Pope Francis On Transgender Ideology And Same Sexton Unions

[Era Might]

9 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

Sorry, I disagree. My religious view does not change the facts. Even when I was an atheist I still understood that the ideal family unit is a loving mother and father. I understood this because it's every persons dream whether you're heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual, or otherkin. It's ideal because it's natural. Polygamy is not ideal because no one came from one father and 4 mother's. Homosexual "families" are not ideal because no one came from two daddies or two mommies. It's just si.please logic from there that if we're not working towards the ideal then we're working in the opposite direction. That's not progress.  You're just over complicating matters cause you got nowhere to go with this and you insist on not taking directions.

Ok, you're an Idealist. You keep speaking of Ideals, but I don't believe in Ideals in the sense you do. You believe there is an Idea called Man and our task is to "take directions" to universalize that Idea. When you were an atheist you were an Idealist, too. Like I said, we're just starting from different points, and I can't argue with your belief in a world that has fallen from a primordial Idea. That's your belief, but that's not the basis of our civilization. Liberal ideologies also have their own Ideals which I do not subscribe to, because I'm not an Idealist, so I don't buy into their ideologies much, either (laissez faire, abstraction of gender, etc.)

But you think I'm just over-complicating matters. Ok, maybe so, I do believe in questioning everything, even when it complicates matters...I don't know how else to learn anything.

15 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Your issue seems to be with the nuclear family, not "the traditional family." Traditional families in western culture are not nuclear.  Also you keep bringing up polygamy as more traditional. Again, this is only true (if by traditional you mean, most historical) in some societies. You also keep mentioning "middle class." I think your issue is not with the family but with alienation from the class system. 

I only mention middle class because that is our model of family, it's usually what we mean when we speak of family...professional parents, 2 point whatever kids, stable institutions that organize family life, etc.

My point about polygamy is not that it is traditional, but that it was based on social and economic reality, just as our middle class family is, or peasant communes were. In other words, our institutions (including marriage and family) reflect material reality, not a primordial ideal. If we are going to speak of a traditional family in the West, I don't think the middle class family much reflects it...a better example would be extended families in Latin America, though even there modernization is changing the form of the family, to the American-style middle class family.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Maggyie]

But the concept of family as the church teaches it IS primordial, on the sexual level (and let's be honest, the teaching is really all about sex and reproduction). One's father having multiple wives does not change one's biology. 

[Era Might]

13 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

But the concept of family as the church teaches it IS primordial, on the sexual level (and let's be honest, the teaching is really all about sex and reproduction). One's father having multiple wives does not change one's biology. 

True, the sexual aspect is biological, but sex is just part of man's physical potential. Institutions like marriage are cultural, they give us the space to exercise our natural potential...through gender roles, socialization of the young, etc. The Christian argument is that God created a man and a woman and envisaged a certain cultural form of marriage, but then God let man transgress this Ideal because polygamy was socially and economically necessary. Do you see why I find this kind of idealism unconvincing? Culture has always given man a space to harness and control his sexuality. The Greeks and Romans accepted homosexuality, but they also understood marriage as a social and economic institution distinct from one's sexual pleasure. That is, perhaps, the one common aspect of marriage across history, it is a stabilizing institution for the family...but the Christian moralization of sexual pleasure has led us to our current predicament, where we can't separate sexual pleasure and marriage, as the Greeks and Romans could. We have, ironically, made it necessary for gays to validate their pleasure through marriage. I'm making a big historical argument here, of course, but I think it's at least somewhat true that Christianity in fact created the milieu for gay marriage.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Not A Real Name]

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

Ok, you're an Idealist. You keep speaking of Ideals, but I don't believe in Ideals in the sense you do. You believe there is an Idea called Man and our task is to "take directions" to universalize that Idea. When you were an atheist you were an Idealist, too. Like I said, we're just starting from different points, and I can't argue with your belief in a world that has fallen from a primordial Idea. That's your belief, but that's not the basis of our civilization. Liberal ideologies also have their own Ideals which I do not subscribe to, because I'm not an Idealist, so I don't buy into their ideologies much, either (laissez faire, abstraction of gender, etc.)

But you think I'm just over-complicating matters. Ok, maybe so, I do believe in questioning everything, even when it complicates matters...I don't know how else to learn anything.

Everyone has an ideology they subscribe to including yourself. Your way of thinking is not new or revolutionary. Questioning everything is not only impractical but unreasonable. You say you question everything, but I think we both know this is a bs statement you could never truly live by since a person who questions everything never truly learns. You have to accept knowledge in order to learn. If you are questioning everything then nothing has been accepted by you, including your belief in questioning everything. If you truly lived by the "question everything" belief, you would be a perpetual blank canvas. No ideas, no thought, no points of view; nothing whatsoever!

Edited May 25, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[Era Might]

19 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

Everyone has an ideology they subscribe to including yourself. Your way of thinking is not new or revolutionary. Questioning everything is not only impractical but unreasonable. You say you question everything, but I think we both know this is a bs statement you could never truly live by since a person who questions everything never truly learns. You have to accept knowledge in order to learn. If you are questioning everything then nothing has been accepted by you, including your belief in questioning everything. If you truly lived by the "question everything" belief, you would be a perpetual blank canvas. No ideas, no thought, no points of view; nothing whatsoever!

I have plenty of ideas and thoughts, which I've expressed in this thread. You don't agree with them, which is fine. You want to convert me to your thinking. That's the only difference. Think for yourself, you don't need to agree with me, as long as you don't stop thinking.

As far as ideology, yes, we all live within ideology...which is precisely why we must always question, especially our assumptions. To be able to step outside your own thinking is the only way to see.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

Ok, you're an Idealist. You keep speaking of Ideals, but I don't believe in Ideals in the sense you do. You believe there is an Idea called Man and our task is to "take directions" to universalize that Idea. When you were an atheist you were an Idealist, too. Like I said, we're just starting from different points, and I can't argue with your belief in a world that has fallen from a primordial Idea. That's your belief, but that's not the basis of our civilization. Liberal ideologies also have their own Ideals which I do not subscribe to, because I'm not an Idealist, so I don't buy into their ideologies much, either (laissez faire, abstraction of gender, etc.)

But you think I'm just over-complicating matters. Ok, maybe so, I do believe in questioning everything, even when it complicates matters...I don't know how else to learn anything.

I only mention middle class because that is our model of family, it's usually what we mean when we speak of family...professional parents, 2 point whatever kids, stable institutions that organize family life, etc.

My point about polygamy is not that it is traditional, but that it was based on social and economic reality, just as our middle class family is, or peasant communes were. In other words, our institutions (including marriage and family) reflect material reality, not a primordial ideal. If we are going to speak of a traditional family in the West, I don't think the middle class family much reflects it...a better example would be extended families in Latin America, though even there modernization is changing the form of the family, to the American-style middle class family.

You do not believe that there is any objective moral standard, is that correct? 

You not believe that certain things are always evil, is that correct? When someone rapes a baby instead of just calling it an evil atrocity, you would analyze the economics and "human needs" of the rapist to determine whether his action can be justified. That is correct, is it not?

For example, most people would agree that feeding a homeless person is always better than murdering an infant. Do you agree, or is this something also that should be questioned, given the fact that infanticide was common in the ancient world?

[Era Might]

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

You do not believe that there is any objective moral standard, is that correct? 

You not believe that certain things are always evil, is that correct? When someone rapes a baby instead of just calling it an evil atrocity, you would analyze the economics and "human needs" of the rapist to determine whether his action can be justified. That is correct, is it not?

For example, most people would agree that feeding a homeless person is always better than murdering an infant. Do you agree, or is this something also that should be questioned, given the fact that infanticide was common in the ancient world?

We're having two different conversations. You want to have a conversation about what is moral and what isn't, what is justified and what isn't. Presumably because you want to tell the world how to behave. I'm not interested in telling the world how to behave...if God is OK with permitting polygamy and infanticide and slavery, then my moral arguments don't mean much. I'm more interested in understanding why people behave the way they do, including myself. Of course, that's a large task, but if we start with the assumption of a primordial Idea of Man who had fallen from paradise, I don't see much light shed on human behavior. If you do, ok, I guess there's no point in debating mythology and theology. You believe what you believe about this Idea of Man, and everything will follow from that Idea...and of course, if you start from a different premise, such as Socrates who knew nothing except that he knew nothing, then everything will follow from that methodology, too.

[Not A Real Name]

7 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I have plenty of ideas and thoughts, which I've expressed in this thread. You don't agree with them, which is fine. You want to convert me to your thinking. That's the only difference. Think for yourself, you don't need to agree with me, as long as you don't stop thinking.

As far as ideology, yes, we all live within ideology...which is precisely why we must always question, especially our assumptions. To be able to step outside your own thinking is the only way to see.

Oh Era, I'm not here to convert you nor would I ever think I could. Conversion is a matter of the heart and while you live life as your own god, it is something you have closed yourself off to. 

[Era Might]

3 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

Oh Era, I'm not here to convert you nor would I ever think I could. Conversion is a matter of the heart and while you live life as your own god, it is something you have closed yourself off to. 

Don't be so pessimistic. As long as we keep thinking and talking and thinking, we're not closed off to anything. Unfortunately, ideology easily makes zealots of us all, and society becomes our playground. That goes for gay ideologues as much as religious ideologues.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Era Might said:

We're having two different conversations. You want to have a conversation about what is moral and what isn't, what is justified and what isn't. Presumably because you want to tell the world how to behave. I'm not interested in telling the world how to behave...if God is OK with permitting polygamy and infanticide and slavery, then my moral arguments don't mean much. I'm more interested in understanding why people behave the way they do, including myself. Of course, that's a large task, but if we start with the assumption of a primordial Idea of Man who had fallen from paradise, I don't see much light shed on human behavior. If you do, ok, I guess there's no point in debating mythology and theology. You believe what you believe about this Idea of Man, and everything will follow from that Idea...and of course, if you start from a different premise, such as Socrates who knew nothing except that he knew nothing, then everything will follow from that methodology, too.

If you want to understand human behavior I suggest that you invest in a psychology textbook. There are many good ones out there.

Again, you do not believe that any action,  such as raping and murdering an infant, is always evil, is that correct? You do not believe that there is an "ideal" concerning our actions towards infants or anyone else, that would make raping and murdering an infant always unacceptable. Correct?

I just want to confirm that, because if that is true, then there really is no point in us discussing much else. We have a fundamental disagreement in world view, as you seem to put it.

[Anomaly]

If you have to argue about a concept ideal family, then it's pointless to discuss anything. 

There is a big difference of having an ideal as standard for measurement,  and tolerating, accepting, or rejecting and fighting the many, many non-ideals.   Era comes across (to me, anyway) as very bitter and desirous to point out and dwell on the imperfections. 

[Era Might]

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

If you want to understand human behavior I suggest that you invest in a psychology textbook. There are many good ones out there.

Again, you do not believe that any action,  such as raping and murdering an infant, is always evil, is that correct? You do not believe that there is an "ideal" concerning our actions towards infants or anyone else, that would make raping and murdering an infant always unacceptable. Correct?

I just want to confirm that, because if that is true, then there really is no point in us discussing much else. We have a fundamental disagreement in world view, as you seem to put it.

I don't know. The Psalmist lamented Zion by the waters of Babylon and longed to see his enemy's children dashed against a rock. Every day we live comfortable lives off the labor and misery of women and children around the world. And we do this while professing our Ideal (which, by some coincidence, affirms our middle class family life at the expense of those women and children). So if there is some Ideal, I don't see any difference in believing or disbelieving in it, because we still find a way to justify our actions...bombing women and children, exploiting them, deporting them, drowning them in consumerism, whatever. Everything is possible when you have an invisible Idea to justify it.

6 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

If you have to argue about a concept ideal family, then it's pointless to discuss anything. 

There is a big difference of having an ideal as standard for measurement,  and tolerating, accepting, or rejecting and fighting the many, many non-ideals.   Era comes across (to me, anyway) as very bitter and desirous to point out and dwell on the imperfections. 

Huh? We're discussing a radical social change in family life...unless I'm a fanboy for the political agenda, the while point is to discuss where we're going wrong. This thread was about the Pope's stark denunciation of homosexuality, it's not a Mother's Day thread about your family. I'm glad everyone has families...even the screwed up ones, because eventually you realize all families are screwed up, they're made of humans.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Just to add, I do believe in an ideal of measurement, but it's the paradoxical ideal of the Gospel, where your neighbor strikes you on one cheek and you turn the other, where Jesus brings division between parents and children, and where love is greater than giving your body to be burned or having all knowledge and prophecies. IMO that's the only ideal because it's only measure is love, and that Gospel ideal, paradoxically, destroys all ideals, because an ideal that can be measured is like a god that can be seen...it's an idol.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

Lol.  Not all families are screwed up.    Most are terrific and loving families.  Few, if any are perfect. 

Most people are wonderful, and great.   Few if any are perfect.  

Most LOVING relationships are great.  Few, if any are perfect.  

Homosexual, loving, relationships can have good and laudable characteristics.  Heterosexual, loving, relationships can have good and laudable characteristics. 

Most happy people don't dwell first on imperfections, but discuss and compare the good, contrasting and discussing the imperfections. Fundamentally, a homosexual is not ideal because it doesn't work procreationally. As such, it isn't fundamentally an ideal for society within sociological context.  The Pope is speaking within religious context, comparing homo with an ideal.  We can have ideals, and tolerate non-ideal. 

Catholics don't have to burn gays, or hate them.  They don't have to say their relationships are as ideal as an imperfect hetero marriage because they aren't the perfect ideal either.  Imperfection isn't the most important thing, but closeness to becoming reasonably close to ideal is. 

Youve mentioned in other posts before, I specifically remember, that you measure by imperfection. Your tone in mosts posts strike me as very negative, dismantling, and rejecting any good with found or perceived imperfection.  Not that I think I should or could help you since I rejected religions and most concepts of God and have my own embraced negativity, but  srsly guy, you seem like you may want to cheer up a bit and not be so wick to be Danny Downer. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Anomaly

[Era Might]

22 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Lol.  Not all families are screwed up.    Most are terrific and loving families.  Few, if any are perfect. 

Most people are wonderful, and great.   Few if any are perfect.  

Most LOVING relationships are great.  Few, if any are perfect.  

Homosexual, loving, relationships can have good and laudable characteristics.  Heterosexual, loving, relationships can have good and laudable characteristics. 

Most happy people don't dwell first on imperfections, but discuss and compare the good, contrasting and discussing the imperfections. Fundamentally, a homosexual is not ideal because it doesn't work procreationally. As such, it isn't fundamentally an ideal for society within sociological context.  The Pope is speaking within religious context, comparing homo with an ideal.  We can have ideals, and tolerate non-ideal. 

Catholics don't have to burn gays, or hate them.  They don't have to say their relationships are as ideal as an imperfect hetero marriage because they aren't the perfect ideal either.  Imperfection isn't the most important thing, but closeness to becoming reasonably close to ideal is. 

Yeah, me and you speak different languages. You interpret my criticism as bitterness, but to be bitter assumes you have an Ideal that has failed you. And if I have an Ideal it is this: the New Man personified in Christ. When you speak of an ideal you mean something positive, some good organization or harnessing of our humanity. So I guess we talk at cross-purposes because my God is Christ, who destroys all our goodness in the Law and creates a New Man who does not yet exist...we are all becoming Christ, but to become Christ means to destroy the Old Man, indeed, to "become sin" as St. Paul put it. I criticize Man not out of bitterness at his failure to perfect the Law, but out of awe at his self-destruction which alone can bring about Christ, the New Man.

Tolstoy famously starts Anna Karenina with the line, every happy family is alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Why? The happy family has achieved an ideal, it has conformed to a model and thus has no reality, no personality, it is a dead idea, pure role-playing. But the unhappy family has gone off the rails, rebelled against the model, and only in that real, historical, anti-idealism do we really find our humanity, our salvation.

But, since you commented on how I come across, I'll just say you come across to me as a good-natured American Pragmatist. You look for the good and are content with the good-enough. I'm more of a Tolstoyan myself...I see the good in the mirror of the worst. That's the mystery, for me at least.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Era Might

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Yeah, me and you speak different languages. You interpret my criticism as bitterness, but to be bitter assumes you have an Ideal that has failed you. And if I have an Ideal it is this: the New Man personified in Christ. When you speak of an ideal you mean something positive, some good organization or harnessing of our humanity. So I guess we talk at cross-purposes because my God is Christ, who destroys all our goodness in the Law and creates a New Man who does not yet exist...we are all becoming Christ, but to become Christ means to destroy the Old Man, indeed, to "become sin" as St. Paul put it. I criticize Man not out of bitterness at his failure to perfect the Law, but out of awe at his self-destruction which alone can bring about Christ, the New Man.

Tolstoy famously starts Anna Karenina with the line, every happy family is alike, but evert unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Why? The happy family has achieved an ideal, it has conformed to a model and thus has no reality, no personality, it is a dead idea, pure role-playing. But the unhappy family has gone off the rails, rebelled against the model, and only in that real, historical, anti-idealism do we really find our humanity, our salvation.

But, since you commented on how I come across, I'll just sat you come across to me as a good-natured American Pragmatist. You look for the good and are content with the good-enough. I'm more of a Tolstoy an myself...I see the good in the mirror of the worst. That's the mystery, for me at least.

If Christ is your ideal why do you seemingly disagree with most of what He teaches in the Bible, concerning sin in particular?

For example, He teaches against lust, but you seem to be perfectly fine with that.

Or do you just have your own personal conception of Christ, which is nothing more than a personification of your own desires?

Edited May 25, 2016 by Peace

[Maggyie]

26 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Yeah, me and you speak different languages. You interpret my criticism as bitterness, but to be bitter assumes you have an Ideal that has failed you. And if I have an Ideal it is this: the New Man personified in Christ. When you speak of an ideal you mean something positive, some good organization or harnessing of our humanity. So I guess we talk at cross-purposes because my God is Christ, who destroys all our goodness in the Law and creates a New Man who does not yet exist...we are all becoming Christ, but to become Christ means to destroy the Old Man, indeed, to "become sin" as St. Paul put it. I criticize Man not out of bitterness at his failure to perfect the Law, but out of awe at his self-destruction which alone can bring about Christ, the New Man.

Tolstoy famously starts Anna Karenina with the line, every happy family is alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Why? The happy family has achieved an ideal, it has conformed to a model and thus has no reality, no personality, it is a dead idea, pure role-playing. But the unhappy family has gone off the rails, rebelled against the model, and only in that real, historical, anti-idealism do we really find our humanity, our salvation.

But, since you commented on how I come across, I'll just say you come across to me as a good-natured American Pragmatist. You look for the good and are content with the good-enough. I'm more of a Tolstoyan myself...I see the good in the mirror of the worst. That's the mystery, for me at least.

Tolstoy was wrong about that, and I never could appreciate Anna because of that. In reality it's the UNhappy families that are all the same: money problems, infidelity or addiction. It's monotonous for those who work in family counseling. 

I mean really, Oblonsky is a self involved dude who thinks his wife has gotten too fat and old after babies, and starts messing around with the nanny. That's like the oldest story in the world. Repetitive to the point of boring. I think a Kennedy did that. Literally unhappy families are copies of each other. I have sometimes tried to assume Tolstoy was being sarcastic with that opening line given the scene he describes. 

[Era Might]

1 minute ago, Maggyie said:

Tolstoy was wrong about that, and I never could appreciate Anna because of that. In reality it's the UNhappy families that are all the same: money problems, infidelity or addiction. It's monotonous for those who work in family counseling. 

Lol. I don't think Tolstoy would necessarily disagree with you. But the ordinary "family problems" that you refer to are often just necessary escapes from the family and the society it incarnates. In other words, it's an extension of the life they're already living, just in a less respectable or controlled manner. Tolstoy himself remembered the dreariness of his own sins...but he also knew the dreariness and meaninglessness of respectable society. War and Peace ends with a beautiful and realistic depiction of domestic life, but only after the characters have known the heaven and hell of war and peace. In order to be born again one must die, and marriage and family are, by nature, safeguards against death...we're too busy living to die, and that causes so many of our problems.

[Not A Real Name]

39 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Why? The happy family has achieved an ideal, it has conformed to a model and thus has no reality, no personality, it is a dead idea, pure role-playing. But the unhappy family has gone off the rails, rebelled against the model, and only in that real, historical, anti-idealism do we really find our humanity, our salvation.

 

Christ tells us we must be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect and gives Himself as the model of this perfection.  When we imitate Christ and strive for this perfection we become who we are truly meant to be! The unity in Faith the Saints had did not destroy their personality! Heck the Holy Trinity itself shows that unity does not remove individuality. It perfects it! . 

[Anomaly]

35 minutes ago, Era Might said:

 

Tolstoy famously starts Anna Karenina with the line, every happy family is alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Why? The happy family has achieved an ideal, it has conformed to a model and thus has no reality, no personality, it is a dead idea, pure role-playing. But the unhappy family has gone off the rails, rebelled against the model, and only in that real, historical, anti-idealism do we really find our humanity, our salvation.

But, since you commented on how I come across, I'll just say you come across to me as a good-natured American Pragmatist. You look for the good and are content with the good-enough. I'm more of a Tolstoyan myself...I see the good in the mirror of the worst. That's the mystery, for me at least.

Lol. Paint me happy enough!

You and Tolsty see happy as conforming to the ideal, so it's dead and to be rejected?   You search for unhappiness as desirous, because the futile battle against everything and anything is authentic.  

Yes, we are polar opposites.   I seek happy for me and those around me.  I appreciate and am grateful for instances of happy, or happy enough.   You may call it pragmatic, as if it's a derogatory term.  I call it living in the now.  I don't count on an afterlife for reward, punishment, or cosmic meaning. I don't believe it.   But I do believe in the importance of the journey, not the destination.   Our beginning and end mean nothing.   A direction for the journey matters as it helps determine who and what we encounter, and maybe who and what the other travelers encounter in their journeys.   No point in dwelling in the ditch and weeds.  Just because I don't believe in religion's ideals as goals, doesn't mean I can't travel the same direction.  

Rejecting all ideals as "dead" eliminates any willful direction for our brief journeys.   Especially rejecting happiness.  I don't think Jesus' message and purpose (as proposed by Christianity) is to seek misery in this life for happiness in the next.  Rather sad, and to me, bitter for a thinking person.