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

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.

What's your point?

My point is that some people inside Catholics start thinking different things about omosexuality and homosex-rights MAYBE you can't close any discussion about their ideas saying they are not really catholics...

for example I'll like to know if you believe everything Catholic catechism says (immaculate conception, original sin, trinity and unity of God, heaven and hell, final judgement, devil existance, resurrection of the bodies etc etc..)

I would remain Catholic

You consider this an option. Well, progressive Catholics choose to remain Catholic too. Even though they personally do not agree with everything the Catholic Church says.

Well, I wouldn't call this an intolerable discrimination. I wouldn't fight it by any means possible.

What is wrong with you? Apparently, you find it acceptable (unjustified, but acceptable) that Muslims can adopt and Christians don't.

I must repeat again that Islam is a valid religious orientation (though not all religious orientations are)

What do you mean by this? Which religious orientations aren't valid?

in sexuality there is only one: monogamous heterosexuality

I beg to differ.

So, it is simply because the first majority is right and the second one is wrong.

Lol. Strong reason for why there is a difference. Basically, you're saying "I'm right and they are wrong, and that's why I'm right".

Edit: Let me ask it this way: in your ideal state structure (so structure, that doesn't mean the government makes the choices it is allowed to make like you'd like!), is the government allowed to restrict adoption to people with a certain religion?
(editado)

My point is that some people inside Catholics start thinking different things about omosexuality and homosex-rights MAYBE you can't close any discussion about their ideas saying they are not really catholics...

Who's closing the discussion about these ideas? I am discussing it here, right? We're discussing them within Catholic Church as well and there are also many strange opinions in those discussions. I am just saying that those ideas are Catholic and not believing in them is not Catholic. I really don't understand why you have so much problems with something so simple.

for example I'll like to know if you believe everything Catholic catechism says (immaculate conception, original sin, trinity and unity of God, heaven and hell, final judgement, devil existance, resurrection of the bodies etc etc..)

Yes, I do believe in all that. Isn't that obvious? I really don't see the point in calling myself Catholic if I wasn't believing all that or at least trying to believe. I was baptized as a baby but not raised Catholic and during the time I didn't believe all this, I didn't call myself Catholic but an atheist. Anyway, what's the point in believing in God that hasn't got any supernatural powers? The whole point about Catholic faith is exactly in the supernatural part. What's that whole story about without the actual resurrection? The apostles would lose their faith if He didn't come to them after His death on the cross. They were only human after all so they had to know that it happened.

You consider this an option. Well, progressive Catholics choose to remain Catholic too. Even though they personally do not agree with everything the Catholic Church says.

Well, good for them. I hope that they are also aware that their ideas are not Catholic. So, progressive Catholic is fine with me. I wouldn't want to confuse them with the actual Catholic ideas. I guess you would.

What is wrong with you? Apparently, you find it acceptable (unjustified, but acceptable) that Muslims can adopt and Christians don't.

tol·er·a·ble (t l r- -b l). adj. 1. Capable of being tolerated; endurable.

as oposed to

ac·cept·a·ble ( k-s p t -b l). adj. 1. Worthy of being accepted. 2. Adequate to satisfy a need, requirement, or standard; satisfactory.

Your manipulations are endless.

What do you mean by this? Which religious orientations aren't valid?

I believe I already posted here a link with top ten strangest religions. You can start there.

Lol. Strong reason for why there is a difference. Basically, you're saying "I'm right and they are wrong, and that's why I'm right".

No, I'm not saying that. I have explained well in this discussion why I think I am right about it.

Let me ask it this way: in your ideal state structure (so structure, that doesn't mean the government makes the choices it is allowed to make like you'd like!), is the government allowed to restrict adoption to people with a certain religion?

Well, the basis for discrimination should never be religion. Criteria should be a stable and healthy family in all aspects of family life: financial stability, no major health problems of parents, healthy sexuality etc.

Your manipulations are endless.

You said you wouldn't fight such legislation by any means. Your words, not mine. If you wouldn't fight it at all, I assume you find it acceptable. A logical assumption if you ask me.

I believe I already posted here a link with top ten strangest religions. You can start there.

Is Christianity ranked #1? ;-)

So it's just a subjective list of what you experience as strange religions. No point in discussing that.

I have explained well in this discussion why I think I am right about it.

Actually, you haven't. You cannot explain your inconsistency (one can discriminate on sexuality but not on world religions (as you exclude funny religions (pleonasm)).

Well, the basis for discrimination should never be religion. Criteria should be a stable and healthy family in all aspects of family life: financial stability, no major health problems of parents, healthy sexuality etc.

But in your ideal state structure, the majority of the people can decide that Christianity or Islam is a mental health issue and therefore, they shouldn't be able to adopt.

Yes, I do believe in all that. Isn't that obvious? I really don't see the point in calling myself Catholic if I wasn't believing all that or at least trying to believe. I was baptized as a baby but not raised Catholic and during the time I didn't believe all this, I didn't call myself Catholic but an atheist. Anyway, what's the point in believing in God that hasn't got any supernatural powers? The whole point about Catholic faith is exactly in the supernatural part. What's that whole story about without the actual resurrection? The apostles would lose their faith if He didn't come to them after His death on the cross. They were only human after all so they had to know that it happened.

what a mess.
1- I was thinking you (as the most of catholics) believe a part of all. I was wrong. But do you really believe everything? Not any doubt? Wow..
2- Believing a part has nothing to do with atheism or not superpowerfulGod.
3- I sayd Resurrection of the bodies intending after final judgment for every man "saved". So believers will resurrect with their body?

What do you do about certain aspects of religion that are against Christian principles, but according to a principle of another religion? (such as circumcision for example) What if a religion that allows marriage (and adoption by) homosexuals is imported to, or founded in, your country?

You said you wouldn't fight such legislation by any means. Your words, not mine. If you wouldn't fight it at all, I assume you find it acceptable. A logical assumption if you ask me.

OK, sorry about that. I always forget about the "total logic failure" possibility with you.

So, once again, from the top.
"I would fight it by any means" = fight no matter what = intolerable and unacceptable.
"I wouldn't fight it by any means" = fight but not unconditionally = tolerable but still unacceptable.

It is beyond my imagination how you were able to mistaken the 2nd sentence with "I would avoid to fight it by any means" because it doesn't make any sense that "by any means" relates to a negation and especially when it's a conditional tense.

So it's just a subjective list of what you experience as strange religions. No point in discussing that.

Once again, it's futile to insist on scientific objectivity with topics like religion. But if you do insist, if we would make a research, I am sure that most people would dismiss those religions as valid choices. OK, except maybe scientology but imo, it belongs to the outcast religions list as well because it's harmful. Atheism is a valid choice because it's an absence of a structured approach to religious beliefs so there's nothing controversial in general about atheistic beliefs because each one is different. But when a religious denomination has an official version of its beliefs, then it is also possible to democratically dismiss them as valid on the account of being harmful or irrelevant. That doesn't mean forbidding them, but only not taking them as equal under the category. Not all sports are Olympic sports for a reason.

Actually, you haven't. You cannot explain your inconsistency (one can discriminate on sexuality but not on world religions (as you exclude funny religions (pleonasm)).

OK, maybe I haven't but still major religions including the Catholic have well elaborated why they consider monogamous heterosexuality as the only healthy choice. Read all about it if you're really interested. I support most of those explanations and all of the official Catholic ones.

But in your ideal state structure, the majority of the people can decide that Christianity or Islam is a mental health issue and therefore, they shouldn't be able to adopt.

Yes, in my ideal state structure people are free to democratically decide right about anything. Fortunately, I also strongly believe that they will make mostly good and tolerable choices. Sometimes shit happens but what can we do? Take the freedom away? And give it to who? The omnipotent and omniscient Libertarians? :P

Yes, I believe everything and most Catholics do. Once again, Catholic Church is neither a democracy nor a supermarket. It has a well rounded and structured set of beliefs and rules. What's the point in being a member if you deny them?

Nobody in my family is allowed to apply their own rules and beliefs about our family life. I am the head and I make the rules. We can all discuss them but in the end I decide about our official version. What's so strange about a community working like that? You're wondering at this "like a chicken at the worm" as we say in our country.

Democracy is the way to go for me. But I must say that I can imagine also outcomes of democracy that I would fight in non democratical ways.

What do you do about certain aspects of religion that are against Christian principles, but according to a principle of another religion? (such as circumcision for example) What if a religion that allows marriage (and adoption by) homosexuals is imported to, or founded in, your country?

Aha, now I get what you were aiming at. You're arguing that in that case they would be "discriminated" on religious basis and not on sexual preference. Yes, this is completely true and this is actually a great example. It shows that such "discrimination" is in fact inevitable. The basis for such "discrimination" is not the set of beliefs of the "discriminated" but the set of beliefs of the "discriminators" and this is usually the consequence of them being in majority. The only way to avoid all such "discrimination" is to remove all moral limits and allow for absolute moral freedom which leads to anarchy.

The reason why I put "" around such discrimination is that this is not real discrimination as the moral set of beliefs apply the same to everyone. In that sense it is quite stupid to compare racism to "pro exclusive straight" views. Racist discrimination was against moral principles advocated by major religions which is not the case with the "pro exclusive straight" views which are in line with them. So, racist discrimination was a question of malpractice and/or misinterpretation.

It is beyond my imagination how you were able to mistaken the 2nd sentence with "I would avoid to fight it by any means" because it doesn't make any sense that "by any means" relates to a negation and especially when it's a conditional tense.

I misunderstood. I thought you meant you wouldn't fight it at all. Apparently, misunderstanding (what often happens when two people discuss in their non-maternal tongue) is a logic failure.

Once again, it's futile to insist on scientific objectivity with topics like religion. But if you do insist, if we would make a research, I am sure that most people would dismiss those religions as valid choices.

Talking about logic failure. This is one. Like scientific objectivity is being obtained by looking at what most people do.

OK, maybe I haven't but still major religions including the Catholic have well elaborated why they consider monogamous heterosexuality as the only healthy choice. Read all about it if you're really interested. I support most of those explanations and all of the official Catholic ones.

I don't give a single f*ck of what the Catholic Church says. I want to know why YOU think monogamous heterosexuality is the only healthy choice. And I'd like an answer that is more than just 'the Catholic Church says so'.

Fortunately, I also strongly believe that they will make mostly good and tolerable choices.

I agree for once :-)

Take the freedom away? And give it to who?

That's a good one. Like you're the one defending liberty here. "Hey, don't take our liberty to impose our worldview on people who have a different one!"

I misunderstood. I thought you meant you wouldn't fight it at all. Apparently, misunderstanding (what often happens when two people discuss in their non-maternal tongue) is a logic failure.

Not all misunderstanding is but in this case it is.

Talking about logic failure. This is one. Like scientific objectivity is being obtained by looking at what most people do.

Now, this is an example of misunderstanding. I was not precise enough. I meant that most people making such research would dismiss them as valid. I said most because in social sciences it is much more difficult to keep your objectivity and so it is also easier to manipulate with it.

Nevertheless, looking at what most people do is a valid scientific method in all social sciences. In psychology we group people to types of personality based on polls in which people assign their own values to certain claims. When they are inconsistent, it is usually an indicator of a personality or even mental health problem. I am sure that the obscure religions would show similar problems. I am just not aware of any research. I am guessing this based on common sense.

I don't give a single f*ck of what the Catholic Church says. I want to know why YOU think monogamous heterosexuality is the only healthy choice. And I'd like an answer that is more than just 'the Catholic Church says so'.

Well, you can curse all you want. My answer was not "the Catholic Church says so". It was "I agree with what the Catholic Church says". So, again, if you want to know what I think, read all about it. I can find some links for you if you insist.

I agree for once :-)

Yes! Some common ground! ;)

But why do you complain about democracy so much then? Just because not all choices are good and tolerable?

That's a good one. Like you're the one defending liberty here. "Hey, don't take our liberty to impose our worldview on people who have a different one!"

Now, that's a straw-man argument. Your favorite. ;)

The lines always need to be drawn somewhere. You too already agreed that someone always needs to be discriminated. Democracy is just the most fair way to decide about where we draw the lines and thus indirectly also decide about who gets discriminated. But this is not real discrimination because it is not done irrationally nor because of negative emotions towards a particular group of people. It is just a logical consequence of having a minimum common set of moral beliefs. We will never get everyone to agree with it. So, there will always be someone yelling "Discrimination!". And the answer is "Sorry, man, nothing personal. When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
(editado)

I meant that most people making such research would dismiss them as valid.

This is an assumption I do not share. FSM is at least as consistent in its worldview and moral values as Catholicism. So why wouldn't FSM be considered valid while Catholicism would?

I am just not aware of any research. I am guessing this based on common sense.

I am willing to believe this ;-)

When they are inconsistent, it is usually an indicator of a personality or even mental health problem.

See above. No reason whatsoever to treat Catholicism differently from FSM (just examples). FSM is not inconsistent.

My answer was not "the Catholic Church says so".

Not that different. I think this is an important issue in life, and I just think it's remarkable you cannot explain why monogamous heterosexuality is the only 'healthy choice' (I think you used these words).

But why do you complain about democracy so much then? Just because not all choices are good and tolerable?

Exactly. And apart from that, I believe most people try to make good choice. Most people are idiots though. Succeeding is a whole other dimension than trying.

The lines always need to be drawn somewhere. You too already agreed that someone always needs to be discriminated.

No I didn't. This is about state discrimination, and I object ALL forms of state discrimination. That you feel discriminated because you're not allowed to use the state to discriminate others is really funny. But above all, it doesn't make sense.

Every system has its basic rules (like in democracy, it is impossible to democratically abolish the democracy). In a libertarian democracy, it is impossible to use the state to discriminate certain groups of citizens.

This is an assumption I do not share. FSM is at least as consistent in its worldview and moral values as Catholicism. So why wouldn't FSM be considered valid while Catholicism would?

FSM is not a religion but a subversive reaction to religion. It has no structured approach on any important moral issue nor even an authority to take care of it. It's just an atheistic parody and it's not even funny.

I am willing to believe this ;-)

Well, if you would be friends with common sense, you would. ;)

Not that different. I think this is an important issue in life, and I just think it's remarkable you cannot explain why monogamous heterosexuality is the only 'healthy choice' (I think you used these words).

Why would I explain to you why the sky is blue when you can google that yourself?

Exactly. And apart from that, I believe most people try to make good choice. Most people are idiots though. Succeeding is a whole other dimension than trying.

Well, that's why they choose representatives to parliament so that they can make choices less idiotic than they would make by themselves. ;)

No I didn't. This is about state discrimination, and I object ALL forms of state discrimination. That you feel discriminated because you're not allowed to use the state to discriminate others is really funny. But above all, it doesn't make sense.

Once again and for the last time, I don't use the state to discriminate others. I use it to have and protect a common set of moral beliefs. "Discrimination" is an avoidable indirect consequence of this. Your thesis that a common set of moral beliefs is not necessary is a dangerous idea while "discrimination" is tolerable. I am also "discriminated" in that sense. Basically everyone is.

Every system has its basic rules (like in democracy, it is impossible to democratically abolish the democracy). In a libertarian democracy, it is impossible to use the state to discriminate certain groups of citizens.

It is possible to democratically abolish democracy. Ever heard of Hitler, Chavez, Mugabe?