<p>justtotalk, Catholics in the US are mostly either Southern/Eastern European unionized blue collar workers or Hispanics. Both groups are more likely to vote for Democrats, hope this helps.</p>
<p>^^^How do you know this? I’m just making a bunch of assumptions; I don’t know anything about the SES distributions of Catholics–so this isn’t a defensive question I’m just curious.</p>
<p>Unionized blue collar workers are much more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. This has a lot to do with their financial beliefs; usually blue collar workers have less money than white collar workers and therefore tend to think that taxing the rich is beneficial to the government, which is what tends to be a leading point of a Democratic campaign.
Democrats are also “rah rah” for the minority, which happens to include Hispanics (but not in Arizona…) and some (but definitely not all) Europeans.</p>
<p>I will agree, however, that it is strange that these people vote Democrat when so much of the Republican platform revolves around religion (i.e. being against abortion and gay marriage). You’d think that their religious beliefs would cause them to vote more Republican than Democrat, but without said controversy, there would not be any fun in politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I said this in another thread on here.
How can you call yourself completely catholic, christian, jewish, hindu, whatever, if you only choose SOME rules of that religion to abide by? I realize society has changed, but if the Bible was REALLY written for people to follow for so long, it would be a living document like the constitution, and people would be allowed to “amend” it (so to speak).
And I wouldn’t call myself an American if I just chose to abide by a few rules of this country, because I didn’t agree with the other ones.
I wouldn’t call myself “straightedge” if I just chose to abide by their way of life but decide to do drugs anyway, just because I didn’t agree with their way of life. (I’m not straightedge by the way).</p>
<p>What I’ve never, ever understood is why people feel they are truly “believing, trusting, doing all in/for God” when they don’t even follow all of the “rules” of the Bible. How can you just pick and choose? “God” may have given you freewill, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can CHOOSE what rules to believe in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me state I am not condoning contraception or premarital sex. That said, claiming using contraception is not having consideration for the circumstances is incorrect. If someone is going to have premarital sex, having it with out using contraception is irresponsible. The possibility of an unwanted pregnancy increases which increases the possibility of abortion which is murder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Where did you come up with this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess that you can’t? But you are assigning to Catholicism “rules” that it institutionally does not require. It is an institutional part of Catholicism that Biblical literalism is not required, so why would you then claim that because they don’t follow the Bible literally, Catholics are not Catholics? I think you need to do some research before posting – Catholicism has always embraced Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a lot that the Bible doesn’t say. Again, you are talking to the wrong person here – the Bible also does not say that it is the sole source of morality, that it should be taken literally, etc. So please stop this line of discussion, which is irrelevant anyway since you don’t know how Catholicism works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? The obvious answer is not to get an abortion. And contraception is ALWAYS wrong. See? I can make inane statements with no evidence too! As much as you seem to like the simple assertion of your points as correct, any post that does so is completely worthless unless you add a proper caveat. For example, I am not here to debate contraception, and therefore feel no need to prove my beliefs on contraception, because that was never my intent nor desire, and it is still neither of those things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Inane??? Claiming not using contraception could lead to unwanted pregnancy and abortion is inane???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only thing worthless is your continual blathering about your perceived worthlessness of others comments because those comments don’t agree with yours. Point out on thing in my prior post that is inaccurate, then your comments will be useful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. The delivery was completely inane, thus making the entire post, as I said, worthless. You cannot simply assert something to be true and just expect everyone to expect it. That’s why I haven’t even bothered trying to defend my views on contraception because that’s not why I’m here. I just wanted to point out that there are those who oppose contraception for religious reasons. This is a fact. Your statement is not, yet you treat it as such. Do you see the glaring problem here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. Most of the posts here are definitely valuable. Have you noticed how they…USE EVIDENCE? OMG, what a concept! Now try doing the same for your posts and maybe they’ll become more than your own pontificating, which is indeed a worthless addition to a thread if you just keep making moral statements with no justification or explanation whatsoever.</p>
<p>In other words, what do you contribute? Telling other posters that they are wrong because they are wrong? Helpful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me do what you have never done, and back up my point. The following statement is absolutely unfounded. The last sentence of your post relies on circumstantial relativism being true (unproven), opposition to abortion because it is wrong (unproven), a link between the two (possible but unproven), and a rejection of moral absolutism (unproven). In other words, you say “X is true” but fail to say “because I believe it is and therefore it must be,” which is the SOLE justification that you have for that post thus far. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You people are completely insane. Especially if you think that having sex without contraception isn’t irresponsible by default. No amount of inane logical tricks will change this fact. </p>
<p>Hint: we all aren’t upper middle class families who can afford to raise a child.
Hint: moral absolutism is just as non-provable as anything else. You’re the one pushing the belief system --you’ve got the burden of proof. And no, saying that “non-contraceptive sex = irresponsible” isn’t a belief system: it’s common sense and scientific fact. Both of which you’ve got an aversion to.</p>
<p>Your entire argument is basically this: "My religion (that believes in ghosts/supermen/teacups/messiahs/match box cars/etc.) thinks that contraception is wrong. The fact that they have religious reasons for believing so is just as valid as the scientific common sense that contraception prevents birth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i mean i agree with this sentiment, but i realize that it is an opinion. there’s no scientific experiment you can perform to determine if something is irresponsible.</p>
<p>Wow, another argument over definitions.</p>
<p>*1.
said, done, or characterized by a lack of a sense of responsibility: His refusal to work shows him to be completely irresponsible.
2.
not capable of or qualified for responsibility, as due to age, circumstances, or a mental deficiency.
3.
not responsible, answerable, or accountable to higher authority: irresponsible as a monarch. </p>
<p>*</p>
<p>If you think that raising kids without the monetary, familial, or any other support is not “irresponsible”, you have bigger problems, my friend. Choose which ever word you’d like, but if you seriously are going to argue the definition of a word, please leave.</p>
<p>read my post. i agreed with your opinion, but i disagreed with you about calling it a scientific fact. it isn’t a scientific fact. just because you believe something doesn’t make it science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i think we are using the word irresponsible in the same way here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I can’t practice, I can’t practice. It is as simple as that. It ain’t about that at all. It’s easy to sum it up if you’re just talking about practice. We’re sitting here, and I’m supposed to be the franchise player, and we’re talking about practice. I mean listen, we’re sitting here talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, but we’re talking about practice.</p>
<p>Practice it? I’ve been doing it for so long, I’m like an expert at it!</p>
<p>My bad, that was a little harsh. Substitute “scientific” with “mutually agreed upon as obvious and true in almost all cases” or whatever you’d like. </p>
<p>Having sex without contraception is </p>
<p>careless, reckless, capricious, carefree, devil-may-care, feckless, fickle, flighty, fly-by-night, giddy, harebrained, ill-considered, immature, immoral, incautious, lax, loose*, no-account, rash, scatterbrained, shiftless, thoughtless, unaccountable, unanswerable, uncareful, undependable, unpredictable, unreliable, unstable, untrustworthy, wild</p>
<p>Pick your favorite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i think baelor would agree with you that having sex without contraceptives without the means/intent of raising a child is irresponsible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you’re already assuming that there is no moral issue with contraception. You’re not getting it. There are people who believe that contraception is morally wrong. Therefore using it is MORALLY WRONG. To do something that is obviously morally wrong would be irresponsible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not pushing any belief system. I’m not interested in defending a point of view. I am only saying one thing: “People believe X.” That’s it. If you don’t like what they believe, that’s fine. But I’m not interested in defending X, or arguing about the merits of Y, etc. I am merely stating that X is something that some embrace.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Opinion. That’s opinion. Because you are ignoring the moral implications that some do not. And you can claim that it’s assumption, and they would probably agree. Because there is no morality without assumption.</p>
<p>You need to step outside of your own framework for just a little bit and try to understand what is really going on here. I know that this all seems crazy to you, but it is obviously not the random whimsical thought of someone who woke up and said, “contraception is morally wrong and that’s that.” So although you don’t like it, it is not so easily dismissed as you are making it seem, particularly because all of the resultant issues are ALSO addressed, i.e. the theology and epistemology of the people who oppose contraception does not end with “condoms are bad.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. I am not even starting to approach it like that. “My religion?” I’m not interested in talking about my religion here.</p>
<p>And you show that you have not listened to anything anyone has said with that statement – many who oppose contraception for religious reasons do so because it does prevent birth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then don’t raise kids. Use NFP. Don’t have sex. That would be the response of someone who opposes contraception (and maybe even just premarital sex). Like I’ve said many times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. Because you are still assuming no moral implications here. You’re just embarrassing yourself by refusing to listen to anyone here…but yourself. How does your enormous head fit through doorways?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with that statement. But this discussion is really not about me.</p>
<p>So there are some who would say, “The solution is not to have sex, NOT to use contraceptives. Your inability to make moral decisions doesn’t mean that my morality is incorrect, only that you are unwilling to follow it. Why should I change my beliefs because you don’t like them? Reality is here, but my morality is not dependent on what’s considered reasonable or popular because it’s God/gods/Flying Spaghetti Monster-given, not fashioned out of the whims of the masses.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because you put (unproven) in () does not back up anything except you know you to use those two keys on your keyboard. What I posted was my opinion. You don’t think abortion is wrong? You don’t think non-contraceptive intercourse could lead to unwanted pregnancy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m confused. Are you saying that they are proven? If that is the case, why have we not seen this enlightening proof? If that is not the case, then why do you have a problem with my post at all?</p>
<p>What I think about abortion is irrelevant because I’m not arguing for any particular viewpoint on contraception or abortion here. The sooner you realize that the sooner you will be able to be productive in terms of posting. Addressing moral questions to me will get nowhere because I have no desire to answer them because I’m not here to debate my own moral judgments. So my ostensible opposition to/support of abortion is irrelevant and will therefore not be discussed. What is germane is that you have not definitively proven that abortion is a wrong. Therefore your entire post is an opinion which was not labeled as such. Furthermore, one would question the value of such a post that was only marginally related to the actual conversation anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah i think the only objection people have in this thread to what you are saying boils down to ‘i think your ideology is stupid’. </p>
<p>i think that having the honesty to say something like that is good–it’s way better than pretending that one’s beliefs come from science or that one’s ideology is derived from pure reason or something.</p>