faith and politics are far too wrapped together and deeply imbedded in my worldview to make things work with anyone of vastly differing ideology.  However, I can imagine that if a relationship developed sans any discussion of politics, I could find myself far enough in, and emotionally compromised that I could convince myself that I could make it work. 

Because the post didn't say homosexuals are beneath human dignity, but rather that the homosexual act is.  In the same way, premarital heterosexual sex is beneath human dignity, but the heterosexuals who engage in it are still children of God, made in his image and likeness, no matter how much we attempt to deface that likeness through our behavior.

I'm not sure what the point of this was.  GFL was offended by the statement that homosexual acts are associated with higher disease rates (I know that wasn't the exact phrasing, but I'm not going back to look).  He conflated this with calling him "diseased".  I'm just pointing out that her statement was consonant with the views of public health professionals.  If the original statement was bigoted, then reality itself is bigoted.  So again, I fail to see how your response does anything but  misunderstand my post.

We should probably point out that, while I will go to the mat over the inerrancy of Scripture, the KJV is just a translation, and one done over 400 years ago.  You aren't sticking up for the Bible by insisting on that word, you're sticking up for 17th century British humanists. There is no merit in intentionally using an offensive word when equally accurate ones are available just because the language of the KJV is prettier than the NASB or the ESV.

It's fair to point out that, in the public health arena "MSM's" (men who have sex with men) are considered a distinct, high-risk group, and statistically DO have much higher incidence of diseases than heterosexuals. So while I can see why you would be offended, she does have the (not notably conservative or religious) professional public health community on her side.

Like some others on here, I'm less disturbed by the color, and more concerned by the "tanks".  If that kind of firepower is really needed, we're done as a country under the rule of law. Just wanted to throw in a word of caution though. I worked closely with California game wardens for two years (they wear green, for the record).  They don't own any tanks, just lots of trucks and SUV's, and old-fashioned semi-auto rifles.  But I've seen firsthand that the "don't the men and women risking their lives to protect us deserve the very best?" argument is VERY effective, whether or not it is justifiable rationally.  I fear that until we see actual, large-scale abuses, it is far too easy to dismiss these concerns as "black helicopter" talk.

All the "luddites" reading and posting on Ricochet?

http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
I would be interested in your reaction to this story.  The reactions I've seen from most gay folks/advocates of gay marriage would seem to indicate that, at the very least, our side aren't the only ones who reduce this whole issue to "nothing more than sex".

Also, I don't see how you can argue that it is reductionist to focus on sex, but then object to the word "lifestyle".  What word, exactly, communicates the totality of a person's sexual, romantic, and personal behavior in a holistic way better than "lifestyle"? To steal from Fred's playbook and cite the dictionary, "a manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes".  I see nothing in there distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary.

This is why so many are befuddled by celibate priests, monks, nuns, and those who live chastely before marriage.  Our sex-drenched culture treats sex as an absolute necessity, and an identity.  Christianity sees sexuality differently than the world.  I’m not expressing this as eloquently as I’d like, nor does Ricochet allow the length I would need to even try to do a better job.  The bottom line is that you may think of yourself as a “gay person”, but the people who disagree with you don’t (or at least shouldn’t).  It may not do much to the personal sting of hearing someone call your lifestyle a sin, but hopefully it will at least help serve as a reminder that we really DO mean it when we say that we can love you in spite of the disagreement.

if I hate sinners, I have to hate myself most, since I have the best view of my own sins, which are legion.  So, “hate the sin, love the sinner” isn’t just a cop-out.  It is how I have to live my life, just to stand being around myself.  Somehow though, no one else seems to miss this distinction the way gay folks do.  My straight friends who are in sexual relationships don’t think that I hate them.  Part of this is a failure on our part.  Because there has been a lot of nastiness from the believing community towards gays, I understand the mistrust on your part is largely justified.  But it also comes from a deeper lie peddled by our society, that our sexuality is in some sense who we are, rather than one relatively tiny aspect of who we are. (Continued)

I haven't followed every SSM discussion on Ricochet (because ugh, why?) so I can't comment on whether or not the threads have gotten ugly/personal.  It wouldn't surprise me, because this discussion generates more heat than light (see the No H8 campaign, Dan Savage, etc to remind yourself that it is hardly one-sided).  And if it has happened here at Ricochet, please believe that I, along with the majority of marriage traditionalists, want you to stay part of the discussion, despite our disagreements. But as I read your initial posts and further responses in the comments, it seems your objection is less to ugly commenters, and more to the existence of people who disagree with your lifestyle. There's not much we can do about that, other than completely disown our beliefs in order to make you more comfortable here.

But I want to expand on a thought that I hope may help somewhat.  As other commenters have pointed out, the religious objection I have to gay marriage comes with a parallel objection to my straight friends who are shacking up, and all sorts of other sins. And above all, let’s not forget that (Continued)

Some civilizations deserve to fail.

Boom baby, boom!

My question is not what they are willing to pay.  My question is about how those payments are structured, and whether or not there is some sort of reason behind the current structure.

I'm just getting back on Ricochet after a break, so forgive me if this was covered in the previous discussion. I think that "religion versus relationship" is just "works versus faith" by another name.  When you drill down, the folks who object to the word "religion" are objecting to the idea that Christianity requires certain behaviors.  The folks who defend the term point out that, well yes, if you don't behave in certain ways, calling yourself a "Christian" is meaningless.  As James says, "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."
By the same token, you show me your "relationship" without any "religion", and I'll show you a moralistic, therapeutic deist, not a Christian in any meaningful sense.  Religion is what we call the set of behaviors and practices that allow us to enter relationship with God.  You can't have the latter without the former. Are they "required"? Only in the same sense that I am "required" to talk to my wife in order to have relationship with her.