Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 03/16/2007 View Thu 03/15/2007 View Wed 03/14/2007 View Tue 03/13/2007 View Mon 03/12/2007 View Sat 03/10/2007 View Fri 03/09/2007
1
2007-03-16 Home Front: Politix
'Misunderstanding': Hillary Says Homosexuality Is Not 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 2007-03-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 She says, carefully positioning herself to avoid actually revealing what's going on between her ears.

Could she throw any more chaff?
Posted by gorb 2007-03-16 05:23||   2007-03-16 05:23|| Front Page Top

#2 BTW, isn't there a poll that says people don't like it when you can't express meaningful positions on issues? :-)
Posted by gorb 2007-03-16 05:32||   2007-03-16 05:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Hilly has meaningful positions on both sides of every issue.
Posted by Bobby 2007-03-16 05:48||   2007-03-16 05:48|| Front Page Top

#4 More demo doublespeak. JFnK loser playbook. Quibble about the meaning of "is."
Posted by JohnQC 2007-03-16 08:24||   2007-03-16 08:24|| Front Page Top

#5 It's hard to pander to the fags and the black baptists at the same time.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-03-16 08:25||   2007-03-16 08:25|| Front Page Top

#6 Big Jim, that is getting gored on the twin horns of a dilemma.
Posted by JohnQC 2007-03-16 08:39||   2007-03-16 08:39|| Front Page Top

#7 The goat-fuckers won't be happy either.
Posted by Excalibur 2007-03-16 08:48||   2007-03-16 08:48|| Front Page Top

#8 Mandatory only for the Hillary's female Cabinet members. She's indifferent toward the men.
Posted by ed 2007-03-16 08:48||   2007-03-16 08:48|| Front Page Top

#9 How would Hillary know what is immoral? Does she have an advisor on morality?
Posted by whatadeal 2007-03-16 09:01||   2007-03-16 09:01|| Front Page Top

#10 whats wrong with federalism, and leaving this to the states? Why does the president need to pronounce on the morality of homosexuality? He/she aint a minister/priest/rabbi. OTOH, if they are, could George W Bush come to my house and help me kasher my kitchen for Passover? I really want to know what his thoughts are on the use of kitniyot derivatives like corn oil?
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-16 09:13||   2007-03-16 09:13|| Front Page Top

#11 whats wrong with federalism, and leaving this to the states?

Where were you when Roe vs. Wade came about? It's been the left side of the political spectrum that pushes for more concentration of power and standardization from one central governing authority. Of course all in the name of the poor, the children, the exploited, etc.
Posted by Procopius2k 2007-03-16 09:23||   2007-03-16 09:23|| Front Page Top

#12 How about what you do in your bedroom is your business, including your uses for corn oil. What is immoral is forcing non homosexuals to rip out societal underpinnings like marriage, child rearing, military discipline including in the barracks, and free association to satisfy the latest homosexual fads. I don't give a damn what you do with your kitniyot, but you will not force it down my throat.
Posted by ed 2007-03-16 09:27||   2007-03-16 09:27|| Front Page Top

#13 "Did you say 'immoral'? I thought you said 'immortal!' Well, of course there is no such thing as an 'immortal' homosexual, or anyone else for that matter. How could you say such a thing?"
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-16 10:22||   2007-03-16 10:22|| Front Page Top

#14 Hillary Says Homosexuality Is Not Immoral...

In fact, some of her closest girlfriends are homosexuals.
Posted by Tibor 2007-03-16 10:29|| http://incompetenttibor.blogspot.com]">[http://incompetenttibor.blogspot.com]  2007-03-16 10:29|| Front Page Top

#15 11. I have mixed feelings about Roe v Wade. I will admit that many liberals are quite hypocritical, speaking up for federalism only now.. And so are conservatives, about federalism, which they no longer seem to believe in.
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-16 11:16||   2007-03-16 11:16|| Front Page Top

#16 "What is immoral is forcing non homosexuals to rip out societal underpinnings like marriage, child rearing,"

How exactly does the presence of gay civil unions in a few states, impact marriage and child rearing, esp if you live in a state where its not allowed?
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-16 11:17||   2007-03-16 11:17|| Front Page Top

#17 As for the military, IIUC the number of discharges under "dont ask, dont tell" has declined in the last few years. Evidently in wartime the military decides its gay troops are a net asset.

Note also, UK, Israel, both allow gay troops, and seem to be able to maintain discipline.
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-16 11:19||   2007-03-16 11:19|| Front Page Top

#18 When gays adopt, they also transmit their lifestyle choices. Not the preferred learning environment for the next generation, not to mention the specter of two grown men molesting the kids.

But the financial benefits are primarily what the gay marriage pushers are pushing. Lower taxes, worker benefits and pensions accrue to both partners in a marriage on the assumption one will take the primary childcare responsibilities and upon death the pension goes to the surviving spouse on account (mostly she) reduced her potential income to raise children. Gay advocates want the bennies without shouldering the burden (sound familiar?). Liberals will say that because gays don't have kids, they shouldn't have to pay the whole burden. But let's look at the 1 million Aids cases, mostly gay. Each Aids patient will use $600,000 of medical care, some work insurance but much of taxpayer money. $600,000 thousand will raise 3-4 kids to 18 including the outrageously overpriced public school. That a $600 billion obligation and in another 20 years when a who new set of Aids patients cycles through, another $600 billion. Truly a shocking figure when 1% (Gutmacher, practicing homosexuals) to 3% (NYT poll) is gay. Why should gays have such claims to the public treasury and what of the long suffering straight singles who don't have kids or Aids?

I have no problem with gays serving in the military, as long as they act like everyone else. What they do in the privacy of their off base time is their business, as long as it does not bring discord or disrepute upon the military. But that is not the gay lobby wants. They want unconditional acceptance of their behavior, when they want it. So LH, which brand of pillow do you recommend to muffle the noises when gay roomies get passionate, and should the platoon mates just suck it up because they're queer, they're here (in the next bunk) and taking it in the rear? And aren't the feelings of the majority non homosexuals important to you?
Posted by ed 2007-03-16 12:26||   2007-03-16 12:26|| Front Page Top

#19 Er, Ed, we give the same financial benefits to couples who never have kids. Its about recognizing a couple as a financial unit, not about subsidizing child rearing. If we wanted to subsidize child rearing, we could do that more directly.

Dont ask dont tell means someone can be discharged for saying "Im gay". Its hardly needed to ban sexual activity on base or in barracks.


Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-16 13:07||   2007-03-16 13:07|| Front Page Top

#20 Apologies in advance for an extended rant.

Human behaviors viewed in terms of morality will always be subjective. And no one should be silenced on his or her interpretations of morality. However, actions (for or against) a particular group or individual that results from those interpretations need allowances to be scrutinized. Cultures throughout history, including some of the most liberal, have adopted restrictive laws based on morality to prohibit certain behaviors. What should not be in dispute (But often erroneously is) is that Homosexuality is an “Abnormal” human behavior. Human sexual instinct is a matter of propagation of the human species. And indeed, any species would cease to exist if this truth was not the natural order. Most enlightened cultures do not see Homosexuality, itself, as threat to the overall populace and therefore is “tolerated”. But make no mistake; tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Concepts of love, dignity, and relationships are corollary and should be viewed in the same subjective terms of morality itself. Ironically, (arguably suspiciously) some that purport to be champions of civil liberties choose to assign malice to those that rightfully voice their interpretations of morality. The common practice is to speculate on motivations rather then address the merit of the statements themselves. Furthermore, they want to enact legislation that would make public voicing of dissenting opinions illegal under criminal statute – even if they can’t prove harm. (Such as incitement to violence.)

One such attempt is House is H.R. 254, titled, "The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act," introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).
If this resolution were to become law we might view this issue in a very different light. Senator Clinton is making her personal moral opinions public and is advocating changes to policy as it relates to said opinions. But because there isn’t necessarily a negative connotation, under the statute, she would be within legal and ethical boundaries. In contrast, Gen. Paces’ comments regarding his personal beliefs regarding Homosexuality might not be considered a crime (Yet) but the law would certainly offer validation to the condemnations of bigotry. However what is most pernicious here is, if the argument that discipline for the codes of military conduct would be compromised based on the fact that a substantial number of enlisted servicemen share Paces’ morality views it would most certainly be challenged as being contrary to civilian hate crimes.

No matter how altruistic in their intentions, forced social experiments rarely, if ever, result in their stated purpose.
Posted by DepotGuy 2007-03-16 13:43||   2007-03-16 13:43|| Front Page Top

#21 LH, raising children is a central feature and that is why marriage is both a moral and legal concept to provide a framework for the safe raising of children and the vast majority of married couples do so. There is no chance a homosexual couple will have children together so there is no justification for the legal and financial perks that go with that responsibility. You are not stating you have a better social and financial framework for the raising of children, are you?

If a homosexual wants to serve, then how about shutting his/her mouth and doing their duty instead of raising their gayness above their fellow soldiers, duty and country. The military is a close knit group of people often in close contact. It is not about sowing discord to make a statement.
Posted by ed 2007-03-16 14:58||   2007-03-16 14:58|| Front Page Top

17:02 gngbnncnbj
23:56 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:37 Zenster
23:36 Sneaze
23:30 Zenster
23:24 Zenster
23:22 USN, ret.
23:19 Zenster
23:15 USN, ret.
23:13 Zenster
23:06 USN, ret.
23:03 Frank G
22:57 Jackal
22:54 Zenster
22:49 Frank G
22:47 SR-71
22:43 Whert Bucket7890
22:42 WTF
22:27 Whert Bucket7890
22:26 Zenster
22:19 Zenster
22:17 RD
22:13 RD









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com