re: #396 samgak

I don’t see what the problem is with Romney’s response. The question was about his personal beliefs, not which policies he supports. In a secular society it should be acceptable for a politician to keep his personal moral beliefs and his or her public policies separate. For example, a politician who is a vegetarian for religious reasons should be allowed to refuse to answer the question of whether they believe eating meat is immoral, provided that they do not propose making it illegal. It’s not reasonable to demand that everyone accept that homosexual behaviour is morally acceptable as a condition of holding public office. That’s not what tolerance or secularism means. It is enough that they do not legislate against it.

What’s “homosexual behaviour”? I’m curious. Is that putting a boy peepee in another boy’s bumbum? Or is it just being gay?

It is absolutely reasonable to demand that people don’t morally judge homosexuals or anyone else based on sex, race, etc.

Politicians who keep their personal believes and public policies separate are opportunistic douche-bags. If you’re not fighting for what you truly believe in, what’s the point? If someone thinks homosexuality is a sin, why not fight it?