Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

Just one more thing: what is 'the best allocation of resources' according to you?

well I fell it's funny this qustion come from you.
the real (and only) objective libertarian theories point to gain its this.
Other ideas doesn't focus on it (they maybe prefer focusing on human rights, redistribution, progress, social justice etc.)

Anyway to answer this is very complicated, every word needs an explanation, but I would start from here

Exactly. That's why I said a catholic can be pro same-sex marriage (public marriage, I'm not talking about the catholic marriage).

I apologize. I made a mistake. It should say: There is absolutely no reason not to use different names except to create confusion.

However, I really don't understand how you weren't able to notice that this could never be the conclusion if you actually followed my argumentation so far.

You don't want to call pseudo-Catholics differently only to create confusion and relativise the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That's quite a long description. As long as you don't have a suitable alternative, I'll continue to use homophobia.

OK, I get it. You asked me to find an alternative so that you can dismiss each and every one and "prove" that homophobia is an ideal choice. The truth is that you heterophobs don't want to give up using this insulting and inadequate label.

Of course. But use it correctly. Simple logic:

If A then B. If "opposed to same-sex marriage" then "homophobe". If "opposed to different-sex marriage" then "heterophobe". I'm neither of those.

LOL So, I should use correctly a word that is invented as a reaction to an absurd word and concept. That makes perfect sense.

Of course it's completely illogical. I don't use it to make sense but just to give you a taste of your own medicine, i.e. to label you and annoy you.

I am really sorry, but until you offer a better word, I will simply have to use this one.
(editado)

Other ideas doesn't focus on it

Really? You are serious?

YOU started talking about it. And I'm asking YOU what you consider 'the best allocation of resources'. I don't need it in detail, but what is it for you?

And yes, I know what opportunity costs are, I'm not an idiot.

There is absolutely no reason not to use different names except to create confusion.

Yes there is. You are a member of the Catholic Church. You believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That makes you a Catholic. The Belgian guy I'm talking about is a member of the Catholic Church. He believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ergo, he's a Catholic too. Or do you think the whole Catholic Church has exactly the same opinion about legal same-sex marriage?

The truth is that you heterophobs don't want to give up using this insulting and inadequate label.

TINA. And heterophobe, please. I'm not giving any less rights to straight people. But continue to make yourself look like a complete idiot.

i.e. to label you and annoy you.

I know the label is wrong. Everyone with a brain capacity higher than the average brick knows that label is wrong. You're not annoying me, you're making me laugh :-)

I am really sorry, but until you offer a better word, I will simply have to use this one.

Please do so. If granting equal rights to gays means I'm heterophobe (which I disagree with), I'm happy to be heterophobe.

Really? You are serious?

yes. really.

YOU started talking about it. And I'm asking YOU what you consider 'the best allocation of resources'. I don't need it in detail, but what is it for you?

And yes, I know what opportunity costs are, I'm not an idiot.

I think I answered alreay with that link and its involved concepts.

By the way, what are you trying to say?
if you use as criteria of success exactly what you get with your theory..
well, you'll get a sure win! But what for?

Yes there is. You are a member of the Catholic Church. You believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That makes you a Catholic. The Belgian guy I'm talking about is a member of the Catholic Church. He believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ergo, he's a Catholic too. Or do you think the whole Catholic Church has exactly the same opinion about legal same-sex marriage?

Wrong. What makes me a Catholic is that I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are many more religious denominations who believe in Jesus Christ. Catholics don't agree with them. What do you think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is for? What are you now gonna teach me about my religion too? Our religion is not a democracy. I am telling you. A person not respecting crucial beliefs of the Catholic Church is a pseudo-Catholic. Any priest will tell you that from the altar. The ones that don't, often get excommunicated. Martin Luther was a blasphemist too but at least he was fair enough to start a new church. Why do you think we have confession? So, that people can confess what they think was their sin by thought, word, deed and omission? I am sure that there are even pseudo-Catholics who think that confession is not necessary or that sex before marriage is ok. So, who cares about them? They have no authority within the Catholic religion. They're just bad examples. They should start up a new religion with new rules. I don't know why they stay within a group that they don't share the crucial beliefs with. There are many Christian religions already and a new one is always more welcome than futile and hypocritical membership to an existing one.

TINA. And heterophobe, please. I'm not giving any less rights to straight people. But continue to make yourself look like a complete idiot.

There is. I gave you one and you're free to find yourself a name that is more precise and less insulting. I could also stop using "pro choice" and start using "pro death" or "against life" or at least "pro abortion" but I am polite enough not to because "pro life" is definitely not insulting. Please note that "pro choice" is also not precise enough and the "pro life" people are equally disgusted by what it stands for.

Here, maybe "pro exclusive straight". It just needs to be recognizable and not insulting. I don't have a problem with having these views. I have a problem that the name for my views was in an insulting way assigned by people opposing them.

I know the label is wrong. Everyone with a brain capacity higher than the average brick knows that label is wrong. You're not annoying me, you're making me laugh :-)

Then stop using what I consider as label word.

And give me some time. I have only just begun. :P

Please do so. If granting equal rights to gays means I'm heterophobe (which I disagree with), I'm happy to be heterophobe.

Well, thank you. I appreciate your tolerance. I will do my best to make the rights of heterophobs equal to "pro exclusive straight" people. They most certainly shouldn't be less annoyed. Being that they are very well known for their tolerance, they probably won't even notice. :P
(editado)

A person not respecting crucial beliefs of the Catholic Church is a pseudo-Catholic.

But a Catholic notheless.
Any person who goes through the 3 sacrements of Initiation, and thus is accepted into the Catholic church, and not excommunicated by that same Curch is a Catholic.

So (this time ;) ) levitate is right in saying there are Catholics with different point of views then the ruling institutions of the Catholic Curch.

Whether you or others think, that person is a "bad" Catholic is a whole different discussion. In a way, passing that judgement is not up to you, but up to God and Jesus, isn't it?
(Either as part of the Judgement of God after death, or as part of the Final Judgement.)

Any person who goes through the 3 sacrements of Initiation, and thus is accepted into the Catholic church, and not excommunicated by that same Curch is a Catholic.

Like I said, that's only on paper. Because using that definition, I'm a Catholic too. I wouldn't call myself a Catholic though, not at all :p

@ Sasha:

Wrong. What makes me a Catholic is that I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. [...] There are many Christian religions already and a new one is always more welcome than futile and hypocritical membership to an existing one.

So if that Church would allow gays to marry, you'd leave the Catholic Church and you wouldn't describe yourself as Catholic anymore?

Here, maybe "pro exclusive straight". It just needs to be recognizable and not insulting. I don't have a problem with having these views. I have a problem that the name for my views was in an insulting way assigned by people opposing them.

I hope you are not a marketeer, 'cause "pro exclusive straight" is not a good description. 'Pro exclusive straight' is like 'pro exclusive Muslim'. Hey, it's your choice that you aren't a Muslim, so don't nag about the fact that you aren't allowed to adopt.
(You say sexuality is a choice. If that is the case (I think it's wrong, but let's assume it's right), then religion most certainly is a choice.)

You simply don't want to acknowledge that you want to give heterosexual more rights than homosexuals. You don't have too, but it's rather pathetic.

Then stop using what I consider as label word.

I will not. You're a homophobe and I will continue to say that. Apparently you do get annoyed by that. That is your problem.

But a Catholic notheless.
Any person who goes through the 3 sacrements of Initiation, and thus is accepted into the Catholic church, and not excommunicated by that same Curch is a Catholic.

So (this time ;) ) levitate is right in saying there are Catholics with different point of views then the ruling institutions of the Catholic Curch.

Technically they're Catholics. But this discussion is about values and opinions in general. I mentioned that calling my views as Catholic is adequate in that sense and even regarding my views about homosexuality.

So, the pseudo-Catholic's values and opinions are simply irrelevant in that sense. We can't talk about Catholic values and opinions and include any possible value and opinion that any Catholic might begin to imagine. That would be absurd. Catholic authorities are united in all the important aspects of our faith and the subject matter of this discussion is one of them. So, it is very clear what Catholic values and opinions are.

Whether you or others think, that person is a "bad" Catholic is a whole different discussion. In a way, passing that judgement is not up to you, but up to God and Jesus, isn't it?
(Either as part of the Judgement of God after death, or as part of the Final Judgement.)

I am not judging people here. What person was I talking about here? You can't judge people without mentioning actual people.

So again, I am discussing values and opinions here. God will judge every person and I am sure that being Catholic or even Christian will not be a prerequisite for His mercy. Every person will be judged by his or her own merits.
(editado)

So, the pseudo-Catholic's values and opinions are simply irrelevant in that sense. We can't talk about Catholic values and opinions and include any possible value and opinion that any Catholic might begin to imagine.

still every modification in catholic catechism is been produced by people that didn't believed the "official version"!
and we know how many modification there was in history..
(editado)

So if that Church would allow gays to marry, you'd leave the Catholic Church and you wouldn't describe yourself as Catholic anymore?

Asking what if questions is always tricky because they always lack the complexity of real life situation. And when they are so big questions, then it makes them completely impossible to answer. I don't know. I simply can't see this gradually happening and I can't even predict what would be the first step. I don't even see the celibacy abolished.

(Btw, that always reminds of an aphorism. "As one priest once wisely said. We may never live to see the celibacy abolished. But our children probably will." )

I hope you are not a marketeer, 'cause "pro exclusive straight" is not a good description. 'Pro exclusive straight' is like 'pro exclusive Muslim'. Hey, it's your choice that you aren't a Muslim, so don't nag about the fact that you aren't allowed to adopt.
(You say sexuality is a choice. If that is the case (I think it's wrong, but let's assume it's right), then religion most certainly is a choice.)

You simply don't want to acknowledge that you want to give heterosexual more rights than homosexuals. You don't have too, but it's rather pathetic.

No, I'm definitely not in marketing. Just the opposite. I'm a finance guy. :)

Can't you really already guess my answers on that? Come on. I do see it as a choice but simply not a valid one. It's like with taking drugs: "Just say no!". Religious orientation is a valid choice. For sexuality only monogamous hetero is valid so there are no equal choices. There is only the right way and all other are wrong.

And again, this is not a question of human rights but of qualifications. I wouldn't give a driver's license to the blind either. All people are free to have their own kids but for adoption they need to meet certain criteria and healthy sexuality is definitely one of them. I wouldn't give abandoned kids to e.g. people in their 4th marriage or straight swingers either so you can't attribute this to my "pro exclusive straight" opinions. I am really tired of repeating myself...

I will not. You're a homophobe and I will continue to say that. Apparently you do get annoyed by that. That is your problem.

Yes. Heterophobs will do that. That's the kind of people they are.
(editado)

still every modification in catholic catechism is been produced by people that didn't believed the "official version"!
and we know how many modification there was in history..

So? Become a priest, get elected for pope and do your version.

So? Become a priest, get elected for pope and do your version.

you know that this answer is stupid, right?
Obviously any modification start from people INSIDE that start dubting, don't blelieving, discussing.. then there's the repression period, finally official position change.
It happens very often, expecially in things Christ "forgot" to talk about, but that Roman Church need to make him say..

Asking what if questions is always tricky because they always lack the complexity of real life situation.

Tricky questions need an answer too. So imagine gay marriage would be allowed by the Catholic Church, would you leave the Church and if you did, would you still call yourself a Catholic?

Religious orientation is a valid choice. For sexuality only monogamous hetero is valid so there are no equal choices.

Okay. That being said, let me introduce you to a certain scenario. You live in a country and the majority of the county is Muslim. A majority also thinks that being a Muslim is a valid condition to be acceptable for adoption. So, only Muslims will be allowed to adopt.

Don't you think this is discrimination? Don't you think this is intolerable discrimination, regardless of 'democracy'?

If you don't think this is intolerable discrimination, then you're completely nuts.

If you do think this is intolerable discrimination, you're right. Now tell me, why is it okay to forbid gays to adopt if a majority of the people think kids are better raised by straight parents and why isn't it okay to forbid non-Muslims to adopt if a majority of the people think kids are better raised by Muslims? What's the difference? Why can the first majority use its majority to impose its views on society while the second majority can't?

you know that this answer is stupid, right?
Obviously any modification start from people INSIDE that start dubting, don't blelieving, discussing.. then there's the repression period, finally official position change.
It happens very often, expecially in things Christ "forgot" to talk about, but that Roman Church need to make him say..

So? Even the most stubborn organization in the world changes. What's your point? Would you think better about it if it didn't change at all ever?

Tricky questions need an answer too. So imagine gay marriage would be allowed by the Catholic Church, would you leave the Church and if you did, would you still call yourself a Catholic?

I would really answer it if I knew the answer. I honestly don't know. Maybe I would and maybe I wouldn't. Being that I strongly believe that the Catholic Church changes adequately to the time so my guess is that I probably wouldn't leave it and I would remain Catholic. But on the other hand, I would need a reasonable development form the current situation and I can't imagine that. So, my guess is also that a Judgement Day is more likely to come before that happens.

Okay. That being said, let me introduce you to a certain scenario. You live in a country and the majority of the county is Muslim. A majority also thinks that being a Muslim is a valid condition to be acceptable for adoption. So, only Muslims will be allowed to adopt.

Don't you think this is discrimination? Don't you think this is intolerable discrimination, regardless of 'democracy'?

Well, I wouldn't call this an intolerable discrimination. I wouldn't fight it by any means possible. But it is an absolutely unreasonable and unjustified discrimination.

If you do think this is intolerable discrimination, you're right. Now tell me, why is it okay to forbid gays to adopt if a majority of the people think kids are better raised by straight parents and why isn't it okay to forbid non-Muslims to adopt if a majority of the people think kids are better raised by Muslims? What's the difference? Why can the first majority use its majority to impose its views on society while the second majority can't?

Unfortunately, one of the downsides of democracy of which we haven't found a better solution is having to come with peace about the wrong choices of the majority. That's why I wouldn't call every single discrimination intolerable. When you're up against the will of majority, you need to choose your battles.

Still, I must repeat again that Islam is a valid religious orientation (though not all religious orientations are) and in sexuality there is only one: monogamous heterosexuality. So, it is simply because the first majority is right and the second one is wrong.