Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't mean what you think it does. If you want to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman that's all that matters. Two men thinking they are married shouldn't change that. If it does it's because you don't really believe what you claim to believe.

It's because I see marriage as more than just a sacrament. It is a civic institution. I'm a bit of an outlier in this argument, plenty on my right argue that it is only a sacrament. I argue it's an important part of Western civic society and sundering it has important effects. People will less bother to get married if they don't see the value in it. Things have value because of scarcity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because some religions disagree with you... And they deserve the same freedom you demand for yours.
Typical BK... Only HIS religion is allowed religious freedom, not others... '

Some religions say you should be able to marry four women. That is currently illegal in the United States. Do you support removing this ban?

[Ben Kenobi]

I was born and raised in Western society and think you should go stick your traditional lifetime marriage up your arse. You can stick your religious fundementalism up there too.

Good luck explaining to Muslims why they should follow your rules.

[Kidlicious]

It's because I see marriage as more than just a sacrament. It is a civic institution. I'm a bit of an outlier in this argument, plenty on my right argue that it is only a sacrament. I argue it's an important part of Western civic society and sundering it has important effects. People will less bother to get married if they don't see the value in it. Things have value because of scarcity.

Oh ok. I thought you were saying something else. You have a point there. Are you familiar with Gary Becker, the economist?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is complete bull****, Sharia doesn't prevail over western jurisprudence in any of the European countries.

Shall I post the list of no-go zones in France? in Sweden? In Germany. They exist.

The 'Sharia Courts' that everyone (all the uneducated stupid ****s who didn't bother researching anything) has whined about for years, are actually just groups of religious experts who provide mediation to Muslims who want a religious answer to disputes. Couple of rather major points that the bigots always ignore..

Which is why they put to death anyone who leaves Islam?

1) They have absolutely no legal power, and cannot overrule any legal ruling or law.

They do it all the time with honor killings.

2) Participation is completely voluntary for all parties.

Again, not so. It is not voluntary for Muslims and especially not so for ex-Muslims.

3) If they delivered a solution that either party thought was unjust, they still have every right to go to a civil court for a legal ruling.

Sure, if they are alive to do so.

4) Orthodox Jews also have their own version of these mediation groups, but strangely very few people write scaremongering crap about how the Jews are trying to take over the country.

Yes, because Orthodox Jews don't do honor killings.

[Ming]

Some religions say you should be able to marry four women. That is currently illegal in the United States. Do you support removing this ban?

Frankly, I have no problem with it if they are truly consenting adults. If it's their religion, fine by me.

But I love how you bring that up... Yes, it's illegal currently in this country... but gay marriage isn't.
And I don't care how "you see marriage". Gays getting married have NO EFFECT on catholic marriages. You are welcome to practice your religious beliefs... yet you continually want to stop others from practicing theirs.

Again... Religious Freedom to you seems to only apply to your religion and not others.

[Proteus_MST]

"But, you said something about freedom of religion ... if you are for unrestricted freedom of religion, you should also be pro freedom of islamist sects in the USA, even if their preachers preach about commiting terrorism and give positive views about joining IS "

We already have had radical leftist and Muslim preachers. That's their right. Next...

"As for the WBC:
It is one other group to which they matter even more (and which you forgot to include):
The relatives of the people whose funerals they they picket. And those are confronted with those loonies during their hardest time (when they just lost their beloved son, daughter, sister etc. ).
Which is why I mentioned limits to "freedom of expression" of religious sects. The protection of the relatives of these deceased people is more important to me than the freedom of religious sects, to parade along funerals holding homophobic signs in their hands."

You sound like rah. So you don't support freedom of speech then either. What other rights are you opposed to just so that people don't have to be bothered with extremist view points?

You are correct, I am not pro unrestricted freedom of speech.
IMHO there must be limits, for expublicly instigating ample when it comes to publicly instigating violence against other persons/groups.
Which is why I am glad that Neonazi-groups don't host their garbage sites here in germany, well knowing that they could be made accountable for the garbage they spew on them.

Another example (although from industry):
We once (around 1.5 years ago) had a picture of a refugee child playing in the water jet of a fire hose posted somewhere
(it was a hot day and a fire brigade used the fire hoses to give the refugees a little bit of refreshment)
One idiot then wrote a comment below the picture, that the fire brigade should have used flamethrowers instead of water hoses.
Well, the idiot was an apprentice at a german car manufacturer ... and he used the facebook account of his own name for the posting.
A few days afterwards (when it had become public) the idiot was fired (because, as a representative of the company expressed it) employees represent the company ... and abysmal behavior like this (posting) might endanger the public opinion about the company.

I for my part applaud this step ... everyone should know there are certain limits about things that should be said in public

"That's easy:
Because Biology lessons (which is, where the ToE is taught) should be limited to scientific theories ... and shouldn't incorporate fairy tales from a religious book.
I am not opposed to teachers treating the creation myth during religion lessons, however"

How is Creationism not based on biology?

Biology classes are about biology science ... not about fairy tales that have biology involved.
Which is why In Biology they also don't teach you about the lifecycles of Ogres, the courtship behavior of elves or the underground dwelling behavior of dwarves.

I'm sure proteus doesn't want it taught at all. I don't insist it be taught in any specific class. Proteus doesn't want it taught period, because he's a conformist.

Considering the fact that you quoted me in your previous posting, where I said that I am not opposed if creationism is taught in religion courses, I assume you intentionally twist the things I say

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Given this thread -and others- w/ people who keep talking to the polititrolls, I hereby submit that Off Topic should be renamed "The Feeding Trough".

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you familiar with Gary Becker, the economist?

No I am not. But I am (now) familiar with Bastiat and was familiar with Hayek and Friedman and the Austrians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frankly, I have no problem with it if they are truly consenting adults. If it's their religion, fine by me.

I'm going to quote, directly from Reynolds v the United States

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

That is the argument contra polygamy. That the man and the woman are equals in marriage is affirmed through the union, each husband having a wife, and each wife, her own husband. A marriage of 4, where you have one man and four... wives? If they can be called that and not concubines, is not a marriage of equals, but rather of on master and 4 slaves.

Gays getting married have NO EFFECT on catholic marriages.

When Christians are being fined 125k, yes, it does have a negative effect on Christians and Catholics as a whole.

You are welcome to practice your religious beliefs... yet you continually want to stop others from practicing theirs.

When you are fining a bakery 125k, no, I am not free to practice my religious rights.

Again... Religious Freedom to you seems to only apply to your religion and not others.

Not all religions are the same, Ming.

[Kidlicious]

No I am not. But I am (now) familiar with Bastiat and was familiar with Hayek and Friedman and the Austrians.

This is probably worth your time.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v81y1973i4p813-46.html

You can dl the pdf from another site.

[Kidlicious]

Given this thread -and others- w/ people who keep talking to the polititrolls, I hereby submit that Off Topic should be renamed "The Feeding Trough".

[Ming]

When Christians are being fined 125k, yes, it does have a negative effect on Christians and Catholics as a whole.

Only because of discriminatory actions by a christian not the gay couple... So try again...

When you are fining a bakery 125k, no, I am not free to practice my religious rights.

Sure... you have the freedom not to marry another guy... no one is making you. But if you want to discriminate, that's against the law. Try again.

Not all religions are the same, Ming.

We know you feel that way... You consider your religion as the only one that deserves religious freedom.
Thank god our country allows others to practice theirs as well.

[Kidlicious]

You are correct, I am not pro unrestricted freedom of speech.
IMHO there must be limits, for expublicly instigating ample when it comes to publicly instigating violence against other persons/groups.
Which is why I am glad that Neonazi-groups don't host their garbage sites here in germany, well knowing that they could be made accountable for the garbage they spew on them.

Another example (although from industry):
We once (around 1.5 years ago) had a picture of a refugee child playing in the water jet of a fire hose posted somewhere
(it was a hot day and a fire brigade used the fire hoses to give the refugees a little bit of refreshment)
One idiot then wrote a comment below the picture, that the fire brigade should have used flamethrowers instead of water hoses.
Well, the idiot was an apprentice at a german car manufacturer ... and he used the facebook account of his own name for the posting.
A few days afterwards (when it had become public) the idiot was fired (because, as a representative of the company expressed it) employees represent the company ... and abysmal behavior like this (posting) might endanger the public opinion about the company.

I for my part applaud this step ... everyone should know there are certain limits about things that should be said in public

You're confusing the issue. I'm not saying intentionally. You just are. There is a difference between actually causing harm and just offending people. You are mixing the two together. I would rather be offended and not have conformists telling me what I can't say because they don't know where to draw the line, and to be frank most of them are insane, just like a Westboro Baptist and a neonazi.

[Proteus_MST]

Which remain on the books today. If you're arguing that homeschooling leads to Nazism, why did Hitler ban it?

I argue that homeschooling can lead to all forms of subcultures that can be harmful tro society ... not only Nazism, but also with religious background (like islam or christianity)

But the laws do not treat Frenchmen as Germans. That is my point. A distinction is made between Frenchmen and Germans. Removing that distinction would mean removing what it means to be a German.

I am arguing that any man can get married, to a woman. Just like a Frenchman can become a German.

Any man can get married to a woman. This is still true after the implementation of gay marriage ... so nothing is taken away from people who want to havwe the traditional marriage.

As for frenchmen and germans:
There is the concept of dual citizenship ... a frenchman who has dual citizenship in france and germany also is treated as german, despite also being a frenchman. And as a frenchman despite also being a german.

That's pretty much what is believed and why you prevent homeschooling. Word for word. "If we homeschool we'll supply Nazis", despite the fact that Nazis banned homeschooling because it opposed their agenda.

Asd I said before, the Nazis didn't ban homeschooling.
It was already banned during the Weimar Republic.

Happens among atheists too. That you're singling out Christians is called special pleading.

Because christians loved to quote the bible for it ... the dominance of the man over the woman.

You have a strange definition of freedom.

I think that unrestricted freedom cannot exist, as ones definition of freedom all too often is contradictory to the freedom of others.
(for example the freedom to beat up jews or muslims or blacks goes against the freedom of jews and muslims and blacks, not to be beaten up ... and the freedom of thieves to steal conflicts with the freedom of other people, not to have their possessions stolen)
Therefore a set of rules has to be established, that serves the wellbeing of all people as well as possible

Are you suggesting that Germany bans publication of the Koran?

Well, for the Quran there is the same thing as with the bible, that is, despite the lots of brutality and the dubious morals contained therein, it neither is forbidden, nor is there a sticker on it that says "Not for minors".
Guess that's one privilegue religious books have in germany.

Guessing from what I hear from Marx, I'd be surprised if it did, but I'd have to see the curriculum to be sure.

Sorry. Blah, in what the Church teaches and why, Catholic philosophy and how it ties into everything else. It's not well taught. Most people think one is divided from the other. Civics is not just secularism.

And again, that is the right of the catholic church, to offer afternoon schools for their kids, in which they are taught the fuill extent of catholic philosophies.
Muslims AFAIK have something similar as well, i.e. afternoon quran lessons in their local muslim parish. Noone prevents the catholic church in germany from establishing something similar for their own beliefs.

The Creation account is Genesis isn't an exact account. It's at best, a gloss. As for the local flood, I don't see why that explanation is unreasonable. There is nothing to indicate that there is any knowledge of the world of Europe let alone the world of the Americas in the Bible.

Quite interesting, for a book supposedly inspired by an all knowing god.
Perhaps the accounts in the bible in which certain other events (for example god establishing certain rules) are described are as vague (and possibly erroneous) as the accounts of Genesis and the flood.

...

As for alteration... how could you prove that the polytheistic accounts were removed? All the documentary evidence we possess says otherwise.

From the documentary hypothesis it is concluded that the Pentateuch is derived from several sources and was redacted by the later ones of them.
We also find remainders of polytheist roots in somke of the passages ... for example "Elohim" which is Plural and not singular and therefore obviously refers to multiple deities.
Unfortunately the original texts before redaction most probably are lost forever, unless Dr. Who turns up and agrees to travel into israels past and bring some copies of the original texts before their redaction.

So then it's not about science at all. You believe that what is taught today is superior. Why do you believe that?

With regards to science:
Because nowadays we know more about earth and life and the universe, than in the centuries before ... including things that contradict the biblical accounts (if taken literally) ... and therefore have a good justification to reject biblical accounts regarding earths history.

Morally:
Because nowadays women in the western world have equal rights (not thanks to the church, but rather thanks to the efforts of 3-4 generations of women), we don't have slavery anymore (again not thanks to religion (slavers loved to use the bible as justification on why slave holding is OK)), homosexuals can live their lifes free from oppression (again not thanks to the church), women aren't shunned anymore if they are divorced or have a child without being married (again not thanks to the church) and many many more examples

I am glad I live today ... and not 200 years in the past

It was part of the Kulturkampf and very much planned by Bismarck.

Sounds like you are right. I am glad that Prussia turned up as victor in the Kulturkampf