What is marriage?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack


so merriam webster or whatever is the STANDARD for everything, please...you cited the Standard dictionary definition whereas I cited the Standard religious definiton...again, it has to be in context both with the terminology and the useage.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that Newadvent.org was the STANDARD for all things religious.

My apologies.

 

[EXman]

Conjur Moonie already beat you to it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: EXman
It's not worth it CaD he's just as intolerant as I am and even more so and it kills him. All he can do is attack. Without reasoning. I swear his blood pressure goes up everytime he sees me post.

Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the current sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

what you should have said was "Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the RELIGIOUS sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

Oh, I'm not worried about moonie - it's fun messing with him/her every once in a while though. It's really entertaining when you can use his/her own tactics and sayings in response to him. He/she's a dodger - that's for sure.

CkG

You are the dodger, Caddy and have been from the beginning. I said you are a bigot because you can't provide a rational reason for your opposition to gay marriage. You simply conform to the definition of bigot. That is not an opinion it is a fact. That's how we are different. You are pushing a bigoted opinion and I have identified you as a bigot. I am correct in my observation by definition, you are bigotedly opinionated. It's very simple, but of course you're blind because you don't want to confess your evil arrogance. Sad too because you run around jumping up and down about personal responsibility and wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass. It is bitting you in the ass, by the way. You have a bad case of cadidicy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: EXman
It's not worth it CaD he's just as intolerant as I am and even more so and it kills him. All he can do is attack. Without reasoning. I swear his blood pressure goes up everytime he sees me post.

Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the current sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

what you should have said was "Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the RELIGIOUS sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

Oh, I'm not worried about moonie - it's fun messing with him/her every once in a while though. It's really entertaining when you can use his/her own tactics and sayings in response to him. He/she's a dodger - that's for sure.

CkG

You are the dodger, Caddy and have been from the beginning. I said you are a bigot because you can't provide a rational reason for your opposition to gay marriage. You simply conform to the definition of bigot. That is not an opinion it is a fact. That's how we are different. You are pushing a bigoted opinion and I have identified you as a bigot. I am correct in my observation by definition, you are bigotedly opinionated. It's very simple, but of course you're blind because you don't want to confess your evil arrogance. Sad too because you run around jumping up and down about personal responsibility and wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass. It is bitting you in the ass, by the way. You have a bad case of cadidicy.

Nice try there Mr./Ms. "open minded". I am not pushing anything on anyone else. My opposition to gay marriage does not constitute "bigotry" so your little "fact" is in reality just your arrogant opinion.
Your arrogance is showing - no matter how much you try to blame it away. Clean your mirror moonie, I wouldn't "tolerate" a dirty mirror if I were you.

CkG

 

[EXman]

Hi Moonie! and Conjur use those definitions and look toward yourself.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


And, in case you're unsure of the meaning of the word prejudice:

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : [b[]an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

People in glass houses...

And you don't think you have any prejudices? Come on man again look at yourself. Who are you fooling? The Anti-Christian sentiment in P&N forums is far more rampant than against any other group? I think I have seen your name in there with a clear prejudice.

And as far as that definition of bigot when it come to homosexual marriage I'd rather have an opinion than be one of the many sheep here in the US that say "I don't care?" or "I don't have an opinion" that is pathetic. So I stand up for my beliefs ya damn right I do. Moonbeam is just as guilty as this and even though he keeps calling me names that he himself is: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Bottom line is that we all have had predudicial thoughts at least I can be honest and not hide behind a vail of Politcal Correctness.

Moonie just to let you know the last time we got into it I let you have the last word as arguing with you got boring. I didn't even bother to read your reply

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
Hi Moonie! and Conjur use those definitions and look toward yourself.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


And, in case you're unsure of the meaning of the word prejudice:

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : [b[]an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

People in glass houses...

And you don't think you have any prejudices? Come on man again look at yourself. Who are you fooling? The Anti-Christian sentiment in P&N forums is far more rampant than against any other group? I think I have seen your name in there with a clear prejudice.

Ok...fine...I'm intolerant of the intolerant. That makes me a bigot?

Guess that makes me a bigot against racists, too.

And as far as that definition of bigot when it come to homosexual marriage I'd rather have an opinion than be one of the many sheep here in the US that say "I don't care?" or "I don't have an opinion" that is pathetic. So I stand up for my beliefs ya damn right I do. Moonbeam is just as guilty as this and even though he keeps calling me names that he himself is: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

IOW,

"I'd rather have a bigoted position."  You need to realize those who say "I don't care" say so because gay marriage doesn't affect them. Why should they care if it's not banned?


You should seek out professional help.

 

[EXman]

You are blind Conjur get some glasses.

You are intolerant of others that have other views. Just cause you justify it by calling them intolerant does not make it all better and put you on the high ground. Just admit it you are intolerant of ideas you don't agree with. Without qualification or justification of your opinion you are intolerant.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
You are blind Conjur get some glasses.

You are intolerant of others that have other views. Just cause you justify it by calling them intolerant does not make it all better and put you on the high ground. Just admit it you are intolerant of ideas you don't agree with. Without qualification or justification of your opinion you are intolerant.

Justify your bigotry any way you'd like, EXman. Whatever helps you to sleep at night.


I am intolerant of people who would seek to suppress the rights of others.

You're just intolerant of people because they differ from you. That's why you're a bigot and I am not.

Again, it goes back to the definition of prejudice. The part that pertains the most to you is:

an irrational attitude of hostility

Your attitude toward gay marriages is irrational.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kage69
Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond. The pair bond predates both law and religion. Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction. For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do.


On a somewhat unrelated note, I just got engaged.

Congratulations and many exudations of happiness. I have good news. You are completely wrong in your opinion here and will now be able to do what you so far haven't been able to:

"Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond."

I would agree. Humanity has a high percentage of people with a strong tendency to pair bond, often many times.

"The pair bond predates both law and religion."

I believe it is an evolutionary adaption to large brain size and generalization, the reduction of learned instinct and a long growth learning curve requiring a great deal pr parental protection. One male can't provide for many pregnant women in the wild, but many men can and only will if there's something in it for them. Nooky, of course.

"Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction."

I agree, but I think here you make a mistake. You seem to imply one force at action here, one evolutionary direction as I would say. I think there are two. I think the reproductive urge originates in the sex drive, not the desire to pair bond. They are different and one is built on the other, and therein may lie the key to understanding homosexuality. We know that the drive for sex is far far more ancient that man. Animals and plants are driven to mate, if you will without the slightest conscious knowledge as to why. The sex drive is there regardless of IQ. It is built into the genes. Many animals will mate as often and with as many as they can, but evolution has discovered that that is not always the most successful strategy. Some animals or plants produce millions of offspring and depend on chance, some provide for their young after they are born. This allows for a more complex organism. So pair bonding is a later stage event in evolution than the reproductive drive. In man it was built upon a primate model with one dominant male and evolved into a pair bond form. Evolution is not a neat and final condition and humanity demonstrates tremendous variation. The tendency to pair bond is clearly weaker and stronger in some as is maybe even the sex drive. If you look at our nearest living ancestors, the Bonobo chimps, you will see a great deal of sexuality in social interplay, homosexual too. Now by definition, what happens in animals is natural and naturally evolved. It has some evolutionary advantage. And we can also be pretty sure that homosexuality is not something people chose. So I think it's a mistake to say it's unnatural. It is completely natural and probably results for some form of adaption away from dominate male, to social male evolution, perhaps as a means to promote males getting along. We don't have solid answers, but I see nothing to suggest it's not natural and part of a successful human evolutionary strategy. I don't think, for sure, it's God's idea of a morbid joke, do you? How can what is, otherwise, not be natural, assuming of course you don't think it's a perverse choice people make.

"For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman."
Evolution cares nothing for individuals, it cares only for genes. If brothers and sisters help each other it matters not to evolution if they themselves don't reproduce. Look at ants and bees. They are all sisters. Your point does not make homosexuality unnatural. Far from it. Only one sister breeds.
"I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do."
Well you can now, I hope, if your theory here is sincere and isn't a mask for an irrational revulsion of gays.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EXman
You are blind Conjur get some glasses.

You are intolerant of others that have other views. Just cause you justify it by calling them intolerant does not make it all better and put you on the high ground. Just admit it you are intolerant of ideas you don't agree with. Without qualification or justification of your opinion you are intolerant.

EXman, you are as thick as caddy. The qualification and justification of his opinion lies in the fact that you fit the definition of bigot like a red ball fits the definition of a red colored sphere. You have an irrational bias that is by definition irrational because you can provide on ligical coherent or rational justification for having it. That condition is called bigotry. Conjur doesn't have the opinion you are a bigot. You are by definition. It's not his opinion, it's a fact.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
Stop putting words into my mouth. That is NOT what I said. :|

You said:

Many people want a child of their own. That's a big reason why people get together in the first place. They want something of themselves as a product of their love. They also like to carry on the family line.To force people to adopt and spend thousands of dollars and wait interminable periods and go through umpteen background checks is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm at a loss for words.

Do you not realize that some children awaiting adoption are troubled children? That it's more common for a child of a different race to available more readily to a couple? Perhaps most people aren't capable or willing of putting up with a troubled child or raising a child of another race."

I don't know what I am more concerned by, your blatant hypocracy and intolerance or your rather fleeting attempt to justify your outlandish statements....

Basically you are saying that people should be allowed and encouraged to artifically inseminate themselves as if you adopt you are bound to get either a troubled child or heck even one that is a different race, and even if you happen to get one that is "ok" by your standards then it isn't yours to begin with so it isn't as good....and by damn we wouldn't want that now would we?

honestly, the audacity, so you would encourage couples that are intolerant or selfish to care for children, personally I would rather not have a couple that couldn't handle the task of dealing with either a slightly troubled child or one of a different race, especially when they couldn't reproduce on their own, what gives them or anyone the right to be picky!

Also I find your justification rather laughable, especially when put in context with same sex couples, by nature alone the child they bear out of artificial means will never truly be both of their genetically, it can only be the direct descendant of one of them, so using your mentality then is this enough of a direct lineage? instead of artificial insemination would you rather your wife sleep with the mail main to produce child should you be found infertile or would you rather adopt? and if your wife did sleep with the mail man, produced a child and what not would *you* consider it yours? from reading your above response I would assume no.

You go on to say:

"I, for one, would seek to have a child of my own via artificial insemination if it came down to that.

You've obviously never had children and I sure as hell hope you never do. We don't need you breeding and teaching your hatred and intolerance to a new generation.

And I for one hope that you never have children as IMHO you and your type of mentality is the bane of this society, everything must belong to you or else it isn't as good, why bother caring for another when you can make something new and shiny!....why bother even considering adoption when you can go to a local clinic and have them engineer you a child all of your own, even though said child in foster care needs help and a loving home....all the while you complain about compassion towards same sex couples and others...such hypocracy!

personally if I were found unable to procreate I would either abstain from having a child or adopt...there are too many who need help and are living an awful life as it is in social services, who am I to be picky and demand that a child is mine when I cannot do it on my own.

Shame on you conjur!.

 

[conjur]

I just love how you, bozack, try to compare someone wanting their own child, someone wanting to witness the joy of pregnancy and childbirth with being selfish. And, that by not adopting another child they are intolerant.


Must be some good stuff you're smoking.

You are beyond reason at this point and you would be best served by that famous ATOT slogan:


stop posting

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
I just love how you, bozack, try to compare someone wanting their own child, someone wanting to witness the joy of pregnancy and childbirth with being selfish. And, that by not adopting another child they are intolerant.


Must be some good stuff you're smoking.

You are beyond reason at this point and you would be best served by that famous ATOT slogan:


stop posting

if you want to witness it then watch discovery channel, volunteer at your local hospital, ask one of your friends if you can sit in and watch their child be born....what you are suggesting is pure selfishness, nothing less, nothing more....

if you want to actually be helpful to society then do the right thing then consider all reasonable options instead of being the typical selfish and self centered american and only desire that which is yours and that which is new. Maybe you should consider your own advice conjur as truly your ignorance shows though the more you post.

the hypocracy on your part is simply amazing.

 

[EXman]

Your attitude toward gay marriages is irrational.

why is it irrational? So the majority of Americans are Irrational bigots in your opinion... Oooo kay then

again what is irrational?

Here's Moonies predjudice and bigotry:

You have no logical explanation for your attitude to gays but a mindless acceptance of what's in a book written by other bigots. Gosh but Christians are infected with hate. Imagine how you'd feel if I tried to apply what's in a comic book to real human beings.

Bible written by Bigots ok...

hehe I was reading through some older threads and Moonie keeps calling any Christian or Christian belief Arrogant or bigoted.

Aren't you just an arrogant buttwad hiding behind a religious front?

best part is "Buttwad" it is a good choice of words was that a slip up. Buttwad how ironic! *YUCK*

If you all read Moonies posts there are 3 words he uses Bigot, irrational, predjudice if you don't bend over to his form of liberalism prepare to see all 3 words. And if you are a Christian he hates you and your opinion doesn't count. But he's not a bigot

:music::moon::|:moon::music:

:Q

:music::moon::|

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
I just love how you, bozack, try to compare someone wanting their own child, someone wanting to witness the joy of pregnancy and childbirth with being selfish. And, that by not adopting another child they are intolerant.


Must be some good stuff you're smoking.

You are beyond reason at this point and you would be best served by that famous ATOT slogan:


stop posting

if you want to witness it then watch discovery channel, volunteer at your local hospital, ask one of your friends if you can sit in and watch their child be born....what you are suggesting is pure selfishness, nothing less, nothing more....

if you want to actually be helpful to society then do the right thing then consider all reasonable options instead of being the typical selfish and self centered american and only desire that which is yours and that which is new. Maybe you should consider your own advice conjur as truly your ignorance shows though the more you post.

the hypocracy on your part is simply amazing.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Stop it, man...my sides are hurting!!

You're obviously either playing the side of devil's advocate (and have gone way overboard with the dramatics) or you truly believe what you write.

Either way, you're a sad, sad, person, bozack. I truly pity you.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Stop it, man...my sides are hurting!!

You're obviously either playing the side of devil's advocate (and have gone way overboard with the dramatics) or you truly believe what you write.

Either way, you're a sad, sad, person, bozack. I truly pity you.

conjur, it is I who pitty you, and who fear that many would be like you...as if that is the case, then we as a whole are doomed.

you are truly an insult to the human race...IMHO of course.

 

[conjur]

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

I'm an insult to the human race...I love it!

Thanks for the laugh, dude!

 

[EXman]

OK break it up fellas! so after that pissing war who's bigger?

the hypocracy on your part is simply amazing.

true true!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
OK break it up fellas! so after that pissing war who's bigger?

Me, of course!


Wanna see the :camera:s??

 

[EXman]

Send them to Moonie

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
Send them to Moonie

He already has his own set of "special" pictures of me. :lips:

 

[EXman]

:lips:

That Nickleback song just came on the radio... YIKES!

 

[kage69]

Congratulations and many exudations of happiness. I have good news. You are completely wrong in your opinion here and will now be able to do what you so far haven't been able to

Thanks - 'exudations,' is that really a word?

I believe it is an evolutionary adaption to large brain size and generalization, the reduction of learned instinct and a long growth learning curve requiring a great deal pr parental protection. One male can't provide for many pregnant women in the wild, but many men can and only will if there's something in it for them. Nooky, of course

Ok.

I agree, but I think here you make a mistake. You seem to imply one force at action here, one evolutionary direction as I would say. I think there are two. I think the reproductive urge originates in the sex drive, not the desire to pair bond. They are different and one is built on the other, and therein may lie the key to understanding homosexuality. We know that the drive for sex is far far more ancient that man. Animals and plants are driven to mate, if you will without the slightest conscious knowledge as to why. The sex drive is there regardless of IQ. It is built into the genes. Many animals will mate as often and with as many as they can, but evolution has discovered that that is not always the most successful strategy. Some animals or plants produce millions of offspring and depend on chance, some provide for their young after they are born. This allows for a more complex organism. So pair bonding is a later stage event in evolution than the reproductive drive. In man it was built upon a primate model with one dominant male and evolved into a pair bond form. Evolution is not a neat and final condition and humanity demonstrates tremendous variation. The tendency to pair bond is clearly weaker and stronger in some as is maybe even the sex drive. If you look at our nearest living ancestors, the Bonobo chimps, you will see a great deal of sexuality in social interplay, homosexual too. Now by definition, what happens in animals is natural and naturally evolved. It has some evolutionary advantage. And we can also be pretty sure that homosexuality is not something people chose. So I think it's a mistake to say it's unnatural. It is completely natural and probably results for some form of adaption away from dominate male, to social male evolution, perhaps as a means to promote males getting along. We don't have solid answers, but I see nothing to suggest it's not natural and part of a successful human evolutionary strategy. I don't think, for sure, it's God's idea of a morbid joke, do you? How can what is, otherwise, not be natural, assuming of course you don't think it's a perverse choice people make.

I did not mean to imply that the pair bond was the motivation for reproduction, I'm sorry you took it that way. Perhaps you thought I was refering to everything post-civilization as well? Plain ol horniness is nature's method of insuring future generations, no argument there.
Displays of dominance used to assert a complex social hierarchy within chimp groups (be it homosexual in nature, or a good ol fashioned beating) don't translate well into comparison if we're talking about the socio/religious construct known as marriage (which, we are). Note I didn't say homosexuality is unnatural. I'm saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural, yet socially natural, and I do so without the religious bias many seem to exhibit towards gays.

Evolution cares nothing for individuals, it cares only for genes. If brothers and sisters help each other it matters not to evolution if they themselves don't reproduce. Look at ants and bees. They are all sisters. Your point does not make homosexuality unnatural. Far from it. Only one sister breeds.

I'm aware of that, problem is we aren't talking about evolution, we're talking about marriage. Just to humor you though, they are not all sisters (I think it depends on the species with ants), hives have male drones besides the more numerous sterile female workers. You are missing my point altogether it seems: Only one sister breeds, true enough, but who does she breed with? Another female? Who happens to be sterile?

Well you can now, I hope, if your theory here is sincere and isn't a mask for an irrational revulsion of gays.

I say what I think, and it is without regard for how you choose to interpret it. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with people who think they can speak for me after reading a few of my posts, yet never having met me. I stand by my views.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: EXman
OK break it up fellas! so after that pissing war who's bigger?

conjur wishes he is but the facts point to the opposite....


nothing beats a good pissing contest...too bad this time it was with a child...oh well.

 

[chess9]

Here's an idea:

What would the top science fiction writers of our day speculate to be the character of marriage in, say, 2050, or 2100?

I think marriage will die off. It really isn't necessary inasmuch as virtual reality seems to be enough for most people these days. Particularly teenage boys.

Once virtual reality is significantly enhanced to include smell, touch, and taste, well, kiss marriage goodbye. You think vibrators and inflatable dolls are the limit?

Sheezh.....

-Robert