You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Clinton Ducks Answer on Whether Homosexualty is 'Immoral'
2007-03-15
Asked if she believed homosexuality was immoral, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton declined to answer the question in a television interview this morning and said it was for “others to conclude.”
General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he personally believed homosexuality was immoral and that this view was a factor in his opposition to gays serving openly in the military.

Mrs. Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, supports allowing gays to serve, which would amount to a change in her husband’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. She has also been aggressively courting gay voters and groups in recent weeks. Some gay groups have been critical of Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to support gay marriage, however, though she does support civil unions.
Posted by:Fred

#13  Why didn't she just say: "no, it's not immoral"?

It's simple really!

Who cares if you are gay or straight as long as you're not hurting anyone, then good luck to 'em!

You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if that involves carpet eating or bum pounding, then go right ahead and be happy!

You only get to live once.

Gay impulses are natural, it's seen in the animal world all the time. My dog (who had his balls) used to hump other male dogs and get excited.

Dolphins, Bonobos and other creatures engage in gay sex all the time - for fun!

If the animals do it it's part of nature.

If humans do it, good luck to em. Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to look down on good people for choosing a same-sex partner.
Posted by: anon1   2007-03-15 23:07  

#12  Yeah, she is ducking the issue. She knows that gay agendists seek federal sanction for overriding State prohibitions on "gay marriages." That issue is too hot to handle. Hillary will peddle herself as a Centrist. Worked for Slick Willy.
Posted by: Sneaze   2007-03-15 21:22  

#11  She's right, it's for "others to conclude." Only a stupid liberal journalist (but I repeat myself, twice) would look to Hillary or Bill for moral advice.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-03-15 19:59  

#10  In a related controversy, "Minnesota: Archbishop Forbids Mass at Conference on Homosexuality"
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-03-15 14:29  

#9  You're right AllahHateMe,
I don't think it matters how much you bugger another man. He isn't going to have a baby.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2007-03-15 09:46  

#8  Mrs. Clinton has no balls.

Sure she does, they're in a jar on her desk.
Posted by: Steve   2007-03-15 09:42  

#7  Yes you don't understand.

If you come to die and transmit your property to your life-partner taxes will be lower if you are merried than if you aren't at least here in France. Ditto for income taxes. Also someone has to pay for upkeeping of marriage records, divorce judges and similar.

So marriage has a cost for other people (taxes) and benefits (on average more children and more of them who turn productive citizens instead of criminals or burdens to society than for childldren from non-formal unions).

Now about gay marriages I see the costs for the tax payers but I fail to see the additional children (that future fireman who will save your life) whose existence could justify the tax payer financing the record keeping and the tax cuts awarded to the married gay partners.

Posted by: JFM   2007-03-15 09:34  

#6  I don't understand your argument JFM. Allowing or not allowing gay unions will not affect population growth as these people will not, in most cases, procreate anyways. As to the taxes, married people pay relatively more taxes than single people (at least in the USA), so if gay unions follow the same rules as married people they will pay even more taxes as they won't get deductions that come from dependents.
Posted by: AllahHateMe   2007-03-15 08:41  

#5  Tom Maguier:

. . . let's say that Hillary managed to get to the left of George Bush on this issue. Barely.
Posted by: Mike   2007-03-15 07:29  

#4  
She's right on the civil union issue. Why not allow these people the same legal partnership rights.


Nope she isn't. I have an interest in stable hetersosexaul unions because on average these produce more children and on avearge a higher proportion of them turn productive members of the society than child from unstable couples.

That is why I accpet to pay taxes in order funding the legal apparatus around marriage, and reduced taxes for married couples or reduced heirloom taxes between them: they could produce the fireman who wil save my life in twenty years from here.

Now tell me why I should accept to pay a cent for funding marriage between homosexuals. If they want to live together, have a PRIVATE ceremony and a banquet that is their problem. But making such unuiojns official and extending to thelm the benefits given to heterosexual marriage means taxes for the others.


Posted by: JFM   2007-03-15 07:20  

#3  She's right on the civil union issue. Why not allow these people the same legal partnership rights. Marriage is between a man and a women but if homosexuals enter into a life long commitment out of love, they should have the same basic rights afforded to others.

That being said, Pace has honor. I honestly pray that Hillary will find some. Even a little. But at this point it may be very unlikely.
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-03-15 06:43  

#2  Good thing they didn't ask her if it should be mandatory.
Posted by: Fred   2007-03-15 06:36  

#1  Mrs. Clinton has no balls.
Posted by: gorb   2007-03-15 02:37  

00:00