Clinton Ducks Answer on Whether Homosexualty is 'Immoral' »
Posted by: Beau7890 1 year, 5 months ago392 Comments Report this Story
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." Mrs. Clinton supports allowing gays to serve, which would amount to a change in her husband's "don't ask don't tell" policy.
Read Full Story at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 392
-
100%
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
For 'others to conclude'? What the hell does that mean? She can kiss my ass. I just wrote her off.
Reply-
68%
Beau78901 year, 5 months ago
Yes, she's being extremely cautious. I think this is one of her problems--she won't say what she thinks until she's gauged public opinion. Should be a no-brainer, whether she wants to condemn his remarks or not.
Reply-
38%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This is a trap question by the right, if she answers yes then she offends the Christian, and if she answers no then she offends the gays. I think her answer is a very clever one.
I think to ask her this question knowing how she feels about gays is a deliberate attempt by the right to get her in hot water.
If the gay community feels they need her to answer this question then they haven't been paying attention.
The answer is in the article itself, why ask this question if you didn't have a hidden agenda:
From the article:
"Mrs. Clinton supports allowing gays to serve, which would amount to a change in her husband's "don't ask don't tell" policy."
What it does is show she is her own person. I hate this slick kind of so call journalism... it's just sick.
Reply
-
100%
invest071 year, 5 months ago
Matters that are moral in nature are personal. You don't leave the decision to others, you either think it is wrong or not wrong or don't care.
This is a good look at what Hillary would do as Prez. She would do what ever her political advisers say. That is the same pattern as "Hubby" who needed a focus group to decide what to eat for lunch.
I want a Prez who seeks advice, thinks the situation through and then does what he/she decides is the best course of action.
It has become necessary, to appease the Dems in Congress, to seek concensus on all matters. If all can't agree, then nothing is done. Since there are different opinions on the open border, nothing is done.
I want a Prez of action, who is not afraid to look the political advisers and the media and the focus groups and the unions straight in the eye and say "Sorry, but I'm Prez and doing my own thing".
Hillary is proving herself to be an empty head when it comes to new ideas.
Reply-
100%
tracyruns2621 year, 5 months ago
Who really CARES whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral or not - I certainly KNOW that there are more IMPORTANT things that she needs to be concerned with such as this D$@% WAR, the Economy and other items that she can most capably address. Her view point on what two consenting adults do - I could give less than a D&^%$#$!!!! Furthermore - if she said one way or the other what her thoughts were - she would be SKEWERED!!!! Give me a F*&%^%^^ break!!!
As far as a President of action - I think we have had just about enough of Action with no Thought, No Planning, NO CLUE!
Reply -
0%
Charlson1 year, 5 months ago
I want a Prez of action, who is not afraid to look the political advisers and the media and the focus groups and the unions straight in the eye and say "Sorry, but I'm Prez and doing my own thing".
Do "the RIGHT thing", not "my own thing"! That's been the problem with this prez of incompetent action.
Reply -
100%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
Invest - "Matters that are moral in nature are personal." Yes it is. So you can see why she has chosen to keep it that way.
I know you on the right would rather have her say she is for gays so you can march your gay bashing asses to the Christian right and say you see she is against your beliefs.
Reply
-
-
-
92%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
I think we will all agree that action speak, look at her action and you have your answer to this question...I, and anyone who knows the right, knows they sent their hinch man to ask this question for political reasons...they have no intrest in gay rights.
Thing is when Ann called John E a faggot these same people were fighting for her right to use that word. In the same vane I think Mrs. Clinton has the right to refuse to speak on this for the million time.
One would have to be living under a rock not to know where she stands on gay rights.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Beeboppin711 year, 5 months ago
I don't think her response was that bad. In fact, who is she to tell someone if their actions are immoral or not. She's a politician. If one were to ask me that question my response would be similar. What a person does behind closed doors with their significant other is their business. I'll leave the judgment up to God.
What is the difference between a gay marriage and a civil union?
Reply-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.6 Replies
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
