Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

A guy at work was complaining today about the Catholic church. His daughter teaches at a parochial school, and her employer (Catholic church) is dropping her insurance because of this whole contraceptive mandate. I asked him if her insurance had covered it? Answer was no. Was she happy with the insurance she had? Answer was yes. I then asked him why he was mad at the Catholic church? Seems to me that everything was working out just fine for her until the government starting changing up the rules...Ain't it just like the liberal politicians-Create a problem, blame someone thereby creating a villian, and then come in an save the day!

I worked for a Catholic School for 13 years. It was just a given that birth control was not offered through my insurance...I totally understood and was fine with it.

I bought my own birth control pills and never had a problem with it.

The government has absolutely no right to interfere and no right to be "in a woman's uterus".

I worked for a Catholic School for 13 years. It was just a given that birth control was not offered through my insurance...I totally understood and was fine with it.

I bought my own birth control pills and never had a problem with it.

The government has absolutely no right to interfere and no right to be "in a woman's uterus".

Exactly!

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

I think you are missing the point. It is not the 95% of Catholic women being forced into something they don't believe in, it is the church or religion. This is a very slippery slope and is just the tip of the ice burg when it comes to what the government will demand you do to get this wonderful benefit, Obamacare.
Just a really bad idea to begin with to begin with and only the beginning.

PS I went to Catholic school and am lucky to have survived to be able to make this post.

Government has no business in this area of a womens life and I can't believe that so many want them there.

Originally Posted by buggyone

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

Yep...I was a sinner

And the five Catholic priests with whom I worked knew all about it. We had many discussions about it, as a matter of fact.

They told me that that was between me and my God and it was nobody else's business.

As I said, I had no problem with my insurance not covering my birth control pills. It was an accepted fact and had been for years.

So...the point is...they stayed out of my uterus...and so should the government. Can I get an amen?!?

Originally Posted by buggyone

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

I dont believe the percentage of women who use control is in any way relevant (if you read the other posts on this thread you would learn where that number supposedly came from).

The point to me, whether you love or hate the Catholic church, is that the Federal Government is mandating that a church sponsored institution must make available something that violates basic tenants of that church, no matter the religion and no matter how well the members of such church comply.

I must tell you that many have warned that over the years the little tentacles of this health bill will envade every part of society, and as a reminder....the basic reason, according to authors was to cut costs and this bill does NOTHING...NOTHING..NOTHING to cut health care costs. This, in my opinion, is just one of the many things we are going to have to grapple with !

Originally Posted by buggyone

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

Again, you purposely miss the point. All this is REALLY about is getting a $20 prescription "for FREE".....by way of OPM...Other People's Money.

Not only would Planned Parenthood provide the pills to people who can't afford them, but also many county and city health departments provide all these services for little or no cost based on income etc.

Family Planning Services - Sumter County Health Department and:

CLINIC SERVICES
(352) 569-3102 option 2 - Bushnell Clinic (352) 330-1313 - Wildwood Clinic

*Click on the links below to find out more information.*

AIDS/HIV Services

CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM

CARDIOVASCULAR SCREENING PROGRAM - Available to county residents.

CAR SEAT PROGRAM - Available to county residents.

CHILDBIRTH PREPARATION EDUCATION

DISEASE CONTROL - Education, investigation, prevention and control of diseases transmitted person to person..

FAMILY PLANNING/BIRTH CONTROL - Includes education, counseling, physical examination and follow-up for clients desiring a method of contraception. Available to county residents on a sliding fee scale.

IMMUNIZATIONS - Includes immunization and education to prevent childhood diseases and adult immunizations to control communicable disease outbreaks. Available to all clients. No charge children 18 years of age and younger.

MATERNITY/PREGNANCY CARE - Maternity care for county residents who are at or below 185% of OMB poverty level. Clients are required to go through Medicaid eligibility.

PHARMACY - Provide insulin and HIV/AIDS medications for county residents who are currently under a physician’s care and qualify financially; health education provided.

PRIMARY CARE SERVICES -Health screenings, well & sick care, and nutritional counseling are available to county residents under age 18 who qualify at or below 100% of OMB poverty levels.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING - Provides blood pressure checkup, screenings for blood sugar, immunizations, AIDS screenings, lice checks, medication and pill pickups, WIC checkups, and pregnancy testing.

SCHOOL HEALTH - Sumter County Health Department works with local school board to provide health screening, nursing, education, counseling services and medical record review for student physical exam and proper documentation of immunizations.

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES - Diagnosis, treatment, education, counseling and follow-up of contacts. Available to all clients on a sliding fee scale.

SMOKING CESSATION - Classes are offered to county residents. Call for class schedule.

STERILIZATION - Limited number of tubal ligations and vasectomies are available to medically and financially eligible county residents.

TUBERCULOSIS - Available to county residents on sliding fee scale. Screening, x-ray, preventive medication and active TB care available.

WIC Services are provided in Both Clinics.

Medical Services - Sumter County Health Department

Originally Posted by buggyone

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

This is just plain silly. The Catholic Church doesn't advocate the use of birth control and it's against it's teaching. They don't provide this drug because of it.

What does the private decision of a Catholic woman have to do with that? I'll tell you what.........NOTHING.

[quote=RichieLion;450837]

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Another post lying about what Santorum is saying and showing more hate than i thought you capable of, and I thought you capable of a lot.

Richie, I was VERY careful to quote his words DIRECTLY and not the digest of whomever wrote a particular article.

If I was quting him out of context, then WHY is it that SO many times, when the subject of gay marriage comes up, he goes back to the same kinds of words over and over again?

If that ONE quote was an isolated case, I would be inclined to agree with you that it could have been him misstating his position. But, over and over again the same theme keeps coming up.

I don't hate Santorum. Oh, I have problems with him, but "hate" is something I reserve for far more egregious things. (I'm sure you could name one of them off the top of your head)

I disagree with Santorum. I believe he is flat-out wrong on this and other issues. And I have to be careful how I say this, but I find myself wishing that he had a personal connection to this subject the way he does with his disabled child.

I'll be honest - I never had any thoughts one way or the other about gay marriage or gay sex when I was younger (other than some of the 'yuck' factor concerning some of the specifics that used to get hurled as insults in a locker room). Finding my family brought things into sharp relief for me. I had no idea I had gay relatives. And, to be honest, I'm glad I never really thought about the subject because I was *mostly* free of any pre-conceived notions.

If Santorum had an aunt like mine. If he had to experience, even second-hand, the kind of discrimination she got. If he ever listened to some of the stories I've heard. I honestly believe that the root of his *ignorance* is thinking it's a choice in all cases. Oh, sure, some choose - any bisexual that CAN choose one way or the other might do that. But most of the gays I know were that way from birth. Just as I never decided one day, that I was straight, they didn't decide they were gay any more than my wife "decided" she was left-handed (which used to be considered "wrong" as my adoptive mother can attest - she had teachers who would whack her left hand with a ruler when they caught her writing left-handed)

If Santorum ever had a situation where a gay couple lived together for over a decade - with one being shunned by his family - he might understand. And if that person suddenly died in an accident - he might understand. And if that family suddenly showed up and claimed the "estate" of the decedent so they could sell his assets - because the "husband" had no legal standing because that state didn't allow gay marriage - he might understand.

No, I don't hate Santorum. I'm frustrated by his ignorance and I wonder what it would take for him to see the human side of this issue. It's not about the sex - I understand the problems people can have with the "eeeuuw!" factor. But we used to look at interracial marriage the same way.

[quote=djplong;451198]

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Richie, I was VERY careful to quote his words DIRECTLY and not the digest of whomever wrote a particular article.

If I was quting him out of context, then WHY is it that SO many times, when the subject of gay marriage comes up, he goes back to the same kinds of words over and over again?

If that ONE quote was an isolated case, I would be inclined to agree with you that it could have been him misstating his position. But, over and over again the same theme keeps coming up.

I don't hate Santorum. Oh, I have problems with him, but "hate" is something I reserve for far more egregious things. (I'm sure you could name one of them off the top of your head)

I disagree with Santorum. I believe he is flat-out wrong on this and other issues. And I have to be careful how I say this, but I find myself wishing that he had a personal connection to this subject the way he does with his disabled child.

I'll be honest - I never had any thoughts one way or the other about gay marriage or gay sex when I was younger (other than some of the 'yuck' factor concerning some of the specifics that used to get hurled as insults in a locker room). Finding my family brought things into sharp relief for me. I had no idea I had gay relatives. And, to be honest, I'm glad I never really thought about the subject because I was *mostly* free of any pre-conceived notions.

If Santorum had an aunt like mine. If he had to experience, even second-hand, the kind of discrimination she got. If he ever listened to some of the stories I've heard. I honestly believe that the root of his *ignorance* is thinking it's a choice in all cases. Oh, sure, some choose - any bisexual that CAN choose one way or the other might do that. But most of the gays I know were that way from birth. Just as I never decided one day, that I was straight, they didn't decide they were gay any more than my wife "decided" she was left-handed (which used to be considered "wrong" as my adoptive mother can attest - she had teachers who would whack her left hand with a ruler when they caught her writing left-handed)

If Santorum ever had a situation where a gay couple lived together for over a decade - with one being shunned by his family - he might understand. And if that person suddenly died in an accident - he might understand. And if that family suddenly showed up and claimed the "estate" of the decedent so they could sell his assets - because the "husband" had no legal standing because that state didn't allow gay marriage - he might understand.

No, I don't hate Santorum. I'm frustrated by his ignorance and I wonder what it would take for him to see the human side of this issue. It's not about the sex - I understand the problems people can have with the "eeeuuw!" factor. But we used to look at interracial marriage the same way.

Wonderful post. It is so refreshing to see someone that can use their head for something other than a Hat Rack. No Slander. I am so in agreement with you on this issue. I tend to take comments that I receive for my opinion very personal and go off the deep end, then only hurt my own intent. I have no dog in this race, but I cannot close my eyes to bigotry. Thanks again for stating the obvious in a civil manner.

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?

Originally Posted by chachacha

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?

I can't find any argument with this post. With all the laws that go along with the term Marriage that were set in stone using a man and a women as the basis for many of them, it would sure throw a wrench the the gears of the courts to suddenly change the definition of what a marriage is, i.e Man/Woman, aMan/His Horse etc etc.. So I also am left with why not a legal CIVIL CONTRACT that would then give same sex couples the right to inherit, visit in hospital, etc etc. Great post chachacha

Originally Posted by djplong

I disagree with Santorum. I believe he is flat-out wrong on this and other issues. And I have to be careful how I say this, but I find myself wishing that he had a personal connection to this subject the way he does with his disabled child.

OK, OK; fine, you disagree with Santorum on his view of traditional marriage. No one would blast you for that.

But, to take the issue out of context and accuse Santorum of being "anti-gay", against "anti-gay sex" is just gross misrepresentation. To take an analogy made by him when he was discussing the subject of traditional marriage on "where would you draw the line" on what constitutes marriage is also wrong.

Is he wrong is bringing up this query now that you've "broken the seal" on what is thousands of years of human wisdom and acceptance of what a marriage is?

Gay marriage activists have got to get off their high horse an stop vilifying this viewpoint. You (the collective you) can make your argument without lying about what is being discussed.

Originally Posted by chachacha

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?

It's more sinister that you think. Who would want to deprive two people who love each other of the happiness they seek? This exploitation of human emotion is being use to weaken and destroy the traditional views of God, marriage, and especially family.

Without "God" where do your rights come from? Why, the state of course. Family becomes subservient to the will of the state. Instead of the state representing the "people", we become subservient to the state.

Our love for our fellow man is being twisted to ultimately elevate the state to the supreme power.

ChaChaCha is correct. Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Just who do contemporary homosexuals think they ARE, pushing to redefine the most fundamental criteria--one man and one woman--of marriage which has been the very bedrock of civilizations, societies, and the regeneration of life itself????