SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: LindyBill who wrote (3988)7/31/2003 7:07:11 AM
From: greenspirit
   of 766365
 
I don't think so, when yo look at the numbers the parties seems to be generating into white men and married women, vs single women and die-hard lefties of all stripes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: LindyBill who wrote (4061)7/31/2003 7:10:46 AM
From: JohnM
   of 766365
 
Different wording in the questions. Always changes the responses.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: JohnM who wrote (4063)7/31/2003 7:29:37 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 766365
 
Different wording in the questions. Always changes the responses.

That's not the point, John. The Times says that prejudice has gone down, and then prints a poll that says it has gone up! Just nonsense on their part.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: greenspirit who wrote (4062)7/31/2003 8:30:12 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 766365
 
This will be a tough one for some Liberal Catholic Politicians. Their voters are going to be more demanding on this one.

Vatican Starts Campaign Against Gay Marriage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK TIMES

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was ``gravely immoral'' and urging non-Catholics to follow their lead.

The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America.

``There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family,'' the document said. ``Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.''

The issue is particularly charged in the United States, where some lawmakers in the House of Representatives have proposed a constitutional ban on gay marriages to counter state laws granting legal recognition to gay unions.

President Bush said Wednesday that marriage was defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman and said he wants to ``codify that one way or the other.''

The Vatican document, ``Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,'' sets out a plan for politicians when confronted with laws or proposed legislation giving homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental ``obstacles'' because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.

``Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development,'' it said.

It said gay adoptions contradicted the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which holds that the best interests of the child are to be paramount.

The document says Catholic politicians have a ``moral duty'' to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them if proposals are put to a vote in legislatures.

If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them, work to repeal them and try to limit their impact on society, it said.

``To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral,'' the document said.

The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone ``committed to promoting and defending the common good of society'' since the issue concerned natural moral law, not just Church doctrine.

The document comes after an appeals court in Ontario, Canada ruled in June that Canada's definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. That paved the way for legalized gay unions there.

Vermont and some European nations, such as Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark, have ``civil union'' laws giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of traditional marriages.

The document doesn't contain any new Church teachings on the issue, repeating much of the Vatican's previous comments on homosexuality and marriage, which it defines as a sacred union between man and woman designed to create new human life.

It said homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against, but said denying gay couples the rights afforded in traditional marriages isn't discrimination.

Monsignor Angel Rodriguez Luno, a professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, noted in a statement released by the Vatican that homosexual relationships, like other human relationships, need not be legally recognized.

Basic friendship, for example, isn't defined legally because it is a private relationship, he said.

In a footnote citing a 1992 comment on the topic, the document also noted that there was a danger that laws legalizing same-sex unions could actually encourage someone with a homosexual orientation to seek out a partner to ``exploit the provisions of the law.''

On Thursday, a small group of demonstrators from Italy's Radical Party held up banners at the edge of St. Peter's Square to protest the document. The banners read ``No Vatican, No Taliban,'' and ``Democracy Yes, Theocracy No.''

Other opposition to the document came from the Green Party in predominantly Catholic Austria. Ulrike Lunacek, a party spokeswoman, said Catholic politicians should follow human rights conventions, ``not the old-fashioned views of the Vatican.''

``This hierarchy, which also rules on other issues like forbidding the use of condoms to avoid AIDS, is far from reality,'' she said in a statement issued earlier this week after the Vatican announced the document's release.
nytimes.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: D. Long who wrote (4053)7/31/2003 8:35:04 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 766365
 
From a Blogger in the Pharmaceuticals Industry.

IN THE PIPELINE: drug discovery

By Derek Lowe

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

Bravo, You Dolts

Well, it's finally time for me to comment on last week's vote in the House on drug reimportation (although I don't expect there's much suspense about what my opinion is.) First off, I'm assuming that this bill is going to die in the Senate, since 53 senators have already signed a letter to that effect. But the night is young. There's no telling what my industry's lobbying could manage to accomplish, because they turned the House vote from a setback into a disaster.

I'm not the only person who thinks that way, of course. Let's go to the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray: "The size of that victory was partly a backlash agains the industry's heavy-handed lobbying tactics. . .the industry needs to stop hiding behind cheap front groups and start telling its story straight." And here's a bit from an excellent roundup in the subscription-only newsletter BioCentury: "The vote was a wake up call that most members of the House are willing to support implicit price controls on biopharmaceuticals. They either do not believe that price controls would stifle innovation, or they do not care. . .the outcome put a bright spotlight on the deep antipathy to the pharmaceutical lobby's attempts to stifle its opponents."

That's the truth, PhRMA guys, and I hope you're learning to live with it. All this "Seniors Coalition" fake-grassroots stuff doesn't cut it any more, and it was idiotic to think that it would. Similarly sparkling was that plan of writing the talking points for the Traditional Values Coalition, in such a way that reporters could see that the software was actually licensed to PhRMA employees. Oh yes, when my mortgage payment rolls around, I can take comfort in knowing that my livelihood depends on people who thought that this was a slick and effective move.

I've said it before: the "unsafe drugs" argument is a loser. It smells, and the smell clings to people who take it seriously (or pretend to.) There are real arguments against drug reimportation, arguments that thinking adults have a reasonable chance of understanding and sympathizing with. But we can't make them while we're pretending that antihistamines from Edmonton are going to poison everyone, now can we?

As I said, I believe that this bill is going to evaporate in the Senate. But what have we here? That letter with the 53 senatorial signatures? The New York Times now has a copy of a letter signed by one of PhRMA's red-hot dealmakers, in which he helpfully points out that they're helping Sen. Santorum with "the logistics of getting this 'Dear Colleague' (letter) out to as many offices as possible. . ." Well, Santorum (who wouldn't have been my pick as point man, exactly) is at least saying that he initiated the letter. But doesn't this give some opportunistic Senator an out, if needed? "Why, I had no idea this letter was being circulated by (gasp) a lobbying group! I'll have to reassess my position. . ."

Oh, there are no limits to what we can accomplish over here in the drug industry. We can stop diseases in their tracks that used to mow people down like ripe wheat. We can bring some people back from the very parking lot of the funeral parlor, and we're staying up late at night trying to figure out ways to do it some more. And we can then take what should be the biggest reservoir of good will around, drain the whole damn thing, leap into the resulting mudhole and sink clear out of sight. Arrr.
corante.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (4065)7/31/2003 8:38:56 AM
From: John Carragher
   of 766365
 
I doubt the vatican can influence any liberal Catholic politicians. It is the same with birth control etc.. a matter of personal choice.. and what they believe will determine the votes.. Not many Catholics listening to Vatican these days..

Votes will fall with what they feel about gay marriage and most important what their district thinks... If liberal Catholic politician is in ca. etc., I doubt he gives a dam about vatican. g

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (4065)7/31/2003 8:41:28 AM
From: unclewest
   of 766365
 
This will be a tough one for some Liberal Catholic Politicians.

Agree.

I can't wait to see Senator Ted Kennedy tell Massachusetts Catholics they can't vote for Barney Franks.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: John Carragher who wrote (4067)7/31/2003 8:45:55 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 766365
 
It is the same with birth control etc.

I don't think it is the same, John. A majority of American Catholics are not with the Vatican on birth control, but they are on gay marriage. It won't matter to apostates like Teddy, but some will have to sail close to the wind on this issue.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (4069)7/31/2003 8:50:41 AM
From: John Carragher
   of 766365
 
my point is they are or are not against gay marriage it has nothing to do with Vatican... Vatican published a paper like so many other groups .. But Catholics will vote because they do or do not believe in gay marriage... Not because of Vatican paper... I would expect there are many gay Catholics, and many have a family member or friend gay..
Vatican doesn't believe in divorce.. Wonder how many Catholics are divorced and remarried... g
(always an exception like Senator Rick. S.)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: John Carragher who wrote (4070)7/31/2003 8:56:31 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 766365
 
my point is they are or are not against gay marriage it has nothing to do with Vatican

Could be. I think the latest surveys that show an increase in opposition to Gay Marriage point up the attitude I have posted about before.

People tend to be more open to gays, as long as the gays don't rub their noses in it. Kind of an extension on the "don't ask, don't tell" attitude. It is one thing to be not opposed to gay marriage when it is in the abstract. It is another when your local TV station starts showing the marriages on the evening news. Backlash time, IMO.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10