If homosexuals can marry each other, - Page 35 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Donald
#13759180
What I mean by paganism is that hedonism and decadence aren't modern inventions, but the space where upon the sky religions and steppes-cultures derive their own identities and organization, which is the basis of Western civilization (Judeo-Christianity). Christianity itself appropriated massive amounts of paganism and the early Christian mystics and esotericists were thoroughly decadent in that respect. Sky religion and civilization gives birth to law and order, earth-religion and paganism gives birth to adaptive value systems that operate much more independently (virtues). In my own opinion, this constitutes a continuous, sustainable and productive relationship, an incredibly important dialectic, not a dichotomy. How can anyone truly fault the excesses of the 1960s/1970s when it, for example, has taught us to treat the blight of child abuse with important consideration? There is no boogeyman that is hedonism or decadence in my opinion, but simply the seemingly timeless relationship between the Judeo-Christian and the pagan, the high culture and the low culture, the steppes-culture and the marsh-culture, and so on. When either of these attempt to destroy the other, the adventure is bound to certain failure.
User avatar
By Suska
#13759192
What I mean by paganism is that hedonism and decadence aren't modern inventions, but the space where upon the sky religions and steppes-cultures derive their own identities and organization, which is the basis of Western civilization (Judeo-Christianity)
Can you rephrase that for me?

Christianity itself appropriated massive amounts of paganism
To call it appropriation is to deny the syncretic nature of the effort.

thoroughly decadent in that respect
Which respect?

In my own opinion, this constitutes a continuous, sustainable and productive relationship, an incredibly important dialectic, not a dichotomy.
I fully agree, this is well stated.

How can anyone truly fault the excesses of the 1960s/1970s when it, for example, has taught us to treat the blight of child abuse with important consideration?
I don't see the connection.

There is no boogeyman that is hedonism or decadence in my opinion, but simply the seemingly timeless relationship between the Judeo-Christian and the pagan, the high culture and the low culture, the steppes-culture and the marsh-culture, and so on. When either of these attempt to destroy the other, the adventure is bound to certain failure.
You're just downplaying the significance of the contest in order to say it will work out in the end. I'm not going to hold my tongue waiting for people to realize that without the prudent traditional mating strategies we are bound to usher in an era of normalized heartache.

Hedonism is very real and completely pervasive in modern consumerist culture. That's not an abstract epochal issue if it means that conservatives in the matter of mating are today almost totally excluded outside insular religious communities - it means there is no love and marriage is for cannibalization. When the tradition is finally dead we will be faced with the real and ugly face of the Earth-type religion preeminent; love will end it's complete transformation from transcendent and hygienic to debauched and diseased. And then we will say of the traditional marriage that it was an attempt to compromise, as if that were surprising.
By Donald
#13759245
Can you rephrase that for me?


Well, the Adversus Haereses and Nicaean councils and so on speak more of a political truth than a metaphysical one. It was simply not politically viable to allow the paganistic gnostics, who were either radically celibate or radically orgiastic, to shape the future of the church.

To call it appropriation is to deny the syncretic nature of the effort.


Jesus of Nazareth is basically a politicized, progressive and historical incarnation of Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, Attis, etc.

I don't see the connection.


The 60s and 70s were the most radical period in Western civilization since the French Revolution, more radical than the manifest brutality of Bolshevik proletarian revolt, even. The revolutionaries of this period conducted a very important historical experiment: the rejection of all personal boundaries. What the revolutionaries soon discovered were real, necessary and natural limits. Homosexuals experimented with unscaled promiscuity that no longer exists today (eg, orgies containing hundreds of participants), community activists experimented with random murder and free-love communards experimented with the sexuality of their children. The Sixties revolutionaries soon discovered a world of parasitic and viral blood infections, a prophetic police-state and emotionally damaged children.

The pagan world of this time, through its fanatical and irrational belief in virtue, created a new foundation for a *new* Judeo-Christian society. Today sexual infections are understood, political violence is carefully analyzed by progressive activists and sexual predation of minors is acknowledged in full. I reject the notion that society became worse as a result of the knowledge obtained through the Sixties revolt.

When the tradition is finally dead we will be faced with the real and ugly face of the Earth-type religion preeminent; love will end it's complete transformation from transcendent and hygienic to debauched and diseased. And then we will say of the traditional marriage that it was an attempt to compromise, as if that were surprising.


Well, I’d say that tradition doesn’t really die, it merely changes. Where would you pin-point the death sequence of ‘tradition’? The 60s? The immediate post-war period? The interbellum? Queen Victoria’s death? The advent of the revolutionary bourgeoisie?
User avatar
By Suska
#13759291
Well, the Adversus Haereses and Nicaean councils and so on speak more of a political truth than a metaphysical one. It was simply not politically viable to allow the paganistic gnostics, who were either radically celibate or radically orgiastic, to shape the future of the church.
You wanna talk about Paul's church like it's Christianity, maybe I have some news for you; a Manichean Hedonist Berber Neoplatonist Rhetoritician very much shaped the church.

Jesus of Nazareth is basically a politicized, progressive and historical incarnation of Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, Attis, etc.
Now you're pissing me off. Do you need to look up the term syncretic? It's basically the definition of monotheism. Jesus is most certainly not Dionysus. We've talked about this before. If you don't withdraw this claim I'll ask you to take it to another thread where I can demolish it at length... again.

I reject the notion that society became worse as a result of the knowledge obtained through the Sixties revolt.
The truth that sets us free isn't abstract information; your list demonstrates you don't think very highly of the behavior, your conclusion demonstrates you think the ends justify the means. I cannot emphasize how fundamentally I disagree. The truth is the things we've done and the fact is it didn't make us better people. You don't get revelations about human nature from Charles Manson, you get Charles Manson and understandable fear and cynicism.

Where would you pin-point the death sequence of ‘tradition’? The 60s? The immediate post-war period? The interbellum? Queen Victoria’s death? The advent of the revolutionary bourgeoisie?
Even if I accepted your premise that it is an immortal practice I would just say that the process of killing it would be it's constant death.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13759718
Suska wrote:Yes Godstud, the popular idea is that marriage is meaningless
Show me a source for your assertion that this is a "popular idea". I think it's just your own personal opinion, and that you're trying to make it appear as fact, when it's not.

Suska wrote:anyone else who is a hedonist. Correct.
Bullshit. Everyone is a hedonist by your "theory", so then everyone else must feel that way. I guess that would mean that gay people are just like everyone else.

Suska wrote:Yes, exactly, when I say traditional in a thread called "If homosexuals can marry each other" I'm obviously talking about sod houses.
It's tradition, Suska. Why don't you go back and read what I posted, instead of making asinine comments without first reading the part about TRADITION? You're now doing exactly what you insulted me for and accused me of doing. :knife:

You make it appear as though tradition is so important, and then dismiss the fact that we've abandoned many traditions(sod houses, horse-drawn carriages, slavery, etc.) due to the advancement of society, culture, technology, etc.

Incidentally, I think your main reason for disliking me, and insulting me(what happens when people can't actually debate or discuss), is that I call you on your bullshit, and that I'm not a self-professed "philosopher king".
User avatar
By Suska
#13759732
Show me a source for your assertion that this is a "popular idea". I think it's just your own personal opinion, and that you're trying to make it appear as fact, when it's not.
Marriage is made increasingly meaningless by casual divorce. Divorce rates broke the chart decades ago and continues to rise. This entire campaign for gay marriage is predicated on the assumption of the meaninglessness of marriage.

If the focus of marriage is "true love" as can be very amply demonstrated in popular narratives, as opposed to child rearing and family legacy and wealth and personal and spiritual development in a supportive environment (if not also community stability) the question of what is true love and what is not arises. True love according to the modern notion is the initial form of attachment, the honeymoon period; instead of devotion to one's mate. Naturally the honeymoon period doesn't last, and instead of understanding that as you get to know someone you inevitably find they have their limitations, the understanding is that they are not actually good enough and you have your divorce motive. When sex is "shopping" love is sex and marriage is something good for a few weeks and thereafter bad.

Everyone is a hedonist by your "theory"
Hedonist has a particular meaning, which evidently you've never heard. No, not everyone is a hedonist. Gay sex is inherently hedonist since it serves only the selfish passions. Although it seems evident to me that most people think love is sex, they are hedonists.

You make it appear as though tradition is so important, and then dismiss the fact that we've abandoned many traditions(sod houses, horse-drawn carriages, slavery, etc.) due to the advancement of society, culture, technology, etc.
Ridiculous. I don't hold to tradition because it's tradition. I've given you specific reasons for my argument, if you want to extrapolate that into absurdity you should be insulted mercilessly.

Incidentally, I think your main reason for disliking me, and insulting me(what happens when people can't actually debate or discuss), is that I call you on your bullshit, and that I'm not a self-professed "philosopher king".
Philosopher King is something Zyx liked to talk about for which I did ridicule him more than a few times. I'm not in some exclusive club. I talk to you as you need to be talked to Stud. I don't dislike you.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13759831
Suska wrote:Hedonist has a particular meaning, which evidently you've never heard.
Hedonism has a particular meaning of which I have heard, and I've even gone so far as to read up on the hedonism theory you like to bring up on an almost constant basis.

Suska wrote:Gay sex is inherently hedonist since it serves only the selfish passions.
:eh: How do you know? Sex, regardless of which gender practices it, is not hedonistic. Sex is part of human intimacy. You imply selfish passions to homosexual sex, in particular(by your own statement), but I think you're doing some broad-based assumptions based on nothing more than pure ignorance, or maybe aversion to homosexuality.

Suska wrote:Although it seems evident to me that most people think love is sex, they are hedonists.
Sex is part of the human intimacy that people who love each other use. Sex, in itself, is not love and I am aware that most people, even homosexuals, can tell the difference between the two. Your statement is a very broad generalization of a less than general point of view. I doubt if you ran a poll you'd find that people, even gay ones, can tell the difference between the two.


You were appearing, earlier, to defend tradition by implying, nay saying, that "homosexuality is the enemy of tradition". Should I insult you mercilessly for saying one thing, but meaning another? Were you appearing absolutely clear, or could someone take your statement to appear otherwise? :hmm:

Suska wrote:I talk to you as you need to be talked to Stud. I don't dislike you.
I don't need to be talked to in an insulting manner any more than you do. You can disagree with me or even say my arguments, or statements, are ridiculous, but when you insult ME, then it is indeed implying dislike. It's also happens to imply that you have a weak argument, or are immature, when you have to resort to name-calling.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#13759861
May I just say....Sex can be hedonistic. Orgies would be an extreme example.

Some people will have sex with no real interest in the other person, and vis versa. Perhaps that's hedonistic.

Most of us love many people, and would not dream of having sex with them. I am refering to family and friends.

If we're lucky, we fall in love with someone who loves us. Sex here is not hedonistic, it's a natural action from the attraction of the other person. Love like this is not selfish. This sort of love makes us generous, and makes us better people.

You're right Suska, that the intensity dies down over time, yet I find the change acceptable. I know I have a man I can share my inner most thoughts with, and know he'll never betray me. He's generous, he's there when I need help, I depend ln him. We had a plan when we married, and we've stuck to it (ableit with a few mutually agreed to design modifications). Building a life together has its rewards.

And your right Suska, that sadly too many marriages fail. I swear this could be improved if children, small children, were taught how to negotiate a fair deal in a civil way. When ego gets in the way, things can go horribly wrong.

Now, what's true for hetrosexual couples is true of gay couples, don't you think?
User avatar
By Suska
#13759961
Stud, I don't have to resort to name-calling. I told you what you were, and you need to know it. If you had paid attention in any of the many conversations we've had you'd know by now that I'm perfectly capable of having polite conversations with people who are obstinate and ridiculous, even after I've pointed that out. I don't see any reason to belabor the matter. If you find I lack manners feel free to say so. If you can't get past that ignore my posts. It's that easy.

I did a lot more than imply that gay sex is hedonistic. I said it was inherently hedonistic. If you think that's me saying gay sex is sinful you're not hearing me properly. The question is what does what? Hedonism is the carnal form of short-sightedness; it's ignorant because the actual yield is larger than purported yield. It does more than give pleasure, building and breaking bonds casually is a killer (whatever your preference), it's anti-social and jading like any other indulgence, it creates problems societally, problems we don't need. I don't mind the idea that plenty of homosexuals are not brutally irresponsible. That doesn't alter the fact that homosexuals are the most vocal vanguard of hedonism; they even define themselves as such. I'm not looking for weak victims here, I'm objecting to a movement with a more popular position than my own. I'm trying to salvage the moral standards of my people.

I don't expect it to do anything for you, I don't see any reason at all for you to defend them. Do you hold a grudge against me? Or is this some misguided effort to defend the weak. The gay community isn't weak and they are on the offensive. So as I see it, you're defending a lifestyle of proud ignorance mobilized with a really quite vicious agenda. I've acknowledged many times that in the past homosexuals were picked on, there are plenty of good reasons not to encourage the behavior, but it didn't have to get as ugly as it did. Still, as long as they're targeting marriage I will be here telling them to get over the past and stop fucking with the sacred things of good people.

Stormy wrote:Now, what's true for hetrosexual couples is true of gay couples, don't you think?
No, children can keep a marriage together, at worst the parents will always have to deal with each other and it is the insularity and inevitability of that arrangement that matures a person. Sex for it's own sake is counter-courtship, gay sex is inherently for its own sake. This doesn't preclude a transcendent relationship, but as long as we're talking about gay sex and not love according to Plato we're well within the realm of hedonism, which carries with it certain ugly side-effects.

I disagree with some of the other things you say, but not strongly. I think you have a romantic idea that doesn't even remotely factor in courtship rites. You're just another one of those people who can't allow anyone to criticize a minority for their very real and harmful weaknesses. If you want everyone to just try and get along I suggest you stop acting like gays are innocent and start recognizing the particulars of the issue.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13759970
I'm not sure how pair bonding between members of the same sex is 'hedonistic'. Is it really so hard for people to see the social function of this?
User avatar
By Suska
#13759972
You make it sound like it happens in a petri dish. Homosexuality as a culture is reactionary and dangerous, escalating and hostile to prudence. On an individual level it is inherently hedonistic because it can have no further motive by itself. If actual pair bonding is occurring, and of course it is that isn't what I object to. If gays are settling down (as Donald suggested) it is against the grain of their subculture.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13759979
But is it possible for anyone to really 'settle down' in this liberal-capitalist [anti]social order? After all, isn't it deliberately designed to make settling down into communities as difficult as possible?
User avatar
By Suska
#13760009
I don't know, Amish do it. Mormons organize fairly well too. The rest of us can be considered high tech savages. I think if we had less ignoble intentions and smaller appetites it could be managed. My view is, as we have discussed, that it all hinges on what we think human nature is, so there are other factors; mistaken ideas about what science can say about us for example, our civilization is basically high, but who's going to listen to someone preaching sobriety at a party? I do agree that our wealthy have not lived up to their responsibilities, but I would say these are the factors that produce the effects you attribute to system architecture. No system will save a people determined to act like short-sighted assholes. Moral traditions, if anyone wanted to hear about them, stand a chance in that regard.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13760382
Many heterosexual couples get married with no goal or intention of having children, Susksa. Are you telling me that that is" hedonistic" of them to want to have a social and formal commitment to each other? :roll: Why wouldn't homosexuals want that as well, along with the 1000+ other rights that are granted AUTOMATICALLY to couples upon being married? You're glossing over the whole marriage debate with your blatant defense of tradition.

Yes, despite what you say, you're a die hard traditionalist. You'd being what you accused me of being, ten-fold, by denying it. You speak of traditions like courtship rituals, courtship rites, sacred things, moral traditions, and moral standards. These are all traditions that you wish to preserve! How can you so vehemently deny being a supporter of traditions when you so obviously are? It appears as though you are terribly confused or being dishonest.

Incidentally, in Canada, despite having homosexual marriage for several years now(2004), we have not seen marriage affected negatively. Your argument doesn't seem to stand up against the reality. It just seems to be the standard conservative traditionalist argument couched in short-sightedness, fear, and ignorance.
User avatar
By Suska
#13760485
How can you so vehemently deny being a supporter of traditions when you so obviously are?
The way you use the word is manipulative and incorrect. In this conversation we're talking about a particular set of traditions; courtship, marriage, family. Do you notice a theme? So what other traditions are you trying to associate with me? I just wasted 5 minutes of my life you ask you to stay on topic because you keep trying to maneuver me into some position you think you'll get a better shot at me from. You use weasel words and unfair characterizations, "die hard traditionalist"? You can't even construct a logical rebuttal. It's all grudge and blather with you Stud.

Canada, despite having homosexual marriage for several years now(2004), we have not seen marriage affected negatively.
You mean the divorce rate isn't rising much more than it was a few years ago? Since the 70s repeat divorcees have tripled. Or do you mean marriage rates are falling less than they were a few years ago? Or are we talking about the increasing employment of common-law marriage which has an extremely low durability? I'm not sure which it is. Or do you think that the legality of gay marriage was supposed to be such a bombshell (according to your imbecilic concept of my "theory") that heterosexuals would flee from marriage because it's also now being offered to gays. Instead of say, accepting that hedonism has a longer than 6 year history...?

CartEdit:There's a lot of productive debate in this thread and I fear trying to sanitise it of the mutual antagonism between Suska and Godstud would detract from the thread for other members. Knock it off now - the pair of you.
By Donald
#13760657
It's amazing that you call homosexuality reactionary while heaping praise on isolate religious communities that marry off 13 year-olds.
User avatar
By Suska
#13760673
LDS is hardly isolate, and ... lol... The Amish reactionary..? Still reacting to the English Civil War are they?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13760913
LDS is hardly isolate, and ... lol... The Amish reactionary..? Still reacting to the English Civil War are they?

Donald didn't call the Amish 'reactionary', he called them 'isolate'. This was an accurate description.
User avatar
By Suska
#13760956
As if it matters that they are isolated. Mennonites are a larger group and they're not isolated. LDS are not at all isolated. Many churches in America serve the purpose of establishing courtship rites. What's the point? Was there an insult in there? Oh, the 4th hand news that sometimes the Amish marry early - Donald is pretending he knows something about this, while ignoring everything else I say. How is "reactionary" even an insult instead of a description?
User avatar
By Kasu
#13766896
my position is that we're all going to die relatively soon so have as much hedonistic sex as possible, preferably in a way that doesn't result in overpopulation. It doesn't make sense to stick with one person for the sake of abstract notions like morality, maturity, sanctity, when we are all going to die regardless. We are all animals, we are all the product of hedonistic, orgiastic sex.. it only makes sense to make as many connections as possible, male or female, while we are still on this physical, bodily realm, while still keeping in mind that reproduction is the only way to continue your existence past the yawning grave. That is all.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

Not cooperating with congresses harassment do[…]

No. It is you who have missed the obvious an[…]

Greta Thunberg, the teen activist from Sweden who[…]

Ideality

I now more specifically see how Ilyenkovs concept […]