• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How can you be a Catholic and vote Democrat?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: chess9
Medellon:

Overturning Roe v. Wade, just in case you didn't understand plain English from my prior posts, would be the biggest mistake the Supremes could make. It would lead to an incredible culture war and would most certainly be a severe body blow to Republicans. As long as they have the issue to run on against the Dems they can claim the moral high ground. Once they've won that major issue they will then have to not only find another issue, but SURVIVE politically. You don't seem to understand that many many Republicans do not want to see Roe v. Wade reversed. Forget it. It ain't gonna happen because these judges understand this game as well. Also, just in case you aren't aware, overturning such a large PRECEDENT would probably put the Supreme Court's budget, which Congress must approve in serious harm's way when the Dems take control. The judges complain every year about their budget proposals being slashed in Committee like they were the county dog catcher. Trust me, this issue is much bigger than you could possibly comprehend. It would be a pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion crowd. It ain't gonna happen. Fuhgetaboutit.


-Robert
Click to expand...

interesting commentary robert. Had'nt though about it that way but I'm a believer now🙂

Add in the fact no republican elected officals are'nt really vocal, or propose legeslation, about thier opposition to abortion outside of talks to clergy, make me really believe they defacto support it using it as only a wegde issue to get votes from the devout.
 
Originally posted by: chess9
Overturning Roe v. Wade, just in case you didn't understand plain English from my prior posts, would be the biggest mistake the Supremes could make. It would lead to an incredible culture war and would most certainly be a severe body blow to Republicans. As long as they have the issue to run on against the Dems they can claim the moral high ground. Once they've won that major issue they will then have to not only find another issue, but SURVIVE politically. You don't seem to understand that many many Republicans do not want to see Roe v. Wade reversed. Forget it. It ain't gonna happen because these judges understand this game as well. Also, just in case you aren't aware, overturning such a large PRECEDENT would probably put the Supreme Court's budget, which Congress must approve in serious harm's way when the Dems take control. The judges complain every year about their budget proposals being slashed in Committee like they were the county dog catcher. Trust me, this issue is much bigger than you could possibly comprehend. It would be a pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion crowd. It ain't gonna happen. Fuhgetaboutit.
Click to expand...
There is no moral high ground to be had in not actually attacking the issue. If the Republicans demonstrate themselves impotent to make changes in this regard in the next few years, they will no longer receive support at least from myself. The reason I stand so adamantly behind Bush in this election is because of the singular possibility that he can have a direct impact on this issue, as well as others that I deem important. I believe that changing the law to align it with ethical principles is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do, not because it will win or lose you elections. I don't care if they lose every election thereafter - but I will still cast my vote on the side that will (theoretically) move to correct wrongdoing.

As for a culture war, I believe it has already begun. I have heard it suggested that everyone who is socially liberal can have one half of the country and everyone else can have the other half. These issues are extremely divisive and not to be taken lightly. We must, as a society, compromise on them or split. Problem is, most of them are not issues on which compromise can reasonably be achieved. So, we reach a crossroads. The direction that society takes will be governed ultimately by one of two factors: the rule of the majority or the rule of the courts. The courts believe they are ruling for liberty, and I might agree with them if I didn't see an agenda behind their decisions on these issues. If you read the dissenting opinions from justices on social issues, they are unanimously disgusted with the manner in which rulings have been issued with complete disregard for precedent and constitutionality. For example, Rehnquist's opinion from Roe v Wade.

For myself, I know what I believe based on what I know and believe. I cannot deny that religion inevitably affects my judgments on social issues, but I am actually bound by my religion to argue for or against these issues based on logic. Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of Americans have absolutely NO education on such pivotal issues and will believe whoever tells them what to believe first. Because of this, I don't believe justice can be served by our current system. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we are terribly close to that limit.
 
"I am actually bound by my religion to argue for or against these issues based on logic."

We all know that already, we knew it when you proclaimed your objection to abortion was not based on any religous belief. Unfortunately your religions beliefs are in direct contradiction with natural law and logic, as the case I mentioned above. If you wish to prove my points wrong and answer my questions through mathematics as you stated above, please do, here they are again:


The religious basis for your objection to homosexual marriage is?????

Intriguing, so it is the act of homosexuality which is the primary objection and sin, therefore the church could not santicfy any marriage compirsed of a homesexual couple. Correct?

So even practicing homosexuality outside of any official union is a sin that must be repented?

What makes it a sin, is it the act itself, or the choice of committing the act?

What is sin? Is man the only creature capable of sin?

would agree the act must be inherently sinful by God, how could practicing it be sinfull if the act itself was not the main moral objection. Practicing it would also be a sin, as man alone has the ability to choose based on moral reasoning. Animals do not have that capacity, they cannot commit acts of sin. They have been preprogrammed by the BIG MAN HIMSELF to follows all the laws of nature, no logical thought or moral values needed.

The problem I have is this:

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

http://www.salon.com/it/featur...03/cov_15featurea.html

Could you explain why it is obviously very natural for homosexuality to occur in hundred of living things besides man, yet your religion has somehow developed this notion it is against His grand design and therefore a sinfull act in its nature, and also by it's choice?


I could mathematically prove you wrong and you would still say 'nice dodge' or 'hahaha you're wrong' or that I'm personally attacking you. Your complete disregard for intelligence and logic force me to question why you are even posting here. Then, I arrive at the obvious truth: you're just another troll out for blood trying to get under my skin because you can't address any issues yourself. CycloWizard




Prove me wrong, mathematically if possible, LMAO, and keep the personal attacks on my intelligence to yourself, those are ASSUMPTIONS, not exactly the trademark of a bright mind.
 
What is in bold seems rather personal and harsh, you insist on calling me a troll, I think you should be banned, FOREVER, hhhmmm.........

If you can't answer my questions dont bother, if you can't without making personal comments I would suggest NOT saying anything at all...... 😉
 
Originally posted by: Medellon
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Medellon
Are you a homosexual Alistar7?
Click to expand...

Let me ask my wife and kids, hold on....
Click to expand...

Okay, while you're at it why don't you have your good friend James McGreevey ask his too.
Click to expand...


This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McGreevey

Don't know him personally, sorry, why would you assume that I do?

I was asking legitimate questions, which thankfully drpootums was answering, what is your purpose?
I merely see a direct conflict with natural law, scientific research, and concepts inherent in your religion in relation to the issue of homosexuality.
 
Originally posted by: drpootums
also, you always ask for a womens opinion. well, my mother has had 2 c-sections for my brother and my sister, while i was born naturally. My brother and my sister could of been a threat to my mother's life, but she is strongly, VERY STRONGLY against abortion. I thank God my bro and sis are here.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
What scientific research is there to prove that homosexuality is genetic? Homosexuality is not innate...it can be changed and that my friend is a fact.
 
Originally posted by: Medellon
What scientific reasearch is there to prove that homosexuality is genetic? Homosexuality is not innate...it can be changed and that my friend is a fact.
Click to expand...


Answer these questions for me please.

The religious basis for your objection to homosexual marriage is?????

Intriguing, so it is the act of homosexuality which is the primary objection and sin, therefore the church could not santicfy any marriage compirsed of a homesexual couple. Correct?

So even practicing homosexuality outside of any official union is a sin that must be repented?

What makes it a sin, is it the act itself, or the choice of committing the act?

What is sin? Is man the only creature capable of sin?

would agree the act must be inherently sinful by God, how could practicing it be sinfull if the act itself was not the main moral objection. Practicing it would also be a sin, as man alone has the ability to choose based on moral reasoning. Animals do not have that capacity, they cannot commit acts of sin. They have been preprogrammed by the BIG MAN HIMSELF to follows all the laws of nature, no logical thought or moral values needed.

The problem I have is this:

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

http://www.salon.com/it/featur...03/cov_15featurea.html

Could you explain why it is obviously very natural for homosexuality to occur in hundred of living things besides man, yet your religion has somehow developed this notion it is against His grand design and therefore a sinfull act in its nature, and also by it's choice?


Do you still believe homosexuality is something that is caused by and therefore can also be changed by free will and choice? Do animals have that capability?
 
Originally posted by: Medellon
What scientific research is there to prove that homosexuality is genetic? Homosexuality is not innate...it can be changed and that my friend is a fact.
Click to expand...
Don't waste your time. As I stated, you could mathematically prove that he was wrong and he would still call you names and ignore anything you post. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away. Still not sure why he wasn't banned for posting PMs...
 
Nobody is saying that a person chooses to be gay, it is a little more pyschologically (but not genetically) complex than that. Yes, I still believe homosexuality can be changed. And you forget one wee bit difference between us and other animals, the ability to reason and know right from wrong.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Medellon
What scientific research is there to prove that homosexuality is genetic? Homosexuality is not innate...it can be changed and that my friend is a fact.
Click to expand...
Don't waste your time. As I stated, you could mathematically prove that he was wrong and he would still call you names and ignore anything you post. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away. Still not sure why he wasn't banned for posting PMs...
Click to expand...

Because I don't dodge like yourself. Dont claim you can prove me wrong and then not, especially resorting to personal attacks as you have with myself and OTHERS HERE.

Go ahead, prove my QUESTIONS wrong, BTW questions are not statements or facts, rather hard to disprove but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you come across as such an intelligent person.

 
Cyclo:


Spouts off and makes mistakes, gets called on them, ignores that and attacks personally, calls for ban.....

Would you like links to OTHER threads where you have repeatedly gone through this "circle jerk" cycle Cyclo? This is why YOU are called a troll by others besides myself, and more than likely one of the main reasons I don't get banned for calling you on it, like others. I don't see anyone else calling ME a troll, would you like links where YOU are......
 
Originally posted by: Medellon
Nobody is saying that a person chooses to be gay, it is a little more pyschologically (but not genetically) complex than that. Yes, I still believe homosexuality can be changed. And you forget one wee bit difference between us and other animals, the ability to reason and know right from wrong.
Click to expand...

Reread my questions then, I think you missed the whole point....

Sad part is there are really good arguments on both sides of this, unfortunately neither you or Cyclo are capable of making them apparently.
 
Let's say homosexuality was genetic, am I supposed to just give in to my pre-disposed genetic make-up and be excused of my actions and or addictions because it's genetic and I have no control over it. Funny, I believe there is a strong genetic predisposition to alcoholism and I don't think society looks very favorable on drunks and intoxicated manslaughter. Oh, but it's not their fault because it's in their genes...wah wah wah.
 
Originally posted by: Medellon
Let's say homosexuality was genetic, am I supposed to just give in to my pre-disposed genetic make-up and be excused of my actions and or addictions because it's genetic and I have no control over it. Funny, I believe there is a strong genetic predisposition to alcoholism and I don't think society looks very favorable on drunks and intoxicated manslaughter. Oh, but it's not their fault because it's in their genes...wah wah wah.
Click to expand...

Im not looking to make excuses for anyone or anything.

If you are not interested in addressing my questions individually AND understanding the scientific data you will not even be able to discuss the conflict. I'll check back tomorrow to see if you left me something along those lines to consider......
 
If homosexuality were genetic would it not have been "bred" out long ago due to the inability to procreate?
Surely a non-beliver such as yourself can understand this.
 
It is the act of homosexuality which is the primary objection and sin, therefore the church could not santicfy any marriage compirsed of a homesexual couple. Correct?

So even practicing homosexuality outside of any official union is a sin that must be repented?

What makes it a sin, is it the act itself, or the choice of committing the act?

What is sin? Is man the only creature capable of sin?

would agree the act must be inherently sinful by God, how could practicing it be sinfull if the act itself was not the main moral objection. Practicing it would also be a sin, as man alone has the ability to choose based on moral reasoning. Animals do not have that capacity, they cannot commit acts of sin. They have been preprogrammed by the BIG MAN HIMSELF to follows all the laws of nature, no logical thought or moral values needed.

The problem I have is this:

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

http://www.salon.com/it/featur...03/cov_15featurea.html

See ya tomorrow...
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Cyclo:

Spouts off and makes mistakes, gets called on them, ignores that and attacks personally, calls for ban.....

Would you like links to OTHER threads where you have repeatedly gone through this cycle Cyclo? This is why YOU are called a troll by others besides myself, and one of the reasons I don't get banned. I don't see anyone else calling ME a troll, would you like links where YOU are......
Click to expand...
Since you can't let it go, I will now make an example of you for everyone to see. Here is the first post I recall ever reading from you, from this thread.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
CycloWizard, you are the pro abortion poster child......

"This is true to a certain extent. Billions are invested in this research every year, but the technology isn't quite there yet. I would expect sweeping changes within the next decade, as the breakthrough discoveries are literally an any-day-now sort of thing. We've made great discoveries in these areas in the past few years. Just need some finishing touches and the investment in infrastructure. Oh, then decades or centuries of optimization."

Look above and check your mail for the pwned t-shirt you earned, Welcome to AT P&N where speaking out of your ASShat sometimes just makes you look like one.....

Check the biodiesel pump locations in the US, isn't it ironic there are more in CycloWizard's home state than anywhere, he must not get out too often....
Click to expand...
In that thread, you also posted PMs that YOU instigated, then were not banned for doing so. You were also demonstrated to be completely in the wrong on the subject at hand, then assumed my position as your own in direct contradiction of previous statements that you had made when I asked you yes or no questions so that there could be no doubt.

This personal attack, disregard for the rules of this forum, refusal to acknowledge any arguments that I made in my particular area of expertise, attempt to steal my position as your own after calling me the 'poster-child for abortion' for holding this view, along with your 'make a new post every time I have to start a new sentence' approach, I believe are sufficiently demonstrative for people to form their own opinions on who is the troll AND who should be banned.

Now, if you can renounce your previous personal attacks, actually consider the points that I make (particularly when I am the relevant expert in this forum, as is the case with alternative fuels and other chemical-related material), and promise to stop acting like a troll, I will address your questions. Until then, :cookie:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top