Religion

Response to cbayer (Reply #65)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pope Francis on Abortion. Meet the new boss.... [View all] Goblinmonger Jan 2014 OP

It's so nice to see this new pope take a much more progressive stance on... trotsky Jan 2014 #1

That cabal of criminals will never change on this issue warrant46 Jan 2014 #51

I rather doubt the official stance on that subject will change any time soon, if ever. MADem Jan 2014 #2

What's the issue, to keep it legal or for him to say there's nothing wrong with it? rug Jan 2014 #3

That, contrary to the tongue baths here on DU, Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #4

Given that this is a political website, the issue is political acts to keep it legal, not doctrine. rug Jan 2014 #6

Oh, I'm sorry. Are we pretending Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #8

Far be it to me to say what you're pretending. rug Jan 2014 #9

The church tries to impose doctrine in US legal matters muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #13

Which is why it should be stopped. rug Jan 2014 #14

It's not legal everywhere. The Catholic church is a big reason why it's next to impossible muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #5

To the extent that statement is true, it's a political issue not a doctrinal issue. rug Jan 2014 #7

Catholic doctrine is to oppose abortion everywhere, and that puts the pope at fault muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #12

Actually, there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that requires a state to enforce a church's morality rug Jan 2014 #15

Which brings us back to the original question Good without a god Jan 2014 #16

Because he is progressive on others. rug Jan 2014 #17

Unlike Obama Good without a god Jan 2014 #19

Yes, explain it. rug Jan 2014 #20

From the OED entry for the verb 'wet': muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #21

The OED is great! But needs updates Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #22

Wrong form of the word. Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #25

It can't possibly have a sexual connotation specific to women. rug Jan 2014 #23

I believe you're thinking of references to 'go moist' etc. muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #24

Lexicographers, Semanticists, agree that words, phrases, can expand and "drift" in meaning Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #27

Do you have an example Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #28

I've heard "they're wet"; "not a dry seat in the house," applied to sexual matters Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #29

So you're saying you haven't heard "wet yourself" (himself/herself/myself/etc.) as sexual muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #30

Yup, I've heard it that way Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #31

I agree taking the phrase as a sexual reference, is problematic Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #32

Lol, do you also fully understand "disingenuous"? rug Jan 2014 #34

On the other hand, somebody has once again derailed the conversation. Warren Stupidity Jan 2014 #46

That must be a quaint British idiom. rug Jan 2014 #33

Oh yes, you don't get more British than USA Today writing about American Football muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #35

You need another dictionary. rug Jan 2014 #36

The one use of 'wet' as a verb on the first page: muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #37

Ok, keep arguing the grammar of sexism rug Jan 2014 #38

" fig., to become excited" "editors would wet themselves; they liked nothing better..." muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #39

What's with caps? Are you wetting yourself? rug Jan 2014 #40

As I said, you are dishonest, divisive, and and all-round waste of space in this thread muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #41

Now who's insulting a DUer? rug Jan 2014 #42

Check out this definition from Urban Dictionary Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #43

Which makes perfect sense when used in that post, doesn't it. rug Jan 2014 #44

So now I'm supposed to believe Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #45

You're not supposed to believe anything, correct? rug Jan 2014 #47

It's a metaphor Good without a god Jan 2014 #48

Whatever you meant, you just couldn't help insulting members on this board, could you? rug Jan 2014 #49

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #53

Yes, whatever you meant. I don't believe you. rug Jan 2014 #54

Since you have made it clear you don't know what the phrase means Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #60

I know exactly what the phrase means and I know exactly what he meant. rug Jan 2014 #71

I'm not sure how you might confuse some support for and cbayer Jan 2014 #55

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #56

What makes you think I'm not paying attention. cbayer Jan 2014 #57

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #58

I'm going to let you go find those yourself. cbayer Jan 2014 #59

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #61

Do you think you even remotely speak for everyone reading this? cbayer Jan 2014 #62

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #64

Again with the "we". What's up with that? cbayer Jan 2014 #65

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #66

Exactly, I am not speaking for them. cbayer Jan 2014 #67

Remind you of something? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #68

Oh, yes indeed. cbayer Jan 2014 #69

We are on it. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #70

I doubt this will change in the near future. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #10

Funny that the pope can say something that is not liberal LostOne4Ever Jan 2014 #11

Maybe. But theologians play word games; "it's horrible to even think" lots of things Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #18

Abortion SamKnause Jan 2014 #26

George says best Meshuga Jan 2014 #50

the bible says...a child is a child of god once they draw their first breath. madrchsod Jan 2014 #52

Indeed. Htom Sirveaux Jan 2014 #63