Liberals cling to their sexual license and abortions while conservatives cling to our religion and the right to life

That’s what the social issues of today come down to.

Actually, what “conservatives” seem to be clinging to most tightly these days is their money.


Strange that you would say that since, last I heard, Obama was raking in all the cash from his millionaire and billionaire supporters.


And Mitt Romney has consistently brought in more. Your point?

Why is that strange? Of course politicians will take all the money they can get, and of course there are lots of rich people on both sides.

But it’s the “right” as currently constituted that sets up financial “success” as a good thing in itself, something to be admired and celebrated. That in itself is one of the vilest heresies you can find–worse it seems to me than anything you find on the “left” except for abortion. It’s the right that thinks the rich are endangered people who need to be protected and given tax breaks, and hold to a highly dubious theory that pampering them will be good for everyone.


It is more accurate to say that Democrats believe in religious liberty that allows citizens to make their own decisions, whereas Republicans want to define and control sexuality. Just because Democrats believe in religious liberty and individual freedom does not mean that they approve of the decisions individuals make, they just realize that it is not government’s role. Think of it as a limited government issue.

The point is Obama is a hypocrite for pretending that it’s only Romney that has money.

I don’t think he’s ever said that only Romney has money.

I think Obama’s made it very, very clear what he thinks of “religious liberty”. :rolleyes:

Lukewarmness and relativism are simply the religions that Obama’s going to force on all of us.

Unfortunately, the un-born citizens in the womb don’t get to make a decision, neither do the young children who are being raised by two fathers/mothers… :frowning:

Personally, I’m glad that sexuality is being defined and controlled otherwise we would have polygamous marriages, incest, legalized phedophilia, beastiality… Just imagine how twisted and horrifying a place the world would be if every person’s deepest, darkest sexual fantasies were not only legalized but promoted in the same way that homosexual sodomy is being promoted right now…

I’ve noticed you like starting these types of threads. Why? They seem to be inflammatory and aimed only at causing arguments.

Which is why I always pop-in for a good laugh… :D. After a page or two it does tend to become a little unhealthy though.:o

-]Liberals cling to their sexual license and abortions while conservatives cling to our religion and the right to life/-]
I feel these types of titles/threads only instigate further resentment and fear. I am starting to see a pattern here.

Not by my “calculations”…I really don’t think so…because “that dog won’t hunt”.

Clinging to money “tightly” is a breath of fresh air…compared to a group of progressive liberals (not all liberals but even so, they to acquiesce to this culture of death) who cling “tightly” to… Abortion on demand…a culture of death…with forced contraception mandates in their foreign policy diplomacy plank…and the destruction of traditional marriage…and the traditional family (now called parent 1 & parent 2 on passports)…and government’s (not just paid for, but) “dictated” health care…social ideologies and policies with no freedom of conscience clause…and no concern for the enduring common good of the people.

Lets say both groups are very undesirable…I can agree…but I simply prefer a group who will not “drink the cool-aide”.

Pax Christi

Check the amount of posts between those who take these threads lightly against those who become overly flamboyant in their posts… You might find that once people argue these things so many times that they begin to understand that they are not going to convince anyone to shift sides… Often times, more seasoned posters might actually involve humor in their posts.

Eventually it tends to become more like a game for those who like to communicate. Whether its unhealthy altogether, I cannot say, but I do think it’s okay for people to share their differences… That’s not evil.

WOWSERS. Never heard it put so eloquently!

Now I know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys! I wasn’t sure until I read your post!


Neither do children whose parents drink, smoke, do drugs, play cards, dance, divorce, submit their families to physical or verbal abuse, indulge in sinful acts…

Oops, you forgot one…divorce. If we backed up a step and defined marriage as one man and one woman FOR LIFE, let us make laws about marriage and divorce more strict, your argument might hold up. The sad thing is you neglect to mention what is already destroying nearly 50% of American marriages, but then rush to point your finger at everyone else. Not only that, but we even promote adultorous people in our “conservative” politics to the highest offices of the land.

The world needs to see that we really practice what we preach, without it they see us as hypocrites with no moral authority. So enough about conservatives “clinging” to religion. It’s a stereotype. Instead of expecting government to legislate Christianity for us, why not go about doing God’s work and converting souls? Who cares if abortion is legal if hearts are transformed and nobody wants an abortion to begin with.

I grew up in an evangelical tradition and if there is one marked difference I noticed since becoming Catholic years ago it is the reluctance of Catholics to evangelize and witness their faith to the world. Instead they want the institutional church and national government to legislate it. That’s an odd paradox for conservatives who then want to claim that the government is already over reaching too much and interfering with religious liberty.

Tu quoque…?

I think the point is that we rarely, if ever, read or hear about the wealth of Obama’s donors, at least not in the same way we read and hear about Romney’s plutocratic benefactors.

After pointing out how many stories were ran on the types of luxury cars (Porsches, Mercedes, Ferarris) seen at a Romney fundraiser in the Hamptons, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post put it this way:

“I’m going to be charitable and assume that this type of [liberal] bias is largely subconscious; a nonsense distinction between ‘good’ (actors, musicians and artists) and ‘bad’ (finance people) wealthy. There is something cool about Aretha Franklin and Meryl Streep shaking the cup for President Obama in the West Village, surrounded by other hopelessly cool, if slightly vapid, Hollywood types. It’s difficult to imagine major newspapers and wire services producing similar scene reports [of fancy cars and limousines] for Obama fundraisers. ‘Ms. Streep, after climbing from her chauffeur-driven Range Rover in a stunning Marc Jacobs dress, spoke of her concern for the growing economic divide in the United States.’ Yeah, I didn’t think so.”

Source: Washington Post Blog

Wow, this is strong language! And it’s also hyperbole (in typical political fashion). Assuming for the sake of discussion that we can sum up, in one sentence, what “the right” believes, I disagree with you that it is all about financial success. Indeed, it is much more about success in general - having the ability to pursue what one desires - whatever that happens to be (a small town lawyer who earns $30,000 per year, or a corporate titan who earns $30,000,000 per year). What conservatives fear is a government so enormous that it restricts Americans of any social class from doing what they desire to make of their lives. A smaller government allows us to form our own identities, our own communities. A larger government consumes our identities and our communities. Now, of course this is a simplified argument, and I don’t think we can do justice to liberal/conservative ideologies in only one or two sentences. Believe neither the propaganda of Ed Schultz or Sean Hannity; of Michael Moore or Dinesh D’Souza. Please ignore those “Lean Forward” commercials. The “truth” is more nuanced than either MSNBC or Fox News would have you believe.

Edwin, I’m surprised to hear you mouthing unexamined DNC propaganda like that. For many years, they’ve repeated the mantra that republicans/conservatives (they assert that these are synonyms) are the self-interested rich while progressives are the champions of the common man and the weak.

I’m sure you know that the best lies are ones with enough truth to keep a straight face and this one is a doozy! Look closer at the ones pulling the levers in BOTH parties and you find an interesting thing. The true part here is that I think the driving force in the republican party are the “new money” rich: the venture capital guys, the small/medium businessmen, the entrepenuers, etc. But when you look closer at the Dems you see that the driving force there is the “old money” rich! These are the ivy league legacies, the Fortune500 board club, the trust fund crowd. These guys SAY they are the champions of the weak. But what they consistently do is propose government bureacracy and regulations that have the predictable effects of closing markets to new competitors. That way the empires THEY run can never be challenged. Big corporations LOVE big bureacracy and regulations as long as they are consistent and predictable. If you need an army of lawyers and compliance bookeepers to start manufacturing widgets, you aren’t going to be able to do it. That suits Widgets Meganational’s CEO just fine, thanks.

Sure republicans make the dumb mistake of walking STRAIGHT into the fire on issues like the estate tax. Again, look at constituents. You think Warren Buffet’s kids are going to pay estate taxes? Get serious, the mega rich establish trust funds so that the estate is never taxed, just the play money that’s taken OUT. Only the poor sap whose wealth is still sunk into hard assets like farms, factories and trade shops get whacked. These guys lack the armies of staff needed to navigate the loopholes the big guys exploit.

Your contempt for the conservative efforts to laud and encourage entrepenuers is misplaced. Maybe you can afford to have that attitude in academia. I work directly for one of these small businessmen. I know that he spends 4 nights a week schmoozing potential clients and gets demanding calls from them on weekends and vacations and I’ve seen his ulcer meds in his briefcase. I’m grateful he does all that and know that he earns every bit of his luxury cars and vacation home. It’s not worth it to ME, but if he didn’t do it, I wouldn’t have a job! It’s a jungle out here and it only works because somehow there are still guys like him who put their heart and soul into building a business that employs 40 of us AND pays enough in taxes that he’s probably paying a chunk of your salary too (depending on where you are). So when a critical mass of guys like him are griping and wondering out loud if it’s really worth it anymore with all the talk of taking MORE away from them, y’all had better listen. You certainly didn’t choose his way of life and I didn’t either. If they can’t get rich at it anymore via heavier taxes, who’s going to do it? Who’s going to be the employers? I’ve worked for him for 12 years now and I STILL learn some new aspect of regulation and compliance he has to deal with every month. I have utterly no idea how he does it and no desire to be like that. It is NOT “pampering” him to object that he’s already paying his fair share of taxation. When you hear business owners tell you the business owns THEM, they aren’t exaggerating.

All that said, I’ve encountered worthless money skimmers plenty often too. Yes, they are out there. But please put down the DNC paintbrush, OK?

The OP is absolutely right that the leftists cherish their sexual license higher than any other issue. Look no further than “health care” where sterilization and contraception are now “free” but chemo, asthma and diabetes meds have copays. Priorities revealed. They talk a good talk about helping the poor, but regardless of how many billions they throw at it, the numbers of poor never go down. At what point is it valid to wonder if the approach is fundamentally broken or if there is a more sinister intent afoot? I have no doubt that progressive VOTERS want to help the poor and weak. But the politicians that rise to the top of the system only pay the poor lip service and ACTUALLY work to perpetuate the established corporate elite.

The OP’s conservative summary is a bit self serving though. There ARE a significant number of “I got mine and screw everybody else” in the conservative camp. I also see xenophobic anti-immigration people and some scary gun nuts. But I think it is a myth to assert that one side protects the rich more than the other. They each have their clientel class of rich guys they are looking out for FIRST. Everything else comes after that.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit