Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning? HYSTERICAL!

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw, a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Humanity exists in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar's and by extension, the homo-cult's concession to the reality that in point of unassailable fact, Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them so.

And with that said, Skylar's 6th Concession in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

there is no marriage in nature.

That's a lie. What we call marriage among humans as a monogamous species is "pair bonding" in other monogamous species.

Marriage, in a heterosexually oriented species such as Homo Sapiens, is more often driven by the instinctual need to mate. With the opposite sex. Marriage was born out of such an instinct. The fact there is male and female in a great deal many anamalian species suggests the concept of marriage does in fact exist in nature, and as such suggests the primary genetic predisposition of a species is to mate with the opposite sex, with a few abnormal exceptions:

Pair bond - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Skylar]

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

You can't get around that. And what you described as 'marriage' is merely fucking. Which obviously isn't the same thing. You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Whatever. The imaginary 'concession' like your sources, like your reasoning, like your audience....is just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can't get around that. And what you described as 'marriage' is merely fucking. Which obviously isn't the same thing. You can't tell the difference. A rational person could

And one easily knows when people are inventing their own definitions of marriage. Yes, rational people have a way of figuring that out.

 

[Skylar]

there is no marriage in nature.

That's a lie. What we call marriage among humans as a monogamous species is "pair bonding" in other monogamous species.

No we don't. And that's not marriage. As you well know from your own source.

It is important to note the significant difference between pair bonds and marriage in humans. Pair bonds (social and/or sexual) do not equal marriage. Pair bonds are a bio-social creation while marriage is best defined in a purely social context as a way of assuringreproduction, inheriting property, control, and recently in history as the outcome of romantic love. Marriage can be associated with sexual and social pair bonds; however, married couples do not necessarily have to experience both or either of these bonds. Marriage can be a consequence of pair bonding and vice versa; however, neither always creates or leads to the other. Especially, pair-bonding can happen between people of the same sex while marriage in Christianity and other major religions, as well as most countries' legal systems, has usually been restricted to heterosexual couples. Pair bonding in humans helps explain extreme "bonds" that we may share with others but are unable to articulate in terms of contemporary "love". [5]

Pair bond - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now of course you read your own source before posting it. And since you read this above passage from your own source that explicitly contradicted you.....and you cited the source as authoritative, you lied. You both misrepresented the conclusions of your own source. And you intentionally omitted the relevant passages that explicitly contradicted you.

Making you a liar twice. If your claim had merit, you wouldn't have needed to lie once.

I know you don't like gay marriage, I know you don't want gay marriage, I know you consider marriage a religious sacrament.....but is that really worth your integrity and credibility?

 

[Skylar]

You can't get around that. And what you described as 'marriage' is merely fucking. Which obviously isn't the same thing. You can't tell the difference. A rational person could

And one easily knows when people are inventing their own definitions of marriage. Yes, rational people have a way of figuring that out.

Says the guy that just misrepresented the conclusions of his own source, equating pair bonding with marriage. Despite this claim being explicitly contradicted by the very source he cited. A contradiction he conveniently omitted in yet another act of flagrant deception.

As for the actual definition of marriage, I'll leave that to the states and courts. Not someone's made up 'natural law of marriage' and another posters laughable misrepresentations of his own sources.

There is no 'natural law of marriage'. Marriage is a social construct that we invented to serve our society. And we define it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You both misrepresented the conclusions of your own source. And you intentionally omitted the relevant passages that explicitly contradicted you.

Funny, I saw you doing the same exact thing, professor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know you don't want gay marriage

I don't. But I support marriage equality. Now doesn't that make you a liar?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Says the guy that just misrepresented the conclusions of his own source, equating pair bonding with marriage.

Are you sure you read that excerpt correctly? Because after reading it further, I saw it supporting my premise, yet that had nothing in it that supported yours.

More interestingly I note this passage:

"Marriage can be associated with sexual and social pair bonds; however, married couples do not necessarily have to experience both or either of these bonds. Marriage can be a consequence of pair bonding and vice versa; however, neither always creates or leads to the other."

Forgive my lack of understanding, but wouldn't the aphorism "you can't have it both ways" apply here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“Isn't it wild that back when the Courts were deciding that irrational hatred those of genetic distinction was not going to be tolerated, the court did not state that those whose behavior is sexually deviant must also be included in marriage.”

Isn't it wild that back in 1996, when the Supreme Court decided that irrational hatred of gay Americans simply because of who they were was not going to be tolerated, that you and others on the right remain conveniently ignorant of that fact. What's even more wild is when in 2003 the Supreme Court decided that the decision to be gay was entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the states, you and others on the right decided to remain conveniently ignorant of that fact as well.

 

[auditor0007]

I am not trying to offend homosexuals. However I am not a gay too. Please, avoid rude comments. I can't realize why someone would oppose gay marriage and such kind of issues, so I figured this was the best way to go about it. Why are gays hated in America? What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

Simply put, the majority who are against gay marriage are against it due to their religious beliefs. The problem is that religion is not supposed to dictate our laws, especially on issues involving ones civil liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

I sense some of the hate is based on a backlash of people feeling like this issue is being forced down their throat in a one-sided fashion. At least that is the feeling I sense from a few I know who seem to take everything as some sort of conspiracy issue.

Likely, but completely unwarranted, of course.

Nothing is being 'forced' on anyone.

14th Amendment jurisprudence doesn't apply to private persons or organizations, who remain at liberty to hate homosexuals, however irrational.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Human society and social structure has taken tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years to develop, and as such, one can assume the structural concept of "marriage" also came out of it. Meaning, that one can assume that the evolutionary breakthrough of pair bonding among our earliest ancestors most likely gave birth to what we now know today as "marriage." Marriage (or at least it precepts) has biological and evolutionary roots in the human species.

According to Bernard Chapais, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Montréal, commenting on the study "Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Show Unique Human Social Structure":

A key event might have been the advent of pair bonding in the human lineage. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, live in large mixed-sex groups [and] mate promiscuously, with both sexes having multiple short-term partners. [This results in a genealogical structure that] is to a large extent “socially silent.” Now suppose that pair bonding evolved in this type of social structure. This brought the multifamily composition of human groups, with enduring associations between mothers and fathers enabling children to recognize their fathers. This, in turn, made it possible for children to recognize their father’s relatives; that is, pair bonding would reveal the underlying genealogical structure and create bilateral kinship.

In the nascent “tribe,” males were now able to circulate freely between groups in which they had kin and in-laws, cross-sex kin maintained lifetime bonds, and between group alliances were ensured by kinship bonds, “marital” ties, and the ensuing extensive networks of bonds between in-laws. [T]he dramatic and fortuitous extension of kin recognition brought about by pair bonding would have launched the evolution of supragroup social structures in which a large proportion of individuals were now distantly related.

 

[Skylar]

Says the guy that just misrepresented the conclusions of his own source, equating pair bonding with marriage.

Are you sure you read that excerpt correctly? Because after reading it further, I saw it supporting my premise, yet that had nothing in it that supported yours.

More interestingly I note this passage:

"Marriage can be associated with sexual and social pair bonds; however, married couples do not necessarily have to experience both or either of these bonds. Marriage can be a consequence of pair bonding and vice versa; however, neither always creates or leads to the other."

Did you miss this part, only two sentences before the portion you quoted?

Pair bonds (social and/or sexual) do not equal marriage.

Pair bond - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Of course not. You just omitted it because it contradicted your claims. As you're wot to do, being a liar and all.

Though I am curious, what part of 'pair bonds does not equal marriage' confused you? Because that's an obvious and explicit contradiction of your claims: ' What we call marriage among humans as a monogamous species is "pair bonding" in other monogamous species.'

Um, no it isn't, per your own source. There are significant differences between the two per your own source. With neither always creating nor leading to the other. Also, per your own source.

So much for pair bonds being called marriage. Once again, for the willfully ignorant: There is no such thing as a natural law of marriage. As there is no marriage in nature. Pair bonding does not equal marriage.

Forgive my lack of understanding, but wouldn't the aphorism "you can't have it both ways" apply here?

Oh, I'm quite happy with 'Pair bonds do not equal marriage'. Its simple. Concise. And easily destroys your entire argument that pair bonds are called marriage.

Laughing....keep polishing that turd, buddy.

 

[AntiParty]

I am not trying to offend homosexuals. However I am not a gay too. Please, avoid rude comments. I can't realize why someone would oppose gay marriage and such kind of issues, so I figured this was the best way to go about it. Why are gays hated in America? What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

You will and have noticed "Freedom Loving Americans" openly fight for existing laws against gays.

It's because of the Bible, nothing else. The raptures say that there will be lot's of gays in the end of times. They think they can control the end of times by using judgement against gays without noting "Do not judge or be judged".

They OPENLY and VERY LITERALLY think gays are a sign of the end of times. Ask them.

 

[Skylar]

Human society and social structure has taken tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years to develop, and as such, one can assume the idea of "marriage" also came out of it. Meaning, that one can assume that the evolutionary breakthrough of pair bonding among our earliest ancestors most likely gave birth to what we now know today as "marriage." Marriage, Skylar. Marriage has evolutionary roots in the human species.

According to Bernard Chapais, commenting on the study "Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Show Unique Human Social Structure":

A key event might have been the advent of pair bonding in the human lineage. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, live in large mixed-sex groups [and] mate promiscuously, with both sexes having multiple short-term partners. [This results in a genealogical structure that] is to a large extent “socially silent.” Now suppose that pair bonding evolved in this type of social structure. This brought the multifamily composition of human groups, with enduring associations between mothers and fathers enabling children to recognize their fathers. This, in turn, made it possible for children to recognize their father’s relatives; that is, pair bonding would reveal the underlying genealogical structure and create bilateral kinship.

In the nascent “tribe,” males were now able to circulate freely between groups in which they had kin and in-laws, cross-sex kin maintained lifetime bonds, and between group alliances were ensured by kinship bonds, “marital” ties, and the ensuing extensive networks of bonds between in-laws. [T]he dramatic and fortuitous extension of kin recognition brought about by pair bonding would have launched the evolution of supragroup social structures in which a large proportion of individuals were now distantly related.

"Might have been"? I'm not so keen on stripping people of civil rights and causing immediate legal harm to tens of thousands of children on 'might have been'.

Especially since you've already affirmed for us that pair bonds do not equal marriage. And we're not living in a hunter-gatherer society anymore.

 

[Skylar]

I am not trying to offend homosexuals. However I am not a gay too. Please, avoid rude comments. I can't realize why someone would oppose gay marriage and such kind of issues, so I figured this was the best way to go about it. Why are gays hated in America? What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

You will and have noticed "Freedom Loving Americans" openly fight for existing laws against gays.

It's because of the Bible, nothing else. The raptures say that there will be lot's of gays in the end of times. They think they can control the end of times by using judgement against gays without noting "Do not judge or be judged".

They OPENLY and VERY LITERALLY think gays are a sign of the end of times. Ask them.

Oh, many Christians have got damn near a hard on for the apocolypse. They worry me. When the world doesn't provide one, I'm afraid some are going to take actions to try to make it happen.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And we're not living in a hunter-gatherer society anymore.

I never said we were. Do you like putting words in my mouth?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Though I am curious, what part of 'pair bonds does not equal marriage' confused you?

None of it. Perhaps you've heard of "Cause and effect?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Says the guy that just misrepresented the conclusions of his own source, equating pair bonding with marriage.

Are you sure you read that excerpt correctly? Because after reading it further, I saw it supporting my premise, yet that had nothing in it that supported yours.

More interestingly I note this passage:

"Marriage can be associated with sexual and social pair bonds; however, married couples do not necessarily have to experience both or either of these bonds. Marriage can be a consequence of pair bonding and vice versa; however, neither always creates or leads to the other."

Did you miss this part, only two sentences before the portion you quoted?

Pair bonds (social and/or sexual) do not equal marriage.

Pair bond - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Of course not. You just omitted it because it contradicted your claims. As you're wot to do, being a liar and all.

Though I am curious, what part of 'pair bonds does not equal marriage' confused you? Because that's an obvious and explicit contradiction of your claims: ' What we call marriage among humans as a monogamous species is "pair bonding" in other monogamous species.'

Um, no it isn't, per your own source. There are significant differences between the two per your own source. With neither always creating nor leading to the other. Also, per your own source.

So much for pair bonds being called marriage. Once again, for the willfully ignorant: There is no such thing as a natural law of marriage. As there is no marriage in nature. Pair bonding does not equal marriage.

Forgive my lack of understanding, but wouldn't the aphorism "you can't have it both ways" apply here?

Oh, I'm quite happy with 'Pair bonds do not equal marriage'. Its simple. Concise. And easily destroys your entire argument that pair bonds are called marriage.

Laughing....keep polishing that turd, buddy.

You can keep laughing, I can keep posting studies:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...mo_sapiens/links/552706440cf2520617a6ec5c.pdf