Posted on 05/26/2007 10:46:29 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
The military allows lesbians and homosexuals in their number as long as they keep it to themselves. The military does not allow homosexual advocacy or flagrant homosexual acts. Nor, for that matter, does it allow flagrant adultery or flagrant sexual relations between officers and people working under them.
Let’s make a distinction between homosexuals and gay advocates, who publicly profess their sexuality and insist that everyone should approve of sodomy, on pain of being punished by the law.
Where does Romney stand? I think the record shows that he has appointed public homosexual advocates to important positions, and does not oppose the gay political agenda.
I personally in the past have hired homosexuals and lesbians, because they were most qualified for the job, but I preferred that they should keep their gender preferences to themselves and their private lives. Unfortunately, that is getting more and more difficult these days.
Military people are supposed to keep their ideologies to themselves. Ironically, General Pace was bashed by the liberals because that is his policy for homosexuals in the military. And it is his policy because it has been national policy, ever since CLINTON put the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule through congress.
This article is biased from beginning to end. Mr. Peter J. Smith seems to have an agenda!
first, what romney said about Gen. Pace was exactly what Pace himself said when he expressed regret, etc.. “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”
second, the charge that romney funded the homosexual agenda proves that mr. smith still has a lot to learn about the makings of a effective hit piece. He didnt even bother to present boston globe articles as “sources” to back his outlandish claims.
When Romney was running the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, under pressure from homosexual groups, he removed the Boy Scouts from participation in pre-Olympic activities.
The same Mitt Romney who was once on the executive council of the Boy Scouts.
When push comes to shove....Romney is pro-homosexual.
I am surprised that this is not mentioned more. My biggest problem with Romney is his extreme liberalism
Except for Tancredo and Hunter...there really isnt a true conservative for the GOP nomination.
I always thought homosexuality was same-sex attraction. That you can be a homosexual even if you've never acted on it.
Anyways, General Pace was condemning the homosexual act as immoral, not the person.
Wrong. What folks express in their official roles should be whatever their views are re what's pertinent to their work. Pace was both correct (you know...because he agrees with Me.)and entitled to express whatever views he had on the subject(even if they had been so misguided as to not agree with Me). The effects of morality and immorality tend to be relevant to all sorts of public and other institutional functions. Immorality thrives in a climate of cowed silence.
Romney's difficulty here seems to be that he's not merely "not anti-gay", as he puts it. He's apparently 'anti-anti-gay', .... and in logic two negatives equals...?
I agree.
I’m almost afraid to ask but what is a pickle puffer?
I have never heard that before.
I wonder how Romney defines a "personal belief". Are beliefs based on Biblical laws personal, religious, or traditional moral beliefs?
Which of the following are "personal" beliefs:
Go easy on Romney. Give him a few days, odds are he will change his position.
In this specific case, I think their headline is misleading. Mr. Romney has supported homosexuals for certain public offices, and the commentary gives no evidence to suggest that he was appointing them as homosexual figureheads as opposed to qualified people who happened to be homosexual. Spinning the story that way seems to be more of a tactic to turn conservatives against Mr. Romney than to report his actions and words accurately. The sub-headline talked about General Pace, but the commentary had only one or two of twelve paragraphs that addressed General Pace specifically. If they wanted to report on Mr. Romney's comments about General Pace, they should have explored the whole controversy in detail. In the article on the website, they give links to other commentaries about Governor Romney, but none of those links are specifically about what General Pace said.
I didn't look closely at what General Pace said or the context in which he spoke back then. I remember that there was controversy, and I generally felt that the controversy didn't do anything to advance the conservative agenda. I think one can criticize the context, timing, and tone of a statement without necessarily being against the idea that was expressed. I'm open to the possibility that Mr. Romney was trying to criticize these things only and that his criticism is being spun by this group.
I admit to being concerned about these kinds of statements from Mr. Romney. He's not my ideal candidate, and if I lived in New Hampshire, I doubt that I'd be voting for him in the primary. On the other hand, I wouldn't make insulting homosexuals a part of my campaign if I ran for office. Maybe some of these "life" people would interpret my stance as my being "pro-gay," so I remain willing to give Mr. Romney some benefit of doubt.
Bill
So you think that it’s the job of government officials to give morality lessons and tell the citizenry how they should live their lives. Interesting.
I don’t think it will be possible to make clean distinctions between “gay advocates” and non-evangelizing homosexuals if we don’t formulate a clear, and public, moral consensus. The historic, western position has been that homosexuality represents a reprehensible and deeply shameful behavior. If we remove our politically correct lenses, we have to admit that it also represents a health hazard, unless people really believe they can exchange fecal matter (anal sodomy) without getting sick. The historic taboos were there for a reason and the natural revulsion normal people feel for the lifestyle should not be undone by “statesmen” who can’t bring themselves to call sin sin.
“Spinning the story that way seems to be more of a tactic to turn conservatives against Mr. Romney than to report his actions and words accurately.”
BINGO!
Well Texansniper, are there any moral topics pertinent to their work that you’d like to ban folks from discussing? If so why?
This destroys any chance of Romney coming off as a Conservative. I appreciate his honesty, but the politically smart thing to do.
Where are Romney’s religious convictions? I know his church teaches otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.