[pojut]

Who is taking a piss here?

The one who badgers with irrelevant questions, can't even tell when a question has been answered repeatedly and clearly - and then dodges an explanation by tossing random spurious insults against the source.

It's truly futile to talk to you.

Of course I'm going to question the source, when it advocates a return to a time when things like slavery, beating your wife, and torture for blasphemy were normal.

[pojut]

Tell ya what, just so you're happy, I'll respond to the actual quote rather than criticize the source:

Governing sexual life by private impulse and judgment rather than common understandings and standards as to what it is and ought to be makes fidelity and trust far less likely.

The problem with that is the "common understandings and standards" are dictated by the people that make up a group, in this case the USA. And within the USA, those "common understandings and standards" can vary greatly based on the group.

As for myself, I take the following approach: As long as it's consensual and doesn't involve me, I don't care what people do sexually. That's entirely their choice, which, forgive the cliche, is what freedom is all about.

It destroys the common moral world within which such things can exist and make sense.

They are implying that sex should only be used for reproduction, something that I vehemently disagree with. Have you ever had sex without the purpose of creating a child? If so, then you would have to automatically disagree with this portion.

Lack of fidelity and trust destroys both individual happiness and the conditions that make successful rearing of children possible, which are absolutely necessary for any tolerable society.

Very true! But notice they said child rearing, not having children. If two men or two women love, trust, and honor each other, and then decide to adopt a child who grows up to be a successful physicist, did they not contribute to the advancement of a "tolerable" society?

Stable and functional unions between men and women for raising children are too important to leave to chance and idiosyncrasy. Public moral standards and attitudes must therefore create a setting that fosters and protects them by making reliance prudent.

By explicitly stating "functional unions between men and women", are they implying that a gay couple is incapable of being reliable?

A moral view that brings sexual relations into a publicly recognized order that supports such unions by defining what sex is, and which sexual acts and relationships are legitimate, is thus a necessity.

Again though, by doing this you are removing all choice from the individual. Again, sorry for the cliche, but that individual consensual choice is what freedom is all about.

[Rei Murasame]

If Suska wants marriage to be a community action, then it doesn't take much to see how a same-sex couple is perfectly capable of carrying that out. What is really the core of the argument here?

[Smertios]

I don't think you have to be homosexual to be a heterophobe. It is seriously gay though.

This makes no sense o_0 How can you be an heterophobe if you are heterosexual? You have a phobia of yourself?

[Rei Murasame]

My suspicion is that Suska may be using the term 'heterophobe' to denote anyone who he deems to be opposed to heteronormativity. To me that word 'heterophobe' is incomprehensible. However, I don't think that any of the people he's used that term on, are actually opposed to heteronormativity anyway, so what's actually happening is that he is just arguing with people over whether gay marriage should exist.

Perhaps the people he is arguing with are objectively aiding the queer liberation agenda (which is opposed to heteronormativity) without knowing it, but Suska has not clarified this in his accusations, so I don't know if that's what he means.

I'll just point out though that queer liberation of course has no intention of removing sexual relations with the opposite sex from existence, and it will not do so either.

[pojut]

I'll just point out though that queer literation of course has no intention of removing sexual relations with the opposite sex from existence, and it will not do so either.

I always liked the way George Carlin looked at it: Christians should LOVE homosexuals. I mean, after all...who has less abortions than a homosexual couple?

[Rei Murasame]

Actually, on that note there is a funny thing that some parents say when someone is young and flirting with people of the same sex. They say, "Well, at least if something happens you won't be coming home pregnant, stay like that for a while and save me the worry".

Parents, always thinking of their own interests.

Of course on a serious note, such a rationale has its own peculiar dangers built in, since in most cases that is still taking place within a heteronormative framework which will usually turn against people later on.

[Suska]

It makes perfect sense to so label someone who is so outraged at the prospect that a person might criticize gays for anything that they actively seek - even against the evidence - someone to label homophobic; they are heterophobic.

Just as in the term homophobe where there's room to sling it against just about anyone, the term heterophobe is more and can be less than a purely sexual matter.

But this is a long winded way of saying something is gay, which also needn't be sexual.

Neither in person nor in principle do I hold onto animosity against homosexuals. But anyone can be unappealing, bigoted and stupid - even those who believe they are defending the helpless. pojut has more than amply - exhaustively demonstrated his heterophobism. He finds righteous determination in his crusade. Drlee too. There are many other raging heterophobes on PoFo.

Suska wants marriage to be a community action, then it doesn't take much to see how a same-sex couple is perfectly capable of carrying that out.

This has been my argument from the start and has been repeated multiple times. It is simply not the business of government if as I maintain marriage is a religious ritual.

I wouldn't say Rei is one, though she does hate men with an apocalyptic fervor, this is very likely a form of adoration of men combined with a determination to rebel - which every clever girl I've ever known cultivates - whether they have a good target or not - because it's sexier to men that way. True enough at times, I do find it somewhat appealing to be intellectually challenged by women.

[pojut]

That's nice, dear. So, now that you're done explaining that bit to us, any thoughts on my response to your post?

[Suska]

Yes one thought. It's quite amazing because you're bringing up questions that the site is designed to answer. It is a conservatism FAQ and I found it by looking in the forum description of conservatism.

so...

If you don't want to read it to have your questions answered I don't really care. I'm so completely done talking to you it a cause all it's own now.

[pojut]

Yes one thought. It's quite amazing because you're bringing up questions that the site is designed to answer. It is a conservatism FAQ and I found it by looking in the forum description of conservatism.

so...

If you don't want to read it to have your questions answered I don't really care. I'm so completely done talking to you it a cause all it's own now.

Let me get this straight: first, you (very rightfully) critisized me because I responded to the source, not the post. Then, I responded to the post almost line for line.

Your response to my line-for-line post is that you're done talking to me? wtf?

[Suska]

Just so you're clear - on the very vague possibility that you may one day adapt to an intellectual environment - My response; that you are not worth my time - comes mainly from your badgering me with an irrelevant heterophobic leading-question. If you are humbled now enough to behave like an adult I'm advising you to answer your own questions which have arisen from reading the answers to your questions.

[pojut]

Just so you're clear - on the very vague possibility that you may one day adapt to an intellectual environment - My response; that you are not worth my time - comes mainly from your badgering me with an irrelevant heterophobic leading-question. If you are humbled now enough to behave like an adult I'm advising you to answer your own questions which have arisen from reading the answers to your questions.

I see. So even though you've tossed multiple insults my way and I've done what you asked (respond to the quote, not the source), I'm the one acting childish. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Suska]

Not a problem. I was just sitting around anyway.

[pojut]

Not a problem. I was just sitting around anyway.

Let's try something real simple, Suska: are you married?

[Donna]

He's single and (literally) lives alone in a woodland cabin. No joke.

[Suska]

...playing folk music for my animals and the trees, I am married to an ever expanding vision of universal love and sacred creativity.

[pojut]

...playing folk music for my animals and the trees, I am married to an ever expanding vision of universal love and sacred creativity.

An envious life, to be sure...amalgamating oneself with nature is a great reward indeed.

As for myself, I'm married. Allow me to tell you a short story. You can jump to the last paragraph if you just want to see my actual point, but it will have more impact if you read everything before it.

I originally met my wife 11 years ago, when I was in 10th grade. We knew who we both were, and even though there was a mutual attraction, we were never single at the same time. Fast forward to two years after I graduated, and I randomly run into a close friend of mine from high school, who just happens to be dating my future wife. The three of us hang out together (and still do to this very day!), and have some incredibly fun times. A year or so later, she and my friend decide to break up. They make really great friends, but they just plain didn't work as a couple.

Fast forward three years later (we're now in the summer of 2007). I injured both of my wrists really badly (ligament damage, bone fracture, the whole deal), so I was houseridden for about a month...hell, I couldn't even pick up a toothbrush. Anyway, she randomly called me up during the one month's time to see what I was up to. She had just graduated college (special ed teacher), and had nothing to do during the summer. So, she hung out with me while I healed. After the second day, we discovered that we were BOTH single for the first time since we met way back in high school.

At the end of the summer, she moved in with me. Two years after that, we were engaged. A year after that, we were married in July of 2010, much to the delight of both of our families. A year and a half on, we are financially stable, professionally responsible, and growing ever closer. We also agree on the topic of children: we want to adopt, because we feel there are already uncared for kids out there...no sense in making a new one.

Now, you'll notice throughout that story I didn't mention religion a single time. That's because both of us come from agnostic families. Sure, there are people in our family that are religious, but for the most part, everyone is agnostic. I bring this up to tell you that, as a very happily married man with pretty much zero religion anywhere in my life, I have (and continue to improve) a marriage to a beautiful, intelligent, and very reliable woman.

Here's my main point: there is absolutely nothing about our history, our relationship, our emotions, our successes, or our goals that couldn't be found in a homosexual relationship. Likewise, a lack of religion clearly hasn't impacted us in a negative way. With all that in mind, I ask you this: aside from tradition for tradition's sake, what reason is there to leave the strict link between marriage and religion intact? Moreover, what reason is there to leave the link between marriage and homosexuality broken?

[Suska]

The link between religion and marriage has never really been severed, merely abused. Despite your insistence that you have no religion you have values and practices that constitute devotion. Organized religion maintains the best of our values and practices and offers refuge in hard times and celebration in good times within a community explicitly congregated to those ends.

You can pretend all you like that your lifestyle isn't religious but it get its entire character from 2000 years of Christian civilization.

[pojut]

The link between religion and marriage has never really been severed, merely abused.

That's an interesting point...can you expand on that?

Despite your insistence that you have no religion you have values and practices that constitute devotion. Organized religion maintains the best of our values and practices and offers refuge in hard times and celebration in good times within a community explicitly congregated to those ends.

That's very true! However, not everyone requires religion to be supported and to be supportive...some of us are just plain lucky or nice.

You can pretend all you like that your lifestyle isn't religious but it get its entire character from 2000 years of Christian civilization.

Do you mean to imply that people weren't upstanding, truthful, and faithful prior to Christianity? That seems like quite a stretch.