"I am a church-going Catholic who is morally opposed to gay marriage and abortion, but"

[Ninja Jordan]

I nevertheless am not opposed to the government granting people these rights; I just do not favor them personally."


Someone told me this today. Is there room for this person in the Democratic Party?

[jenmito]

1. That's his/her choice. Do they WANT to be in our party? If so, why?

If they want to be part of our party, why not?

[pnwmom]

24. Probably because there are many more issues than these two that

separate the Rethugs and the Dems.

Catholics, for instance, have traditionally voted for Dems in high numbers, though Bush did succeed in peeling more of them away in 2004.

[jenmito]

40. Then they should be welcome in our party as I said.

If they want to, let them.

[PDJane]

2. You betcha.

Religion is a fine thing to help you run your own life. It's when your religion wants to run everyone else's that I have problems with it.

[bdamomma]

yes, that is how I view it also, do not impose your religion on me.

and if a person has certain views on abortion that is their choice that is what made or makes this country diverse.

[rox63]

3. Absolutely!

In fact, that is the personal position of both of my liberal Dem Senators. They simply don't impose their religious positions on others.

[niyad]

4. this person is clearly stating that s/he has no wish to impose her/his values on others. what is

problem?

[Ninja Jordan]

6. I don't have a problem.

Im simply seeing if members here do.

[Glorfindel]

5. Why not? Except for the "government granting rights" thing

There are LOTS of things I don't favor personally, but that doesn't keep me from being a good Democrat. :dem:

[bunkerbuster1]

8. We're not supposed to come out and say that the government grants rights

that they come from our Creator, or whatever.

Bottom line, they don't mean diddly squat without government enforcement.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Exactly right. (And just to underline what you said: the

government doesn't "grant rights".)

[Ninja Jordan]

30. Who does?

[JerseygirlCT]

32. The government may need pushing in order to recognize rights

but rights simply exist. Rights are what we have before government gets into the picture. Rights come before government.

[bunkerbuster1]

7. Of course there's a place for this person.

That position describes plenty of Democrats.

It's all about the civil rights, the responsibility of our government to enforce the inherent rights of all citizens as codified in the Constitution.

If you have a personal opposition to abortion and gay marriage, hey, we can talk. No biggie.

[CitizenLeft]

9. yep

I imagine everyone is "morally" opposed to abortion, I've never met a "pro-abortion" person in my entire life. I certainly could never have one myself, but it's not my place to judge someone else who does. That makes me pro-choice, and from what this person says, she feels the same way.

[Ninja Jordan]

11. Morally opposed in that they think it is murder.

[noamnety]

19. You imagine wrong.

Not everyone is "morally" opposed to abortion. Some of us are neutral on it, in the same way I am neutral as to whether you use the pill, or an IUD, or no birth control. Your uterus just isn't part of my life, and I'm not interested in passing judgement on it.

I'm more apt to pass judgment on people who oppose abortions under some "pro-life" stance, who don't bother to donate blood each and every time they are eligible, on the day they are eligible - because they can't be bothered to be "inconvenienced" to save a life when it's their OWN convenience they are talking about.

That's unrelated to which party they want to register in, if any. That, too, is their own business.

[CitizenLeft]

42. I imagine "wrong"?

My opinion is "wrong?" Wow. Who knew. My apologies. I should've checked with you first before I posted.

I'm sure no one is "pro" abortion, meaning, yeah, let's kill babies, like the extremists like to shriek outside family planning centers. No one WANTS to abort fetuses. No one sets out - gets pregnant - to do so, an accusation some extremists make. That is morally repulsive. Is it okay to say that? Is it okay to feel that? Did I imagine wrong about that?

Geezohman.

[noamnety]

44. Yes, you imagine wrong.

I imagine everyone is "morally" opposed to abortion <-- wrong

If my opinion was that the war has successfully changed the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and they are grateful to us for having invaded their country, well, then my opinion would be wrong. Sometimes opinions are wrong.

Everyone doesn't equate getting an abortion to "killing babies."

Everyone is not an extremist, falling into either the far right (abortion is murder, morally reprehensible) or the far ... I don't even know what you would call your caricature of the "opposite" position - being "pro-abortion."

The centrist position on this is having no moral problems with getting an abortion, and no moral problems with giving birth - the essence of pro-choice.

[karynnj]

48. Do you agree that it is destroying potential life?

You equate morally wrong to killing babies, then make the case that not everyone thinks it is "killing babies". The point is that their is a serious moral dimension for most people in making the decision whether or not to have an abortion.

[noamnety]

50. I'm not interesting in arguing with you about YOUR morals.

I am merely stating that you are incorrect if you believe "everyone" shares your view that getting an abortion has a "serious moral dimension."

[karynnj]

54. Ok - obviously I am wrong in using the word "everyone"

as it takes only one exception to disprove it. I should have said, "most of the people I have ever heard talk about it." How large a percent of the population do you think do not think that abortion has a serious moral dimension?

[noamnety]

61. Another thing I'm not interested in:

estimating public opinion. I'm not a pollster by trade. What I know is that almost half of all American women have had abortions.

[karynnj]

62. Do you have a link for that -- it is far higher than any estimate I ever heard of

and i don't believe it. It also don't prove anything on the issue that you were responding to, unless you assume that all women who have abortions do not see it as having a serious moral component to the decision.

[iverglas]

65. a bit out of date

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/print/georgia.html

Abortion is a common experience: At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children; 67% have never married; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 41% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 32% are black non-Hispanic, 20% are Hispanic and 7% are of other racial backgrounds.

What I actually find interesting about the figures is the extrapolation to how many women experience unwanted pregnancy in their lives. Obviously, not all women choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. So obviously, I'd say, a good half of all women have an unwanted pregnancy at some time or other. Funny how nobody prepares us for dealing with it. Just my even farther off-topic musing.

[noamnety]

66. link

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uAezYEz3xCIJ:www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/Pence92903.doc+%22Almost+half+of+American+women+(43+percent)+will+have+an+abortion+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

(if the long link doesn't work, here's the word doc version: www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/Pence92903.doc)

They are quoting planned parenthood as the source.

[iverglas]

64. and how about

... how large a percent of the population does not think that abortion has a serious moral dimension?

I couldn't care less about that, myself. Especially if it's someone else's abortion they're thinking it about.

I only care when such people start trying to make laws and policies that turn their notions about morality into rules for people who disagree with them to have to follow or have bad things happen to them.

And I still don't care what they think about the moral dimensions of whatever it is they're on about, really.

[noamnety]

69. I think the morality police can cause harm beyond just laws

Having done the occasional stint as a clinic escort, it's clear that they are specifically trying to make women feel miserable and guilt-ridden, and ostracized - as if women don't already have enough society-induced negative baggage they carry around about their bodies. Women got enough body-related trauma just from being women in this society - enough that just going for a regular exam is traumatic for some, and many women avoid it. One woman I know was telling me last week that when she went for her first exam, the minute she put her feet in the stirrups, she burst into tears, and she never stopped sobbing until it was over. That's not a reaction that is formed in a vacuum. It's the result of all those messages women get throughout their life. The morality police are just one more layer - standing in judgment over half the women in the US, letting those women know they are immoral. (But you know, it's not misogynistic at all to contribute to that condemnation of women en masse, right?)

It's like any sort of bigotry - it can exist and cause harm even in the absence of laws reinforcing that bigotry. If gay people are teased and ostracized and continually get the message that they are immoral, it causes harm, and would do so even if the laws gave them equal rights.

/rant :)

[iverglas]

70. oh, fer sure

I guess I meant to make clearer that I don't care what they think -- certainly there are other things they can do that are just as ugly as trying to have formal measures like laws taken.

They can have all the moral qualms they like. As long as they leave the rest of us the hell alone. And yes, the public cacaphony of moral-qualm bleaters can be just as harmful as any X marked on a ballot.

I got the impression that the person described in the opening post wasn't a member of the brigade, in the sense that s/he keeps the qualms in question to him/herself. Except when asked, or such, I suppose.

I can never think of an analogous situation I might find myself in, so that I can offer my own fine behaviour as a model of what to do when you have moral qualms about what somebody else chooses to do in a purely personal matter that affects no one else. I just don't find myself having moral qualms about what other people do that just isn't any of my business at all.

[CitizenLeft]

74. I don't know what to call YOUR caricature either...

... there is such a thing as gray area - ever heard of it? - which is actually where I "stand" if I had to stand anywhere on this issue - hence my deliberate use of vague language like "I imagine" - designed to stave off people ready to fight the moment the word "abortion" is even mentioned - every bit as extreme as the nutcases who scream epithets like "baby-killer." You represent the caricature of someone incapable of accepting anyone else's opinion on ANYTHING... as you display on this thread by nickpicking and zeroing in on even the mildest stance in what you THINK is "oppostion" to what you THINK is ultimate "truth." I don't even "oppose" you, we probably agree, I was simply giving a fucking opinion, one mild as hell, which, last time I checked, WAS MY RIGHT. Yes, you have equal right to your opinion too, but how about expressing it without calling me a cariature and without proclaiming what I IMAGINE... what I imagine, LOL... is WRONG? What do you think? Is it possible?

Talk about thought police... I saw the other comments down there, and your comments are the ultimate in policing what people THINK. You even have to stop them from "imagining." Wow.

[iverglas]

63. ah, the backpedaling

What you actually said -- what lwfern was very clearly responding to -- was:

I imagine everyone is "morally" opposed to abortion, I've never met a "pro-abortion" person in my entire life.

Those are two entirely separate and quite different thoughts.

I don't doubt you've never met a "pro-abortion" person, although I can imagine someone being "pro-abortion" in some extreme circumstances. Like if we really have over-populated ourselves nearly into extinction.

But what you said before that was that you imagine everyone is "morally" opposed to abortion. (That isn't an "opinion" by the way, for the love of mike. It's your statement of what you imagine other people think. What other people think isn't really a matter of your opinion; it's something you could know, or guess at, or have no clue about, but it's still a fact that doesn't depend on any opinion of yours.)

So let me try to help you out too. I am not "morally" opposed to abortion. An abortion is a procedure undertaken by a woman, on her own body, to carry out a decision that she has made based on what she believes to be her best interests, and whatever other considerations may have gone into her decision-making process. It's absolutely and very simply none of my business.



I'm sure no one is "pro" abortion, meaning, yeah, let's kill babies, like the extremists like to shriek outside family planning centers. No one WANTS to abort fetuses. No one sets out - gets pregnant - to do so, an accusation some extremists make. That is morally repulsive. Is it okay to say that? Is it okay to feel that? Did I imagine wrong about that?

Yeah, and what would be especially "morally repulsive" about it would be that they were referring to abortion as "killing babies". Kinda like you just did.

[CitizenLeft]

75. OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE

JESUS CHRIST, I should've known better than to have even ventured in on this thread. I'll never make that mistake again. The word "abortion" makes some people lose their fucking minds. I don't even CARE about abortion, it's not a major issue with me, never was, never will be - I don't have children, and I only know of 2 women who've ever had an abortion, and one I helped get through it! "Backpedaling?" I don't have to backpedal! I DON'T FUCKING CARE. I was merely defending my mild vague "I imagine" phrase which somehow equates me with a PRO-LIFER and got me lectured to because I dared to QUOTE what pro-lifers say?! ROTFL! What the hell is wrong with you people? AND, and I don't care what YOU or lwfern or who the hell ever ELSE thinks about abortion either! I'm just defending ME! Are you able to grasp that??? Jesus!

Pedantic fucking liberals! Of which I am one on issues I care about! But this isn't one of them! I understand where you're coming from on that, it's apparently an intensely personal issue with some people... but what the hell!

DU Rule #14 - NEVER NEVER EVER make a comment about something which is not DEEPLY INTENSELY PERSONAL to you which you are not prepared to defend with your last dying breath.

:eyes:

[noamnety]

76. My objection

was that thought-process (paraphrasing) "I think this is how EVERYONE feels" which goes beyond "just defending me."

I don't like other people presuming that their beliefs are mine. It's rude, and I'm guessing you don't like it when people do that to you.

I imagine everyone deep down is an atheist. <--- offensive, right?
I imagine everyone deep down is a Christian. <--- ditto
I imagine everyone has moral problems with being gay
I imagine everyone has moral problems with interracial marriages
I imagine everyone has moral problems with women who have unwanted pregnancies deciding not to give birth.

All offensive. I would hope that any statements like that on DU get challenged, if not by me, then by someone else.

[CitizenLeft]

77. dear God

"I imagine everyone is "morally" opposed to abortion, I've never met a "pro-abortion" person in my entire life."

HOW is that "presuming what your beliefs" are? I don't know you and I don't CARE what your beliefs are. Let me repeat that - I DON'T CARE! I don't presume, and I don't care! Why did you take that so personally? It was a non-judmental general remark that had absolutely NO personal basis whatsoever - especially since I wasn't even posting to you! Are you FOR abortion? Do you protest with signs that say "EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION?" I'm sure you do not. And if you did... I DON'T CARE! I would simply ignore it. So you are not a "pro-abortion" person in that respect, and like I said, I've never met one. This is not some out-there in outer space opinion, it's one I share with Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes, who have said similar things before many times in answer to pro-life rhetoric. How you managed to conflate all that other shit onto that one comment is amazing.

I imagine everyone deep down is an atheist. <--- offensive, right? NO! I DON'T CARE!
I imagine everyone deep down is a Christian. <--- ditto - NO! I DON'T CARE!
I imagine everyone has moral problems with being gay - NO! I DON'T CARE!
I imagine everyone has moral problems with interracial marriages - NO! I DON'T CARE!
I imagine everyone has moral problems with women who have unwanted pregnancies deciding not to give birth. - NO! I DON'T CARE!

Unlike you, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK! I have a moral compass - which I'm sure you do - and I stick to it... I don't let what you or anybody else thinks effect it, as I'm sure what I said didn't effect yours. Now did it? I am the opposite of thought police - you want to think those things, so be it. You want to say those things, so be it. Nothing in that list is offensive enough for me to insult you. It's that simple. What I DO object to is telling me what I can and can't think. I'll tussle with the best on them on a lot of issues, but as to something so mild as what I said? No. You have a right to imagine that deep down everyone is an atheist/Christian/whatever if you like. Give me the same courtesy.

On edit, I'm adding this because I'm verbally diarhetic by nature and can't stop myself: this post sounds like I don't care about anything. Not true. You want to see me be passionate and go ballistic, imply that black people are this, hip-hoppers are that, gays are pedephiles, poor people are lazy, dogs are just dogs and who cares if they die, who cares about Muslims - fuck 'em, and, yes, women who have abortions use it for birth control. Now saying ANY of those extreme comments will get my dander up, and I'll really be offended, and probably say so. Just clarifying. Now I'm going to make another general, non-personal statement... because this is a liberal board, I imagine that everyone on DU would also be offended by those remarks. I KNOW it's not true, I've fought with them for saying things exactly like I just listed... but I can imagine it. :)

[Ellen Forradalom]

10. Of course. This person would remain free

to not seek an abortion and to not marry a person of the same sex.

[cuke]

12. I hear that stuff all the time

My 88 yo best friend who died 3 years ago was married to a woman who would rant for 30 minutes straight about the evils of abortion and how horrible it was for women to kill their babies, all of which would be finished with "but the govt needs to keep their mitts out of this. Women have enough problems without some politician telling us how to live"

[rocktivity]

13. Yes, because he's keeping his morals to himself

and not expecting the government to deny them to others.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Burma Jones]

14. Of Course, they have separated their religious beliefs from their civic duty

That's something admirable.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Fine with me.

[YOY]

16. Sounds like my Mom. She is already a Democrat.

n/t

[Warpy]

17. This person recognizes his religion ends at

the surface of his/her skin. In other words, s/he doesn't want to outlaw things his religion says are sins.

Sure, there's room for him/her. There's room for people who think eating pork is a terrible sin. There's room for people who think killing insects is a sin.

There's just no room for people who want to outlaw things that are sins in their church's opinion, whether or not the rest of us share it.

[Speck Tater]

18. In some areas I am very conservative.

My philosophy, however, is that I have the right to ACT as conservatively as I want as long as I am very liberal in what I accept from others. For example, I don't use profanity in my speech and writing, but I am not even slightly offended by those who do. I can refuse to do a certain thing, yet not be bothered by those who choose to do that thing. I can refrain from drinking, but keep a six pack in the fridge for when my beer-drinking friends visit. I can be unequivocally straight, but gladly welcome my gay friends into my home. It's called tolerance.

[karynnj]

49. Beautiful answer

[YOY]

55. That's not "tolerance" it's "acceptance"...If I may quibble

n/t

[wyldwolf]

20. of course there is

Do you think FDR was for gay marriage and abortion? Truman? JFK?

[Lucinda]

21. Of course. They share the views of lots of Dems.

Just curious, why do you ask?

[zbdent]

22. sounds like rationalizing the person's vote for

Rudy ...

[pnwmom]

25. Not really. n/t

[jenmito]

23. So I hope everyone who said yes feels the same about Obama allowing that McBigot guy to sing...

right? I mean, if he doesn't mind singing for an openly-pro-gay rights candidate, why should people make such a big deal of it? I wonder if that was the point of your post. I HOPE it was.

[pnwmom]

27. For a candidate to associate a homophobe in a highly visible spot in his campaign

is a completely different matter.

Yes, the singer may be voting for Obama despite his differing views on gay people. But Obama shouldn't be giving this guy a platform and a connection with his campaign.

[jenmito]

34. I disagree...

It's hardly "associating" a homophobe in a highly visible spot in his CAMPAIGN. Obama's just having him SING, not spout his views. He's not being given a platform to do anything but sing.

[flpoljunkie]

26. Absolutely.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. That's how most Democrats feel?

Whether they are Catholic or not.

[WCGreen]

31. DK use to be pro-life up until he ran for president...

The local dem's here in the Cleveland area are very Catholic and very pro-life...

[Ninja Jordan]

33. Yep, then he flip-flopped.

[WCGreen]

35. When I was running for office in a district that was overlapped by the

10th congressional, I clearly stated that I was pro-choice...

I got creamed...

[jefferson_dem]

36. Of course, there's room for this person in the Party.

If not...we suck!

[RebelSansCause]

37. besides the fact that there must be or we would

not have a democratic party, this person recognizes the boundaries of their morality and others'. they realize that they should not superimpose their morals on to another person. this is a rational and logical person, obviously we welcome them.

[closeupready]

38. Sure why not? As long as she isn't promoting policies that would actively

take rights away from others or deny them rights, and she wants to be Democratic, fine. I see no problem with that. It's not like I personally need to make her acquaintance or anything.

[TwilightGardener]

39. That defines many Catholic Democrats I know. I guess you want to kick them out?

[bryant69]

41. There should be

There are two different questions - what should people do and what should people be permitted to do. It's the role of government to decide what people should be permitted to do, and woman should be permitted to do with their bodies as they choose to.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CyberPieHole]

43. Yes. n/t

[fightindonkey]

45. Anyone Can Be In The Party. Politicians Voting That Way? No.

[karynnj]

46. Sure - it's actually the position of many Democratic leaders

I know it's pretty close to where John Kerry was in 2004 - and you end up with a pretty small party if you draw the line to exclude him.

[LanternWaste]

47. It appears to me that this person seems to be...

It appears to me that this person seems to be doing a more than adequate job in separating personal/religious issues from civil issues, and recognizes that the equality of all Americans legally supersedes his own belief system.

Looks like there's some room in the tent...

[CTLawGuy]

51. If they support Obama

of course not! but if they support anyone else, yeah sure.

[Baby Snooks]

52. I am a recovered Catholic

I am a recovered Catholic who is morally opposed to the Catholic Church but nevertheless I am not opposed to the government granting these people the right to be hateful and contentious and demeaning towards other human beings in the name of their Nazi Pope and their Mean Old Man in the Sky along with other Christians who also believe in the Mean Old Man in the Sky although other Christians don't believe in the Nazi Pope which I suppose makes them a little more tolerable. At least they protested at one point. The problem with Protestants is they stopped protesting.

I have a similar problem with Jews and Muslims at this point although I like my inner Jewish mama archetype and will defend her until death! I have converted several times to various things. Was never saved. But the inner Jewish mama at least survived. No doubt an inner pagan something. My personal belief is that there is something wrong with people who believe in a Mean Old Man in the Sky and go around killing each other in his name. This god of Abraham apparently has some very dysfunctional children. And is obviously a little dysfunctional himself. Beware the gods and goddesses. And most especially beware their gurus.

Is there room for me in any party? At this point, probably not. But I will continue to vote Democratic just the same.

[sampsonblk]

53. That is a very superficial way to put it. Try this way

Dig a little, then ask yourself the question again.

Why are they morally opposed to gay marriage?

A: Because they believe that gay sex is an abomination before God, and they believe that all who engage in it or openly condone it are going to hell unless they repent.

Why are they morally opposed to abortion?

A: Because they believe its the murder of one of God's defenseless children.


Is there still room for them in the party?

[Ninja Jordan]

56. Agreed. Assume that is their justification.

I STILL think there is plenty of room.

[sampsonblk]

57. So do I - nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

58. There is plenty of room fo them

unless they are outspoken crusaders against the rights of people.

Every party is full of all conceivable private attitudes. The question is whether the party should *showcase* people (like McClurkin) who went on national television to urge people to support Bush in 2004 because of the rightness of Bush's "war on the curse of homosexuality."

This issue has nothing to do with whether pro-choice people are welcome. They are. People who harass women trying to get into a clinic are not.

It's a BIG difference.

[PATRICK]

59. Groan

That IS the stand of most of the party. Laws to protect but not raise up the beliefs of one individual over and against another. Try to get any gun advocate or person with concerns on moral or even economic issue to understand the ideology is service and the commons and the protection of the rights of the individual. It is not just "if you're not against them you are against me" but also we hear "if you let them live and let live you must be against me." It is more than big tent pragmatism for Dems. It is what government should be all about with the boundaries being the same ethics that apply to all service professions being applied in service of the Constitution. OUR party is not crusading to place a minority in the god seat, just the same place reserved for each citizen of the nation. The party that DOES exalt a righteous minority created the very framework of this question, no fault of the questioner under constant deceptive assault by the same. And who can blame anyone for fear and mistrust when it is the mainstay projected by the doers upon the sole party that actually is the only one offering dutiful service to the nation with regard to individual rights.

If the extreme stands of gun owners somehow cause the deaths of may urbanites and police it is a concern of the Dems, not a crusade against gun owners and a plot to disarm the sheep. The ones actually possessing gun-owners names on a database is the one trumpeting the promise they can have anything they want, do anything they want- for a suitable donation. But because the Dems don't charge for wild promises they can't keep for a sane society, they are not trusted like the demagogues. A false sense of security and morality is better than the discomforts of reality- at least in controlled politics.

In the end though it is the weakness of Dems to stand up for rights that most worry, legitimately, those who may not like some of the things supposedly protected. That is what makes them uneasy about it whether the reasons are accepted or not. Whether it is a secret plot by Dems to disarm you or being simply not there when some power decides to, the end result has to be distrust and alienation. I think if Dems were clearer and more forceful about these issues, more people would understand and respect where they are coming from whether they vote for the party or not. Believe it or not any normal dem has issues of one strong sort or the other with the party top to bottom. There is so much room we wonder if we have sorted anything out at all, but certainly in all the ruckus there is room only for those who respect each other and their values. This whole "the party left me" mantra is a false cliche. The party is imperfect and growing fitfully, hopefully in the right directions with our stubborn input hopefully positive to the process. The other party is the super salesman who is your pal with a wonderful lemon for you to buy. They'll make you feel good about anything in a smooth, polished way.

[UrbScotty]

60. I actually fit into that very well.

Personally, I believe abortion is wrong; yet at the same time I know that sometimes it's necessary.

I also personally think that the word 'marriage' should apply to unions of one man and one woman. Yet at the same time I do no feel threatened by two men or two women loving each other, and am distressed that homoexual couples do not have the same rights as do heterosexual couples.

Ysw, I am a Catholic and a Democrat at the same time.

[Vektor]

67. Yes there is. If they have a differing opinion than I do, that's ok.

And let it be said - they do. I have no moral opposition to either of those things mentioned, but as long as they to not want laws created to suit their prejudices that will strip others of their rights, then I am ok with them personally feeling whatever they want.

I know a few people like that, and I get along with them. We agree to disagree, and I know that they have no desire to deprive people of those individual rights, they just don't believe in those things for themselves.

[ulysses]

68. sure.

[MasonJar]

71. Of course! The key is letting the other person decide his/her own

course based on that individual's ideals. Sounds like a perfect fit for the Democratic Party as the party should be. If the GOPer goons corner you on the Bible, just refer them to St Paul in Corinthians I (I think chapter 10, verse 21) where he asks (paraphrased) why should my judgements be subject to someone else's conscience? That pretty much sums up the whole so-called ball of wax. Christians, who cherry pick the Bible, need extensive tutoring on the words and life example of Jesus and his disciples.

[beaconess]

72. I don't have any problem with that

People feel the way they feel about things. It's when they expect the government to endorse and enforce their personal views that we get into problem area.

I am personlly opposed to abortion. So I wouldn't have one. But I know that this is a very delicate and complicated personal, moral issue and that others may feel differently than I do. It's not up to me or the government to force my view on everyone else, especially on such a close question.

On the other hand, I am not opposed to gay marriage, but understand that there are people who genuinely have a problem with it. That's their right. But I don't believe that they have a right to force that view on the rest of us.

It sounds like this person is willing to recognize that their views on these issues are not shared by everyone, that they respect other people's opinions, and they don't expect the government to take their side and force everyone else to go along with it. I think there's plenty of room for people like that in the Decmoratic Party.

[stranger81]

73. If they're not opposed to government recognition of such rights, then I hope there's room

'cause we need all the help we can get.