Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

[ZEB]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

You did.[/quote]

No, you did.

[/quote]

??

You don’t think you made conflicting statements?

In one post you say gay marriage will sky rocket if legalized nationwide and in another you say less than 1% of the population is interested in gay marriage.[/quote]

They are not conflicting. If 1% of all homosexuals who want to get married follow through and get married, then gay marriage will sky rocket.

Let’s not argue for the sake of arguing. In fact, let’s not even argue. Has anyones mind ever been changed in an Internet debate?

You’re pro gay marriage and I’m against it.

Simple.

The End.

(Edit: You’re a 25 year old Canadian. We are never going to agree my friend take care:)

[forlife]

Cortes,

Why are you lecturing me on being honest enough to recognize my own confirmatory bias when I’ve said over and over again that I am as subject to confirmatory bias as anyone else?

Do you recognize your own confirmatory bias? I hope so, because failing to do so would not only prove you ignorant, but a hypocrite to boot.

Given your aversion to homosexuality, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the standard definition of marriage on Wiki as “progressive pablum”? Hello pot, meet kettle.

In your subquote from Wiki, the very first sentence defines marriage as a contract that creates kinship, i.e., FAMILY. Since we’re discussing definitions:

Kinship
The state or fact of being of kin; family relationship.

Marriage is about two people deciding to become a FAMILY. And yes, families can exist with just 2 people. An infertile straight couple is still a family, even if they never have children. And a gay couple is still a family, whether or not they ever have children.

[kamui]

[quote]Your opposition to gay marriage is similarly based on your moral conviction that gay sex is categorically wrong, whether inside or outside of marriage.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. The battle for gay rights is ultimately, unavoidably, a MORAL debate. People who are morally opposed to homosexuality will resist gay marriage to their dying day, and no amount of logic or evidence will make any difference to their views.[/quote]

maybe it’s true in sloth’s case. but in mine ?

remember i’m an unbeliever and an “alternative lifestylist”(if such a word exist in english).
a fair number of my partner are bisexual girls and men.
I could even consider gay sex myself, if i ever find a man attractive and seductive enough.

i have absolutely nothing against gay sex, or gay romance, or gay household. Monogamous, polyamorous or otherwise.

but I still remember that marriage is not about romance or long-term commitment. it’s about becoming a member a the smallest and most fundamental social institution : a family.

I’m fully aware that my alternative lifestyle is just that : an alternative.
It’s not a model nor an institution, and it is not supposed to be one.

my relationships are not “a family” in any way or shape, the State has no more reason to support it than a local football club or an internet forum.

I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

Insisting to label my polyamorous relationships “plural marriages” and asking for their “legalization”, while whining about “discrimination” and “bigotry” would be grotesque.

And that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

The day gay marriage become legal, ALL existing marriages suddenly take a new and different meaning.
It’s no more the basic social institution. it become romance “officialized” and “defiscalized”.

and you should understand that some people don’t want to see their marriage becoming meaningless in order to appease an anguished minority.

[ZEB]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is not “national suicide.” It will not have an appreciable effect on this country’s development through history. >>>[/quote]It is the latest component in a national suicide that began in earnest in the 1960’s. It HAS AND IS having an appreciable effect. A devastating suicidal one. This country was built on the social/political/economic foundation of very limited public government through privately and voluntarily practiced Judeo-Christian morality.

Oh yes it was. Our founders clearly told us that. “The reason we can give you so few rules boys n girls is because you’re already so well behaved on the whole” to paraphrase in a nutshell. Even the total hypocritical pagans like Jefferson and Franklin clearly understood this.

The soil out of which new citizens grow is their family or lack thereof. Every single last issue killing this country is a direct consequence of that. The founders assumed that we would continue in the new testament model of one man and one woman for life wherein boundaries that engender self sacrifice, self control, decency, modesty and HONESTY in the act of upholding one’s vows because one’s word actually meant something. All of this was predicated upon the assumption that God designed it that way. That was the soil for new citizens they absolutely counted on for their experiment in self government to succeed and it did.

We skyrocketed into the most prosperous, powerful, feared and respected nation in all of human history over the course of a few generations BECAUSE despite our human foibles we were the most moral because we were the most Christian. Look at the soil our citizens are growing in now. Children of the hippies. Hedonistic, self obsessed, narcissistic, materialistic whores whose mission in life is bringing themselves the most pleasure in the most rapid fashion possible.

ALL the economic woes we are now in ARE, make no mistake, the consequence of the sexually moral degeneration of this nation’s citizenry resulting in the destruction of the foundational social unit upon which she was built and out of which her members are spawned. Even Stalin understood this. He told the world that the United Sates would never be defeated as long as she maintained her spirituality and hence MORality.

Wanna know what’s rotting this nation dead from the inside out like an oozing flesh eating virus? Go look in your Sex and the Male Animal forum. We will destroy OURSELVES to the snickering glee of our many enemies without a shot being fired, all in the name of getting laid. Gay marriage is just the latest chapter.
[/quote]

This post is everything that’s wrong with America.

You are on the wrong side of history, you ignorant fools…[/quote]

Yeah, you ignorant fools. Don’t you know what the future looks like? Here’s a little snap shot since the early 1960’s:

-Drug use on the increase

-AIDS cases increase

-Rapes on the increase

-STD’s on the increase

-Alcoholism on the increase

-Abortions on the increase (since Roe V Wade 1973)

-School violence on the increase

-Assault and battery agasint womeon on the increase

-Child abuse on the increase

And how did we do it! Well, we got prayer out of schools because that would have helped kids have a stronger moral base and lessoned school violence. We then needed to make sure that there was as little responsibility attached to having sex as possible. Hey, if you become pregnant just have an abortion. And if you have that child you can’t afford don’t worry about it that is unimportant. After all it’s the governments responsibility to support that child. You are ENTITLED to free government money. We then made sure that pop culture played a bigger role in influencing our children. This was a master stroke because we know that the Hollywood types are sure to lead us in the right direction. Oh, and anything sexual regardless of what it is, is just plain COOOOOOL! As for pornography there is no way that looking at movies of various forms of perversion could possibly effect you in a negative way. We know it couldn’t possibly jade you in a normal relationship. I’m only sorry that we’ve not been able to legalize drugs yet, but we’re working on it. Because I know that the more drugs that are on the street the less people will take them, it only makes sense. And as for gay marriage, we just won a big one in New York and there’s no question that including homosexuality and other forms of marriage such as polygamy and incest as a norm will further put us on the right road!

Well, there’s more but this will cover it for now. And YOU FOOLS who are on the wrong side of history, you are everything that’s wrong with America with your old fashion bull crap. Just get out of the way because we liberal politically correct people know exactly what we’re doing. And I think it shows by the great success that we’ve had.

You bet!

[forlife]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Your opposition to gay marriage is similarly based on your moral conviction that gay sex is categorically wrong, whether inside or outside of marriage.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. The battle for gay rights is ultimately, unavoidably, a MORAL debate. People who are morally opposed to homosexuality will resist gay marriage to their dying day, and no amount of logic or evidence will make any difference to their views.[/quote]

maybe it’s true in sloth’s case. but in mine ?

remember i’m an unbeliever and an “alternative lifestylist”(if such a word exist in english).
a fair number of my partner are bisexual girls and men.
I could even consider gay sex myself, if i ever find a man attractive and seductive enough.

i have absolutely nothing against gay sex, or gay romance, or gay household. Monogamous, polyamorous or otherwise.

but I still remember that marriage is not about romance or long-term commitment. it’s about becoming a member a the smallest and most fundamental social institution : a family.

I’m fully aware that my alternative lifestyle is just that : an alternative.
It’s not a model nor an institution, and it is not supposed to be one.

my relationships are not “a family” in any way or shape, the State has no more reason to support it than a local football club or an internet forum.

I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

Insisting to label my polyamorous relationships “plural marriages” and asking for their “legalization”, while whining about “discrimination” and “bigotry” would be grotesque.

And that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

The day gay marriage become legal, ALL existing marriages suddenly take a new and different meaning.
It’s no more the basic social institution. it become romance “officialized” and “defiscalized”.

and you should understand that some people don’t want to see their marriage becoming meaningless in order to appease an anguished minority.

[/quote]

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with you. Admittedly, it’s a slim majority and we have miles yet to go. But it will happen, and my partner and I will be there to celebrate.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Well it is indeed one very large and dangerous social experiment isn’t it? And as I’ve said we won’t know the harm that it does, or lack thereof, for many years to come. And we are doing this why? Very loud gay groups who have money and lobby power. Furthermore, we cannot with good conscience withhold marriage from polygamists or incestuous couples, or any other sort of consenting perverted adult unions can we? How can we rationalize doing that? Soon they too will have the organization, money and political power to get the same rights.

And so it goes…[/quote]

Gay marriages are a hot potato throughout the western world. We will see after a couple of decades and can make comparisons between countries and states that sanctioned and those who don’t. Hopefully we both are then still able to debate and argue about it. But we haven’t been really debating, have we, we have been discussing and that’s nice.

E: I realized that gunfood is probably not an english word, it comes from an idiom from my own language, but it’s still understandable, yes? Gunfood = soldiers.

[Cortes]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes,

Why are you lecturing me on being honest enough to recognize my own confirmatory bias when I’ve said over and over again that I am as subject to confirmatory bias as anyone else?

Do you recognize your own confirmatory bias? I hope so, because failing to do so would not only prove you ignorant, but a hypocrite to boot.

Given your aversion to homosexuality, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the standard definition of marriage on Wiki as “progressive pablum”? Hello pot, meet kettle.

In your subquote, the very first sentence defines marriage as a contract that creates kinship, i.e., FAMILY. Since we’re discussing definitions:

Kinship
The state or fact of being of kin; family relationship.

Marriage is about two people deciding to become a FAMILY. And yes, families can exist with just 2 people. An infertile straight couple is still a family, even if they never have children. And a gay couple is still a family, whether or not they ever have children.[/quote]

But the straight couple intrinsically possesses the ability to produce children in the first place, and the intact unit further serves to provide the most favorable environment for a child, thus benefitting society at large.

What is your problem with this concept? Why do you keep ignoring the points that have been made, particularly TB’s point that the institution is necessarily overinclusive in order to best foster more of the behavior and arrangements we would like to have?

And speaking of arguing in good faith, you would do well to lay off the fallacious attacks upon my real or imagined motivations or feelings toward gays or whatever social group. You wouldn’t appreciate it if in one of the religious threads I dismissively responded to you, “Given your aversion to religion, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the legitimate, factual points I’ve raised here? Hello pot, meet kettle.”

I’m happy to engage you and I try and conduct our dialogs respectfully, because I like you. All I ask is the same respect in kind. You don’t appreciate being called a hedonist or heathen or whatever in the religious threads. I don’t appreciate the implied bigotry here. If you want to debate I’d appreciate it if you kept your counterpoints limited to the arguments I’ve provided, and refrain from psychoanalyzing me.

[Cortes]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Your opposition to gay marriage is similarly based on your moral conviction that gay sex is categorically wrong, whether inside or outside of marriage.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. The battle for gay rights is ultimately, unavoidably, a MORAL debate. People who are morally opposed to homosexuality will resist gay marriage to their dying day, and no amount of logic or evidence will make any difference to their views.[/quote]

maybe it’s true in sloth’s case. but in mine ?

remember i’m an unbeliever and an “alternative lifestylist”(if such a word exist in english).
a fair number of my partner are bisexual girls and men.
I could even consider gay sex myself, if i ever find a man attractive and seductive enough.

i have absolutely nothing against gay sex, or gay romance, or gay household. Monogamous, polyamorous or otherwise.

but I still remember that marriage is not about romance or long-term commitment. it’s about becoming a member a the smallest and most fundamental social institution : a family.

I’m fully aware that my alternative lifestyle is just that : an alternative.
It’s not a model nor an institution, and it is not supposed to be one.

my relationships are not “a family” in any way or shape, the State has no more reason to support it than a local football club or an internet forum.

I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

Insisting to label my polyamorous relationships “plural marriages” and asking for their “legalization”, while whining about “discrimination” and “bigotry” would be grotesque.

And that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

The day gay marriage become legal, ALL existing marriages suddenly take a new and different meaning.
It’s no more the basic social institution. it become romance “officialized” and “defiscalized”.

and you should understand that some people don’t want to see their marriage becoming meaningless in order to appease an anguished minority.

[/quote]

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with you. Admittedly, it’s a slim majority and we have miles yet to go. But it will happen, and my partner and I will be there to celebrate.[/quote]

See there, forlife, you just did it again.

You have NO CLUE what kind of love kamui is capable of falling into or with whom.

So how about you address his actual statements. Instead of completely ducking the hard questions.

[Cortes]

Also just a slight threadjack but I just wanted to say that I am very happy to see you appear to be posting here regularly again, kamui. I sure hope you’ll stick around.

[kamui]

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

no.
I’m perfectly able to fall deeply in love and to commit the rest of my life with someone.
the vast majority of swingers are, you know.

But i still don’t think it’s enough to qualify as a family. And i’m not exhibitionnist or insecure enough to ask the State and the whole society to acknowledge, confirm and promote my long-term romance(s).

being a family is being part of a social, legal and cultural institution.
It’s about being a “societal model”, in a specific culture.
My relationships, long-term or not, romantic or not, doesn’t qualify.

yours qualify even less.

“libertine marriage” could be such a societal model… in another civilization, another time, another culture.
It would require vastly different parentality and filiation laws, and a vastly different mindset… otherwise it would (will ?) be catastrophic.

Gay marriage on the other hand will never be such a “societal model”, because it’s simply not a viable model.

[forlife]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes,

Why are you lecturing me on being honest enough to recognize my own confirmatory bias when I’ve said over and over again that I am as subject to confirmatory bias as anyone else?

Do you recognize your own confirmatory bias? I hope so, because failing to do so would not only prove you ignorant, but a hypocrite to boot.

Given your aversion to homosexuality, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the standard definition of marriage on Wiki as “progressive pablum”? Hello pot, meet kettle.

In your subquote, the very first sentence defines marriage as a contract that creates kinship, i.e., FAMILY. Since we’re discussing definitions:

Kinship
The state or fact of being of kin; family relationship.

Marriage is about two people deciding to become a FAMILY. And yes, families can exist with just 2 people. An infertile straight couple is still a family, even if they never have children. And a gay couple is still a family, whether or not they ever have children.[/quote]

But the straight couple intrinsically possesses the ability to produce children in the first place, and the intact unit further serves to provide the most favorable environment for a child, thus benefitting society at large.

What is your problem with this concept? Why do you keep ignoring the points that have been made, particularly TB’s point that the institution is necessarily overinclusive in order to best foster more of the behavior and arrangements we would like to have?

And speaking of arguing in good faith, you would do well to lay off the fallacious attacks upon my real or imagined motivations or feelings toward gays or whatever social group. You wouldn’t appreciate it if in one of the religious threads I dismissively responded to you, “Given your aversion to religion, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the legitimate, factual points I’ve raised here? Hello pot, meet kettle.”

I’m happy to engage you and I try and conduct our dialogs respectfully, because I like you. All I ask is the same respect in kind. You don’t appreciate being called a hedonist or heathen or whatever in the religious threads. I don’t appreciate the implied bigotry here. If you want to debate I’d appreciate it if you kept your counterpoints limited to the arguments I’ve provided, and refrain from psychoanalyzing me.
[/quote]

I like you as well. But go back and read your posts. You came out swinging, accusing me of confirmatory bias, as if I have ever denied being subject to the same confirmatory bias as everyone else. Who is psychoanalyzing whom here?

Are you denying that you have an aversion to homosexuality? Do you honestly believe it’s morally acceptable for gays to have a committed long term relationship? If so, I would be pleasantly surprised. And please do answer the question, it’s not rhetorical.

I completely agree that society benefits from heterosexual couples getting married and having biological children. I just get tired of the double standard. For example, do you also agree that adopted kids are better off with married parents than if their parents are unmarried?

If so, why would you deny that gay marriage benefits society? Gay couples can, and do, adopt children. Would those children not also benefit from having the stability and security of married parents, in the same way biological children would benefit?

[forlife]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Your opposition to gay marriage is similarly based on your moral conviction that gay sex is categorically wrong, whether inside or outside of marriage.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. The battle for gay rights is ultimately, unavoidably, a MORAL debate. People who are morally opposed to homosexuality will resist gay marriage to their dying day, and no amount of logic or evidence will make any difference to their views.[/quote]

maybe it’s true in sloth’s case. but in mine ?

remember i’m an unbeliever and an “alternative lifestylist”(if such a word exist in english).
a fair number of my partner are bisexual girls and men.
I could even consider gay sex myself, if i ever find a man attractive and seductive enough.

i have absolutely nothing against gay sex, or gay romance, or gay household. Monogamous, polyamorous or otherwise.

but I still remember that marriage is not about romance or long-term commitment. it’s about becoming a member a the smallest and most fundamental social institution : a family.

I’m fully aware that my alternative lifestyle is just that : an alternative.
It’s not a model nor an institution, and it is not supposed to be one.

my relationships are not “a family” in any way or shape, the State has no more reason to support it than a local football club or an internet forum.

I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

Insisting to label my polyamorous relationships “plural marriages” and asking for their “legalization”, while whining about “discrimination” and “bigotry” would be grotesque.

And that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

The day gay marriage become legal, ALL existing marriages suddenly take a new and different meaning.
It’s no more the basic social institution. it become romance “officialized” and “defiscalized”.

and you should understand that some people don’t want to see their marriage becoming meaningless in order to appease an anguished minority.

[/quote]

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with you. Admittedly, it’s a slim majority and we have miles yet to go. But it will happen, and my partner and I will be there to celebrate.[/quote]

See there, forlife, you just did it again.

You have NO CLUE what kind of love kamui is capable of falling into or with whom.

So how about you address his actual statements. Instead of completely ducking the hard questions.
[/quote]

If he is capable of having a lifelong, committed, loving relationship with another man then let him speak for himself. I’m going by his post, which was entirely limited to his sexual encounters, and in which he said that he would never consider any of his sexual relationships to be family. I certainly consider my partner and myself to be a family.

[kamui]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Also just a slight threadjack but I just wanted to say that I am very happy to see you appear to be posting here regularly again, kamui. I sure hope you’ll stick around. [/quote]

I was busy training legs^^
now i will need to recover a few month, so yes, i will probably post here regularly again and stick around a little.

[Sloth]

[quote]But let’s flex our imagination muscles why don’t we. A different form of relationship than either a simple homosexual relationship or the nonsexual relationship John Doe has with his best friend. Imagine forlife’s friend DID remember the paperwork, and is allowed the visit. But now a third person shows up at the desk, a woman!. This person says she is the patient’s life partner, but she has left her paperwork back up at home. She is told no, a male life partner has already proven himself. Oh, but the woman explains, the three are involved in an alternative lifestyle.

See, the two men are bisexual, loving each other and her. And her, loving both. They are, she explains, polyamorous. And now here she is, without the proper paperwork. But even after the other partner emerges from his visitation and verifies her story, she is still denied access without her documentation. Well, we’re good little emotional equality crusaders so back to redefining marriage, again!

No, we won’t? Oooooh, but then support of homosexual marriage isn’t based on those buzzwords, anti-discrimination/bigorty. It’s just a poorly thought out cool-kid fad, which suddendly appears completely unprincipled when other human reltionships would ride it’s coattails. Fakers. Frauds. The duped.[/quote]

Didn’t even get touched, of course.

[forlife]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Sounds like you’re merely sexually liberal, rather than capable of falling deeply in love with another man, and committing the rest of your life to him. Given that perspective, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t consider committed gay couples to be families.

no.
I’m perfectly able to fall deeply in love and to commit the rest of my life with someone.
the vast majority of swingers are, you know.

But i still don’t think it’s enough to qualify as a family. And i’m not exhibitionnist or insecure enough to ask the State and the whole society to acknowledge, confirm and promote my long-term romance(s).

being a family is being part of a social, legal and cultural institution.
It’s about being a “societal model”, in a specific culture.
My relationships, long-term or not, romantic or not, doesn’t qualify.

yours qualify even less.

“libertine marriage” could be such a societal model… in another civilization, another time, another culture.
It would require vastly different parentality and filiation laws, and a vastly different mindset… otherwise it would (will ?) be catastrophic.

Gay marriage on the other hand will never be such a “societal model”, because it’s simply not a viable model.
[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying your position.

You asked me if you could be operating under a confirmatory bias, remember?

A confirmatory bias is the predisposition to selectively interpret evidence that supports your personal opinions.

You’ve stated your personal opinion that a gay couple could never be a family. Therefore, it’s no surprise that you don’t support gay marriage. Why would you, if marriage is about family?

Of course, I disagree with you, and very much consider my partner to be my family.

We each have our personal opinions, and we each gather evidence and use logic to support those opinions. We are both subject to confirmatory bias, just like every other human on the planet.

[Tiribulus]

Kamui you are one of the most interesting characters I have ever encountered on the face God’s green earth. I won’t lie, your lifestyle is just as abhorrent to a committed Jesus freak like myself as is Elder Forlife’s. However, you are the most unselfish utterly selfish person I’ve ever heard of. God has brewed a combination of common graces within your very sinful life that I have just never encountered before.

You DO recognize that a strong society could not be built on a pervasive practice of your hedonistic lifestyle and plainly say so while you practice it yourself because… that’s what you want. Do as I say and not as I do. I’ll get all I want, but I really hope not TOO many others follow suit because I would still like to live in the society they provide.

Unabashed undiluted self centered hypocritical carnality, yet you are probably the clearest thinking and only truly honest unbeliever here LOL!!! I think I intend this post as the weirdest compliment I have ever given anyone. LOL!

[kamui]

[quote]
You DO recognize that a strong society could not be built on a pervasive practice of your hedonistic lifestyle and plainly say so while you practice it yourself because… that’s what you want. Do as I say and not as I do. I’ll get all I want, but I really hope not TOO many others follow suit because I would still like to live in the society they provide.[/quote]

i don’t think my hedonistic lifestyle is pervasive per se.
A perfectly viable society could be funded on my principles.

I just don’t think that our society can or need to be refunded on these principles.
I understand the majority would not want it. and i accept it.
I’m simply not a proselyte.

And i’m elitist enough to know that my way of life can not magically become John Doe’s way of life.
Hedonism need discipline and virtue to be acceptable. A kind of discipline and virtue that has become pretty scarce in our modern world.

think about me as a decadent roman stoician tragically lost in our time.

[ephrem]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kamui you are one of the most interesting characters I have ever encountered on the face God’s green earth. I won’t lie, your lifestyle is just as abhorrent to a committed Jesus freak like myself as is Elder Forlife’s. However, you are the most unselfish utterly selfish person I’ve ever heard of. God has brewed a combination of common graces within your very sinful life that I have just never encountered before.

You DO recognize that a strong society could not be built on a pervasive practice of your hedonistic lifestyle and plainly say so while you practice it yourself because… that’s what you want. Do as I say and not as I do. I’ll get all I want, but I really hope not TOO many others follow suit because I would still like to live in the society they provide.

Unabashed undiluted self centered hypocritical carnality, yet you are probably the clearest thinking and only truly honest unbeliever here LOL!!! I think I intend this post as the weirdest compliment I have ever given anyone. LOL!
[/quote]

He is french, you know.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< He is french, you know.[/quote]Well that explains quite a bit, but God saves Frenchman too ya know. John Calvin was French.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
You DO recognize that a strong society could not be built on a pervasive practice of your hedonistic lifestyle and plainly say so while you practice it yourself because… that’s what you want. Do as I say and not as I do. I’ll get all I want, but I really hope not TOO many others follow suit because I would still like to live in the society they provide.[/quote]

i don’t think my hedonistic lifestyle is pervasive per se.
A perfectly viable society could be funded on my principles.

I just don’t think that our society can or need to be refunded on these principles.
I understand the majority would not want it. and i accept it.
I’m simply not a proselyte.

And i’m elitist enough to know that my way of life can not magically become John Doe’s way of life.
Hedonism need discipline and virtue to be acceptable. A kind of discipline and virtue that has become pretty scarce in our modern world.

think about me as a decadent roman stoician tragically lost in our time. [/quote]

A viable society in our time must also be capable of giving room for a broader spectrum of lifestyles than in the olden times. But like you said, dicipline and virtue is in short supply in modern times, they are too aristocratic notions for the splintered times we live in.