Article

2007-03-15 Home Front: Politix

Clinton Ducks Answer on Whether Homosexualty is 'Immoral'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-03-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mrs. Clinton has no balls.

Posted by gorb 2007-03-15 02:37|| 2007-03-15 02:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Good thing they didn't ask her if it should be mandatory.

Posted by Fred 2007-03-15 06:36|| 2007-03-15 06:36|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 06:43|| Front Page Top

#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">JFM 2007-03-15 07:20|| 2007-03-15 07:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 07:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 08:41|| Front Page Top

#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">JFM 2007-03-15 09:34|| 2007-03-15 09:34|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 09:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 09:46|| Front Page Top

#10 In a related controversy, "Minnesota: Archbishop Forbids Mass at Conference on Homosexuality"

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-03-15 14:29|| 2007-03-15 14:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 19:59|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 21:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-03-15 23:07|| Front Page Top

23:52 anonaminie
23:52 Bunyip
23:28 Eric Jablow
23:25 Verlaine
23:24 gromgoru
23:23 Verlaine
23:19 gromgoru
23:18 Verlaine
23:18 Frank G
23:10 Verlaine
23:07 RD
23:07 anon1
23:04 Verlaine
23:01 twobyfour
22:58 anon1
22:57 Alaska Paul
22:56 Danking70
22:55 Verlaine
22:37 Zenster
22:35 twobyfour
22:35 anon1
22:35 Chuck Simmins
22:32 anon1
22:18 gromgoru