New Internet F***wad Alert

I have been having some "interesting" discussions yet again with the Opine Idiots. And each time I believe I have made a breakthrough with one of the contributors over there, this power-trip loser Op-Ed deletes my comments, accusing me of profanity and personal attacks. I think his wittle feelings are hurt that I won't engage him in his idiot comments: (here's an example, mine are in bold that he selectively cut and pasted, per his usual routine of selective editing)

"Jane: Marriages are no longer seen as *only* a baby-making institution'

Op-Ed: No, but marriages are still seen as the *only* (endorsed) baby-making institution.

From the mid-20th century on, husbands and wives were more than just the above... they were lovers, friends, and companions

Op-Ed: That romance is only a recent discovery of the last century or so is a standard anti-marriage talking point. This falsehood is exposed with just two words: "Romeo" and "Juliet." Do you want to see how far back the notion of romantic marriage really goes?

I also don't think that we should be in the business of telling people to abide by our own moral standards.

Op-Ed: We tell people to abide by our moral standards all the time. Murder, for instance. Basically, any practice contrary to the existence of an orderly society is regularly denounced and discouraged.

others shouldn't (in my opinion) be able to tell women that they can't freely have sex with whatever man they want to now that birth control is an option.

Op-Ed: Then you object to marriage entirely. Marriage precisely says women (and men) "can't freely have sex with whatever man (or woman) they want to."But at least you have gotten around to answering half of the question I asked you earlier in this conversation:"Are you saying that society is not concerned with responsible procreation, or that it should not be. If it is, then through what institution does it pursue that interest? If it should not, then what should the purpose of marriage be?"From your statement, above, I take it your answer is that society should not be concerned with responsible procreation, presumably because birth control and abortion have solved the problem of illegitimacy over the last 30 some years.Now answer the second part of that question: What should be the new purpose of marriage? If it's simply an outdated and unnecessary institution, you should argue to eliminate it, not make it more "inclusive."

*I will now answer his questions on my terms to avoid being unfairly portrayed as one who can only argue by resorting to personal attacks every time I reach a new level of understanding with someone.

(a.) because marriages are (in Op-Ed's eyes) seen as the only baby-making institutions (arguable, because this leaves out single parents who are also protected by certain laws) does not mean we must then exclude other types of relationships from being deemed "marriages." Like sterile couples, post-menopausal women, people who intend to never have children, etc. It's very simple logically, surely Op-Ed can understand this. Ugh. Anyone else sick of beating this dead old horse? I sure am.

(b.) I never claimed that romance was new. If that is what you surmise from what I said, then you are either trying to mischaracterize my argument, or you need a rudimentary lesson in critical reading. I do think it's the former. For it's much easier to counter a fake argument that you, not your opposition, makes up.

I said the concept of marrying solely for romance is relatively new in Western Society (and still doesn't happen much in other societies). Romance has probably existed for centuries upon centuries. Leave it to religion, authoritarianism, wealth, hierarchy, and greed that got in the way of "true love." My point, which you have thus far completely ignored, is that people in the U.S. now usually marry for romantic love. And since gays and lesbians share romantic love with their partners they should be able to have the legal rights of marriage, as well. As Billie Jean said, "Fair's fair." (random shout-out to Helen Slater, btw)


(c)As far as not being in the practice of holding others to our moral standards, I think there are some inherent moral standards that are absolute (murder is wrong) and those that are relative. I have already said that I most closely relate to libertarianism, where others are free to act as they will so long as they aren't causing harm to another. I feel that you most closely resemble an authoritarian, in that you (dangerously) try to tell everyone to abide by your own set of moral standards: heterosexual families are the only acceptable family. To quote my girlfriend's social work book, that she generously lent me, "Such a person highly values conventional behavior and feels threatened by unconvential behavior of others. In order to reduce this threat, such a person labels unconventional people as being immature, inferior, or degenerate, and therefore avoids any need to question his or her own beliefs and values. The authoritarian personality views members of minority groups as being unconventional, degrades them, and tends to express authoritarianism through prejudice and discrimination" (from "Understanding Human Behavior and the Social Environment," Zastrow, 2007). Op-Ed, I urge you to examine your own beliefs and see how fair you think you have been to gays and lesbians.

See how it's not fun to be told what to do? But remember in the words of your friend Jose, I do love you. I just hate your sin.

(d) as for the rest, you have grossly taken my statement out of context. You never fail to surprise me with what you claim I say. I was replying to Renee's post where she implied that birth control and abortion have led women to allow themselves to be further demoralized by men. And I was replying to her specific question. I do NOT believe that anyone can tell a woman, or a man, who they can or can't sleep with. So long as they aren't harming anyone. Within the context of a marriage, then someone would be harmed, wouldn't they? Got it?
So no. I don't object to marriage at all. Otherwise why would I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married?

That would be silly.

See how logical I can be when you aren't censoring me and selectively (mis)quoting me? It all makes sense when you put it together.

Op-Ed, it's sad how hateful you are. And how inferior you must feel deep down to go about your stupid power-trip. I like to think that most people are inherently good...but sometimes I start to wonder.

UPDATE:

as if on cue, enter the epitome of authoritarian, Culturrrrrrologist, everybody!!! The expert we "should sit and take notes on" per his other Opine Idiots.

the man who says things like:

"Jane Know: Gay couples are very similar to straight couples in nearly every aspect."

Culturologist: Dead people are very similar to living people in nearly every aspect too. But there's one really important way in which they differ.I'll hasten to add that I'm not comparing homosexuals to dead people. The logical weakness of the construction is what I'm getting at, not any parallel there."

and

"As for medical evidence, there's a good deal of that showing that homosexual men suffer risks for STDs and other health hazards well above and beyond those that non-heterosexual men face. This topic has been discussed here before. People who engage in anal intercourse open themselves to all sorts of additional health hazards--this has something to do with the actual primary function of the anus, which doesn't involve shoving objects up it over and over again.Those mundane facts of the human body don't go away just because some people decide they want to express their romantic attractions to others by doing such things."

and

"There's also a good deal of evidence challenging the image you are trying to construct of the 'monogamous homosexual man.' All the data suggest that the average homosexual man has at least several times as many sexual partners as the average heterosexual man. Even people like Jonathan Rauch realize they can't deny this fact--although they work themselves into a sweat trying to shrink the margin as much as they can. It seems pretty clear that this subculture has a strongly entrenched element of promiscuity and there's little reason to believe that allowing them to 'marry' will change that."

This guy is ridiculous. His blog "Being a Father," is loaded with pictures of his (adorable) daughter, yet nearly every article he writes in it is anti-gay and not really about "being a father" at all. It's as if he thinks that because he is a good father, his homobigot speech is somehow more valid. Talk about using children as commodities...

I bet his University is proud to have such a nice, open-minded fellow. Surely, he has the conviction to stand behind his strong personal beliefs.