Do you think this type of "open society" tolerance in Romney can hurt his chances for the Republican nomination?
I hope it does.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't General Pace say that the practice of homosexuality is immoral, not that homosexuality itself was immoral?
This is where we depart company.
After all why would we ever want to elect a person president who openly advocated core values....um, like Ronald Reagan.
...although he personally would not preach that homosexuality is sinful
At least for once he is being honest about what he believes, as evidenced by his being in bed (no pun intended) with every pro-homosexual group possible while he was Governor of Massachusetts and putting the children of the state in serious jeopardy by allowing the sick gay agenda into the public schools.
******************************************
Nice.
Yes. I cannot support Romney's condemnation of Pace. That's deplorable. Romney is very slick in the way he words things, but I still hear a liberal when he speaks. Why we would want to pick the homosexual marriage governor as our leader is beyond me. His parsing on homosexual issues is even worse than his parsing on abortion. I do not trust him. He was worse than having no respresentation because he was offered either phony or inept representation. Which it was doesn't matter. He failed.
I think most people know at least one person who is gay. We don’t go out and act against them. We simply don’t agree with their life choice. We also differ on wheiter we should acknowledge if they should marry or not.
Gays, lesbians are a choice. This should NOT be a political platform.
Romney is drinking the Rooty Ghouliani kool-aid.
Romney sounds like every NE liberal, morals have to be removed from the public sector.
He can stay in MA with his pickle puffers.
I'm going to vote for whoever can beat the DemonRAT candidate.
I was hoping it was Romney.
I'd like to see just one viable Republican candidate put homosexuals back into the sexual deviant category where they belong.
Well, don’t shoot me, but I like Romney. Of the top tier candidates, he has lived a life demonstrating the strongest family values.
Politicians who come from big cities see the world in a different way. They constantly interact with people from all walks of life — and these people are all part of what makes that city work.
It sounds like this one issue makes Romney insupportable. Is that really true? That feels sad.
No morality in laws does not mean open society since you will then have laws made of one group vs another every cycle eventually have a laws against everyone. that is silly. You also need some laws so, where do you base those from?
What is the basis of all laws?
While I agree politican’s should shut up about most things and let the markets and society work things out, you have to stand for some things.
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.
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 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:
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
This destroys any chance of Romney coming off as a Conservative. I appreciate his honesty, but the politically smart thing to do.
Let me get this straight. Romney believes that candidates for office should not discuss what they consider "immoral or not immoral." And then, in the same interview, Romney gives his personal moral view on homosexuality, and says he would not even personally condemn it as sinful.
... he personally would not preach that homosexuality is sinful...
The man is a walking contradiction.