NY Times poll shows there's no "war on women", not even close

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Repubs. are now coming out against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday."

If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast.

Zimmy, who are the nutjobs on this issue?

My side says that if women need contraception for legitimate medical reasons, they will provide it. But the church will not pay for the tools for folks to engage in casual sex.

Your side says that's not good enough. Your side says that somehow (no one can tell me what the logic is) that employers are obligated to pay for the means to engage in voluntary, casual, recreational sex.

The poll I shared shows tht a huge majority of Americans are on my side, not your side. So who are the "nut jobs:"?

Zimmy, Spence, Paul S...anyone...where does it say that employers shuold make it easier for their employees to have casual sex? Why stop at condoms? Why not force the Catholic church to provide employees with rooms with mirrors on the ceilings, vibrating beds, and Barry White music in the background?

"If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast"

And if 1% of Catholics make the opposite switch because we don't like having our rights trampled upon, the liberals are toast.

You cannot say it's about healthcare. This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex. Maybe a majority of Americans support that, I don't know. But let's at least frame the question honestly, is that too much to ask?

War on women...not according to the NY Times poll...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex...

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

I'm not saying that sex with one's spouse isn't more meaningful than a one night stand, give me a little credit?. I'm saying that when I have sex with my wife, and we're trying to avoid getting pregnant, I'm not asking anyone else to violate their religious beliefs to make it happen. I don't work for the Catholic church, but if I did, I'd buy my own condoms and call it a day.

And we need to stop framing this as a "healthcare" issue. Liberals deliberately do that to marginalize the Catholic church, and make us look like we're turning a blind eye to legitimate health needs. What does is say about liberals, when they are framing the debate so dishonestly? Even THEY know they have no logical argument when they discuss it honestly, so the do what liberals always do, and demonize instead of debate.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Liberals deliberately do that to marginalize the Catholic church, and make us look like we're turning a blind eye to legitimate health needs. What does is say about liberals, when they are framing the debate so dishonestly? .

Dishonesty? The question could also be made that an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no? You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Dishonesty? The question could also be made that an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no? You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong.

"an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no?"

Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.

However, there IS precedent (the 1st amendment) saying that the feds cannot force a religion to violate its beliefs.

What part of those 2 paragraphs can't you understand? I know you don't like it, you don't have to like it. But liberals need to realize that the Bill Of Rights even applies to Catholics.

"You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong"

You called my church's beliefs "nutso", and now you're telling me I need to me more mindful of the possibility that the other side is right? Get over yourself, OK? Did you get appointed God, and I missed that announcement?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.
?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

"do you even know what the first Amendment says?"

Sure. Here is the relevent portion...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another"

"The church isn't required to foot the bill"

They aren't? Zimmy, if the church's insurance policy is expanded to provide contraception, who do you think does pay the bill? The customer, that's who.

You liberals crack me up. Time and time again, you act as if taking money from businesses is mutually exclusive from taking money from individuals. Liberals act as if there's this giant, infinite ATM out there called "business", which we can raid whenever we want. You could not be more wrong.

How can you not understand that? Have you never ever bought something from a business? Don't those businesses raise your prices as their costs increase?

I work as an actuary Zimmy, which means it's my job to set insurance rates. When state laws require that we increase coverage, guess what? One hundred percent of the time, we pass that on to the customer. Every single time. We have no other choice.

I know what the ist amendment says. Perhaps you should be as well versed in economics 101 as I am with the 1st amendment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

According to Santorum, any sex that isn't a specific attempt to procreate is recreational and immoral. Not that his Church or Bible teaches that.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You cannot say it's about healthcare. This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex.

Hey Mr. freedom, who gives you the right to say it isn't about health care? You certainly like to determine what other people should think. I agree, it isn't a "war" on women, the nutso obsession with contraception and sex sure is going to put-off enough women to make it harder for any Republican, whether you care about the polls or not.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Hey Mr. freedom, who gives you the right to say it isn't about health care? You certainly like to determine what other people should think. I agree, it isn't a "war" on women, the nutso obsession with contraception and sex sure is going to put-off enough women to make it harder for any Republican, whether you care about the polls or not.

I'm not claiming any "right" to say it's not about healthcare, I'm saying the facts show it's not about healthcare. Legitimate healthcare needs are covered. What the church wants to avoid covering is not "medicine" by ane rational definition.

"the nutso obsession with contraception "

Excuse me? My side says contraception is fine, just don't ask the Catholic church to pay for it. Nothing nutso about that...

"make it harder for any Republican"

yeah, that explains why the GOP did so poorly in 2010 I guess...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"make it harder for any Republican"

yeah, that explains why the GOP did so poorly in 2010 I guess...

You are not trying to say that this recent uproar over contraception was equally relevant in 2010 are you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are not trying to say that this recent uproar over contraception was equally relevant in 2010 are you?

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010. Liberals are making hay out of this, because what are they going to do, point to the economy? Gas prices? Our debt?

You mentioned my side's "nutso" views on sex. We feel sex is a healthy, yet serious, thing, not to be taken lightly.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

"Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches?"

This may be news to you, but Rick Santorum is not the Pope. If he says something, he is not speaking on beghalf of the Church. The Catholic Church advocates family planning, which is a form of birth control.

"Which divorce rates? Newt's?"

Unless I said that no Republican ever got divorced, Newt's past has nothing to do with this. I said divorce rates are higher after the sexual revolution than they were before. Newt Gingrich's divore statistics don't reflect on anyone other than Newt Gingrich. You're going to pick one extreme case, and apply it to all conservatives? You think that's reasonable? Do you also assume Osama Bin Laden's actions tell you something about all Muslims? Godd luck getting out of that...

"You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth?"

I didn't know that. I never said divorce rates are lower for Republicans,. I said that the sexual revolution (which was a liberal cause) had a lot of devasting consequences on the stable family unit, and nothing you said refutes that one bit.

"You say too much patently untrue bs"

One example please. I've made mistakes here, and I admit them. That's the difference between me and you, and between me and Spence.