The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

I'd like to add something here. I wish you non-AA pilots could take a peek at the political threads on our union message board. Seriously, BaseOps is some of the best, most respectful, nuanced dialog I've seen online. If everyone was as curious and calm as the folks here, the US would be in a great spot. Trump wouldn't be president and Biden wouldn't be the (D) candidate.

 

I hope the perspectives shared here are making it into real world conversations

Edited October 24, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[slackline]

This was the opinion of, like, a loooot of people back in 2000. A lot has changed since then. 

Show me where Pence has done anything to change his opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slackline]

Perhaps you and Guardian are more alike than you think.
 
I guess I don't get the Pence thing. I'm atheist, yet I'm not confused by Christians who stands opposed to homosexuality. I disagree, of course, and have been pro-gay-marriage since I was in school, but is it really confusing when people follow the doctrine of their religion, as they have been doing for a couple thousand years?
 
Find me one example of Pence treating a homosexual poorly. Same goes for Romney. Two better men than 99% of the political class, yet maligned for a widely held and peaceful belief... You call it "hate" the same way many on the left misuse "racist" as an attack. The words matter. Policy and philosophy differences are not hate.
 
You can be against illegal immigration without hating immigrants. You can be against the second amendment without hating gun owners. And you can be against gay marriage without hating on the gays.
 
I can never tell if you are intentionally obtuse or not. On the one hand you immediate locate and call out logical fallacies or unsupported hyperbole in other people's posts. But then you fill your own posts with the same. It's confusing. But I'm easily confused

Please, show me how I’m misinterpreting what you said, and therefore “educating” you... You seemed to take offense to something that wasn’t said, so I clarified because you and Guardian are definitely alike in your seeming love to “educate” people from some position of perceived superiority. Honestly, it was a compliment. I should have been more generous with the praise first. Often, guys like you and Guardian do a great job holding people to high standards. Occasionally, you seem to come from some invisible high horse and ignore what people have actually said in some perceived attempt at showing everyone just how brilliant you are. You’re doing it right now... Your passive aggressive comments like, “I can never tell if you are intentionally obtuse...” are perfect examples.

Please, highlight my logical fallacies and unsupported hyperbole in the (acknowledged in my post) opinion above...

To answer one of your criticisms: I liken it to hate (I think hate is fairly strong, and most people don’t truly hate IMHO), never called it hate. My apologies for using the term “hate on” in this case. I think hating on something is different than hating something, but I don’t know a similar term thatto use that, as easily, gets the same idea across.

I made my point about Christ because he never specifically tried to limit people’s actions. He educated, counseled, encouraged, but never forced anyone to obey him. I fail to see how laws limiting who someone is allowed to marry isn’t oppression. I also, from a religious perspective, don’t agree with the LGBTQ community, but until they try to come around and start hurting other people’s lives, I don’t think the government has any place imposing its will on them. Pence disagrees on the semantics of the word marriage? Fine, allow civil unions that hold equal rights as a religious marriage... Easy, peasy.

Gay marriage is very different than second amendment or illegal immigration issues, so this is 100% an instance of you falsely correlating these things to try and slip your point across.

Explain to me, outside of religious terms, how gay marriage infringes on the safety, or rights of others, or unfairly taxes straight people. I can show you how a stance against immigration or guns points to people’s safety and/or rights. I happen to be in favor of gun rights, but think the conversation needs to be had on how to stop mentally ill people from accessing them. I happen to be in favor of ending illegal immigration, but don’t agree that it should be as difficult or as expensive for people to naturalize.

Pence could be an amazing member of whatever congregation he belongs to. I don’t think Pence is a bad person at all. I know lots of great members of my church. That doesn’t mean I want their rigidly unbending ideas on the world governing how I live my life...

If you think liberals are the ones that hate Romney now, I suggest you drive up and down I-15 in UT where there are billboards wishing him to go away. Paid for by conservatives because he’s openly opposed Trump...

Once again, I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind. Just showing where I perceive you’re being disingenuous. Notice the word perceive and perception. I use it a lot because I can never be sure I am fully understanding what people are saying on the WWW. Maybe I’m the one with reading comprehension issues, but that’s how your posts come across to me. The fact that baseops.net is an echo chamber for people who think similarly to you emboldens you to continue “educating” people. Keep calling me, or inferring that I’m a liberal. Doesn’t hurt my feelings. I feel like I’m in a tiny group of conservatives who sees this Admin for what it really is, a danger not only to our country, but the world. That’s two people (you and me) who think they’re each on the right side of an opinion. That’s all most of this is, an opinion...

I wholeheartedly agree with you that all of this is incredibly beneficial dialogue, and it needs to continue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sim]

https://youtu.be/04nqez0IvvY?t=2224

About 2 days old Interview with Rudi Giuliani that describes all of the finding so far of the Biden's crime family. 

People voting for Biden - watch to see whom you're voting for. 

 

 

(это пропагандистское послание было доставлено вам вашим дружелюбным офицером ГРУ.)

Edited October 24, 2020 by Sim

[Prozac]

9 hours ago, FLEA said:

Marriage is a religious institution though. It should have never been recognized by the government to begin with. That's your real issue. 

I agree 100%. We could start a whole thread on how outdated the idea that the government should be incentivizing marriage is. 

[Negatory]

9 hours ago, FLEA said:

Marriage is a religious institution though. It should have never been recognized by the government to begin with. That's your real issue. 

Sure. Another solution would be to get rid of the governmental benefits of marriage for straight people, but I dont see a lot of advocacy for that for some reason.

You can’t financially and legally marginalize human beings and say that you aren’t treating them poorly. If the argument was “marriage is a religious ceremony, so we will disband that as a government entity. Everyone is entitled to the governmental benefits of a union so we support the union regardless of your sexuality.” But the right wing would rather further entrench religion into politics.

I was fed the same BS and felt similarly to you all on this until my sibling came out as gay. It changes your perspective on what is malicious and what isn’t.
 

I assume you guys aren’t for sharia law (although guardian probably takes offense to me assuming this), but it is a totally reasonable and understood opinion of society for a huge part of the world, so we should respect that amirite?

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'd like to add something here. I wish you non-AA pilots could take a peek at the political threads on our union message board. Seriously, BaseOps is some of the best, most respectful, nuanced dialog I've seen online. If everyone was as curious and calm as the folks here, the US would be in a great spot. Trump wouldn't be president and Biden wouldn't be the (D) candidate.

 

I hope the perspectives shared here are making it into real world conversations

My union forum had to shut down any and all political speech. It’s amazing how low grown men and women will go, thinking they are getting their point across. One of the reasons I would support mandatory national service is that it mixes people from all walks of life and forces them to work together. Along the way, you learn to respect differences in opinion and culture, even though you may not share them. We need more of that right now. 

[Negatory]

And just to be crystal clear, yes I am equating advocacy for Christian marriage as all that is allowable in America to advocating for sharia law, at least when it comes to ethical arguments.

Also, why do evangelicals never advocate for the abolition of pork products (Leviticus 11:47) or the illegality of wearing two different fabrics to a nightclub (Deuteronomy 22:11)? If we’re gonna try to oppress people based on the Old Testament, at least be genuine about it.

[Negatory]

2 hours ago, slackline said:

Explain to me, outside of religious terms, how gay marriage infringes on the safety, or rights of others, or unfairly taxes straight people.

Relatively easy example with made up numbers. If straight couples are taxed at 20% and gay couples are taxed at 30%, how is that not a surcharge for being gay? It doesn’t matter how you spin it, sexuality should not be a discriminator when it comes to access to benefits. If you want to take away all the expected governmental benefits of marriage, then that’s totally fine.

[slackline]

Relatively easy example with made up numbers. If straight couples are taxed at 20% and gay couples are taxed at 30%, how is that not a surcharge for being gay? It doesn’t matter how you spin it, sexuality should not be a discriminator when it comes to access to benefits. If you want to take away all the expected governmental benefits of marriage, then that’s totally fine.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or not based on this scenario. Sorry. I'm advocating that we should treat them in the same way as straight couples. Maybe that wasn't clear before...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

35 minutes ago, Negatory said:

And just to be crystal clear, yes I am equating advocacy for Christian marriage as all that is allowable in America to advocating for sharia law, at least when it comes to ethical arguments.

Also, why do evangelicals never advocate for the abolition of pork products (Leviticus 11:47) or the illegality of wearing two different fabrics to a nightclub (Deuteronomy 22:11)? If we’re gonna try to oppress people based on the Old Testament, at least be genuine about it.

I think you mistake my position. I've never had a problem with gay marriage. I personally don't care. But I am giving you your answer to why this was a moral crises for some in America. The US adopted an institution that was uniquely religious. Even more so, they adopted the Judeo-Christian model of it. This was inherited from Europe. Marriage became important to society as a systematic process to distribute property. Remember Europe didn't begin to separate religion from governance until the discovery of people in the New World, and that transformation wasn't complete until the 20th century. Marriage became an important system for the transition and inheritance of property and culturally developed in most civilizations alongside agriculture when the concept of land and land ownership became extremely important. The Judeo-Christian vision of marriage likely evolved out of this as much of the old testament regards the importance of unadulterated blood lines (where the term adultery actually comes from) and monogamy. 

When advocacy for gay marriage became a thing, Christian's misread that as an assault on their religion. To a Christian, "marriage" means a very specific thing. Mainstream society tried to change that definition. That's a really big deal. Think about it for a minute, in Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine the reactions if main stream society tried to alter the criteria behind baptism? What was actually happening though, is society was adopting a secular view of marriage, which in all honesty, is sort of strange. Basically, mainstream society culturally appropriated it because for some reason people are in love with the romance (as in the perceived feeling) associated with monogamy. People find it "noble" or "honorable" and they don't really have a good understanding why. Science tells us "love" is actually a euphoria generated by hormones. Take that for what its worth. 

Look at it from this perspective. Imagine if you will, the Arapaho Sun Dance, a distinctly native American religious practice. To what extent would we approve of main stream society suddenly adopting this practice, bastardizing it, and then changing specific rules, beliefs, and understandings about the ceremony. Then, to rub the salt in the wound, we tell native cultures not only is this still a valid form of Arapaho Sun Dance, you are required by law to recognize it as such. They are required to make Sun Dance cakes, and administer Sun Dance ceremonies for non-Native people all over who bastardize the tradition and the meaning. 

That was the conflict with gay marriage in a nut shell. 

Edited October 24, 2020 by FLEA

[Negatory]

I misinterpreted both of your points and I apologize. Agree with your statements.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Negatory

[slackline]

I think you mistake my position. I've never had a problem with gay marriage. I personally don't care. But I am giving you your answer to why this was a moral crises for some in America. The US adopted an institution that was uniquely religious. Even more so, they adopted the Judeo-Christian model of it. This was inherited from Europe. Marriage became important to society as a systematic process to distribute property. Remember Europe didn't begin to separate religion from governance until the discovery of people in the New World, and that transformation wasn't complete until the 20th century. Marriage became an important system for the transition and inheritance of property and culturally developed in most civilizations alongside agriculture when the concept of land and land ownership became extremely important. The Judeo-Christian vision of marriage likely evolved out of this as much of the old testament regards the importance of unadulterated blood lines (where the term adultery actually comes from) and monogamy. 
When advocacy for gay marriage became a thing, Christian's misread that as an assault on their religion. To a Christian, "marriage" means a very specific thing. Mainstream society tried to change that definition. That's a really big deal. Think about it for a minute, in Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine the reactions if main stream society tried to alter the criteria behind baptism? What was actually happening though, is society was adopting a secular view of marriage, which in all honesty, is sort of strange. Basically, mainstream society culturally appropriated it because for some reason people are in love with the romance (as in the perceived feeling) associated with monogamy. People find it "noble" or "honorable" and they don't really have a good understanding why. Science tells us "love" is actually a euphoria generated by hormones. Take that for what its worth. 
Look at it from this perspective. Imagine if you will, the Arapaho Sun Dance, a distinctly native American religious practice. To what extent would we approve of main stream society suddenly adopting this practice, bastardizing it, and then changing specific rules, beliefs, and understandings about the ceremony. Then, to rub the salt in the wound, we tell native cultures not only is this still a valid form of Arapaho Sun Dance, you are required by law to recognize it as such. They are required to make Sun Dance cakes, and administer Sun Dance ceremonies for non-Native people all over who bastardize the tradition and the meaning. 
That was the conflict with gay marriage in a nut shell. 

Great, succint wrap-up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, slackline said:

Explain to me, outside of religious terms, how gay marriage infringes on the safety, or rights of others, or unfairly taxes straight people.

To be clear, I support the rights of any individual to marry, using whatever definition they want, whoever they want. I quite literally could not care. My problem with it (at core) is the same I have with many other laws which cause unintended "side effects" in our society. This happens when we have laws codified for one purpose but which are then expanded or applied to a group they were never intended or foreseen to cover at a future date.

In the case of marriage, it was notionally brought into legal formality (rather continued) in order to provide protections to the spouse who gave up their productive years to raise children. And there are plenty of tax breaks associated with this institution whose purpose was making raising kids easier. So it's an imperfect legal construct because it presupposes certain things (i.e. kids). We're now at the point where these suppositions no longer make sense and have real fiscal impact. It would make more sense to associate marriage tax breaks with the number of kids you have which would open them up (fairly) for gay couples. To be clearer, childless straight couples shouldn't receive tax breaks either.

I'll try and give a couple of examples.

California (and other high-tax states) is currently in arms about their full (state) taxes no longer being federally deductible. Using very simplified math, a Californian making $100K paying 13.3% income tax  ($13,300) would be taxed 20% (federal) on $86,700 (about $17,340) under the "old" system. Under the new system, they effectively pay the federal government first meaning they would pay $20,000 to the federal government and $10,640 to California. So the federal government gets a much larger piece of the pie and CA is left with lower tax revenue (no effect on the taxpayer here). But that's not really even the problem. The problem (philosophically) is that different states have different state income tax rates so they (those with lower state income taxes) wind up federally subsidizing the "rich" ones under the old system.

Take Alabama's top tax rate (for easy math) of 5%. Under the old system, a $100K earner would pay Alabama $5,000 and then pay the feds $19,000 (20% of 95K). So equal earners in CA and AL wind up paying the federal government $17,340 and $19,000, respectively? That's the problem that Trump's tax cut fixed: it eliminates the differential federal tax rate that income tax payers fork over to the federal government. It's no wonder high-tax blue states are all about federal programs - they (used to) cost less for them!

One last example (also CA).

Proposition 13 makes is such that your neighbors might be paying a wildly different property tax rate than you. While well-intended, it creates is another instance of law that creates major differentials between neighbors. California's budget is California's budget. If they can't get the taxes from your neighbor, they're gonna get them from you.

Wrapping this all together, because I don't want to lose the thread. I view it as a problem not because of a moral reason, but because it was a set of laws enacted with a different set of assumptions and is one instance of the larger problem of applying laws to groups or circumstances the were not written for. Hence when circumstances change, we need to re-write and re-think them so they are applied fairly and don't result in unintended consequences - not just blanket approve parking in handicapped spaces.

Edited October 24, 2020 by ViperMan
Clarity

[N730]

Marriage is a religious institution though. It should have never been recognized by the government to begin with. That's your real issue. 

But if the opposition to this is that "Marriage" is religious (particularly Christian for the sake of this conversation) and gay people should just have civil unions, then the opposition should just be against gay people.

Aethiest shouldn't be able to use the word marriage. Muslims, Hindus, and people following other religions shouldn't be able to call it marriage either.

But for some reason, people only insist on LGBT people calling it something else and not all those outside of the religion.

Edit: I just want to make sure I'm clear. I think debating whether someone can or cannot get married is pretty wild and I'm glad everyone here seems to be on the same page of, it doesn't effect me, so why care.

But I'd argue that from the perspective of the government, the word "Marriage" does not and should not have any religious connotations. If it did, people couldn't get certified to perform marriages online and judges/justices of the peace couldn't perform marriages.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[17D_guy]

16 hours ago, Prozac said:

Disagree. Pushing your particular religious views onto the population as a whole is anathema to American values. No one is forcing Mike Pence to marry a man. No serious person is suggesting that his relIgion should change it’s beliefs. He is free to practice as he sees fit. Actively attempting to deny an entire segment of the population of rights the rest of us enjoy is certainly treating them poorly and is a shitty position to take. 

So if that's the same way his constituencies wanted him to vote at that time...still "pushing his religious values?"  Please note, I'm not talking about now.  I really hate this looking back, 10, 20, 100 years to denigrate what people believed/did that was the norm at the time.

As someone else said, a lot has changed for the better.  I have friends and family members that can now enjoy family life similar to mine.

However, I am waiting for the "LGBTQA+ community" to start coming after Churches for denying them the access to use the facilities.  The lawsuits will start at some point and while  protections are currently present...they may fall in the future as more and more citizens find less value in existential belief.

[slackline]

So if that's the same way his constituencies wanted him to vote at that time...still "pushing his religious values?"  Please note, I'm not talking about now.  I really hate this looking back, 10, 20, 100 years to denigrate what people believed/did that was the norm at the time.

As someone else said, a lot has changed for the better.  I have friends and family members that can now enjoy family life similar to mine.

However, I am waiting for the "LGBTQA+ community" to start coming after Churches for denying them the access to use the facilities.  The lawsuits will start at some point and while  protections are currently present...they may fall in the future as more and more citizens find less value in existential belief.

Totally agree. They deserve equal rights 100%, but the second they go after religious institutions to force/bend them to their will that doesn't have anything to do with individual rights, especially with religious institutions that aren't trying to shove their beliefs down their throats, I'll help hold the line there.

Do me the favor of not reading into other things here. I'm specifically talking about equal rights. After that, we're not on the same page. I have friends in that community, and I don't judge them even if I don't agree with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

48 minutes ago, N730 said:

But if the opposition to this is that "Marriage" is religious (particularly Christian for the sake of this conversation) and gay people should just have civil unions, then the opposition should just be against gay people.

Aethiest shouldn't be able to use the word marriage. Muslims, Hindus, and people following other religions shouldn't be able to call it marriage either.

But for some reason, people only insist on LGBT people calling it something else and not all those outside of the religion.

Edit: I just want to make sure I'm clear. I think debating whether someone can or cannot get married is pretty wild and I'm glad everyone here seems to be on the same page of, it doesn't effect me, so why care.

But I'd argue that from the perspective of the government, the word "Marriage" does not and should not have any religious connotations. If it did, people couldn't get certified to perform marriages online and judges/justices of the peace couldn't perform marriages.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

 

So I think there is a lot of string to unfurl here and we need to recognize marriage as a concept is something thats evolved over 2-3 millenia and its role in society has been altered and evolved over time too.

Marriage is rhymed in many different religions/regions but the word for that institution is usually unique. Marriage was probably adopted to describe similar institutions out of convenience and remained tolerable so much as it fell within a certain set of rules. Its complicated because this was a process that was slow and I think Christians thought, controlled, but the wake of secular marriage via gay marriage was widely a shock to them.

Why I find this bizarre, is because if you are not particularly religious, you should recognize that monogamy is not natural to human sexuality.  Studies on primate societies show different models of polygamy are far more common. However, monogamy has one EXTRAORDINARY important role among straight people which actually makes society possible. So we know, for instance, from studying China after the 2-child rule, that societies  with a disproportionate number of single males tend to become more violent and impulsive. This framework makes society difficult and sets the foundations for collapse. Monogomy resolves that by ensuring the primal system of a single alpha male taking a harem of females doesn't allow a group of sexually frustrated despot males to wreak cultural havoc on the pillars of civilization. 

What's so strange when we have the discussion on homosexuality is this same context doesn't provide the same societal benefit and their may be a prehistoric origin to the taboo there. But weirdly then, why would you subscribe to it? The only reason people would be because they are romanticized with novelty of monogamy and this idea of "eternal love" and we can probably blame the multi-billion dollar wedding industry on that. This aside from the tax benefits and more utilitarian purposes anyway. 

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

However, I am waiting for the "LGBTQA+ community" to start coming after Churches for denying them the access to use the facilities.  The lawsuits will start at some point and while  protections are currently present...they may fall in the future as more and more citizens find less value in existential belief.

This is an example of why I have a problem with the LGBTQA+ movement.  When DOMA was challenged in 2013/2015, we were told that this was about two loving monogamous people just trying to have equal rights under the law IRT marriage.  I have said all along that this was not the case.  This is not, never was and never will be simply about "rights".   It is about taking a wrecking ball to our society and its views on the traditional family and traditional norms.  We are seeing it play out every day now with the war on pronouns, the transgender movement, etc.  And this all comes after DOMA was ruled unconstitutional.  This is why I have a huge issue with the left.  The left is never honest about what they are REALLY after.  You see it in every movement on the left whether it is gay rights, the climate, gun control, economics, health care, etc.  

All that to say that I do not personally have a problem with gay people.  Our 19 year old daughter is in the process of coming to terms with her sexuality.  My wife and I have known since she was probably 10 that this was going to be something she would struggle with.  As Christians, we have struggled with navigating this mightily.  We support her and love more than anything else in life.  Our message and guidance to her has been to not let her sexuality define her.  More than anything, I want her to be a honest, productive, educated, hard working member of society who loves who she loves.  We don't support things like rainbow stickers, flags or shirts that promote sexuality one way or the other.  And she gets it.  She doesn't throw anything related to her sexuality around.  She just is who she is.  

Edited October 24, 2020 by lloyd christmas

[Homestar]

So I assume everyone is ok with the FLDS (think Warren Jeff’s) definition of marriage then? I mean, isn’t the age of 18 just an arbitrary number? If all parties are adults there shouldn’t be a problem then?

 

[slackline]

So I assume everyone is ok with the FLDS (think Warren Jeff’s) definition of marriage then? I mean, isn’t the age of 18 just an arbitrary number? If all parties are adults there shouldn’t be a problem then?
 

I think you should make your point pretty quick here...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

So I assume everyone is ok with the FLDS (think Warren Jeff’s) definition of marriage then? I mean, isn’t the age of 18 just an arbitrary number? If all parties are adults there shouldn’t be a problem then?

 

 

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

So if that's the same way his constituencies wanted him to vote at that time...still "pushing his religious values?"  Please note, I'm not talking about now.  I really hate this looking back, 10, 20, 100 years to denigrate what people believed/did that was the norm at the time.

As someone else said, a lot has changed for the better.  I have friends and family members that can now enjoy family life similar to mine.

However, I am waiting for the "LGBTQA+ community" to start coming after Churches for denying them the access to use the facilities.  The lawsuits will start at some point and while  protections are currently present...they may fall in the future as more and more citizens find less value in existential belief.

Pence was pursuing an anti gay agenda as Governor of Indiana right up until his VP nomination. There is no evidence any of his views have changed in the last four years. 
 

To the second part of your post, I wholeheartedly agree. Various religions should be free to practice as they see fit barring illegal activity. I can’t see any scenario where courts would back any attempt to dictate moral views to a religious institution. 

[Homestar]

43 minutes ago, slackline said:

I think you should make your point pretty quick here...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah maybe I should. 

My point: why is plural marriage among consenting adults a problem for most Americans? Don’t cheat and say welfare fraud or abuse (both of which happen in monogamous marriage).

(The 18 year-old comment was tongue in cheek)

[N730]

So I think there is a lot of string to unfurl here and we need to recognize marriage as a concept is something thats evolved over 2-3 millenia and its role in society has been altered and evolved over time too.
Marriage is rhymed in many different religions/regions but the word for that institution is usually unique. Marriage was probably adopted to describe similar institutions out of convenience and remained tolerable so much as it fell within a certain set of rules. Its complicated because this was a process that was slow and I think Christians thought, controlled, but the wake of secular marriage via gay marriage was widely a shock to them.
Why I find this bizarre, is because if you are not particularly religious, you should recognize that monogamy is not natural to human sexuality.  Studies on primate societies show different models of polygamy are far more common. However, monogamy has one EXTRAORDINARY important role among straight people which actually makes society possible. So we know, for instance, from studying China after the 2-child rule, that societies  with a disproportionate number of single males tend to become more violent and impulsive. This framework makes society difficult and sets the foundations for collapse. Monogomy resolves that by ensuring the primal system of a single alpha male taking a harem of females doesn't allow a group of sexually frustrated despot males to wreak cultural havoc on the pillars of civilization. 
What's so strange when we have the discussion on homosexuality is this same context doesn't provide the same societal benefit and their may be a prehistoric origin to the taboo there. But weirdly then, why would you subscribe to it? The only reason people would be because they are romanticized with novelty of monogamy and this idea of "eternal love" and we can probably blame the multi-billion dollar wedding industry on that. This aside from the tax benefits and more utilitarian purposes anyway. 

This is a really interesting conversation. Especially from a societal influence on monogamy perspective.

I'd add along with tax benefits, we've added so many other things that either require or are made significantly easier due to marriage. Things like getting insurance, visiting your significant other in the hospital, buying a house, etc. Hell, right now my wife couldn't even get on base with me if we weren't married.

Even if there wasn't societal pressure, the government makes it almost a requirement for long term couples.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app