The Catholic Church issues another statement about gay marriage

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Ah, hubris.  Society has never changed uniformly in a single direction, and I doubt it ever will. In 1921 the prevailing view was that by now we'd have experienced a century of peace thanks to the leadership of the League of Nations. Frankly, the utopia you imagine 2121 will be for LGBTQ-equality is just as plausible as a world in which most countries have recriminalized being LGBTQ.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Ah, hubris.  Society has never changed uniformly in a single direction, and I doubt it ever will. In 1921 the prevailing view was that by now we'd have experienced a century of peace thanks to the leadership of the League of Nations. Frankly, the utopia you imagine 2121 will be for LGBTQ-equality is just as plausible as a world in which most countries have recriminalized being LGBTQ.

The more direct analogy for 1921 would be women's equality, and the optimists were right. But feel free to bump this thread in 2041 (I'm sure we'll both still be posting here) or 2121 (if we're still alive) with the actual results.

Excuse me, but from what alternate universe do you come from in which three of our last six Presidents were female and men and women are equally paid? That said, I'm not predicting a regression, only that regression is as likely as progression.  Also, while it is more likely than not that I'll still be alive in 2041, and in any case, I might decide that I have better things to do in my retirement than post here. (I can at least hope I do.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Ah, hubris.  Society has never changed uniformly in a single direction, and I doubt it ever will. In 1921 the prevailing view was that by now we'd have experienced a century of peace thanks to the leadership of the League of Nations. Frankly, the utopia you imagine 2121 will be for LGBTQ-equality is just as plausible as a world in which most countries have recriminalized being LGBTQ.

The more direct analogy for 1921 would be women's equality, and the optimists were right. But feel free to bump this thread in 2041 (I'm sure we'll both still be posting here) or 2121 (if we're still alive) with the actual results.

Excuse me, but from what alternate universe do you come from in which three of our last six Presidents were female and men and women are equally paid? That said, I'm not predicting a regression, only that regression is as likely as progression.  Also, while it is more likely than not that I'll still be alive in 2041, and in any case, I might decide that I have better things to do in my retirement than post here. (I can at least hope I do.)

His point was that gender equality has only been improving, the pay gap keeps reducing, etc. It has been the exact same thing with LGBT rights, with very few exceptions I can remember. Speaking of Africa, Angola just recently decriminalised same-sex relations. History has kept proving that regression is definitely not as likely as progression.

That has been the recent trend, with some notable exceptions such as the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the rise of Wahabism, and whatever what's going on in Xinjiang ends up being called.

The idea that history goes in one particular predictable direction is the sort of sloppy thinking that led SCOTUS to believe that all it was doing was giving things a push in Roe. Surely by the 21st century, abortion would be universally acceptable?

Or if you prefer to consider in the alternative, how about "Three generations of imbiciles are enough"?  Eugenics was at the time of that now infamous statement seen as the height of progressive policy.