*cough* LIAR

[Lord Bitememan]

I was driving mainly for a link to the article, not the direct quotation [<--- always investigates claims from source documents].  

[Pumona]

I agree facts are the best way to go.  

[Moonlight_Maiden123]

oops sweatdrop lol sorry here yea go

www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

my first source though was from my dad though, who reads and listens to rush limbaugh. which i believe this website is a better source of proof.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Now once u get to this website type in search: obmama and abortion. once u get to the page, articles will be listed, choose the one that says "Obama Practices the Low Art of Political Seduction at Notre Dame"
Once u have arrived at the article, scroll down when you see Break Transcript. U then will see it go RUSH:... then OBMAMA: then RUSH:...
Read what Rush has to say in that section and u all will have ur proof. Sorry for the confusion if there is any but its a very resourceful article from a very resourceful guy. Hope this it what you all mean and need 3nodding  

[Lord Bitememan]

The problem is, I don't take anything Limbaugh has to say without a huge block of salt. I rank his reliability up there with that of a popular article on wikipedia. On The Issues, though, seems to be on the up and up. Here's what it had to say about the issue in question:

Quote:

Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child

So, this focuses on a legal interpretation of the proposed Illinois law, not a philosophical belief in the merits of a child's life. He was stipulating that the 14th Amendment already, in his reading, protected the life of a fully delivered child and that the law in question would have crossed a further line. Now, as I don't have the text of the law handy, I can't evaluate his reading, but that seems to be his rationale. He stated further about late term abortions in general:

Quote:

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

 

[Moonlight_Maiden123]

Im sorry u don't really like Rush, but I happen to really like the guy. Besides judging on what FOX has to say and what Obmama himself has to say, Rush isn't that far off. If you happen to disagree then ok thats fine with me, but this is the only valid proof i have, sorry.

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

Ok then, but i wasnt aiming for that quote i was aiming for this one.

See, this is how good Obama is at the low art of political seduction. 'Cause, as I mentioned, several years ago he made the case for killing babies born alive and giving legal protection to the doctors that did it, and it did not cost him politically.  

[Lord Bitememan]

It's not that I don't like Rush, it's that Rush is entertaining, not authoritative. He puts things in reductive, often unfair and borderline untrue terms to make his points. Bringing Rush into a fight is like being a fan of Red Wings goalie Chris Osgood; sure he puts on a good performance most of the time, but you'll often times find yourself defending the undefendable.

Which leads us to your quote:
See, this is how good Obama is at the low art of political seduction. 'Cause, as I mentioned, several years ago he made the case for killing babies born alive and giving legal protection to the doctors that did it, and it did not cost him politically.

That's a mischaracterization of Obama's actual argument. He wasn't making a case for killing babies. He was saying that, in his opinion, the 14th Amendment already conferred legal protections on a baby born alive and that the law in question was making further restrictions on abortions that he was not prepared to support. Now, could his legal interpretation have been wrong? Absolutely. I don't know if the Illinois courts have weighed in on this, but they could have ruled that 14th Amendment protections didn't apply. In that case Obama is/was wrong. However, he wasn't saying that abortion access should confer to post-natal babies. And that's why I don't take Limbaugh seriously on issues like this.  

[Moonlight_Maiden123]

oooooooooohhhhh ok know I get it, you think he's more for the entertainment then for agruing purposes. I can see why, but since Obmama couldn't make a decision, then wouldn't that pretty much leave him open minded to the idea of killing babies born alive?  

[Lord Bitememan]

Not necessarily. As a hypothetical, if they advanced a bill that proposed to feed the homeless by catching, killing, and butchering dolphins, one could easily oppose such a measure without being pro-starvation.  

[Moonlight_Maiden123]

pro-starvation? i asked about him being opened minded in killing babies born alive...it's either i missed something or we're on different tracks...  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

As a hypothetical

You missed that part.  

[Moonlight_Maiden123]

oh ok lol thanks for pointing that otu mrgreen  

[xxTyeTye]

I am a catholic and gay
so people stop saying that you cant be gay and catholic.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

To the contrary of the OP, you can be gay and you can be catholic

But according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and other documentations of Pope's speeches, and Lay/Clergy members

Here is what I received in a letter from my RCIA director at my old Catholic Church (the one I was baptized at.)

Quote:

(My First Name),

Thank you for sharing with me your struggles. I am so sorry that you
are going through such tough times. I pray that God will guide you
through this.

First, of all, being gay is not a sin. The Catholic Church recognizes
that this is genetic. The Church does hold to the teaching that
homosexuals should remain chaste, though. So see you really are
Catholic in being comfortable with option two. This too can be a gift.
I guess that is why some gay men become priests. What better way to
live out a chaste life than for the church. I am not suggesting that
you become a priest. That is a separate discernment and calling. But a
chaste life is not a lifetime of damnation or loneliness. Many people
choose celibate life regardless of their sexual orientation. That is
something that you will have to pray about as you choose how you want to
live your life.

(Read more inspiration/words of hope here.)

(RCIA Director's Name,
Position,
Church,
Phone,
Address)

It's not being gay that makes it a sin, it is acting out on your orientation. So in other words, you are perfectly fine being gay, just don't get a boyfriend. That is the Catholic Church's stance (which is why I converted to Episcopal.)

The Catholic Church does not support Gay Rights to any extent (other than anti-discriminatory laws.)

So, if you expect to get married, or be in a relationship, you're going to have to see Father week after week to participate in the Holy Eucharist.


[[For all Catholics, this was before the recent anti-Gay Priest movement among the Church... which is now setting up screenings to make sure soon-to-be Priests are not homosexual. The only Vocational Sacrament the LGB population can take is a Deacon (if they had relationships they have to have three years of chastity before doing so.)]]  

[Lord Bitememan]

Don't forget also, though, Mouse, that many things are sins according to church teachings. The church recognizes that man sins. My wife, for example, if on birth control. This is sinful under Catholic doctrine. So, by all rights, I too should be going to confession and receiving communion every week. So, for that matter, would most Catholics in America. The issue is will God judge us on how diligently we gave a laundry list accounting of every one of our sins, or will we be judged by some standard of divine mercy. In either account, one would have to expect that a well intentioned gay Catholic who regularly attended confession and adhered to as many of the church's teachings as he could, barring what is unreasonable in his circumstances, would be better off than most of the blase lapsed Catholic heterosexuals. So, yes, it is quite possible in that respect to be a gay Catholic.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

I'm not saying you can't... just saying the teachings won't support a relationship.

To be fair though I'm a more liberal christian. Something like a Unitarian... I believe in a lot of Thomas Paine's and Jefferson's beliefs on a "God of Nature" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I respect devout, true-to-their-belief Catholics, but from what I see on both the inside-looking-out and outside-looking-in... they tend to demoralize themselves and douse themselves with tradition of morality.