(November 21, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Grandizer Wrote: It's just post-hoc rationalizing nonsense (what Neo posted).

Even if that were true, your comment is still not a refutation.

But I am dropping this thread to pick up the same conversation on another thread.

(November 21, 2017 at 3:06 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Grandizer Wrote: It's just post-hoc rationalizing nonsense (what Neo posted).

Even if that were true, your comment is still not a refutation.

But I am dropping this thread to pick up the same conversation on another thread.

Yeah, but I did respond to one that was a brief refutation of what you posted.

---

(November 21, 2017 at 1:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 12:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I agree. There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without be considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential of producing off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who are physically intimate. Apart from a traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable social institution.

As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.

So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reason, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.

As a Catholic, I agree that a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman is a sacred bond which differentiates itself, in that sense, from other arrangements (such as gay marriage, common law marriage, polygamy, divorcing your wife and remarrying your secretary, etc). 

As far as the law is concerned though, I see "marriage equality" as meaning equal in rights under the law. Hospital visits, tax breaks, etc. I can get behind this, though I would be 100% against the government trying to force churchs to marry anyone.

You can believe that same sex marriage is inferior to your preferred sacramental marriage all you want, but as a non-Catholic, there is nothing divine about marriage between man and woman. Even the traditional marriage is still a social institution originally. So wherever and however same-sex couples choose to marry, I - as a non-Catholic - will regard their marriage at exactly the same level as traditional marriage. There is no meaningful difference between the two.

As for your post on adoption, it shouldn't matter if it's father and mother, or parents of same gender, what's important is how you treat your children. If the would-be parents are both loving and caring and supportive (in an authoritative manner, especially), then they should have the same rights as heterosexual parents to adopt children. Otherwise, it just feels like yet again another case of bigotry.

(November 21, 2017 at 10:12 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 20, 2017 at 8:46 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: But your person A/B experiment is not a fair experiment. Clearly [A] is the preference because he follows his unethical thinking with ethical thinking. So ethical thoughts win out again. I'm still choosing the person that has more ethical thinking processes.

The point I was trying to make is that the person with the most ethical thought processes (ie has 100% ethical thoughts and 0% unethical thoughts) is the best preference as he is uncapable of any unwholesome words/actions. Purely because of his different thought processes - ie ethical only thought processes.

I see your point. An unethical action WILL NOT happen unless it is preceded by violent or malicious thought. I agree that the best case scenario is to basically be locked in the room with Buddha.

I just find it hard to hold people accountable for their thoughts. The causes of their thoughts often have to do factors outside of their control (upbringing, treatment by others, environmental factors, etc.) In your line of thinking, a person who has a violent thought but then counters it with a nonviolent thought has behaved unethically. I disagree. I think he has behaved ETHICALLY, despite his having had the thought.

As I said before, I agree with you that cultivating benevolent thinking is GOOD. I just don't see having a malicious thought as BAD.

I am not saying that they should be held accountable from a legal sense because they had an unethical thought, however it should be recognised that it is unethical. Only then can unethical thoughts and actions be stopped. Of course the best mind-state is one that can never produce unethical thoughts.

But happy to agree to disagree at this point because we both understand what we mean and there's no need to further convince either one or the other is "right".

---

(November 21, 2017 at 8:52 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Like i said. I'm pretty sure this person is a troll and just pulling obnoxious BS out of his ass.

The crazy thing is the handful of posters who are actually taking him seriously and agreeing with him, kudosing his posts, etc.

Talking about me in the third person and accusing me of "pulling obnoxious BS out of his ass" will not make me go away. You can even put your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la". I'm still here.

And to date, I have yet to attack any poster here xtian or atheist. I'm still waiting to get the same courtesy from the xtians though...

It takes either a severely dense person or a troll to make a thread titled "Christian Parents Abuse their Children", and then act confused when christians get upset and call it bull shit.

Not sure which of the 2 is worse, but you're definitely one of them.

"Christians" think that catholics are backslid devil worshiping heathens...so....no......?

(November 19, 2017 at 8:40 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Not my assertion but Richard Dawkins believes that bringing children up to believe that their parents religion is true is tantamount to child abuse. The argument is that by doing so the child is ill equipped to make their own way in the world when they go out on their own.

If we are talking about Christianity and Islaam, then I quite agree with Dawkins on this.

Quote:(...)

Anyone have similar experiences?

Anyone think that it's ok for xtians and muslims to teach their religion to their children and that it's not child abuse?

I definitely do not. I will however add Kardecism Spiritism (a creed that is popular here in Brazil) to the list. From what I know of it, Scientology as well.

Those doctrines lack true religious value, choosing instead to present unnecessary, fantastic fears and claim to be the necessary remedy to those fears.

It is quite a shame when you look at it from a distance.

(November 22, 2017 at 12:36 am)LuisDantas Wrote: Those doctrines lack true religious value, choosing instead to present unnecessary, fantastic fears and claim to be the necessary remedy to those fears.

..............a fine line to walk...............

(November 21, 2017 at 11:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It takes either a severely dense person or a troll to make a thread titled "Christian Parents Abuse their Children", and then act confused when christians get upset and call it bull shit.

Not sure which of the 2 is worse, but you're definitely one of them.

So I guess I am not going to get the same courtesy from xtians that I have given. Bring on the insults then! But know one thing, I shall not retaliate.

(November 21, 2017 at 9:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 9:22 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well I used to think that. If we're talking about personal experience then the thing that actually prompt me to be more active as an atheist is when I saw all those people you mention standing up against gay marriage with no other reason but because they heard it from their priests. Not just that but vile fairy tale stories about how wicked homosexuals are. It scared me, to be frank, because who knows who is next. Jews? I tell you I became aware that there is something more disturbing in them under the surface.

What's your point? You may not agree with some theists' views on legalizing gay marriage (considering not all of us are against it), but that doesn't mean those individuals are abused, maladjusted people who can't make their way in the world.

Well there you go, it's not an abuse to forbid people to get married for no reason at all and discrimination is apparently thing of choice for some people and freedom for spreading total misinformation about gays. Now I said that was a starter for me a wake up moment, but you don't have to go further then this forum then to see Christians actually defending slavery.
There are some other things like stem cell research. Can you imagine yourself, CL, going to recently departed cancer patient 9-year-old Jacob Thompson and saying to him "Sorry my religion doesn't allow me to approve research so that you can be cured." but no. You people like you don't have scrupulous to do that and as any bully you'd somehow make yourself look like a victim.

Also I saw many cases of teenage girls getting pregnant (because lack of sex ed) and then either booted out of their homes or sent in places where they give birth to babies and then give them for an adoption.

And back to hate. Christians are not just brought up to hate gays but other christian denominations as well. No matter what a show few christian members of different denominations here put up for us, in reality they don't like each-other. For instance I remember neo scholastic explaining me how he has nothing against Catholics, like where did this hoax come by, as if other denominations didn't sprout because they hate Catholics. As an example Raymond D. Bradley a former baptist and a grandson of much-revered Baptist minister and evangelist writes that in his childhood his mother taught him that Roman Catholics are followers of "the whore of Rome" and are not true Christians. So even if neo scholastic for some accidental reason doesn't think that he heard it plenty.

(November 22, 2017 at 12:36 am)LuisDantas Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 8:40 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Not my assertion but Richard Dawkins believes that bringing children up to believe that their parents religion is true is tantamount to child abuse. The argument is that by doing so the child is ill equipped to make their own way in the world when they go out on their own.

If we are talking about Christianity and Islaam, then I quite agree with Dawkins on this.

Oh great, another ignorant, bigoted ass hole.

Tell me, if you think we are literally abusing our children by relaying our chritian faith to them, should we be in jail for charges of child abuse?

---

(November 22, 2017 at 3:09 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 11:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It takes either a severely dense person or a troll to make a thread titled "Christian Parents Abuse their Children", and then act confused when christians get upset and call it bull shit.

Not sure which of the 2 is worse, but you're definitely one of them.

So I guess I am not going to get the same courtesy from xtians that I have given.

Right. Because it's "courtesy" to accuse an entire group of billions of people of abusing their children simply for passing on their Christian faith. Idiot.