Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.
Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices.
In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.

I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality.
I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.

So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.
The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.