Is there a way a candidate can answer the question ' Do you believe homosexuality

[Bobbieo]

immoral’ without getting in a shitload of trouble? I believe questions about sexual preference and religion should not be asked in the first place but, unfortunately, they are.

[mondo joe]

1. Answer: "Morality is a personal matter, not a political matter. We need to respect

everyone's right to their beliefs, but also everyone's right to equality before the law."

[uppityperson]

9. That is the best response I've read yet. Good job.

Succinct, puts the focus where it should be and moves on, with the only moral or legal thing to do being to agree. Good phrasing.

[iamjoy]

22. John Edwards Sort Of Said That

to Wolf Blitzer.

He said he had his beliefs 'cos of his upbringing, but didn't think the President had the right to impose them and that he saw protecting homosexuals from discrimination as a civil rights issue.

And the media is asking the candidates for personal opinions.

[Swamp Rat]

58. yep n/t

[donheld]

68. That's all it takes

:yourock:

[Liberal In Texas]

2. If they keep worrying about getting in trouble for standing up for what's right, maybe they

shouldn't be candidates at all.

That's all.

[slackmaster]

3. I believe I have the best answer that pisses off the fewest people

Here's what I tell everyone, including my most conservative friends, relatives, and acquaintences:

Sexual orientation is not a matter of personal choice, therefore there is no moral component to the trait any more than there is for left-handedness or having type B blood.

If you don't believe it's a choice, please explain the source of your heterosexuality - Are you attracted to members of the opposite sex because someone told you that's the right way to be? Or is it because of a visceral reaction over which you have no control, and could not redirect even if people taught you it was wrong. Homosexuals are no different.

[Erika]

7. Excellent reply

There are many gay committed relationships with tenderness, respect, and love for each other. Just like in some straight relationships.

[misanthrope]

12. I know a conservative...

...who once was a staffer for a prominent GOP Senator that answered such a proposition like so:

"I was born straight so therefore everyone else is born straight as well. Consequently, homosexuals make the choice to deviate from their natural state of heterosexuality."

He went on to explain that by his reckoning, homosexuals are suffering from a mental condition that makes them believe they are born that way when it is actually mental illness.

I didn't tell him that same "logic" would imply he makes a choice to be straight. After all, he was my boss. But it certainly showed him as either in denial about some aspect of his own sexuality or as one of the most deliberately obtuse people I've ever known.

[kenny blankenship]

15. When did he make the choice to become male?

[Duppers]

61. try this next time

The discussion I've had for years with fundie idiots: I ask them if hermaphrodites are immoral? That question always causes them to pause. They cannot deny that the fact that hermaphrodites were born that way, so then 'god' make 'em that way---and it's a fact that hermaphrodites sexual identities 'vary.' Are they then immoral?! The fundies always walk away scratching their heads and mumbling at me. They are so uncomfortable with any ambiguity. Their world has to be black & white.

[ccpup]

4. although I'm not happy with Sen Clinton's

recent response, you bring up a very good point. Whatever the candidate says, there will be someone who finds themselves so angry about it they can spit! And the candidate's opponents -- Dem and Repug -- will jump on whatever is said. It really is a No Win situation. Sad, really. As a politician, you have to come to terms with the fact that no matter what you do or how hard you work, how much of your life you sacrifice to your constituents, there will always be somebody who despises you for something you said, something you did, something you didn't say or something you didn't do. Not a life I'd want to lead. I'm too emotionally needy and hooked into hearing praise! :-)

[lazer47]

5. Have you stopped beating you wife ???

some questions should not be asked in any forum

[Bobbieo]

10. Many Native Americans believe homosexuals are the

"two spirit people". Although it does not answer the question of morality it states their belief in the two spirit exstence.

[AshevilleGuy]

63. That's right, I have heard that before.

Very nice way of expressing it. And they are not bigoted because they were not taught to be.

[GreenArrow]

6. trouble is, is that the question is equivalent to asking

a question like "is being black immoral? or "is being a redhead immoral"?

[kenny blankenship]

8. Take the question out of the abstract: Do I believe gay PEOPLE are immoral?

Hell no. Some are. Some aren't. But they're not one way or the other simply because they are gay. What a hateful dumbass question! I don't think heterosexual people are made MORAL people just because they seek the opposite sex. Obviously there are plenty of immoral heterosexual people in history. To condemn people as immoral because of their orientation to the same sex makes no more sense than to hold other people blameless because they're oriented to the opposite sex.
(That's what she should have said.)

[still_one]

13. Sorry but general pace had no problem with that question. Gays, immoral, killing OK

good, I am glad we have our priorities straight

now if we get just pull our heads out of our asses, maybe we can discuss some real issues like how we are going to get out of Iraq, provide medical care for all, jobs, etc.

[kenny blankenship]

24. why not start your own thread?

Seriously. Go away.

[still_one]

32. you misunderstood my post

I was talking about the hypocricy of pace

and as far as my other comment that was definitely NOT addressed at YOU, but the MSM and other parties that are trying to bring issues up so they do not have to address the real issues

If THAT came across as otherwise, I appologize, it DEFINITELY was not directed at you, or even your comments which I agree with, i.e. morality has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation

[kenny blankenship]

57. I should apologize. I snapped at you for stupid reasons

Thought you were complaining about the OP's subject. I could try to explain why certain things cut through my last nerve, but let's just say I misread your meaning and reacted badly.

[still_one]

70. no way, I didn't make it clear at all.

I am just frustrated that the MSM seems to control the republican talking points, trying to divert our attention to peripheral issues

I would hope the candidates are able to throw these questions of persumed morality right back to the media as the false straw dogs they are

Again, your answer in your original post would be a great comeback to a question like that

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Excuse me!

The issues gay people face on a daily basis may not be important to you, but they are still very REAL issues. How dare you right off a group of people with the majority being on your side like you have just done.

[Bobbieo]

14. The real question is 'Do you think homosexuality - the act - is immoral'?

and that is the question that should not be asked. No matter how you answer, you are in a shit load of trouble with somebody or a whole bunch of somebodies. .

[kenny blankenship]

17. the question WAS asked. That's why I say make the question about people

make it about common sense, not pseudo-philosophical categories. I'm saying Senator Clinton could have answered the question (a hell of a lot better) by changing the question. People cling to absolutes in dealing with generalized categories and that's not to our advantage here.
Religion in general condemns homosexuality. But most people, even those who strongly believe such crap, know or have met someone who was not on the right side of this or that religious dividing line (a gay, a Jew, a Catholic, a Muslim), but whom they liked as a person anyway. When the abstraction exists to deny people their humanity, to counteract that you have to get specific and practical. When you get the audience thinking about PEOPLE instead of tablets of stone, it's much easier to get them to agree that bad and good people come in all different varieties. It's much easier because all you ask them to do is to see the truth right in front of their noses.

[still_one]

11. Funny, but is this the MOST important issue that will affect you?

Will it affect the Iraq War?
Will it provide healthcare for everyone
Will it provide social security
Will it provide jobs
Will it prevent illegal survellience

If this is the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing this country today, then we deserve everything that has happened to us

Did anyone ever not believe that this is a tactic to divert from the REAL ISSUES?

Incidently, I am no Clinton fan, both Hillary or Bill, but this is bullshit

Excuse me while I go watch American Idol or survivor, those are shows that will help me figure out how I am going to pay for my kids college education

[Bobbieo]

18. My most important question is who is going to stop Bush from

wasting American lives in Iraq but no one seems to have an answer to that one - BUT the answer seems to be is "No one is going to stop him." We'll be lucky to get him out the WH in '08

So, it's back to politics as usual and play "let's trip up the candidate".

[still_one]

33. In my view these diversions are intentional, either by the corporate media, or rnc

why, so they can detract from talking about not only Iraq as you mentioned, by ever other major blunder in the past six years

[ComerPerro]

36. actually, in a way, I think it wil

I am looking for a candidate who will not just say a flat out "no" to a question like that, but will then chastise the reporter for asking such a ridiculous and pointed question, and then maybe even give a two minute lecture on the absurdity of even taking this into the mainstream.

It won't happen, probably. But I really think a candidate who could confidently say this, without pause, would be the strong kind of leader who could potentially help find proactive ways to address these other issues.

[still_one]

42. I hear you, and it WOULD be refreshing, but it would also be nice to focus on immenient issues

those that are life and death

[ComerPerro]

45. yeah. I mean, I see where you are coming from, because to a lot of DUers,

sexual orientation is not an important issue. We are fine with it, we welcome the idea of gay marriage, and frankly can't understand why it isn't already legal. And typically when gay marriage is brought up, its done to invoke morality for the right and try to trap Dems.

But the best way to turn the "non-issue" it is now (as in, political fodder for the right) into a real, moving, meaningful issue is to come out, as a party, and say "there is nothing wrong with being gay, and in fact it is immoral and improper to question anyone for their sexual orientation". I think that could help us build a more credible civil rights platform, and might get people to do some serious soul searching.

I am being very naive here, and I usually like to dwell in the real world, but this is a dream of mine, and I think it could work.

[still_one]

47. Of course I have no problem with what you are saying, it is just that I doubt the MSM will move on

and allow discussion of all the issues. I mean look at what happened to Kerry, the MSM thought the biggest issue in this country was Kerry's service in Nam, or Dean's scream, etc.

[ComerPerro]

49. which is ironic, of course, since BushCos non-service, to me, was a huge story

and was extremely relevant, as Max Cleland pointed out the other day on Wolfie's show.

This is the kind of thing the media loves, though. Nonstory stories.

"Did Kerry deserve his medals?" "Is homosexuality immoral"

When they frame stories like that, they can say whatever they want, pretend to cover both sides (even when one side doesn't even deserve any coverage, like the Swiftboaters), and in the end still come away having really said nothing.

[still_one]

51. you summarized it beautifully

[Bronyraurus]

16. Of course!

The best answer to that question is "no."

[Maven]

65. BUT...it's so SIMPLE!

Obviously, we need to look for better options. :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

19. "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" n/t

[Czolgosz]

20. "I don't share that (Gen. Pace's) view, and I would go even further than that... I think the Don't

Ask, Don't Tell policy is wrong, it's not working. I think what it's done effectively is kept us from having some of the most talented people we can have in our military, it's caused more problems than it solves and it ought to be changed."

That's how Edwards answered the question, and I wouldn't change a word.

[ComerPerro]

37. best thing about Edwards' answer was the look on his face

looked like he had some strong words but held back.

[Truthiness Inspector]

21. I see your point

but, I think we need to know where candidates stand on these issues as it does have an impact on their job, such as supporting or banning gay marriage, etc.

Sure it's a sticky wicket, but I don't see a way around it besides willful denial and hoping for the best.

[iamjoy]

25. Do You Really Need To Know

do you care what Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama or John Edwards *personally* think of homoesexuality, or do you care what they think the President should do via gay rights? In truth, their personal opinion shouldn't matter, only how they would approach it from a legal perspective.

The problem is, it seems the media is asking for personal opinions and judgements, rather than just what the person would want to do as President.

If hypotheticals do not annoy you, let's say there was a candidate who stood up and said
"I believe homosexuality is a choice. I believe homosexuality is immoral. But as President, I would support legislation for gay marriages."

Would you vote for this person?

[BlooInBloo]

23. Am I missing something, or is this a thread full of people pandering to antigay bigots?

I fail to see what the trouble with the question is - unless one counts pissing off antigay bigots as "a shitload trouble".

"No, I don't believe homosexuality is immoral". There. No problem.

Unless pandering to antigay bigots is important to you.


(shrug) Maybe I'm missing something.

[ComerPerro]

38. a lot of people believe that we can compete with the GOP for the fundie vote

[donco6]

66. Exactly.

Who gives a flying fuck what impact a "no" answer would have on the likes of antigay bigots? They wouldn't vote for Hillary if someone chopped off their hand and poked it at the vid screen. Why even TRY to pander to these intractible idiots? To quote Nancy Reagan: "Just say NO".

[DeSwiss]

26. Yes there is a way....

....by quoting the "moral document" that is the foundation of American government:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Matthew 7:1 is good too: "Judge not, that ye be not judged.

DeSwiss

[stillcool]

27. I don't understand the problem...

either said candidate believes an individual's sexuality is immoral...or they don't.

[rebel with a cause]

28. Do you consider homosexual acts to be immoral?

Use the old trick of answering with a open question type answer. "It depends on what you consider immoral? Some of our forefathers considered all sexual acts immoral and the only purpose for having sexual relations in marriage was for reproduction. There are few of us today that still feel this way, so I would say to you that what is immoral or not depends on the act itself and whether on not it is between two consenting adults."

Personally, I think they should be able to say. "How is that any of your business what I believe personally?"

Or, "If god created us all, then how can it be immoral to be in a loving relationship, no matter who you are in that relationship with." (again as long as it is two adults. Don't want to give them a chance to say you are for adult/child sexual relationships.)(Oh, and to the atheist out there, this is for the candidate to say to appease the masses, so don't flame me for saying "god created us".)

[phiddle]

29. IMO, the Democratic PARTY needs to commit to a privacy plank

1. Reproductive matters among adults (homosexuality, abortion) are PRIVATE matters, and not subject to public comment nor regulation.
2. A person's home, telephone, internet cannot be monitored except by court order.
3. Right to die legislation with appropriate safeguards.

We should be able to win the vote of many traditional conservatives who are concerned about government abuse of power, and whose vote has mostly gone to the Republicons.

BTW, Roe vs Wade did not legalize abortion per se, rather it proscribed the government from intruding into the choice. That is, it liberated this personal choice from government interference.

[Duppers]

62. hear hear. nt

nt

[kevinbgoode]

30. I'm sick of that kind of crap

No candidate will ever receive my vote by showing how unchristian they are by issuing moral judgements. And I refuse to stand idly by while some straight person discusses MY morality.

Why aren't they asking if we believe Pat Robertson is moral? If con-servative "Christians" are moral?

[AshevilleGuy]

31. Shouldn't be any trouble. Let me paraphrase Barney Frank here:

A few months ago he said something to the effect of, "No one knows why, but about 7 to 10% of the population is attracted to those of their own gender. Why this upsets some people I honestly don't know. What difference does it make to anyone else and why does it threaten them?" A candidate could give some version of this and then ask, WHY would the behaviors of these people be considered "immoral"?; I certainly do not think so.

What would be so hard about that? Anyone offended by that would vote repuke anyway.

[Erika]

35. Why do the GOP obsess on sex lives?

Maybe it's a quirk about them. Foley, Haggard, etc.

[ComerPerro]

40. this isn't going to be a poltically savvy answer, but you are dead right

about your second point. Those people who we are so worried about offending? the Fundies? They aren't gonna vote for us anyway. So fuck em. Nothing wrong with calling a bigot a bigot. Showing that kind of backbone might win us enough votes from greens and left leaning moderates who just, for once, want to see Dems stand for something. Could be enough to bury the fundie freak vote entirely.

Republicans want to cater to racists and bigots and homophobes? I say let them, and call them on it. All that they will have left for their "base" will be the billionares and the bigots.

[NDP]

34. Notice how they always only ask the Democrats about it, unless it's Guliani or McCain

They should ask every single candidate about it if they are going to keep dogging the Democrats about it. It's intentional. They know that this is a loser issue for the Democrats, so they keep asking it, even though it's more of a local issue than a Presidential campaign issue in the first place.

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Coming out of lurking to respond to this!

Firstly, let me remind that it isn't a preference. A preference would suggest that I chose to be discriminated against. It would also suggest that you chose to follow the sexual orientation you are. There is a never a choice where love is concerned apart from whether or not we accept that love or deny it.

Secondly, I don't think a politicians personal beliefs should come into question period in relation to his/her decision regarding the laws of the country they represent. The moment any politician brings their personal beliefs to the office they begin disenfranchising a portion of the community that helped get them where they are today.

So to answer your question, no. If a politician believes he/she can bring their personal beliefs to the office, then they had better expect to come under fire, especially if those personal beliefs impede of the lives of the citizens of the country they represent.

[ComerPerro]

41. well, but to an extent, where does new legislation come from? personal beliefs.

idealism

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Idealism is one thing...

...but if you make laws which impede on the lives of a group of citizens in your country because you believe what they do in their private time is morally wrong, then that makes you a bigot. Sorry but it is true.

[ComerPerro]

48. well, there is no doubt about that. But when the term "personal beliefs" was used

by the campaign today, I had to cringe.

Not sure how to separate the two things, personal beliefs (like ideals) and other personal beliefs (like bigotry).

I guess all I can say is, hopefully everyone, no matter the belief, uses their beliefs to shape legislation. And in a democracy, all we can do is hope that those with the bigoted beliefs are exposed as the hateful wretches they are, and laughed out of politics. Its just too bad that this rarely ever happens.

In a way, its why we keep religion out of politics.

I don't know, there's a term I am looking for here to better sum up what I'm trying to say, but I honestly wouldn't know where to begin looking for it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

50. The problem is...

...if a politician brings the morality question into play when he/she makes a decision about a law (i.e: marriage equality etc) then they are in fact bringing religion into politics. After all it is religion which has defined the meaning of morality. It wasn't the other way around.

[ComerPerro]

54. Well, in some cases. But I, and many here, have my own moral standards and code and guidelines

without needing or wanting to attribute to them with any particular religion or philosphy, except maybe simple humanism. Yet I still have values and beliefs that I think would be very relevant in politics.

At a certain point, I think if you bring someone into a political arena who does not have personal beliefs, or who turns them off and on at will, then I think you are just going to have someone who is an empty shell.

Of course, there is no way I can advocate this position without sounding hypocritical. But I would just have to say, humanistic beliefs transcend religion. Its sort of a New Testament, Sermon on the Mount kind of view. That is to say, not really rules per se, which I usually associate with religion (being gay is evil, don't eat pork, no fish on Friday, women must cover themselves, etc). Instead, we have nonspecific guidelines on how to treat others with decency and respect, to look out for all people, stand up for those who need help, cure the sick, feed the poor, comfort the afflicted. These are human values and personal beliefs that I think can no longer be owned by religion.

I think I might be just talking in circles though. Its late. My legs hurt. You know how sometimes when you haven't gotten much sleep, you don't feel tired so much, but your legs just start to hurt and ache, anxious to stretch in bed?

[ends_dont_justify]

43. perhaps not, but a simple answer:

"We serve the rights of the people." If a senator or congressional leader cannot say that openly they don't deserve a job. If it doesn't stop with homosexuality, sadly, it'll always be a wedge in the door for persecution towards the minority. Remember back when it was mentally retarded people and the mentally ill?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Answering honestly would be a refreshing, if novel, thing for a politician.

Naaaah...way to risky.

[MGD]

53. Different cultures have different taboos but all taboo objects/subjects have common denominators

The most common denominator, IMO, is a subconscious ambivalence towards the taboo object. Take the quinitsential "taboo idol". The primitive tribesman is forbidden to lay his hands on the taboo object under penalty of divine punishment (or, more likely, tribal punishment) but, secretly, he wants to touch the idol, he wants to challenge his Gods. Touching the idol is forbidden; however, one day the primitive sees another primitive touching the idol and, lo and behold, the Gods don't punish him. Two things have happened now: 1.) the primitive who touched the taboo idol has himself become taboo and 2.) the primitive who observed the taboo violation is encouraged to touch the idol himself-to succumb to his subconscious desire. So, is homosexuality immoral? No. Are we a society that still clings to primitive taboo prohibitions? Absolutely.

[leftofthedial]

55. "Homosexuality is not a matter of morality or immorality."

[FreeState]

56. Its called sexual ORIENTATION not preference

Sexual preference is what you like to do sexually - it has nothing to do with who you are oriented to love.

Just an FYI - the term Sexual Preference is used by the anti-gay groups because they believe its a choice and deny people are truly gay.

[Bluebear]

59. You PREFER cheese pizza to pepperoni. Orientation is not a preference. nt

[EFerrari]

60. It's not the job of our government to legislate morality.

The first and ninth Amendments cover this issue.

[GaYellowDawg]

64. Here's how I'd respond:

"I'll tell you what I think. I think as long as consenting adults are involved, the government should stay out of your bedroom, and I won't answer any more questions like that."

[Nikki Stone1]

69. Yes, the government's job is not to police bedrooms of consenting adults

Or else half of Congress would be out on their asses for adultery.

[rman]

67. trouble from some RW extremists? that's a minority, it's "backwash"

Why worry about trouble from them?