So, it's not OK for someone to have a different opinion than you do on any issue that deals with sexuality, huh?
He said he wanted to talk about the issue of contraception, not that he wanted to hear anything whatsoever about what happens in YOUR bedroom.
In reply to Brett_Murphy:
I've had a vasectomy. I've also had a reversal. I've also used abortion as contraception.
I have been both a staunch supporter of the right to choose, and recognized the true value of the right to life.
My voting record has been at both extremes and now falls somewhere in the middle, mostly because I understand how wrong I was when I defended either extreme.
I have some experiences that many people do not have, and have learned some things on the subject. I would not hesitate to talk about the things I have learned and experienced with anyone who wanted to know. I would consider it an honor to help someone avoid the pain I have gone through.
Revile it if you want to.
It doesn't have anything to do with religion. It has to do with the medical facts and what is true and what is not. It has to do with the lies spilled by leaders who want to manipulate the sheople, both liberal and conservative. It has to do with how we allocate money, and how we enforce legal protections for our citizens, both young and old, male and female. These are practical, common sense subjects that are legitimately open to discussion, but distorted for political gain by both sides.
Failure to be willing to have honest discussions about the issues is politically motivated censorship. Plain and simple. That, or downright ignorance.
I don't trust any Catholics when the subject of contraception comes up.
I disagree with Catholics.
Doesn't mean I don't trust them.
They probably take the MOST consistent pro-life position of any recognized group that exists.
In reply to Streetwiseguy:
But tell me... why do you distrust them?
The point isn't a difference in opinion, its that his opinion is based on a religious belief that not everyone agrees with, and he wants everyone subjected to it, regardless of their belief.
z31maniac wrote: The point isn't a difference in opinion, its that his opinion is based on a religious belief that not everyone agrees with, and he wants everyone subjected to it, regardless of their belief.
Where did he say that?
The quote above said he wanted to talk about something that no other president has talked about.
You added the subjection part.
z31maniac wrote: The point isn't a difference in opinion, its that his opinion is based on a religious belief that not everyone agrees with, and he wants everyone subjected to it, regardless of their belief.
When has law ever been a question of what everyone finds agreeable?
SVreX wrote:z31maniac wrote: The point isn't a difference in opinion, its that his opinion is based on a religious belief that not everyone agrees with, and he wants everyone subjected to it, regardless of their belief.Where did he say that? The quote above said he wanted to talk about something that no other president has talked about. You added the subjection part.
I can see you want to ignore context and intent.....
So enjoy the air up there.....
SVreX wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: But tell me... why do you distrust them?
I don't trust any reasoning based on religious thought. The blind adherence to dogma in light of changes in knowledge astounds me. Witness the continued dismissal on prophylactic use in Aids ravaged Africa. Rules are one thing. Human nature and behavior is another thing entirely.
Streetwiseguy wrote:SVreX wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: But tell me... why do you distrust them?I don't trust any reasoning based on religious thought. The blind adherence to dogma in light of changes in knowledge astounds me. Witness the continued dismissal on prophylactic use in Aids ravaged Africa. Rules are one thing. Human nature and behavior is another thing entirely.
Give an internet cookie to Streetwiseguy! One of the more reasonable responses in this entire thread!
So what if the adherence is to logical thought that happens to coincide with a particular religious view? Aren't you presupposing the basis of the thinking and blind adherence? In other words, is it OK if someone comes to a perspective first or independently, and THEN notes that a particular religion agrees?
z31maniac wrote:SVreX wrote:I can see you want to ignore context and intent..... So enjoy the air up there.....z31maniac wrote: The point isn't a difference in opinion, its that his opinion is based on a religious belief that not everyone agrees with, and he wants everyone subjected to it, regardless of their belief.Where did he say that? The quote above said he wanted to talk about something that no other president has talked about. You added the subjection part.
Again, I ask, where did he say that? And how the heck do you know the intent?
You appear to be biased against the Catholic Church. I'm not sure there is anything the man could say that you wouldn't say he "intended to subject everyone to". That is an unreasonable position.
Let's put it this way- can you show one place where Mr. Santorum stated (or voted, or in any way endorsed publically) the position that he'd like to pass legislation that would prevent all citizens from utilizing contraception? I'd like to read it. I think you are making it up, but I'm willing to be wrong.
I like turtles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j2S0NhY4gY
There are some wild misconceptions about Catholics evident here. 
a typical Catholic family:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
madmallard wrote: Sanotrum, and any republican with the hubris to assume that tea party members are republicans do so at their own peril. They're going to get a cold shower when that section of the electorate abandoms them for running their mouth on social issues the Tea Party Movement couldn't care less about.
Maybe at one point, but these days, "Tea Party" seems to just mean "really, really, really right-wing". Evidence: Michelle Bachmann is a member of the House "Tea Party" caucus.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Maybe at one point, but these days, "Tea Party" seems to just mean "really, really, really right-wing". Evidence: Michelle Bachmann is a member of the House "Tea Party" caucus.
Is Bachman a member because the "Tea Party" wholly embraces her politics or because she is seen as a "means to an end"? I don't know and neither do you........
But please carry on and emulate the majority of posters who project what they want to believe instead of realizing "they don't know E36M3".
SVreX wrote:Streetwiseguy wrote:Give an internet cookie to Streetwiseguy! One of the more reasonable responses in this entire thread! So what if the adherence is to logical thought that happens to coincide with a particular religious view? Aren't you presupposing the basis of the thinking and blind adherence? In other words, is it OK if someone comes to a perspective first or independently, and THEN notes that a particular religion agrees?SVreX wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: But tell me... why do you distrust them?I don't trust any reasoning based on religious thought. The blind adherence to dogma in light of changes in knowledge astounds me. Witness the continued dismissal on prophylactic use in Aids ravaged Africa. Rules are one thing. Human nature and behavior is another thing entirely.
I live my life to a basic set of Judeo-Christian rules. I accept several of the ten commandments as a good and just way to run a society. My entire family has been involved in the church for as far back as the family tree can be traced. (Not catholic) I bear no ill will towards people who wish to find some sort of supernatural explanation or guidance to their life, I just can't do it. I cannot suspend my disbelief long enough to accept a higher power, any more than I think Albus Dumbldore would have made a great headmaster.
SVreX wrote: 1. So, it's not OK for someone to have a different opinion than you do on any issue that deals with sexuality, huh? 2. It doesn't have anything to do with religion.
Point one: It is perfectly OK to have a different opinion or belief than I do. I fully support Santorum to say what he wants and believe what he wants. Likewise, I fully support the Westboro Baptist Church to hold whatever opinion they wish, and to demonstrate in public to hold that opinion.
I fully think that the Founding Fathers thought that any sort of "truth" would be arrived at through intense political discourse and action- it is dangerous to suppress opinions that are unpopular or counter to the prevailing popular opinion.
Based on that position, I also revile their opinion on a personal level while supporting anyone to agree with them. I just don't want anybody who holds those opinions anywhere near any kind of office. That is why I vote, and why I think people who do support those opinions should vote as well.
What you said? I've been through all of that, except the reversal. I won't way we had the same experiences or that the reasons were the same, but I've been around the block a few times.
I was also the product of an unwed teenage mother who chose to have me at a Catholic Hospital so that if there were any complications with the birth, they would save me and let her die.
I also had an uncle who died from AIDS.
I have very strong opinions on the subject of birth control and prophylaxis, and I know other people do as well. I'm going to do my best to convince anyone that will listen that my opinion is correct, simply because preventing pregnancy in the first place beats abortion and seeing one person die from AIDs was enough.
Those are 21st century realities.
point two: If the Santorum debate wasn't about religion at all I wouldn't care one bit. However, the fact of the matter is that it is about religion with Santorm. You can't separate his religious views with his political outlook. What happens between two consenting adults is none of the government's business, end of discussion.
To wit, Santorum said: ""One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Wait? SUPPOSED TO BE? Based on what, if not religion?
As noted above, I am all for open discussion of the issues. That doesn't mean I can't hold a certain viewpoint as completely ignorant because I believe that it is perfectly OK to use a condom and anybody who thinks otherwise is blind to the very real facts of life in the 21st century. Religion and science have no business being in the same room together when it comes to birth control or the prevention of STDs.
Science relies on objective, empirical evidence and is subject to rigor.
Religion is an opinion based on faith.
I don't want decisions that affect my life based on religion. That is all.
Now, having said all that, it appears as if he doesn't let his personal opinion guide him 100%. That makes him a hypocrite, too, and we have enough of those in politics from both parties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo
oldsaw wrote: Is Bachman a member because the "Tea Party" wholly embraces her politics or because she is seen as a "means to an end"? I don't know and neither do you........
What difference does it make? If she's a means to an end, then that makes my point - they sold out.
And, once again, I'll point out that I posted an observation in a very straightforward way with no rhetorical bent and was met with a hostile response. So, once again, I'll leave you all to your fun and go find an interesting thread about cars.
If Bachmann is a means to an end, and the end is anything other than bat-E36 M3 crazy, you need to find another means.
if she is a means to an end.. I hope the end is not near
Just going to throw this out there, even though it is against my policy of posting in political/religious/moral issue threads:
I am a Catholic. I am also pro-life. I am not pro-life because I am Catholic; I am pro life because I view abortion as murder. Actually, for this view I look at the scientific facts. A zygote is a living human cell with a unique set of DNA that is different than the mothers. I think that any loss of human life is a sad thing that should be avoided other than extreme situations (Osama Bin Laden, for example). It is the same reason that I am against the death penalty; aside from the fact that it is cheaper to keep the prisoner alive than it is to kill them, the system does fail and innocent people are wrongly executed. If one person in a million is wrongly executed, that is one person too many.
mtn wrote: Just going to throw this out there, even though it is against my policy of posting in political/religious/moral issue threads: I am a Catholic. I am also pro-life. I am not pro-life because I am Catholic; I am pro life because I view abortion as murder. Actually, for this view I look at the scientific facts. A zygote is a living human cell with a unique set of DNA that is different than the mothers. I think that any loss of human life is a sad thing that should be avoided other than extreme situations (Osama Bin Laden, for example). It is the same reason that I am against the death penalty; aside from the fact that it is cheaper to keep the prisoner alive than it is to kill them, the system does fail and innocent people are wrongly executed. If one person in a million is wrongly executed, that is one person too many.
I couldn't have said this better. I agree with you 100%.
I'll add that from my experience with pro-life groups, the majority of Catholics that are there aren't there out of some sense of religious duty. They are because having reasoned through the issues, they've found that pro-life message and goals make the most sense.
Brett_Murphy wrote: Now, having said all that, it appears as if he doesn't let his personal opinion guide him 100%. That makes him a hypocrite, too, and we have enough of those in politics from both parties.
You had me until this.
There is a great deal of importance for leaders to be able to separate themselves from their personal opinions when representing a constituency.
That's not hypocrisy. That's leadership.
You'll need to log in to post.
