⫸Trans and LGBTQIA+ Discussion⫷

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

No, it's because if one really fulfills their vocation as a priest they would have no time and energy for their wives and children. Rhetoric like what you quoted may give you a feeling of being on a higher moral ground, but is simply not true with regards to why they are not allowed to marry.

Lol yeah the Borgias and other popes, and clergy who actually did marry and have children for Centuries, who inherited everything from their married Roman catholic clergy fathers and continued the cycle when marriage of Roman Catholic clergy was still permitted proves how your opinion is not factually or historically accurate. There were popes or clergy who were the sons of previous popes or clergy, and they inherited wealth and land the Roman Catholic church owned. Have you ever traveled to Rome or the Vatican? The Roman Catholic church did not just suddenly get massive quantities of land and wealth overnight or suddenly by random.

It has nothing to do with any sort of "moral higher ground" as nobody is better than anyone else, but it is accurate factual history of the Roman Catholic church. Stop drinking the kool aid of Roman Catholic nonsense propaganda and revisionist history.

If you want to be Roman Catholic or support that still powerful and corrupt church that is your choice, but you should know the reality and history about it.

List of sexually active popes - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Popes were also allowed to and did take complete control of small, moderate, and large kingdoms of the holy Roman Empire. Pius IX was not only pope, but until 1870 also the last Sovereign ruler of the Papal States. As a ruler he was occasionally referred to as "king".

Papal deposing power - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Are you trying to tell me that people have abused the power that the Church inherently has ?

That is plainly visible. Was that the "Church" or those individuals that acted that way.

Perhaps you might look at everyone as individuals who may either do good or evil and let God judge in His time. Some people prefer to look over their own actions and try to do the right thing instead of pointing the finger at others casting blame. Many, many do not; and no one can change that because we were all given free will. That is simply the way of "the world".

 

[mal3volent]

I don't think that's true. I've seen him in interviews where gays are brought up, and although he considers homosexuality immoral because of his religion, he says it should be permissible because there's long-standing scientific evidence for it being normal. I'm not a Matt Walsh fan whatsoever, btw... I just consume a wide range of content from multiple viewpoints.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think he has ever gone so far as calling homosexuality normal. I mean, you can't believe that it is both immoral and normal. The whole immorality argument comes from the fact that it goes against the natural order that God created. I thoroughly believe that the only reason he doesn't talk about it more is because we are so prevalent in society now he would lose credibility. If he came out as a full blown homophobe he would get pigeonholed as a religious zealot, whereas now he can't wage his war on trans while maintaining a veneer of objectivity and rationality. But he talks a lot about the overall moral decline of western civilization, and I don't think he sees much difference in any of the alphabet people at the end of the day.

 

[mal3volent]

I am not in favor of the US being under Vatican Rule at all since we have separation of church and state, however the Catholic Church's view on LGBT is changing, so that's a positive. Pope Francis wrote a letter to Father James Martin in Jan 2023 clarifying his position. In it he explains that homosexuality is not a crime nor sin of itself, only when someone has sex outside of marriage. The Church is undergoing a very large "Synod" which iis very likely to change Catholic "Law and Dogma". The parish I go to has a very large LGBT+ membership and has had so for quite some time.


article in USCofB

I can appreciate the church attempting to modernize itself, but the fundamental problem with religious texts is that you can't help but to contradict yourself when you say this book is the divine word of God, the all knowing creator of the universe, but also, this part, this part, this part, and all these parts.... don't pay attention to those. This isn't to be taken literally but these other things are. I don't know. But like I said, I appreciate the effort.

 

[Foreigner]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think he has ever gone so far as calling homosexuality normal. I mean, you can't believe that it is both immoral and normal. The whole immorality argument comes from the fact that it goes against the natural order that God created. I thoroughly believe that the only reason he doesn't talk about it more is because we are so prevalent in society now he would lose credibility. If he came out as a full blown homophobe he would get pigeonholed as a religious zealot, whereas now he can't wage his war on trans while maintaining a veneer of objectivity and rationality. But he talks a lot about the overall moral decline of western civilization, and I don't think he sees much difference in any of the alphabet people at the end of the day.

That may be true... I just think the slippery slope argument doesn't apply. I am not worried about gay rights at this point. Gays are very normalized in most major cities now. It would be backwater to try and undo that. Trans, however, is losing ground because of how aggressive the activism has been. I don't think scaling back trans progressivism will lead to gays being next.

 

[Foreigner]

He thinks homosexuality should be "permissible"? How generous of him!



I do know that he's opposed to gay marriage, don't know what his position on homosexuality is beyond that, except didn't he blame the epidemic of pederasts within his own organization on homosexuals? I'd imagine he'd probably prefer that the sexual deviants remain safely tucked away in the closet and don't expose impressionable young minds to their degeneracy

Expecting gays to go back in the closet at this point would be a tough sell. Gays being out and married in society, despite all the original controversy stirred up by conservatives, has turned out to be a big nothing burger. The right-wing failed to prove its case and religious evidence is irrelevant to most sane people. Compare that to TRAs who are coming for children -- there is legit backlash. It's apples and oranges. The one thing I really don't like is that the TQ+ part is making the LGB look like pedophiles because we're all be lumped into one community category, when we're not whatsoever. Transphobia is rife in the gay community and we have never been super cohesive about our activism. It's probably because LGB are sexual orientations and TQ+ is unrelated to that.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

I agree that it would be a "tough sell", and said so in my first post in the "neo nazi drag show" thread. It would be harder to enact in the USA than in other examples we can see of homosexual people having rights for a relatively brief period of time and then losing those rights. But it's also important to remember that a minority of the population can build victory upon victory...suddenly people don't see those troublesome people they were always irritated by in public anymore...for such an effective solution, why not use it for other "problems"? It's also important to remember that in most cases where people enjoy some rights in society, and then lose those rights, it takes place as a gradual process and in that respect actually is a "slippery slope". That's why HL Mencken said that you need to strangle tyranny in the crib basically

It's also important to remember that the period of time between 2015 (when the gay rights movements final victory was won, in the Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage) is not really that large...less than 10 years. I do agree that the large majority of Americans are fine with gay people and don't want to see their rights curtailed...but the cold chill of authoritarianism will make all kinds of previously unthinkable things happen to protect public morality

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

MSN

 

[Droppersneck]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think he has ever gone so far as calling homosexuality normal. I mean, you can't believe that it is both immoral and normal. The whole immorality argument comes from the fact that it goes against the natural order that God created. I thoroughly believe that the only reason he doesn't talk about it more is because we are so prevalent in society now he would lose credibility. If he came out as a full blown homophobe he would get pigeonholed as a religious zealot, whereas now he can't wage his war on trans while maintaining a veneer of objectivity and rationality. But he talks a lot about the overall moral decline of western civilization, and I don't think he sees much difference in any of the alphabet people at the end of the day.

Alphabet people are glow n words in colloquial terms. Matt Walsh is a grifting low iq dumbass looking for clicks. And he knows there is a large contingency of log cabin republicans he doesn’t want to alienate imo. The establishment trying to groom children and the trans issue being Conflated with normal lgb people is a way to keep people divided.

 

[Electrum1]

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Grooming and using children as political propaganda pawns.

University Sexuality Program Hosts ‘Radical Playdate’ To Help 5-Year-Olds Explore Their ‘Gender Identity’

 

[Electrum1]

 

[ColoradoOpiateGirl]

No, it's because if one really fulfills their vocation as a priest they would have no time and energy for their wives and children. Rhetoric like what you quoted may give you a feeling of being on a higher moral ground, but is simply not true with regards to why they are not allowed to marry.

Roman Catholic here, you are correct.

 

[ColoradoOpiateGirl]

Men will never be women and vice versa. You don't get to change your age, race, gender or species. And if you want to,, TOO BAD.. you learn to live with what you got and LOVE yourself.. Mother of a 4 year old here. They tried starting this shit at my daughter's preschool, I threw a fucking FIT and it magically stopped. Parents, stand up. Gays against Groomers is an amazing organization to support. GOD BLESS.

 

[alasdairm]

I don't get to change my age, race, gender or species.

ftfy.

alasdair

 

[Electrum1]

Men will never be women and vice versa. You don't get to change your age, race, gender or species. And if you want to,, TOO BAD.. you learn to live with what you got and LOVE yourself.. Mother of a 4 year old here. They tried starting this shit at my daughter's preschool, I threw a fucking FIT and it magically stopped. Parents, stand up. Gays against Groomers is an amazing organization to support. GOD BLESS.

Well done standing up for your child

Yeah Jaimee Michell (gays against groomers) had some media hit pieces against her trying to dismiss what's happening, and what she has reported/exposed by simply "exposing" that she is a conservative. Really says a lot

 

[Droppersneck]

Men will never be women and vice versa. You don't get to change your age, race, gender or species. And if you want to,, TOO BAD.. you learn to live with what you got and LOVE yourself.. Mother of a 4 year old here. They tried starting this shit at my daughter's preschool, I threw a fucking FIT and it magically stopped. Parents, stand up. Gays against Groomers is an amazing organization to support. GOD BLESS.

It’s still wild to me that these people believe you can change your gender bc of feelings, and then claim to be supporters of science.

 

[Electrum1]

What @ColoradoOpiateGirl said was "You don't get to change your age, race, gender or species"

But condescending alasdair said "Fixed That For You" and then intentionally misquoted her as saying "I don't get to change my age, race, gender or species"

ftfy.

alasdair

So I guess he agrees that age, race, gender and species cannot be changed

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

It’s still wild to me that these people believe you can change your gender bc of feelings, and then claim to be supporters of science.

Yes or that if you are against children, teens, and young adults under 35 taking dangerous hormones that there is no valid medical need for, and getting basically irreversible permanent surgery on their genitals/bodies that you are "anti-trans".

 

[swilow]

Yes or that if you are against children, teens, and young adults under 35 taking dangerous hormones that there is no valid medical need for, and getting basically irreversible permanent surgery on their genitals/bodies that you are "anti-trans".

I largely agree that children/under 18s shouldn't be offered hormones or surgery unless it's absolutely essential, but why should any adult be prevented from taking hormones or doing what they want with their body? 35 seems like a strangely arbitrary age to choose.