[pojut]

It's a stupid question. I haven't objected to gay marriage on those grounds.

Once again, you STILL haven't answered the question.

[Suska]

Heterophobic bullshit.

[pojut]

Heterophobic bullshit.

Here we are again...another personal attack, yet still no answer to the question. I've read paragraph after paragraph of you explaining your opinion, yet you cant type two sentences to answer a simple question. Very strange. Oh well, I'll try again:

How will gays getting married affect your own marriage in any way?

[TruePolitics]

Suska is a devout Christian which explains why he's against homosexual marriage.

[Suska]

You don't know shit about me TP. You can't read, think or even remember.

[Drlee]

Suska it sound like you just want to be contrary. Perhaps we have had a cocktail?

You really should answer the question which seems to frighten you so much. That is:

How will gays getting married directly affect your own marriage in any way?

Perhaps we would find your answer enlightening.

Heterphobic bullshit.

It is unfortunate that you would say that. I would hope for better from you.

[Suska]

Quit badgering me, it's ridiculous really. I don't think a particular set of strangers getting married will change the world. It's a stupid question, this is a cultural matter. I haven't said they shouldn't get married. I've only said that marriage should be attached to a religious community. I've even offered that there's no regulation of that term.

It is unfortunate that you would say that.

It's not. It's downright accurate, and you're one of them Doc.

[pojut]

Quit badgering me, it's ridiculous really. I don't think a particular set of strangers getting married will change the world. It's a stupid question, this is a cultural matter.

I didn't ask if you thought it would change anyone else, I asked how it would affect YOUR marriage. Not the "institution" of marriage, but YOUR marriage.

[Suska]

It's a nonsense question. Supposing I were not married the state of marriage culturally will affect what I can expect from it. Supposing alternately that I was married, as I've just now said; I don't think a particular set of strangers getting married will change the world.

You're about the most tedious heterophobe I've ever met, and I've met some serious hard cases here on PoFo.

[pojut]

It's a nonsense question. Supposing I were not married the state of marriage culturally will affect what I can expect from it. Supposing alternately that I was married, as I've just now said; I don't think a particular set of strangers getting married will change the world.

You're about the most tedious heterophobe I've ever met, and I've met some serious hard cases here on PoFo.

So let me get this straight: because you're not married, gay marriage will arbitrarily affect how you view marriage? Please elaborate.

However, assuming you are married, you acknowledge that gay marriage wouldn't affect your own marriage. If it won't affect you, why do you care if gays get married?

[Suska]

If you aren't already married the state of marriage generally is important, less so if you're already married, but even then. When societies change people are affected.

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

[pojut]

If you aren't already married the state of marriage generally is important, less so if you're already married, but even then. When societies change people are affected.

Marriage is between two people, not the whole world. If you're basing your marriage on anything except each other, you're destined for divorce.

That being said, explain to me how gay marriage would suddenly affect a straight person's view on marriage.

[TruePolitics]

Marriage is between two people, not the whole world

Says who? Why can't it be between three people?

[pojut]

Says who? Why can't it be between three people?

Fair enough. To clarify, I meant that it's between the people involved, not the people external of it.

[Suska]

You're in the conservativism forum raping the meaning of marriage. wtf.

[Drlee]

Says who? Why can't it be between three people?

Marriage? Because two people not having sex is a shame. Three people not having sex is an epidemic.

[pojut]

You're in the conservativism forum raping my meaning of marriage. wtf.

Fixed that for ya. Unless you meant to imply that only your view is the right one.

[Suska]

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

[pojut]

Suska, quoting something about sexuality from a website that includes "Antimodernist" and "Catholic Discussion" at the top of its home page is taking the piss out of the conversation, don't you think?

Furthermore, under the "And that substance is" section on this page, they say the following:

"The traditional American polity, rooted in ordinary experience and in Greece, Rome, Jerusalem and the European Middle Ages, has disappeared, destroyed by the technological and egalitarian hedonism of the modern outlook in general and liberal thought in particular."

You know where homosexuality ran rampant? Greece and Rome. You know where three major religions are able to find their holiest sites, while claiming that only one is the "truth"? Jerusalem. You know where people were persecuted by way of imprisonment and torture because they held different beliefs? The European Middle Ages.

They also condone the "Restoration of Christendom", as if Christianity was the first religion on the planet. They also say "the religious alternative to Christianity in the West is ideological liberalism", as if it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone to be a respectful upstanding person without being a non-liberal Christian.

If you're having to explain your point of view by quoting a website like that, I don't think there's anything else to discuss.

[Suska]

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.