No, it really doesn't.
I honestly don't think anyone's going to be discussing weird-arse mystical mumbo-jumbo.
Why You Should Have Your Eye On Florida
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
"You may have a penis and a y-chromosome, but that's just your body, that's not your true self" is weird-arse mystical mumbo-jumbo.
There's also a whole thing where there are acceptable directions for these things to go. So, for example if I said I'd rather be in the Logan Square (majority Hispanic, about a third non-Hispanic white, about 6% black) neighborhood in Chicago than in West Garfield Park (95% black, about 2% Hispanic, about 2% non-Hispanic white) it might not be a race thing and more related to West Garfield Park having 41 times the homicide rate. This is of course still racist and unacceptable because it connects a negative outcome (lots of murders) to a race you aren't supposed to connect negative outcomes to (large majority black neighborhoods). Weirdly, this way of thinking only works when the group targeted is not an acceptable group to target, once you're aiming at an acceptable target is ceases to be any kind of -ism or -phobia.
I'd have hoped we're long past the point where we're still assuming that having certain genital plumbing means your behaviour has to meet certain psychological and social outputs. You may as well argue that being a man means you have to like football, drinking beer and bar fights.
That might be true, but there is another word that acknowledging the existence of gay people requires the upending of language or philosophy to agree to the definition of. That is "marriage". At least if one approves of homosexuality.
I'm getting to the point where I have to start thinking modern conservatives don't have inner lives.
I mean, letting gay people get married is less upending the definition and philosophy of marriage and more winnowing it down to two adults getting married instead of requiring they have different genders. It's simpler if anything
You do realize part of Catholic doctrine is the concept of a soul, correct? You know, a literal "weird-arse mystical mumbo-jumbo" true self?
I would hope to reach the point where being a man or woman does not require you to meet certain psychological or social outputs. Unfortunately, instead of ending at "men don't have to like bar fights", we're headed for "men do have to like bar fights, even the men with vaginas".
The language and philosophy there is already upended, and has been for centuries. The history of marriage that gets us to this point is honestly kind of comical. The Protestant Reformation brought to the West the idea that marriage should not be a personal or religious activity but rather a governmental one (because they wanted to draw power away from the Vatican). The Roman Catholic Church in the counter-Reformation added more pomp and ceremony to try and counteract that idea. And the melting pot of modernity has decided to keep both options and have big, fancy celebrations of love tied to soulless government bureaucracy.
If marriage was a purely personal thing, something people practiced following only their own traditions, there'd be no controversy. Very similar religions to mine celebrate the Eucharist in manners that are 1000x more heretical to my faith than gay marriage, and nobody makes a big fuss. If the government tried to step in and define Eucharist for everyone, you'd get a big fuss really fast. The deliberate attempt to use governments to define marriage centuries ago is what's made the big fuss of the present.
Catholic doctrine considers the body to be the physical expression of our supernatural existence, just as creation is the physical expression of God's existence. You cannot separate the physical and spiritual from each other. I bring up Gnosticism because the big thing there that the Catholic Church condemned as heresy was the dualistic view of the world as a higher spiritual existence in conflict with the lower physical existence.
Nobody believes in an invisible sky-wizard.
Words are malleable, and social constructions are highly relative to times and places. I have no problem with people thinking or identifying differently than my expectations. But "your body is wrong" and "you are not your body" are bad ideas that take people to bad places.
Marriage, at core, is secular. It is a contract between two people, affirmed and recognised by the state with legal ramifications (property, care/responsibility, etc.). For the Romans, for instance, the concept of citizenship was important in marriage: a key function of marriage was to produce "legitimate" children, in large part to be able to identify who was a citizen and who was not. If a man or woman wanted to marry or divorce in ancient Rome, they didn't have to ask the permission of the priesthood or have them oversee anything. The early Christian church co-opted Roman marriage, made it religious, and assumed a form of control over it. In that, from a global perspective, it was an innovation and anomaly, although perhaps copied to some degree by Islam (which conceived of state and religion as one). So it was most of the world over: effectively, a social and legal institution, not religious. When Protestants returned marriage to individuals and the state, they did nothing more than return marriage to its conventional form.
Marriage almost certainly in many places often involved a level of religiosity, as a pious population would seek divine blessing: but they also sought divine blessing when embarking on battle/war, growing their crops, heading out on a long journey and all manner of other things that we don't think intrinsically religious. This is a far, far call from demanding that religions own marriage or deserve the right to determine marriage for society as a whole.
It is, bluntly, absurd to imagine I or anyone else, especially atheists, require a religion to affirm our relationship with another person. To an extent, I think it is absurd to require the state to validate it either, except that on a practical level I do appreciate that there are legal ramifications (property, citizenship, etc.) which ultimately require some element of state involvement. But seeing as the state is going to get involved, the least we should offer is that it allows individuals to arrange their relationships without the suffocating restriction of weird, millennia-old religious dogma. That is, after all, what secularism is.
If you're going to wilfully and insultingly misrepresent the views of others here (including myself), then I'll do so in kind. The Christian god is a cop-out wizard.
This is somewhere between a non-sequitur and nonsense such that there is no value addressing it.
That is not what I am trying to say. I am not calling for religions to determine marriage for society as a whole. Prior to the Reformation, nobody was asking anyone's permission to marry. There were forced/arranged marriages where people didn't have any say, or there were voluntary marriages where people decided for themselves to be married, but there wasn't "we want to be married, please allow us to". Even in Catholic doctrine, matrimony is the one unique sacrament where the priest is not the celebrant; marriage is an undertaking of the individuals alone, and the Church is merely witness to it. It was a fight over political power that brought us to this point, with nations and religions telling people "no, you ask us for permission to do that now". And we landed in a place that makes no sense: people are asking the permission of both. The West celebrates a pretty specifically Christian idea of marriage. It's a union between two adults (one man and one woman until Protestants started changing their mind on that part). It is explicitly sexual, the etymology of the word marriage comes pretty specifically from mating, there are actual laws based on consummation of marriage. Our governments don't have secular partnership laws, we have Protestant Christian marriage enshrined as a function of government. Governments are saying "We define marriage... oops its Christian marriage", which is the problem. Non-Christians have the right to be upset at Christian norms being foisted on them, and then someone like me is annoyed on the other side that they've taken over Christian norms (and made them worse). It's a dumb situation.
It is neither. It is very direct logic.
If a penis makes you a man, and a man has specific obligations for social expression, then having a penis gives you specific social obligations. Neither of us supports that conclusion, but we are rejecting different premises: I'm saying a penis makes you a man but being a man should not carry extraneous social obligations. The trans position is that a man does have specific obligations for social expression, but having a penis doesn't make you a man. It's two different ways to break down the idea that genitals determine behavior.
I'm pretty sure you at least half agree with me. I don't think you want a society defining manhood by short hair and sports teams and machismo. And I'm sure you accept a definition of man based on reproductive organs in certain contexts. And then I see little left for you to actually disagree with me on.
You are very helpful.
I'm trying to make the point that this is equivalent to what you're doing.
Coming up with a simplistic, insulting version of your opponent's position-- one they wouldn't endorse or recognise-- and then insisting they believe it.
((Though I do also find it ironic and amusing that someone who believes in a god would refer to someone else's beliefs as mystical mumbo-jumbo.))
Except Agema was describing.... not your beliefs, but a set of beliefs you'd cooked up and ascribed to your opponents. Then you used the phrase to describe... your opponents' beliefs.
I would not have picked that particular phrasing out of the context of quoting someone though. Not that I think it's particularly inaccurate. Speaking of a person's immaterial true self, separable from their body, is mystical mumbo-jumbo.
So... what does a ("biological") man think?
If the answer to that is - as we all appear to agree - basically anything, that necessarily includes the idea that some ("biological") men might feel that they are actually women.
This is where your "direct logic" has a problem. That problem is that it seems to be built on a fundamentally unsound principle that men must feel like they are men because they are men. In a way, I guess you could argue in the greater picture that the ability to feel like they should be a woman is part of the rich diversity of ("biological") male thought. But it does not provide a remotely useful argument as to why society should refuse such ("biological") men's wish to be a woman when it is within society's power to enable.
DeSantis suspends Florida prosecutor for indicating he would not enforce restrictions on abortion, gender therapy
The governor said Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren is breaking the law by saying he wouldn't prosecute laws or prospective laws he disagrees with.
I feel like this is definitely a case where neither side is right. On the one hand, Warren is supposed to uphold the law as written, so if there's actually proof of him not doing so, he should face consequences. On the other...I trust DeSantis to be unbiased about as much as I can throw him, and I'm a weak ************. In addition, Warren was apparently refusing to enforce the law on the grounds that the law as written was violating another law on the books, and was up for a Supreme Court challenge which, if true...sounds like a valid claim.