Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Skylar]

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

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

And I never said you did. You're putting words in my mouth.

What I attributed to you was your own source affirming that pair bonding wasn't marriage. Which kicks the silly shit out of the claim that pair bonding is called marriage. Of course its not.

'Might have been' isn't gonna cut it in denying gays their civil right to marry. Or to the tens of thousands of children of same sex parents that suffer immediate legal harm when their parents are denied marriage.

 

[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.

You can keep laughing, I can keep posting studies:

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

And what pray tell does your study affirm your claim that pair bonding is called marriage? Because the abstract doesn't say that.

This article evaluates a thesis containing three interconnected propositions. First, romantic love is a “commitment
device” for motivating pair-bonding in humans. Second, pair-bonding facilitated the idiosyncratic life history of
hominins, helping to provide the massive investment required to rear children. Third, managing long-term pair bonds
(along with family relationships) facilitated the evolution of social intelligence and cooperative skills. We evaluate this
thesis by integrating evidence from a broad range of scientific disciplines. First, consistent with the claim that romantic
love is an evolved commitment device, our review suggests that it is universal; suppresses mate-search mechanisms;
has specific behavioral, hormonal, and neuropsychological signatures; and is linked to better health and survival.
Second, we consider challenges to this thesis posed by the existence of arranged marriage, polygyny, divorce, and
infidelity. Third, we show how the intimate relationship mind seems to be built to regulate and monitor relationships.
Fourth, we review comparative evidence concerning links among mating systems, reproductive biology, and brain
size. Finally, we discuss evidence regarding the evolutionary timing of shifts to pair-bonding in hominins. We conclude
there is interdisciplinary support for the claim that romantic love and pair-bonding, along with alloparenting, played
critical roles in the evolution of Homo sapiens

So we have your first source stated, unambiguously, that pair bonding does not equal marriage. And your second source is focused on romantic love as a evolutionary tool. And actually cite certain types of marriage as a problem with their thesis.

So where does it say that pair bonding is called marriage? And if it doesn't......you'll understand if I start pointing and laughing again, yes?

 

[Skylar]

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?"

Well clearly something has you confounded, as you've moved your goal posts and changed your claims. You didn't say pair bonding 'causes' marriage. You said that pair bonding is called marriage. A claim refuted by your own source.

Worse, your own source specifically states that there are significant differences between pair bonding and marriage. That pair bonding does NOT equal marriage. That pair bonding CAN lead to marriage or that marriage. Or marriage to pair bonding. But neither always produces the other.

That's a far cry from your claim " What we call marriage among humans as a monogamous species is "pair bonding" in other monogamous species."

Um, no it isn't. Per your source, they're significantly different. One does not equal the other.

Can you at least admit that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Worse, your own source specifically states that there are significant differences between pair bonding and marriage

One is a social construct, one is a social evolutionary behavior. What I contend here is that for marriage to have ever become a social construct, it had to have a basis in human evolutionary behaviors like pair bonding.

Um, no it isn't. Per your source, they're significantly different. One does not equal the other.

The motivation for marriage, the reason such a social implementation was devised, surely had to arise out of the complex social behaviors rising out of complex pair bonding.

'Might have been' isn't gonna cut it in denying gays their civil right to marry.

Well, I never said I wanted to stop gays from marrying. Seriously, can you not resist the impulse to label anyone who disagrees with you as those who "wish to deny gays the civil right to marry?" Really?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And your second source is focused on romantic love as a evolutionary tool. And actually cite certain types of marriage as a problem with their thesis.

I knew you would instantly point that out. But I surmise you chose not to read the rest of the study.

 

[Skylar]

Worse, your own source specifically states that there are significant differences between pair bonding and marriage

One is a social construct, one is a social evolutionary behavior. What I contend here is that for marriage to have ever become a social construct, it had to have a basis in human evolutionary behaviors like pair bonding.

That wasn't your contention. Your contention was that marriage was called pair bonding. A claim that you won't touch now with a 10 foot pole. Which is odd......given that you used this claim as the basis of calling my assertion that there is no marriage in nature a 'lie'.

Worse, your second source cites arranged marriages as a problem with the idea of romantic love as an evolutionary tool. As they aren't based on romantic love or pair bonding as a basis of the union. Demonstrating elegantly the plastic, man made nature of marriage. Where we invented it and we define it based on our own social needs. And some societies eliminate 'pair bonding' as the basis of marriage, with parents arranging the unions as they see fit. Some societies had one man and many women.

And its still marriage.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that romantic love between heterosexuals for the purpose of breeding can't be A basis of marriage. Only that it isn't the ONLY basis. And for the 'natural law of marriage' bullshit to be valid, the purpose has to be singular, immutable and exclusive.

Which it obviously isn't. As your own sources prove again and again. Pair bonding does not equal marriage.

Um, no it isn't. Per your source, they're significantly different. One does not equal the other.

The motivation for marriage, the reason such a social implementation was devised, surely had to arise out of the complex social behaviors rising out of complex pair bonding.

When were were hunter gatherers, it 'might have been'. But we're not. And your own source demonstrates that marriage is changeable. History shows the same thing. This isn't possible if marriage is an immutable 'law of nature'. It obviously isn't. Pair bonding can be associated with marriage. Pair bonding may even lead to marriage in certain instances. But it doesn't have to. Marriage can be decided without any pair bonding or romantic love....or without the participants even meeting before the marriage. And kids can be born without marriage.

Which is exactly my point. Marriage is a social construct. It is what we say it is, as it serves our society. Societies in the past have created whatever version of marriage best suited their cultures and values. And we are doing the same. There's nothing intrinsic, inherent, or immutable about marriage. Its as flexible as we are, as it is whatever we say it is.

Well, I never said I wanted to stop gays from marrying. Seriously, can you not resist the impulse to label anyone who disagrees with you as those who "wish to deny gays the civil right to marry?" Really?

When did I ever say you wanted to stop gays from marrying? I stated, quite simply, that 'might have been' isn't sufficient to deny gays their right to marry. Or to inflict immediate legal harm on tens of thousands of children of same sex parents.

All the rest you draped yourself in, based on whatever internal monologue you've got going on. Which has nothing to do with me.

 

[Skylar]

And your second source is focused on romantic love as a evolutionary tool. And actually cite certain types of marriage as a problem with their thesis.

I knew you would instantly point that out. But I surmise you chose not to read the rest of the study.

Notice you haven't actually pointed out where in the study is states that marriage is called pair bonding.

Despite me having asked you for exactly that. Twice.

The abstract doesn't say that marriage is called pair bonding. So perhaps you could point out where the study does. That's the third time I've made that request.

Just FYI.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Notice you haven't actually pointed out where in the study is states that pair bonding is called marriage.

Notice how you still have failed to acknowledge ever reading the entire study. Notice also I never made such a contention, but since you want to go that route, so be it.

The abstract doesn't say that pair bonding is called marriage. So perhaps you could point out where the study does. That's the third time I've made that request.

It's not as easy as pressing Ctrl-F on your browser and looking for mentions of the word "marriage" or "pair bonding is marriage." Holy presumptive fallacies Batman! You only read the abstract and nothing more! Lets explain this another way. In the actual study, you see variations of this phrase "Romantic love is an evolved commitment device." It contends that such romantic love drove pair bonding. Nowhere does it say "pair bonding is marriage." Marriage is a result of pair bonding. See the difference?

And since pair bonding was the simple act of mating, raising offspring and moving on, it stood to reason that due to the superiority of human intelligence over other primitive anthropoid species, that this pair bonding behavior would evolve into a higher form of commitment; one that would ensure the protection of the offspring, nourishment, survival and etc, as stated further in the abstract, "consistent with the claim that romantic love is an evolved commitment device, our review suggests that it is universal; suppresses mate-search mechanisms; has specific behavioral, hormonal, and neuropsychological signatures; and is linked to better health and survival."

"Marriage, is the humanization, the institutionalization, the sociocultural expression of the relatively durable union between the sexes in subhuman primate society. In the transformation of anthropoid society into human society, mating became marriage.

--Leslie A. White, The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome (1959, p. 94)

Lastly the conclusion:

"We conclude there is interdisciplinary support for the claim that romantic love and pair-bonding, along with alloparenting, played critical roles in the evolution of Homo sapiens."

Presumably, that statement also includes our ability to form complex and close knit social networks, including the concept of marriage, as part of human evolution.

When did I ever say you wanted to stop gays from marrying? I stated, quite simply, that 'might have been' isn't sufficient to deny gays their right to marry. Or to inflict immediate legal harm on tens of thousands of children of same sex parents.

So, is that not a charge directed specifically at me? I took it as such. Somehow you're thinking I'm trying to justify denying them their civil rights or legal protections. How else was I to perceive it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Mostly religion. The vast majority of the haters of gays are hard core religious types.

54 years, lived all over the world, lived and worked in 37 of the 50 states... I've lived in every environment from the dingiest shit hole to the Ritz Carlton, worked as an wage earning employee to the President of several companies employing dozens of people with the lowest wage being high five figures.

And in all that time and across all of those places, I've never met anyone who 'hates' homosexuals.

Yet... every single self professed homosexual on this and all of the other boards I contribute to, demands that ANY contest of the normalization of sexual abnormality constitutes "HATE".

Which is a lie... and certain evidence that the Homo-cult is intent upon forcing their deviancy upon a people who could not give a red rats ass about their kinks... but which has no intention of accepting degeneracy as anything remotely akin to Normal in the United States of America.

Because we will not be associated with such nonsense.

If you demand such as part and parcel of your right to privacy, you keep it private, as that is the responsibility which sustains the right to privacy.

Look at you! Worldly and retarded at the same time. Now....that's impressive.

Worldly.....but don't realize that your emotional response to gay people is hatred. Very impressive.

Are you a believer in Jeebus? That was the main point of the post you were responding to.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am against gay marriage. I stand against them. In the same way I stand against pedophiles or head hunting cannibals. Got a problem with that?

But....you don't hate them, right? We wouldn't want to ruin anyone's fantasy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Most of the people who oppose same-sex marriage do not "hate" gays; they simply think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They also think that it's unwise for society to reward conduct that we know from a mountain of evidence is unnatural and physically and emotionally harmful (e.g., the well-documented fact that STD rates are far higher among gay men than among heterosexual men). And, an increasing number of Americans are realizing that liberals are using gay marriage to attack religious liberty.

 

[Skylar]

Notice you haven't actually pointed out where in the study is states that pair bonding is called marriage.

Notice how you still have failed to acknowledge ever reading the entire study. Notice also I never made such a contention, but since you want to go that route, so be it.

If the study doesn't say that marriage is called pair bonding....then what possible relevance does it have to your claim that marriage is called pair bonding?

The abstract doesn't say that pair bonding is called marriage. So perhaps you could point out where the study does. That's the third time I've made that request.

It's not as easy as pressing Ctrl-F on your browser and looking for mentions of the word "marriage" or "pair bonding is marriage." Holy presumptive fallacies Batman! You only read the abstract and nothing more!
[/quote]

Then show me the portion of the study that says that marriage is called pair bonding. Why do I have to keep asking you again and again for the same information?

This is the FIFTH time I've asked. And each time you've given me nothing but excuses.

Lets explain this another way. In the actual study, you see variations of this phrase "Romantic love is an evolved commitment device." It contends that such romantic love drove pair bonding. Nowhere does it say "pair bonding is marriage." Marriage is a result of pair bonding.

And there it is. Your source doesn't say what you do. No wonder you were stalling. Color me shocked.

Meanwhile, your previous source still states that marriage does not equal pair bonding. Destroying your silly claim just the same.

See the difference? And since pair bonding was the simple act of mating, raising offspring and moving on, it stood to reason that due to the superiority of human intelligence over other primitive anthropoid species, that this pair bonding behavior would evolve into a higher form of commitment; one that would ensure the protection of the offspring, nourishment and etc. Marriage, or "proto-marriage."

Now its 'proto-marriage'. A phrase that you pulled sideways out of your ass. You're gonna give me a heart attack from pure shock if your claims are ever the same from one post to the next. Its like your goal posts are on the bed of a flat bead trailer.

Marriage is not called pair bonding. And marriage does not equal pair bonding. These are your own sources. You're furiously polishing your turd of an argument that marriage is called pair bonding..... and you're contradicted again and again by your own sources.

"Marriage, is the humanization, the institutionalization, the sociocultural expression of the relatively durable union between the sexes in subhuman primate society. In the transformation of anthropoid society into human society, mating became marriage.

--Leslie A. White, The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome (1959, p. 94)

But mating isn't marriage. Mating is distinct and different from marriage. And can occur with or without marriage. Teenagers do it all the time.

Worse, your own source from 1959 argues that marriage is the product of human society. Simply destroying the batshit 'natural law of marriage' nonsense. The natural law of marriage is as made up as your 'proto-marriage'. Marriage is a construct of human society, invented by us, defined by us, and as changeable as we are. It is what we say it is.

And it need not include pair bonding, as your own source affirmed with its reference to arranged marriages.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did all nutters attend a meeting where they pledged to never admit hating anyone?

 

[Skylar]

Most of the people who oppose same-sex marriage do not "hate" gays; they simply think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They also think that it's unwise for society to reward conduct that we know from a mountain of evidence is unnatural and physically and emotionally harmful (e.g., the well-documented fact that STD rates are far higher among gay men than among heterosexual men).

And lower among lesbians than either. But your condemnation remains. Demonstrating its not the evidence that is the basis of your conclusions. But your conclusions in search of evidence to support them.

Or are you cool with Lesbians marrying, as they have far lower STD rates than straight men and gay men?

And, an increasing number of Americans are realizing that liberals are using gay marriage to attack religious liberty.

The 'religion liberty' you speak of being the freedom to deny goods and service to gays and lesbians in public business?

Since when has that been a 'religious liberty'? And why when conservatives start talking about 'liberty' is it almost always about treating someone else like a piece of shit?

 

[quorthon]

To be against same-sex marriages and to have an argument why is normal for all the heterosexuals.
To hate gays is homophobia. Sometimes latent gays are homophobes too

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[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.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

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

Are you coming to reject that fact?

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

Are you coming to reject that fact?

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

Are you coming to reject that fact?

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.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

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, which is to say: "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?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally 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?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. 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?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. 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?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. 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.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede 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 come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

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

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To be against same-sex marriages and to have an argument why is normal for all the heterosexuals.
To hate gays is homophobia. Sometimes latent gays are homophobes too

There's no such thing as Homophobia. And by that I mean that there is no basis in REALITY for the term. It is not etymologically sound, has no bearing in fact and exists entirely as a deceitful colloquialism conjured for no purpose beyond controlling the conversation; wherein the use of such is designed to cow those who simply recognize homosexuality as deviant behavior, the consequence of mental disorder, thus wholly unsound and unsuitable for normalization within the culture.

I hope that helps.

 

[Lilah]

Marriage is the Joining of One man and One Woman... and Americans do NOT make THEIR problems, a problem for others, because that is how individual responsibility.

Are you espousing that King David and Solomon would not have had your approval.
Was the fact that Lot slept with his daughters and offered them up as whores wrong?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One man and One Woman... and Americans do NOT make THEIR problems, a problem for others, because that is how individual responsibility.

Are you espousing that King David and Solomon would not have had your approval.
Was the fact that Lot slept with his daughters and offered them up as whores wrong?

I am espousing that nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman... and I am doing so upon the reasoning that has been set forth in excruciating detail.

I am espousing that where one is an ancient King, ordained by God... and God blesses you with hundreds of wives and concubines, that God has a specific purpose for such and God, being supreme in universal authority... you, as an ancient King are compelled to follow God's will. The reasons for such being known to God and God's reasoning is undeniable, as your will is quite irrelevant.

I am further 'espousing' the history of Sodom is clear... and it came to an unenviable conclusion. And that scripture's show that even a man of Lot's supreme chaste in the face of incomprehensible degeneracy remained in adherence to God's law, is likely to blow it BIG, when he drinks to excess around irrational females... Lot being no exception.

Does that help?

 

[Lilah]

Marriage is the Joining of One man and One Woman... and Americans do NOT make THEIR problems, a problem for others, because that is how individual responsibility.

Are you espousing that King David and Solomon would not have had your approval.
Was the fact that Lot slept with his daughters and offered them up as whores wrong?

I am espousing that nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman... and I am doing so upon the reasoning that has been set forth in excruciating detail.

I am espousing that where one is an ancient King, ordained by God... and God blesses you with hundreds of wives and concubines, that God has a specific purpose for such and God, being supreme in universal authority... you, as an ancient King are compelled to follow God's will. The reasons for such being known to God and God's reasoning is undeniable, as your will is quite irrelevant.

I am further 'espousing' the history of Sodom is clear... and it came to an unenviable conclusion. And that scripture's show that even a man of Lot's supreme chaste in the face of incomprehensible degeneracy remained in adherence to God's law, is likely to blow it BIG, when he drinks to excess around irrational females... Lot being no exception.

Does that help?

Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world.
We all know your nature, don't we?