Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you feel this is a winning argument for you? It's a terrible argument and not worthy of your time. If the argument is correct, then my interactions are irrelevant. If the argument is incorrect, then my interactions are still irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that no 'true' gay converts?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have I stated here anywhere what I believe they should do? Seems to me you're making assumptions without asking me what I actually believe. I'm happy to answer you but you have to ask first.

Anyways, coercion is wrong. Some gay people choose to seek therapy to help them overcome predispositions that they do not want. Just like some alcoholics do the same. I fail to see why someone who chooses to undertake said therapy is acting contrary to their will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe that someone who is voluntarily celibate is 'un-self actualized?'

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What did I say earlier about making assumptions?

If you want to know about my background - ask.

They don't suit you Torie. I could say that you're living in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco, because of your CA avatar if that would make you feel better.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's Maslow isn't it? Sex as a basic need, with morality as just about the very last one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I would argue is this.

An individual who is fulfilled on Maslow's higher needs is willing to forgo some of the others in order to get fulfillment on the highest levels. Someone who fulfills their moral needs by acting in accordance to their beliefs can go without the other needs and still feel 'self-actualized'.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does one define what is 'normal'?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I would argue that sex is essential to marriage. You can't have marriage without sex. Yes, you are right that it's possible to engage in eros without sex, but that's not really what marriage is about. Eros without sex is what you'll see in courtship, where the couple will deny themselves the fulfillment of eros in order to develop the other forms of it. Marriage at the end of it is the culmination of eros. 

This is really a crucial distinction. If sex isn't necessary, then that opens the door to quite a few other relationships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'd argue you're referring to agape here. And I agree that it's important in marriage too, but you need both. I have friends that I do love in this way that I would not want to marry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry to hear that. You have my sympathies. Didn't intend to bring up bad memories.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that goes back to your argument that you do not believe that sex is a required part of marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's a very important word. Conjugality. I would argue that the union of husband and wife in marriage is part of the reason why it's limited to men and women. It's a very specific word with a very specific meaning. It doesn't surprise me that you would find conjugality unnecessary given what you've already said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But if there's no conjugality, couldn't symmatry be acheived between evens?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Storge is important, but this is really going to sound strange given the common perception - but I think your understanding of the relationship between eros and marriage is problematic. I cannot see most people seeing that marriage without sex would be something desireable, and I think most would see sexual desire in it's full glory as an important part of a healthy marriage.

I also think your points are not something that's unique - it's the other half that I don't think gets talked about enough. More people who feel like you, means fewer folks in marriage altogether, and fewer families. How this gets dealt with, I'm not sure.

[Wisconsin+17]

Actually, I was a Prot for many years.

I can't say my thinking on this point has changed since before I was a Christian.

[Wisconsin+17]

Nothing to apologize for.

I guess I should rephrase.

You are arguing that you feel eros without sex. I know that's not agape. Agape is what I meant as the love between husband and wife (and friends, and others) as a self sacrificial giving love.

You're talking about something different here - eros without sex.  I didn't mean to call that Agape - it's very much eros. I think one of the important parts of marriage is the relief of eros with sex - the culmilation that I spoke of.

I actually believe that your viewpoint was much more common in the middle ages. The model was very different than it is today with everyone regulated into the 2.5 kids per family. Those who were more comfortable on their own in this asexual thing could be more welcomed in the Church in various ministries.

Those who felt this desire - would be free to have as many children as they wanted and would have large families, etc. We get to today and that's see as odd - the lack of desire for actual sex.

Interesting you feel a call to a vocation. Would you feel more comfortable being unmarried rather then putting on the burden of a family? I didn't mean to imply that I thought you didn't want one, just was trying to understand where you were coming from.

I've been told (and bluntly I might add), that I would be a good fit for the priesthood myself. I don't see it - but the ladies all seem to see that in me much more clearly then they see me as a lover, etc. I think that I come off as very asexual - which is mostly just temperment.

I very much want a famiy and a wife and lots of little ones. Nothing would make me happier than the part of the marriage relationship. I think I would make a poor priest - I love women too much.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Up to a point. Hypermodern in the sense that you adopt many of the same viewpoints expressed in the Episcopal church. They aren't exactly rare these days especially among the educated folks.

As for recognition of the order - that has nothing to do with me - everything to do with a decision made some 500 years ago. It wasn't necessary to break off, but it was desired. The consequence being that the orders are no longer valid.

I really do believe the Catholic approach is more fruitful than the half in- half out awkwardness that is the Episcopal church. They really dont' seem to have a concrete path for themselves, and the aridity is starting to come out recently. Frankly, I don't see a future for them.

Losing the one person you love is hard. There is quite a bit we share in common - probably more than you would expect. Oddly, I feel that our lives, even if there is disagreement over the whys and wherefores are probably pretty similar in the hows, and don't really find much identification for the world of today.

Rare that I find someone that actually understands these points.

Do have a good evening. Peace + Blessings to you on your path.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

50 percent higher than what? The average marriage in the US?

You do know that most people in the US are white, right? And that white folks have a lower divorce rate than other races?

Ergo - it stands to reason that a mixed marriage between someone who is white and someone who is not would have a higher divorce rate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because we see these same problems with intraracial, non-white marriages?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same answer to both of these.

Freedom of association. See, you're all over the place here. The state has no privilege to regulate relationships. It does have the privilege to regulate marriage. Unless you're arguing that all relationships should be considered marriage, then your point doesn't work.

WRT to marriage - sex is relevant, race is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've completely missed the point of my earlier argument. But that's ok, since you really don't care about what I said earlier.

Again, interracial marriage is not an issue because we see the same issues involved with marriage within different races. It comes down to a huge cultural problem that needs to be addressed. One that is far, far more important than the gay marriage debate in terms of scope.

Why are black people struggling in marriage? The problem is that state intervention in marriage is acting to encourage people not to marry. When you get greater benefits for being a single mom with children, and those benefits are way higher than you would earn as a wife. This is a problem, because now the state has set up an incentive for these types of relationships. Then you have the folks growing up today, who may never have seen an actual marriage in their family - what are they going to choose?

This is why the interracial marriage rate is higher than average, because you have folks that have gotten caught in this culture getting married to those who have not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would help if you bothered reading my replies instead of dismissing them. But we know you don't care about what I write because you keep writing the exact same things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And my point is that on the face of the actual numbers, 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. That's my point here. If you're willing to concede that gay marriage doesn't actually change the numbers, then we can move onto something more productive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. That's because it is a math problem. One you already answered correctly and apparently didn't like the answer you got.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The door is always open.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've done the work come to the conclusions, found evidence to support a position, and then immediately backtracked. That's what's frustrating me. There's simply no point to doing the research if it has no bearing...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't bother. Just stick to what you were saying before. That's all I ask. You did have it right, then you backtracked. I have a problem with the backtracking not the work you did earlier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Different arguments here - and I already explained why the state does have a role in marriage.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, this is fun.

You concede the point that there is no public benefit to gay marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And... Exactly how does that address my point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you have zero evidence to support your claim. Good to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, so what is the purpose of marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With all due respect, do you believe that this is an effective argument?

Let's see.

One, there's a difference between choosing to be infertile and being unable to conceive.