Pope Francis: “Being Homosexual Isn’t a Crime.”

[Buyetyen]

You say this based on what exactly?

On the fact that they're not hateful, cowardly bigots. You've set a pretty low bar, bro.

 

[tstorm823]

On the fact that they're not hateful, cowardly bigots. You've set a pretty low bar, bro.

So, not only based on your false impressions of a person you never met, also not actually indication that they're nice and happy at all? Very useful comment.

 

[Buyetyen]

So, not only based on your false impressions of a person you never met, also not actually indication that they're nice and happy at all? Very useful comment.

"False impressions of a person you never met," says the guy insisting that all childless couples live hollow, unsatisfied lives.

 

[tstorm823]

"False impressions of a person you never met," says the guy insisting that all childless couples live hollow, unsatisfied lives.

I am not saying that.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I wouldn't call that a rule. Pleasure makes many people very miserable, I wouldn't try and point to a trend one way or another.

Except, that's not really true is it. Pleasure never makes people miserable. The addict whose life is falling apart isn't miserable when they're high. The person cheating on their spouse doesn't regret it mid-orgasm. What makes people miserable is the insufficiency of pleasure. When it isn't enough, when it goes away, when we discover that the emptiness we believed it would fill is still there.

In that regard, it's not particularly different from a common experience of marriage, or childbirth for that matter.

The idea of a sacrament might have escaped you momentarily, calling marriage "earthly and mediocre".

How very romantic.

You have to understand that religion has dominated human history, regardless of culture, and one of the major aspects of religion is the pursuit of peace and joy beyond base pleasures.

Right, but what you mean by that and what people in history meant is completely different to the point of being unrecognizable.

You seem to believe that there is some cheat code, some formula for a good life, and if you just enter that into the world, if you just do the things you're supposed to do, then you get given happiness as a reward. Like fulfilment or happiness is the default or "correct" state of a human life, and anyone who can't achieve it has something wrong with them.

And on top of everything else, on top of the fact that it invalidates so much of what is useful or beautiful about religion, that's incredibly fucking ableist.

You can believe all you want that having a child is your purpose. You can want it more than anything else in the world. That belief will not stop you from having such intense post-natal depression that you spend every day just wanting to die, barely able to look at your child because they remind you of a feeling you know you should be experiencing but can't quite access.

You can talk about "joy beyond base pleasure", but if you can't feel pleasure, if the mechanism that gives you those little chemical rewards breaks down, joy will leave your life remarkably quickly.

For people in history, who lived hard and traumatic lives, who didn't have psychiatric treatment or medication and whose children would frequently die before their first birthday, the idea of religion offering some promise of earthly happiness would have been absurd at best and heretical at worst.

 

[Buyetyen]

I am not saying that.

You totally are.

 

[Silvanus]

You say this as though "marriage equality" isn't the big fight of this arena. You laugh for lack of an actual answer.

I hardly know where to start with this.

"The big fight of this arena"? Are you actually being serious? I hate to be the one to tell you, but in dozens of countries around the world, the "big fight" is decriminalisation. Or the right to walk down the road with your partner without being physically assaulted. Or disownment.

Even when it is marriage/civil partnership: legal rights have been attached to those things. Inheritance; tax breaks; the ability to visit your partner in hospital. Oh yes, if the gay people want equal rights in those spheres, they must just be doing it to imitate our godly child-rearing setup! /s

But all this aside, the clearest question should be: ...do you imagine that because gay people want equal access to society's legal frameworks, therefore all gay people want to get married? I don't.

This is all such a shining example of forcing billions of people into a one-size-fits-all simplified box, rather than spending any effort whatsoever actually listening to what they're saying, or acknowledging their differences.

But it isn't a vocation. Behaving as though a stable, loving relationship inherently gives purpose to someone is the problem.

Something doesn't need to "inherently give purpose" in order to be a worthwhile endeavour. Marriage among straight people also doesn't "inherently give purpose", since its an artificial structure invented by humans.

What it does do-- for gay people and straight people-- is, for many of them, improve wellbeing and emotional stability.

If that is the case, it is only the case in as much as people don't have an understanding of what a romantic relationship is in the first place. It is sort of just defined as something desirable without question, as a game you're just supposed to try to win, without ever considering what is actually entailed. The way people seek relationships without even a moment to ponder "why do I want that, and what is it I'm trying to accomplish", it is action without reason. There's an irony to this, that while I may be the one advocating adherence to long-standing tradition, the tradition is to act with reason and purpose. It is those trying to break the tradition who are actually just acting out whatever everyone else is doing.

I've already provided a definition by which I'm going, which you entirely ignored.

I wouldn't call that a rule. Pleasure makes many people very miserable, I wouldn't try and point to a trend one way or another.

It's a demonstrable, well-researched aspect of life that stable, intimate, loving relationships improve wellbeing, whereas repression, self-denial and pointless celibacy degrade wellbeing.

It's not an absolute rule. But it's a damn strong trend, and literally the only reason you're denying its prominence it because a book told you so.

 

[Silvanus]

So, not only based on your false impressions of a person you never met

He said, apparently without irony, after insisting that the billions of gay people around the world just want to imitate the Catholic understanding of the human structure of marriage.

 

[Cheetodust]

I am not saying that.

Yeah just that our relationships are sinful pale imitations of your good Catholic love. Lights off, shirts on, 50% if participants achieving orgasm.

 

[Bedinsis]

Hey, @tstorm823 , you have stated that a marriage is to be considered a vocation for making children, and that the church therefore cannot sanction a homosexual marriage on the grounds that it cannot produce children.

What is your take on homosexual couples adopting and bringing up children? That way their marriage would be one with purpose.

Meneer de pilaarbijtende kadodder, altijd met dat opgeheven, verwijtend vingertje.

Du gör nog bäst i att skriva på engelska om du vill bli förstådd; jag tror inte det är så många här som förstår nederländska.

 

[Absent]

You totally are.

Don't mix up what he's saying and what he's implying. Trolls and ultraconservatives (on internet forums, in politics, on mainstream medias, etc) are careful to not make too explicit the discourses that would get them banned or sued while still conveying their messages under "plausible deniability". Hence his avoidance of direct answers. Communicating it while "not saying it" is the point of his little game.

Not to mention that judgements on "all" childless couples must still leave some space for specific homophobic loathing.

 

[Chimpzy]

Du gör nog bäst i att skriva på engelska om du vill bli förstådd; jag tror inte det är så många här som förstår nederländska.

True, but even if I wrote it in English, the full meaning of it would be lost on almost everyone, save Generals (who hasn't dropped in for a while) and I guess just maybe Shinji, Hades and Bluegate. It's rather culturally specific.

 

[tstorm823]

The addict whose life is falling apart isn't miserable when they're high.

It is my personal experience that people are even more miserable when they are drunk or high, they're just incapable of processing the misery.

You seem to believe that there is some cheat code, some formula for a good life.

On the contrary: I'm saying that marriage isn't the cheat code for happiness that people treat it as. It is a tool for a purpose.

But all this aside, the clearest question should be: ...do you imagine that because gay people want equal access to society's legal frameworks, therefore all gay people want to get married? I don't.

This is all such a shining example of forcing billions of people into a one-size-fits-all simplified box, rather than spending any effort whatsoever actually listening to what they're saying, or acknowledging their differences.

Pretty sure you're not putting any effort into listening or understanding. Did you really not notice this is all about marriage? You can talk about whatever other things you want, this topic is about the Catholic stance on sexuality, which is to say: for reproduction inside a marriage. If you're talking about something detached from that, you're no longer engaging with the Catholic perspective. If you are talking about anything attached to that, you are talking about marriage.

Marriage among straight people also doesn't "inherently give purpose".

That is what I said.

What it does do-- for gay people and straight people-- is, for many of them, improve wellbeing and emotional stability.

For their children. For their children. It improves the wellbeing and stability of the lives of their children. That's the plan.

It's a demonstrable, well-researched aspect of life that stable, intimate, loving relationships improve wellbeing, whereas repression, self-denial and pointless celibacy degrade wellbeing.

It's not an absolute rule. But it's a damn strong trend, and literally the only reason you're denying its prominence it because a book told you so.

Bet. You show me the demonstrable, well-researched data on celibacy degrading wellbeing. I am all ears (or eyes, I suppose).

He said, apparently without irony, after insisting that the billions of gay people around the world just want to imitate the Catholic understanding of the human structure of marriage.

Yeah just that our relationships are sinful pale imitations of your good Catholic love. Lights off, shirts on, 50% if participants achieving orgasm.

That statement is not about just gay relationships. It's about everyone expecting fulfillment from partnership alone.

Hey, @tstorm823 , you have stated that a marriage is to be considered a vocation for making children, and that the church therefore cannot sanction a homosexual marriage on the grounds that it cannot produce children.

What is your take on homosexual couples adopting and bringing up children? That way their marriage would be one with purpose.

The Church's take on that would be that if you are disinclined to participate in the direct act of procreation, you should be pursuing a different vocation than parenthood. I don't know the world is that clean, as it takes two to tango, and someone I think could be called to parenthood without finding a sexual partner to pursue it with at all. So 2 people forming a partnership for the express purpose of adoption seems reasonable to me, regardless of if/how they are boinking. That being said, Catholic adoption services are going to treat that idea as moot at best until/unless the situation occurs where children in need of adoption outnumber married couples who want to have their own kids and got married only to discover they aren't capable.

Don't mix up what he's saying and what he's implying. Trolls and ultraconservatives (on internet forums, in politics, on mainstream medias, etc) are careful to not make too explicit the discourses that would get them banned or sued while still conveying their messages under "plausible deniability". Hence his avoidance of direct answers. Communicating it while "not saying it" is the point of his little game.

I have been on this forum for more years than the number of days your account has existed. Some of these people have been here with me for all or most of that time. You're not going to impress anyone pretending I've come here to secretly sneak in my fascism with dogwhistles. Like, who am I even supposed to be dogwhistling to here? This tiny subforum in a corner of the internet is like a few dozen regulars, and has more communists than conservatives.

 

[Buyetyen]

It is my personal experience that people are even more miserable when they are drunk or high, they're just incapable of processing the misery.

As an avid stoner, you're full of shit, dude. Some people just get high for fun.

I have been on this forum for more years than the number of days your account has existed. Some of these people have been here with me for all or most of that time. You're not going to impress anyone pretending I've come here to secretly sneak in my fascism with dogwhistles. Like, who am I even supposed to be dogwhistling to here? This tiny subforum in a corner of the internet is like a few dozen regulars, and has more communists than conservatives.

Dude, we would never accuse you of being secretive about your bigotry. Evasive, yes, but secretive, no.

 

[Bedinsis]

So 2 people forming a partnership for the express purpose of adoption seems reasonable to me, regardless of if/how they are boinking.

I didn't say "partnership", I said "marriage".

 

[Silvanus]

Pretty sure you're not putting any effort into listening or understanding. Did you really not notice this is all about marriage? You can talk about whatever other things you want, this topic is about the Catholic stance on sexuality, which is to say: for reproduction inside a marriage. If you're talking about something detached from that, you're no longer engaging with the Catholic perspective. If you are talking about anything attached to that, you are talking about marriage.

It's very obviously not been solely about marriage. The letter wasn't, the thread wasn't.

You're forcing it to be because you wish to equate all relationships with imitations of the Catholic understanding of the human construct of marriage, which is absurdly reductionist.

That is what I said.

Yes, while also arguing that it should be available for those straight people and not for gay people, resulting in a clear difference of treatment.

For their children. For their children. It improves the wellbeing and stability of the lives of their children. That's the plan.

You think that's all relationships do? They have no positive impact on the participants?

This conversation gets more depressing by the post.

Bet. You show me the demonstrable, well-researched data on celibacy degrading wellbeing. I am all ears (or eyes, I suppose).

Not what I said, but nice try.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It is my personal experience that people are even more miserable when they are drunk or high, they're just incapable of processing the misery.

Assuming I take this at face value, how is that different from any other form of happiness?

On the contrary: I'm saying that marriage isn't the cheat code for happiness that people treat it as. It is a tool for a purpose.

Purpose isn't a cheat code for happiness either.

At best, I suppose you could argue that purpose creates opportunities to be rewarded. If you believe your purpose is to be a parent and you tie your sense of self deeply to being a parent, then you will probably place a lot of value on things that signify being a good parent.

But firstly, that is true regardless of what you believe your purpose is, and secondly, none of this is going to protect you from the possibility of disappointment, because ultimately you aren't responsible for whether or not you are happy.

I have been on this forum for more years than the number of days your account has existed. Some of these people have been here with me for all or most of that time. You're not going to impress anyone pretending I've come here to secretly sneak in my fascism with dogwhistles.

You do frequently put significant effort into hiding or downplaying your real beliefs. True or not, I don't think it's an unfair accusation.

 

[Cheetodust]

That statement is not about just gay relationships. It's about everyone expecting fulfillment from partnership alone.

"No honey, pursuing pleasure is bad actually. I don't make you cum for your sake! Were it up to me you'd be spraying up the walls, alas for the sake of your soul I can not bring you to orgasm."

 

[Absent]

I have been on this forum for more years than the number of days your account has existed. Some of these people have been here with me for all or most of that time. You're not going to impress anyone pretending I've come here to secretly sneak in my fascism with dogwhistles. Like, who am I even supposed to be dogwhistling to here? This tiny subforum in a corner of the internet is like a few dozen regulars, and has more communists than conservatives.

You've been the resident homophobe all these years ? I'm baffled by these forumers' patience with you. Don't expect that much from me.

Especially as you've had all these years to grow your understanding and humanize your views.

 

[Gergar12]

The catholic church wants governments to spend their money but won't spend any of their own money to do the things it said it believes in. K.

Edit: If the pope believes in helping people he can do it himself, and lead by himself. Fund those LGBTQ shelters, and refugee relocation efforts. Don't complain that France or Germany or the US won't do it. You as the leader of a wealthy organization should lead by example.