Not really. There's a difference between the government regulating the private acts of consenting adults and the government regulating a type of business.
10/19/2012 10:45 AM
So does that mean that you support the rights of people to ban gay marriage.

Afterall that is just regulating the marraige business?
10/19/2012 2:30 PM
I support the right of a church to not marry a same sex (or biracial or atheist or whatever) couple. Government discrimination is different, though. When there are tangible benefits to being legally married in the eyes of the state (and there are), allowing one couple to marry and not another requires more than just the will of the people (as we saw with the DOMA ruling the other day).

But that's really off topic. Regulating what benefits a health insurance company can and cannot provide is well within the scope of the government. Requiring all health insurers to cover preventative care in the same manner is also within that scope. 
10/19/2012 5:35 PM

Doma doesnt really address gay marriage in that the Federal Government never gives out marriage licenses. .

I ask again why is it ok for the givernment to make a rule that says you have to pay for contrceptives and abortions, but it isnt ok for the government to create a regulation that says you have to marry the opposite sex?

Arnt they both regulations to an industry?

And the answer is no they are not. They are devisive socail issues!

10/19/2012 6:09 PM
Contraceptives aren't really a divisive social issue. A very small minority of people are morally against their use. Something like 98% of all women in the US use or have used contraceptives.

This specific policy is only controversial if you don't think the government has the right to force health insurers to cover all preventative care without a copay. But that's not a religious rights issue, it's a private contract/free market issue.

10/19/2012 6:55 PM (edited)
The simple issue is why are you ok with the government forcing Catholics to commit a mortal sin?
10/20/2012 12:32 AM
You mean like.....diddling little boys?
10/20/2012 12:39 AM

In the United States the 2004 John Jay Report commissioned and funded by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on volunteer surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.[53]

The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002:

  • Around 81% of these victims were male.
  • Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, shows that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age.[54]
  • 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[55][56][57]
  • A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
  • 9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
  • More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated because diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.
  • For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
  • In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:

  • 56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.[55]
  • The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
  • 50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.[55]
  • Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.[55]
  • Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.[55]

Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. There was, for example, a more than sixfold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. After peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents in the report decreased through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960s and 1970s.

10/20/2012 12:42 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/20/2012 12:32:00 AM (view original):
The simple issue is why are you ok with the government forcing Catholics to commit a mortal sin?
Any Catholics that believe the pill is a mortal sin are free to not take the pill. No one is being forced to commit a sin.
10/20/2012 1:09 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2012 1:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/20/2012 12:32:00 AM (view original):
The simple issue is why are you ok with the government forcing Catholics to commit a mortal sin?
Any Catholics that believe the pill is a mortal sin are free to not take the pill. No one is being forced to commit a sin.

They  are only forcing businesses to pay for healthcare which facilitates others ability to commit that sin.

So the only thing they can do to avoid having to facilitate that which is abhorrent to them is shut the doors of their businesses.

10/20/2012 1:14 AM
Quit forcing themselves on innocent children and maybe I'll take ANYTHING the Catholic Church wants to talk about seriously.  And if you want to get involved with politics, start paying taxes.
10/20/2012 1:23 AM
So then because there are cases of individuals in the Catholic Church doing despicable things that proves that there aren't devout Catholics who not only believe that contraception and abortion is wrong but also are outraged by the acts of these horrible individuals?
10/20/2012 1:27 AM
The Catholic Church as a whole is guilty of covering up these horrible things. From the Vatican to the parish. Take your own inventory before you judge others.
10/20/2012 1:37 AM
That is absurd.
Johnny Catholic, who attends services each Sunday is in no way responsible for anything unless he had knowledge of such things going on.

To even imply such an absurd thing is sad. Even for you.

10/20/2012 1:49 AM
So what if some of the leader of the Catholic church covered up molestation?

Does that mean that faithful Catholics have no rights?

So without any comments about side issues...

Why is it OK for the government to force Catholics to commit a mortal sin?
10/20/2012 1:52 AM
◂ Prev 1...15|16|17|18|19...77 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.