Liberals -- Social and/or Fiscal -- Let's try this again

[3littlekeets]

We were deleted last time because our thread turned into a debate, but let's try to introduce ourselves again.

 

I'm here and waving hello from the Deep South -- Alabama.

 

I believe strongly in human rights and equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

 

I am pro-universal health care and happy to help foot the bill.

 

I believe that every child should have equal access to education and that we cannot expect serious changes in our society with our current educational and social imbalances in inner cities and rural areas.

 

I have a child with a disability and though I actively work to educate others on Down syndrome and the joys of having a child with a disability, I remain staunchly pro-choice.

[hornblower]

Hi!

 

I'm with you on all counts!

 

(waving from Canada!)

[catz]

Right there with you. Hi there! :001_smile:

[Big Buckin' Longhorn]

Hi, I'm from the south too. Not too popular, but I don't mind. Kum Ba Ya.

[Jenny in Atl]

Some have labeled me very liberal, while others have said I'm conservative. So basically, I'm a nothing! :lol:

 

Like your list, so make of that what you will.

[Wheres Toto]

Hello from deep in the heart of Liberalism. :D

 

I wish I could remember everything that was written in the last thread so I could just put "I agree" again but here goes my attempt to remember everything.

 

I believe in freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't think a specific religions ideas should be made into laws.

 

I believe in equality regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. I think marriage is a civil/legal status, not a religious one and therefore should not be limited based on one religions ideas.

 

I believe everyone should have access to healthcare without having to worry about losing their home to pay for it.

 

I think that the idea of helping those less fortunate through private charities is a quaint idea but highly unrealistic and likely to be unfair. Most private charities are having a hard time keeping up with the need now, even with government assistance. What makes us think they'd be able to keep up without government assistance? In addition, too many private charities put conditions on their assistance - beneficiaries must be living their idea of a moral life. We've seen examples of this described on these boards. So only those who are considered worthy will receive assistance?

 

I am pro-choice. I don't feel that it is my place to make such a life-altering choice for another person when it is not possible to know everything about their circumstances. I am in favor of complete sex education and access to birth control so that hopefully fewer women are put in the position of having to face such a decision.

[Leav97]

Hello from deep in the heart of Liberalism. :D

 

I wish I could remember everything that was written in the last thread so I could just put "I agree" again but here goes my attempt to remember everything.

 

I believe in freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't think a specific religions ideas should be made into laws.

 

I believe in equality regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. I think marriage is a civil/legal status, not a religious one and therefore should not be limited based on one religions ideas.

 

I believe everyone should have access to healthcare without having to worry about losing their home to pay for it.

 

I think that the idea of helping those less fortunate through private charities is a quaint idea but highly unrealistic and likely to be unfair. Most private charities are having a hard time keeping up with the need now, even with government assistance. What makes us think they'd be able to keep up without government assistance? In addition, too many private charities put conditions on their assistance - beneficiaries must be living their idea of a moral life. We've seen examples of this described on these boards. So only those who are considered worthy will receive assistance?

 

I am pro-choice. I don't feel that it is my place to make such a life-altering choice for another person when it is not possible to know everything about their circumstances. I am in favor of complete sex education and access to birth control so that hopefully fewer women are put in the position of having to face such a decision.

 

:iagree:

 

I think marriage is a civil/legal status, not a religious one and therefore should not be limited based on one religions ideas.

 

It's both. Which IMO is part of why it's so hard for people to accept. I would love to see them separated. If you want to be married religiously go to your church. If you want the legal benefits go see the courthouse. (or do both) I wouldn't mind if everyone was required to form a civil union for the legal marriage. I have yet to understand how someone else getting married affects my marriage in any way. I'm a support of marriage being available for all consenting adults.

[HRAAB]

Here I am.

 

Meeting basic human needs is very important to me (shelter, water, food, basic health care, education), and I am happy to do so through my taxes. I support universal health care. I believe all children should have access to a good education.

 

I believe in freedom of and freedom from religion.

 

I believe in equality regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation.

 

I believe marriage should remain in the domain of religion and not the government.

 

I am in favor of working towards protecting our earth and environment. My dh is quite the environmentalist - big issue in this house.

 

While I consider myself pro-life, the national pro-life organizations DO NOT represent me. I am not interested in criminalizing abortion, but I am very willing to work with pro-choice people in an effort to reduce the number of abortions, which I believe they also want.

 

I want to see this country get control of the spending - I do support a balanced budget - corruption at all levels of government (local level is a mess), special interest groups, etc.

 

While I know many would look at me as though I'm from an alien planet, I do have faith in our government, because I have faith in humanity. If we could ever work together, just imagine! Yeah, I'm also an idealist at times when reality hasn't got me down.

[Audrey]

:seeya:Waving in from Canada, too!

 

As I'd said in the last thread: I don't call myself Liberal because it means something very different here than down south. Liberals (capital L) in Canada are too conservative for my liking.

 

Ishiki also said "I believe in freedom of and freedom from religion." I agree with that, too. Very much so.

 

I believe marriage is first and foremost a legal contract. If people want to assign religious value to it, fine, but no marriage is recognized by the government without that legal stamp of approval. Therefore, I think religious people should quit trying to force their beliefs on the legal institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage between consenting adults is no different than heterosexual marriage between consenting adults, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I am pro-choice, because I believe that abortion is neither a legal nor a moral issue, but it is specifically and only a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

 

As an ex-american, it makes me sad to see my family and friends suffer through inadequate or lack of healthcare because of inadequate or lack of insurance. I definitely think it is the role of every government who claims to be "for the people" to provide basic health care "for the people." Anything less is irresponsible.

 

The death penalty is a moot point here in Canada. It should be a moot point everywhere.

 

I can agree with everything else you (the OP) stated. I'm also a Marxist (as in, a party card carrying one) and I think that the quote "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is a beautiful concept.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Audrey

[Greta]

I guess my liberal beliefs/views can be summed up with the saying that "no man is an island." We all do better when we all do better. So I support public health care, public assistance programs like food stamps and WIC, public education (even though I don't use it), public libraries, etc. My husband calls it "enlightened self-interest" because we are better off when we are surrounded by people who are earning a living wage, who are educated, and who are healthy, than we would be surrounded by impoverished, uneducated, ill people. I'd say that is my first and foremost reason for being a liberal.

 

Environmental protection/preservation issues would be next on my list.

 

Thirdly, I am a pacifist. I am anti-every war that we've been involved in since WWII, anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, and anti-abortion. And of course I realize that being anti-abortion and being liberal do not usually go together. But my reasons are very well rooted in liberal ideals.

 

People have brought up some interesting issues in this thread, though, where my feelings are not quite as firm. More than one person has said that they believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not sure what is meant by that. Would anyone care to elaborate on that?

 

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things*, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

 

* Editing: I'm not necessarily arguing that these have to be separate and distinct terms, but I'm saying for sure I believe they should be separate and distinct concepts.

Edited August 11, 2010 by GretaLynne

[Momling]

I live in a very liberal community and in my everyday life, I know only a few people who consider themselves conservatives (and those are pretty moderate in the scheme of things), so I'm sometimes weirdly fascinated by some of the opinions on this forum.

[smrtmama]

North Metro Atlanta area liberal right here!

[Wheres Toto]

People have brought up some interesting issues in this thread, though, where my feelings are not quite as firm. More than one person has said that they believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not sure what is meant by that. Would anyone care to elaborate on that?

 

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

 

For me freedom from religion means I will not be forced to follow the rules of one particular religion when it is not a religion I subscribe to.

 

My understanding is that even when you are married in a church there are certain CIVIL/LEGAL things that need to be done. Witnesses and the officiant need to sign a CIVIL document that is then filed with the local government office that handles such things. I've been married twice - once in a church and once by a mayor in a township courtroom. I do not say I was married once and civil unioned once - I say I've been married twice. I don't see why a homesexual couple shouldn't be able to say the same. "Marriage" is not a religious term, IMO.

[StephanieZ]

We were deleted last time because our thread turned into a debate, but let's try to introduce ourselves again.

 

I'm here and waving hello from the Deep South -- Alabama.

 

I believe strongly in human rights and equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

 

I am pro-universal health care and happy to help foot the bill.

 

I believe that every child should have equal access to education and that we cannot expect serious changes in our society with our current educational and social imbalances in inner cities and rural areas.

 

I have a child with a disability and though I actively work to educate others on Down syndrome and the joys of having a child with a disability, I remain staunchly pro-choice.

 

I'm with you on nearly all counts.

 

However, I don't have a child with a disability. . . and I'd say I am regretfully (though staunchly) pro-choice.

[edithcrawley]

 

I believe in freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't think a specific religions ideas should be made into laws.

 

I believe in equality regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. I think marriage is a civil/legal status, not a religious one and therefore should not be limited based on one religions ideas.

 

I believe everyone should have access to healthcare without having to worry about losing their home to pay for it.

 

I think that the idea of helping those less fortunate through private charities is a quaint idea but highly unrealistic and likely to be unfair. Most private charities are having a hard time keeping up with the need now, even with government assistance. What makes us think they'd be able to keep up without government assistance? In addition, too many private charities put conditions on their assistance - beneficiaries must be living their idea of a moral life. We've seen examples of this described on these boards. So only those who are considered worthy will receive assistance?

 

I am pro-choice. I don't feel that it is my place to make such a life-altering choice for another person when it is not possible to know everything about their circumstances. I am in favor of complete sex education and access to birth control so that hopefully fewer women are put in the position of having to face such a decision.

 

I agree with you! Saying hello from Central Indiana

[Ester Maria]

I had a pretty nice detailed post on the deleted thread regarding this. :( Long story put short, I don't know if I'm a liberal all across the board, and I also have a problem with the term itself (because where I grew up, liberal was often antonymous with social; the shift of meaning occurred with time so even nowadays it's hard to know without precising what liberalism means to whom). However, I do find that enough of my positions are liberal enough to chime in here. :)

 

So... I'm pro-universal health care first and foremost, as well as a system of pension; in favor of high quality public education accessible to all (in order to create as equal opportunities as possible); pro-choice and assisted suicide in medically grave cases (assisted suicide =/= euthanasia, just to remind); complete separation of church and state both on influentional, effective and symbolic level (crosses out of classrooms and courts, no swearing by holy texts, etc.) and especially on financial level.

 

The areas in which I disagree with liberals, and especially with marxists, are the areas of "punishing the rich for being rich". I believe in the right of capital goods ownership and accumulation and profitting from the accumulated efforts of the generations of one's family. I oppose luxury taxes as well as progressive taxation.

[Jumping In Puddles]

:seeya: Count me in!! I'm right there with you on all counts :w00t:

[Guest Cindie2dds]

I believe strongly in human rights and equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

 

I am pro-universal health care and happy to help foot the bill.

 

I believe that every child should have equal access to education and that we cannot expect serious changes in our society with our current educational and social imbalances in inner cities and rural areas.

 

I agree with the above. I don't think legal rights of partners should be tied to marriage, that's a religious status. I would like to see civil unions so we are all equal and leave marriage to ones specific beliefs.

 

I don't believe in the death penalty, ever. I don't personally believe in abortion, but it is not my right to tell another woman what she can or can't do with her body.

 

I believe in separation of church and state completely.

 

I believe a society's moral fiber is directly reflected in how it treats "the least of these."

 

I am a card carrying, proud union member.

 

I've never considered myself a liberal, but I guess I am.

[Rivka]

I am a liberal and a feminist.

 

I would gladly pay more taxes to help provide food, education, and medical care to people who are less fortunate than me. I think that the health care bill didn't go nearly far enough towards providing universal health care. I am in favor of an expanded social safety net and opposed to privatizing social security.

 

I support public education as long as the choice not to use it is preserved. I support expanded access to accurate sex education, birth control, birth choices, and safe legal abortion. I support freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

 

I oppose the death penalty, the PATRIOT act, and 9 out of 10 wars. But that 10th war may be vitally important, so I am not a pacifist.

[Greta]

For me freedom from religion means I will not be forced to follow the rules of one particular religion when it is not a religion I subscribe to.

 

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I still don't get what you mean. How would you be "forced" - you mean forced by law? Can you give me an example?

 

I've been married twice - once in a church and once by a mayor in a township courtroom. I do not say I was married once and civil unioned once - I say I've been married twice. I don't see why a homesexual couple shouldn't be able to say the same. "Marriage" is not a religious term, IMO.

 

Sure, I didn't mean that I was discussing terminology. Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that marriages/unions which take place within the church are a matter of church discretion, whereas marriages/unions recognized by law are a matter for lawmakers and those who vote for them to decide. Wouldn't that be in accordance with "separation of church and state"?

 

But I do think a lot of people would disagree with you on that last statement. And I think I might be one of them, though I'm not sure. :D Still working this all out, like I said.

[Corraleno]

I believe in freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't think a specific religions ideas should be made into laws.

 

I believe in equality regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. I think marriage is a civil/legal status, not a religious one and therefore should not be limited based on one religions ideas.

 

I believe everyone should have access to healthcare without having to worry about losing their home to pay for it.

 

I think that the idea of helping those less fortunate through private charities is a quaint idea but highly unrealistic and likely to be unfair. Most private charities are having a hard time keeping up with the need now, even with government assistance. What makes us think they'd be able to keep up without government assistance? In addition, too many private charities put conditions on their assistance - beneficiaries must be living their idea of a moral life. We've seen examples of this described on these boards. So only those who are considered worthy will receive assistance?

 

I am pro-choice. I don't feel that it is my place to make such a life-altering choice for another person when it is not possible to know everything about their circumstances. I am in favor of complete sex education and access to birth control so that hopefully fewer women are put in the position of having to face such a decision.

:iagree: with all of this

 

Jackie

[Mejane]

I'm a social liberal - pro-choice in most every way (alternative education, abortion, gay marriage, assisted suicide...), who believes we could still function as a humane society of fiscal conservatives if so much of the money spent on war, pork, program waste and abuse, and big government was used responsibly.

[RhondaJK]

According to this http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php, I am a liberal, but I am really on the border with centrist and libertarian also. I think the questions are worded to force you into categories that don't really match all of my beliefs.

 

I really appreciate seeing this show of virtual hands and ideas.:001_smile:

[RhondaJK]

I'm a social liberal - pro-choice in most every way (alternative education, abortion, gay marriage, assisted suicide...), who believes we could still function as a humane society of fiscal conservatives if so much of the money spent on war, pork, program waste and abuse, and big government was used responsibly.

 

:iagree:You have a gift for words!

[patchfire]

North Metro Atlanta area liberal right here!

 

NM Atlanta represent! :)

[Stacia]

:seeya: Count me in on this thread...

[HRAAB]

F

 

My understanding is that even when you are married in a church there are certain CIVIL/LEGAL things that need to be done. Witnesses and the officiant need to sign a CIVIL document that is then filed with the local government office that handles such things. I've been married twice - once in a church and once by a mayor in a township courtroom. I do not say I was married once and civil unioned once - I say I've been married twice. I don't see why a homesexual couple shouldn't be able to say the same. "Marriage" is not a religious term, IMO.

 

Probably due to the religion I was raised in, marriage is, for me, a religious term, but I see other people understand it as a legal term. No doubt had I been raised without religion, I would view the term marriage differently. My whole thought is that the government has no place telling people who can and cannot marry. Or enter into a civil union. Churches can handle marriage based on their beliefs and should be able to deny marriage.

 

The government denying marriage to gays falls under my 'freedom from religion'.

[kokotg]

NM Atlanta represent! :)

 

We need to start a NM bleeding heart liberals club!

[Dana]

I'm a social liberal - pro-choice in most every way (alternative education, abortion, gay marriage, assisted suicide...), who believes we could still function as a humane society of fiscal conservatives if so much of the money spent on war, pork, program waste and abuse, and big government was used responsibly.

 

:iagree:

 

My marriage isn't threatened in any way by what goes on in other people's relationships. Although if you want to really defend marriage, you shouldn't allow remarriage. I get so very frustrated by the hypocrisy I see. :glare:

Who do you find with "wide stances"? It's not the people arguing for gay rights.

 

I think the 2nd amendment is to have a militia - not for individual gun rights & certainly not for some of the weapons we have now.

[spradlin02]

Gun totin', deer killin', anti-NRA (well, any well funding lobby), pro-choice, pro-pot, pro-gay, pro-love (not the 60's kind), conflicted with death sentence, anti-Friedman, anti-spending so much dam@ money on the military.

[Spy Car]

:seeya:

 

Bill

[Greta]

The government denying marriage to gays falls under my 'freedom from religion'.

 

Thanks for explaining this. I was wondering if this was one of the topics people had in mind when they were using that expression.

[Audrey]

..., I am a pacifist. I am anti-every war that we've been involved in since WWII, ...

 

 

Count me in on that one, too. :001_smile:

[Audrey]

 

I think the 2nd amendment is to have a militia - not for individual gun rights & certainly not for some of the weapons we have now.

 

 

I agree with you on the militia idea. In that sense, your whole second amendment is outdated, IMO.

 

I'm for intensive gun-control, and totally against C-391 which would end the long gun registry here. I would like Canada to extend even more regulations on guns.

[Rosie_0801]

As I'd said in the last thread: I don't call myself Liberal because it means something very different here than down south. Liberals (capital L) in Canada are too conservative for my liking.

 

 

Yup, here too. The Liberals are the more right wing of our major parties. We have an election coming up and I'm getting a headache trying to find someone I'm willing to give first preference to. The Americans around here seem to brand us all as socialists, but we aren't. :lol:

 

I live in a very liberal community and in my everyday life, I know only a few people who consider themselves conservatives (and those are pretty moderate in the scheme of things), so I'm sometimes weirdly fascinated by some of the opinions on this forum.

 

I know what you mean. I have a special internet buddy for sharing "ARGH! What are they thinking! I can't handle it!" messages to, when there is a particularly juicy thread on. Usually it's about health care, occasionally gun laws. :D

 

Rosie

[Caroline]

NM Atlanta represent! :)

 

Me, too!!:D

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Bleeding Heart Liberal is how some of my family would describe me.

 

Socialistic nature is how I would describe me.

[meet me in paris]

I'm in! :001_smile:

[Trixie]

:seeya: Flaming liberal checking in.

[Caitilin]

I guess my liberal beliefs/views can be summed up with the saying that "no man is an island." We all do better when we all do better. So I support public health care, public assistance programs like food stamps and WIC, public education (even though I don't use it), public libraries, etc. My husband calls it "enlightened self-interest" because we are better off when we are surrounded by people who are earning a living wage, who are educated, and who are healthy, than we would be surrounded by impoverished, uneducated, ill people. I'd say that is my first and foremost reason for being a liberal.

 

Environmental protection/preservation issues would be next on my list.

 

Thirdly, I am a pacifist. I am anti-every war that we've been involved in since WWII, anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, and anti-abortion. And of course I realize that being anti-abortion and being liberal do not usually go together. But my reasons are very well rooted in liberal ideals.

 

People have brought up some interesting issues in this thread, though, where my feelings are not quite as firm. More than one person has said that they believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not sure what is meant by that. Would anyone care to elaborate on that?

 

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

 

Yes, this! :D

[Jenny in Atl]

We need to start a NM bleeding heart liberals club!

 

Can we make it a mom's & dad's night out? :D

[FairProspects]

I guess my liberal beliefs/views can be summed up with the saying that "no man is an island." We all do better when we all do better. So I support public health care, public assistance programs like food stamps and WIC, public education (even though I don't use it), public libraries, etc. My husband calls it "enlightened self-interest" because we are better off when we are surrounded by people who are earning a living wage, who are educated, and who are healthy, than we would be surrounded by impoverished, uneducated, ill people. I'd say that is my first and foremost reason for being a liberal.

 

Environmental protection/preservation issues would be next on my list.

 

Thirdly, I am a pacifist. I am anti-every war that we've been involved in since WWII, anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, and anti-abortion. And of course I realize that being anti-abortion and being liberal do not usually go together. But my reasons are very well rooted in liberal ideals.

 

People have brought up some interesting issues in this thread, though, where my feelings are not quite as firm. More than one person has said that they believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not sure what is meant by that. Would anyone care to elaborate on that?

 

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

 

Me too! Liberal here with some social moderation because of faith issues.

[Farrar]

Total social liberal checking in. Centrist on most fiscal issues, but can we please get some single payer healthcare already?

 

I do not, however, quite get the "freedom from religion" thing. I actually have only ever heard this phrase used to clarify the fact that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think the phrase "freedom from religion" appears in any of our founding legal documents the way "freedom of religion" does. For example, government schools cannot promote prayer before the school day or before a school sponsored event like a football game, but nor do they have the right to stop an individual student from praying just because it makes someone else uncomfortable. I don't actually think we have a freedom from religion. I firmly believe people have a right to choose a religion or no religion at all, but they have to live with the fact that others may choose differently and that there are religious institutions established that have a right to exist.

 

In the example that was given before about elected officials using religion as a basis for denying full marriage rights to gays and lesbians, I would say that falls under the separation of church and state. Which I also believe in strongly. Also, gay marriage. Just sayin'.

 

Anyway, I think it's just a question of semantics. But the phrase "freedom from religion" rubs me personally the wrong way. It seems to connote (whether that's what is meant or not) that one has a right to not see any markers of religion in public life, which I don't agree is the case.

[3littlekeets]

For me freedom from religion means I will not be forced to follow the rules of one particular religion when it is not a religion I subscribe to.

 

My understanding is that even when you are married in a church there are certain CIVIL/LEGAL things that need to be done. Witnesses and the officiant need to sign a CIVIL document that is then filed with the local government office that handles such things. I've been married twice - once in a church and once by a mayor in a township courtroom. I do not say I was married once and civil unioned once - I say I've been married twice. I don't see why a homesexual couple shouldn't be able to say the same. "Marriage" is not a religious term, IMO.

 

:iagree: though I would say that is freedom "of" religion for me. Separation of Church and State would align with "from" in such things like gay marriage. Why should some people's religious beliefs impinge on the rights of others?

 

Also, I think what is interesting is that for many liberals I know, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It simply means that the issue is not a government issue. It is an issue between the woman (and her partner in many cases) and her health care provider, and if she is a woman of faith, then her god. For some reason, I find that it is a hard distinction to make clear to other people who have opposing views.

Edited August 11, 2010 by 3littlekeets

[nmoira]

Present

 

:seeya:

[Jumping In Puddles]

Thank you 3littlekeets for starting this thread! :hurray:

[Shawna in Texas]

How did I miss this?

:cheers2:

[astrid]

Liberal here, waving from CT!

 

Astrid

[Rivka]

:seeya:

 

Bill

 

Holy cow, really?! You've got to loosen up and start getting your POV out there!:lol:

[catz]

I live in a very liberal community and in my everyday life, I know only a few people who consider themselves conservatives (and those are pretty moderate in the scheme of things), so I'm sometimes weirdly fascinated by some of the opinions on this forum.

 

ROFL - me too!