Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality

[Adrian]

Excuse me, I am not religious are you saying I can't have moral beliefs? That's absurd.

Nope, afterall I have moral beliefs. But I've noticed an extremely strong correlation between those who are strongly religious and the desire to legislate morality. Of course there are exceptions, but that so far appears to be the rule.

 

[Gibberish]

But I've noticed an extremely strong correlation between those who are strongly religious and the desire to legislate morality.

Religions try to legislate their morality. They wish to force their beliefs onto others for the sole reason of going or not going to their heaven.

Of course not all religions try to force their beliefs on others through political means.

 

[rivrrat]

I'm not a fan of Hillary but for the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could think she either dodged the question OR did a "180" on her views. She was quite clear with both statements she made. I keep reading and re-reading what she said, trying to figure out where the "dodge" or the "180" is; trying to figure out where she said anything remotely derogatory about homosexuality; trying to figure out where she how anyone could see anything but disagreement with Pace's comments. (in fact she specifically said she disagreed with them) I just don't see it.

But maybe the meaning of certain words has changed recently and when she said she disagreed with Pace's comments, that statement somehow actually meant she agreed with them. Maybe when she said she wanted to make sure that homosexuals could serve our country, what she really meant was she wanted to make sure they couldn't.

So, I'm assuming that the people who think she "dodged" or did a "180" have changed the meaning of the word disagree to mean agree. And the meaning of the word can to can't? It's the only logical conclusion I can draw.

Are the dictionary folks aware of this change to the definitions of those words? :lol:

 

[Jerry]

Not at all. Moralization is the territory of the religious. For everybody else, there's ethics.

An ethic is a moral principal, so without the moral rule, you can't have an ethic....and if morality is only a venue for the religious, then you must believe that there are no moral Atheists.

So her job is not supposed to be moralization (thankfully) since the base for that comes from old books that can't be scientifically substantiated.

Yes it can, and much has been, as if Theology/Deism needed to follow Atheist/Humanist reasoning.

What can be observed, however, is whether a behavior can be observed to cause direct harm to another person or their property. If it does not, then it can be concluded that it is ethically acceptable.

That's Atheist/Humanist moral reasoning, and I accept the fact that you have chosen Atheism/Humanism over Theism/Deism here, but do realize that you are moralizing the issue when you claim that a thing must be proven to harm someone in order to be unacceptable.

Moralization is a dangerous thing to base policy on because it is based on one's own hunches that have nothing to do with what does or doesn't directly harm another person or their property. Clinton was smart to stay clear of moralizing.

The only person talking about making policy based on morality is you.

It's her business to stay out of affairs that do not deal with direct harm to other people or their property.

It's the public's business to know her opinion on the nature of a proposed legal standing and permission with the state. As the head of the state, it is her business to have an opinion one way or the other, otherwise she is derelict.

It answers the question perfectly. Since homosexuals are able to perform their duties, moralization is irrelevant and inappropriate. Her dismissal of Peter Pace was dead on.

"Irrelevant" is not a "moral" or "immoral", so she didn't answer the question.

No, not a dodge whatsoever. Again, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can." You can't get any clearer on what her position is.

It's a dodge, and not a very good one at that.
Clearly her opinion is that homosexuality is moral, she should just come out and say it. No need to hide.

Power.

Yup, just keep that in mind.
The bottom line is Hillary doesn't give a rat’s azz about homosexuality beyond how it can get her power.
She doesn't care about you; she cares about your vote. Same with all politicians.

 

[Jerry]

Nope, afterall I have moral beliefs. But I've noticed an extremely strong correlation between those who are strongly religious and the desire to legislate morality. Of course there are exceptions, but that so far appears to be the rule.

You do the same thing, right here, right now. Everyone does.

 

[Jerry]

Religions try to legislate their morality. They wish to force their beliefs onto others for the sole reason of going or not going to their heaven.

Going to heaven?
:rofl
What a sweeping general statement born of ignorance that is!

You have no idea what you’re talking about, so just sit down Jr. before you present an even more foolish argument.

 

[danarhea]

An ethic is a moral principal, so without the moral rule, you can't have an ethic....and if morality is only a venue for the religious, then you must believe that there are no moral Atheists.



Yes it can, and much has been, as if Theology/Deism needed to follow Atheist/Humanist reasoning.



That's Atheist/Humanist moral reasoning, and I accept the fact that you have chosen Atheism/Humanism over Theism/Deism here, but do realize that you are moralizing the issue when you claim that a thing must be proven to harm someone in order to be unacceptable.



The only person talking about making policy based on morality is you.



It's the public's business to know her opinion on the nature of a proposed legal standing and permission with the state. As the head of the state, it is her business to have an opinion one way or the other, otherwise she is derelict.



"Irrelevant" is not a "moral" or "immoral", so she didn't answer the question.



It's a dodge, and not a very good one at that.
Clearly her opinion is that homosexuality is moral, she should just come out and say it. No need to hide.



Yup, just keep that in mind.
The bottom line is Hillary doesn't give a rat’s azz about homosexuality beyond how it can get her power.
She doesn't care about you; she cares about your vote. Same with all politicians.

Have to agree on the part of your answer that I bolded. Ethics, derived from the word "ethos" is dependent on the context and culture in which it is used. Thus, a cannibal is just as ethical in his society as a church goer is in ours. Maybe even moreso, since many cannibalistic tribes which once lived on the Pacific Rim were not even advanced enough to have an understanding as to what a hypocrite was, and thus become one.

 

[Gibberish]

Going to heaven?
:rofl
What a sweeping general statement born of ignorance that is!

Your attacks aside. It was meant as a generalization. If I meant to be specific I would of stated such.

The question of doing what is seen as moral or immoral in Religion is specific to some sort of enlightenment or heavenly access granted through the religion. Do you think religious people are moral or immoral just to be moral or immoral? No, they do such to reach the end-goal of the religion, Heaven in some fashion.

Today's Christianity specifically looks down on homosexuals because of influenced written in their bible on what is moral and immoral. What is written in their bible is how and how not to reach their heaven.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not a fan of Hillary but for the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could think she either dodged the question OR did a "180" on her views. She was quite clear with both statements she made. I keep reading and re-reading what she said, trying to figure out where the "dodge" or the "180" is; trying to figure out where she said anything remotely derogatory about homosexuality; trying to figure out where she how anyone could see anything but disagreement with Pace's comments. (in fact she specifically said she disagreed with them) I just don't see it.

But maybe the meaning of certain words has changed recently and when she said she disagreed with Pace's comments, that statement somehow actually meant she agreed with them. Maybe when she said she wanted to make sure that homosexuals could serve our country, what she really meant was she wanted to make sure they couldn't.

So, I'm assuming that the people who think she "dodged" or did a "180" have changed the meaning of the word disagree to mean agree. And the meaning of the word can to can't? It's the only logical conclusion I can draw.

Are the dictionary folks aware of this change to the definitions of those words? :lol:

It's like Adrian said, she was speaking liberalease.
It's a dialect of American which Conservatives find difficult to translate.

If I ask you "Do you believe that homosexual acts immoral", the only 2 answers I will understand are "yes" and "no".

What I'm trying to do is substitute the unknown in the statement, like you do in algebra. With a simple "yes" or "no" I can the take my question and store it as data. "Do you, rivvrat, believe that homosexual acts are immoral". You answer "no". The question now becomes the statement "Rivrrat does not believe that homosexual acts are immoral".

After the yes or no I will comprehend if you choose to expand or qualify your answer, but the first thing I'm looking for is the answer to my question.

It a matter of using different protocol.

 

[Jerry]

Have to agree on the part of your answer that I bolded. Ethics, derived from the word "ethos" is dependent on the context and culture in which it is used. Thus, a cannibal is just as ethical in his society as a church goer is in ours. Maybe even moreso, since many cannibalistic tribes which once lived on the Pacific Rim were not even advanced enough to have an understanding as to what a hypocrite was, and thus become one.

It's precisely because of those sorts of differences that Theists/Deists use a moral rule and measure which is outside of society.

 

[DeeJayH]

I would expect nothing less from someone who graduated Magna cum Laude
from the 'Slick Willie School of Politics'

 

[Gibberish]

It's like Adrian said, she was speaking liberalease.
It's a difference dialect of American which Conservative find difficult to translate.

If I ask you "Do you believe that homosexual acts immoral", the only 2 answers I will understand are "yes" and "no".

What I'm trying to do is substitute the unknown in the statement, like you do in algebra. With a simple "yes" or "no" I can the take my question and store it as data. "Do you, rivvrat, believe that homosexual acts are immoral". You answer "no". The question now becomes the statement "Rivrrat does not believe that homosexual acts are immoral".

After the yes or no I will comprehend if you choose to expand or qualify your answer, but the first thing I'm looking for is the answer to my question.

It a matter of using different protocol.

Of course an elected official would not give such a direct response. Specifically Hillary would not do so because if she wished to have a hope of winning she will need to win over some of the conservatives, who stereotypically find homosexuality immoral.

She is playing the politics game on every angle. Which is why I would not vote for her personally. She rocks back and forth on every issue trying to win everyone over.

 

[ballybofy]

Ok, she's an immoral, amoral, filthy, polls driven, corrupt politican - Arn't they all ??????? Show me an honest pol and I'll show you a remarkable con person who has taken all of us in. I detest the bitch - I detest them all. What was it Will Rogers said: " I don't vote for politicans - It just encourages them !!!!!! A pox on them all !!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jerry]

Your attacks aside. It was meant as a generalization. If I meant to be specific I would of stated such.

The question of doing what is seen as moral or immoral in Religion is specific to some sort of enlightenment or heavenly access granted through the religion. Do you think religious people are moral or immoral just to be moral or immoral? No, they do such to reach the end-goal of the religion, Heaven in some fashion.

Through it's generalisation, your's is an argument of Ambiguity. You will need to nail down exactly what sort of enlightenment or heavenly access you are speaking of, starting with a crisp definition of what exactly you are refering to with "religious" and "heaven".

Today's Christianity specifically looks down on homosexuals because of influenced written in their bible on what is moral and immoral. What is written in their bible is how and how not to reach their heaven.

Now see if you knew the first thing about Christianity you would know that the primary tenant is that Jesus died for each and every person, his blood washes away all sin, therefore every single one of God's children are going to heaven.

Yes, even the homosexual

No one reaches heaven by treating other people like chit. That is not Christian because that is neither a teaching nor practice of Jesus.

 

[Jerry]

Of course an elected official would not give such a direct response. Specifically Hillary would not do so because if she wished to have a hope of winning she will need to win over some of the conservatives, who stereotypically find homosexuality immoral.

She is playing the politics game on every angle. Which is why I would not vote for her personally. She rocks back and forth on every issue trying to win everyone over.

Hm, I don't even go that in depth in denying her my vote.

I don't get past her last name.

 

[Jerry]

Ok, she's an immoral, amoral, filthy, polls driven, corrupt politican - Arn't they all ??????? Show me an honest pol and I'll show you a remarkable con person who has taken all of us in. I detest the bitch - I detest them all. What was it Will Rogers said: " I don't vote for politicans - It just encourages them !!!!!! A pox on them all !!!!!!!!!!

:rofl
No doubt!

 

[Gibberish]

Through it's generalisation, your's is an argument of Ambiguity. You will need to nail down exactly what sort of enlightenment or heavenly access you are speaking of, starting with a crisp definition of what exactly you are refering to with "religious" and "heaven".

I did not get into specific definitions because then I would need to focus on a single religion when infact I think many religions and their denominations fall victim to this.

Now see if you knew the first thing about Christianity you would know that the primary tenant is that Jesus died for each and every person, his blood washes away all sin, therefore every single one of God's children are going to heaven.

Yes, even the homosexual

No one reaches heaven by treating other people like chit. That is not Christian because that is neither a teaching nor practice of Jesus.

You seem to assume much about me.

I know full well what Jesus taught and how conservative Christians in America act is no where near what Jesus taught.

Every human does not get a free pass to heaven, unless you believe in predestination. According to Christianity those who are sinful do not get into Heaven unless they accept Jesus as the son of God and accept that he died for all man's sins.

If no one gets into heaven by treating other people like "chit" then there should be no question that it is wrong to force your own opinions of morality and immorality onto those that do not share them. You can fully try to educate those individuals on what you know and your opinions but they should, in the end, be free to do as they wish and what makes them happy.

 

[Captain America]

Fortunantly, there aren't enough people who really put the issue of gay rights on their list of priorities. Let's just hope the recent awakening across the land includes the realization that wedge issues like this are only brought to the forefront by the desperate.

America is more concerned about education, health care, defense, social security and ending the war in Iraq. So don't come around here trying to divert our attentions away from things that really matter. Gays are gonna get their rights sooner or later. That's inevitable.

Let's focus on real issues for once people. It would do us ALL good to dodge the wedge non-issues.

Like the song says, "We won't get fooled again."

 

[danarhea]

Fortunantly, there aren't enough people who really put the issue of gay rights on their list of priorities. Let's just hope the recent awakening across the land includes the realization that wedge issues like this are only brought to the forefront by the desperate.

America is more concerned about education, health care, defense, social security and ending the war in Iraq. So don't come around here trying to divert our attentions away from things that really matter. Gays are gonna get their rights sooner or later. That's inevitable.

Let's focus on real issues for once people. It would do us ALL good to dodge the wedge non-issues.

Like the song says, "We won't get fooled again."

Oh yea, Bush himself quoted that song. :rofl

 

[BWG]

Oh yea, Bush himself quoted that song. :rofl

Or rather he 'tried' something similar...LOL...:lol:

 

[Adrian]

If I ask you "Do you believe that homosexual acts immoral", the only 2 answers I will understand are "yes" and "no".

Ah, so you like a) or b), yes or no, true/false questions, right? Alright, then answer this one: what color is homosexuality?

a) green
b) white

I look forward to your answer, and if your answer is flippant, I'll know that you were never serious on this thread to begin with.

 

[Captain America]

Or rather he 'tried' something similar...LOL...:lol:

"Like the band 'Mer-uh-cuh once sang, "I've been through the desert with the Tinman." :rofl

 

[Jerry]

I did not get into specific definitions because then I would need to focus on a single religion when infact I think many religions and their denominations fall victim to this.

What definition?

You seem to assume much about me.

I know full well what Jesus taught and how conservative Christians in America act is no where near what Jesus taught.

Every human does not get a free pass to heaven, unless you believe in predestination. According to Christianity those who are sinful do not get into Heaven unless they accept Jesus as the son of God and accept that he died for all man's sins.

..and in by the end everyone accepts Jesus.

If no one gets into heaven by treating other people like "chit" then there should be no question that it is wrong to force your own opinions of morality and immorality onto those that do not share them.

Imposing my understanding of God's law is not categorically "treating people like chit".

You can fully try to educate those individuals on what you know and your opinions but they should, in the end, be free to do as they wish and what makes them happy.

Not necessarily, no. There are many things people should not be free to do.

 

[Adrian]

An ethic is a moral principal

No it isn't.

so without the moral rule, you can't have an ethic....

Yes you can.

and if morality is only a venue for the religious,

It isn't.

then you must believe that there are no moral Atheists.

I don't believe that, because I am a moral atheist.

Yes it can, and much has been, as if Theology/Deism needed to follow Atheist/Humanist reasoning.

It does, because something can be shown to directly harm or not harm another person or their property. Morality? Not necessarily.

That's Atheist/Humanist moral reasoning, and I accept the fact that you have chosen Atheism/Humanism over Theism/Deism here, but do realize that you are moralizing the issue when you claim that a thing must be proven to harm someone in order to be unacceptable.

See above.

The only person talking about making policy based on morality is you.

Pace started it: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts." Not just, "I believe it is immoral," but a further clarification that it should not be allowed. Therefore, promoting policy based on his morality.

As the head of the state, it is her business to have an opinion one way or the other,

Agreed, and as she said, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."

otherwise she is derelict.

No she isn't, because she said, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."

"Irrelevant" is not a "moral" or "immoral"

Since morality doesn't always cover adult actions that do or don't directly cause harm to another person or their property, it is secondary to ethics and therefore in this case is irrelevant.

so she didn't answer the question.

Yes she did. In fact, she said, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."

It's a dodge, and not a very good one at that.

It's not a dodge, because she said, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."

Clearly her opinion is that homosexuality is moral

That isn't clear at all because she never said any such thing.

she should just come out and say it. No need to hide.

She should do no such thing, since she clearly stated that it isn't her place to moralize one way or the other.

The bottom line is Hillary doesn't give a rat’s azz about homosexuality beyond how it can get her power. She doesn't care about you; she cares about your vote.

I think anybody who knows the first thing about Hillary already knows that. Should we then dismiss her attempts, however personally insincere they may or may not be, to protect civil liberties? Should homosexuals fall into line to the likes of Pace because Hillary wasn't didn't really care in her heart about them?

 

[Jerry]

Ah, so you like a) or b), yes or no, true/false questions, right?

Alright, then answer this one: what color is homosexuality?

a) green
b) white

I look forward to your answer, and if your answer is flippant, I'll know that you were never serious on this thread to begin with.

To easy: green :mrgreen:

Homosexuality is green because, as a political issue, money is to be gained by supporting or opposing it, depending on the audience. Also, homosexuality is green because most of those who seek GM are doing so for the legal and financial benefits.

Homosexuality can not be white because the current GM movement stands on Loving -v- Virginia, which ruled against the whites.

If any color other than green, homosexuality would either be pink or brown, depending on rather we are talking about lesbians or gay men

Though I suppose homosexuals could make homosexuality any color they want, what with the rainbow as their symbol and all.

***
Now then, if you would care to stand down your cynicism in face of my attempts to honestly illuminate a difference in thought process, then perhaps we could have a substantive exchange.

In the future, please take care to note that sexual acts have an ancient history in the context of morality/immorality, yet no relation to color.

In a recent post I hyper linked the word "ambiguity". Clicking on that word will bring you to a logical fallacy website, where I recommend you look up "false analogy"; it may keep you from coming apart with questions like you gave in the future.

It is nice to se that I took apart your argument rather quick and reduced you to an emotional puddle though.