Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 hours ago, N730 said:

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
 

Government does these things because they're seen as valuable to continuing society/culture or government itself if you're cynical.  That's why there's tax breaks for kids, marriage and other things deemed "good" by the legislature.

Posted

Which is a worse scenario?

- Gay couple loves each other, gets married for the intent of sharing a life together (inclusive of intrinsic benefits of said union)

- Straight individuals married purely for the sake of the benefits provided (tax, citizenship, health care, etc.)

It seems a bit hypocritical for society to attack one of these demographics but ignores the other. It also shouldn’t be at the forefront of political debate with so many real issues facing the world, but our society has the attention span of a peanut, so there’s that  

Just one open-minded conservative’s opinion...

  • Like 1
Posted
23 hours ago, FLEA said:

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. 

Monogamy is literally natural to humans, it's what we adapted to based on our environment.

 

While comparisons to primates are sometimes useful, the differences between them and us are exactly why they aren't humans. Monogamy exists in other species; it is natural there as it is in humans.

 

In fact the slow collapse of monogamy has introduced a tremendous amount of conflict to humanity, which we are overcoming with technology, but we've mostly just broken the natural incentive structure and created a bunch of single-parent households. The "freedom" from monogamy has not led to what you would expect. The polygamists are still a niche and highly unstable demographic. Instead we just have a whole lot of people who are unhappy with their lack of a monogamist partner.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Monogamy is literally natural to humans, it's what we adapted to based on our environment.

 

While comparisons to primates are sometimes useful, the differences between them and us are exactly why they aren't humans. Monogamy exists in other species; it is natural there as it is in humans.

 

In fact the slow collapse of monogamy has introduced a tremendous amount of conflict to humanity, which we are overcoming with technology, but we've mostly just broken the natural incentive structure and created a bunch of single-parent households. The "freedom" from monogamy has not led to what you would expect. The polygamists are still a niche and highly unstable demographic. Instead we just have a whole lot of people who are unhappy with their lack of a monogamist partner.

Socially yes, but biologically and psychologically no. Monogamy is VERY rare in Animals and even more rare in mammals. Among mammals its more common in social primates but only to the degree that it a social benefit and not an evolutionary benefit. The evolutionary benefits of monogamy are VERY low. The evolutionary benefits to polygamy are VERY high. There is a lot of academic literature about this. Its not really an argument of if anymore, its an argument of how. 

Not sure how you see a slow collapse of monogamy? Monogamy has become more widespread since the 18th century. Prior to that the concepts surrounding marriage and bondship were much looser in Judeo-Christian society and even more loose in eastern society. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Socially yes, but biologically and psychologically no. Monogamy is VERY rare in Animals and even more rare in mammals. Among mammals its more common in social primates but only to the degree that it a social benefit and not an evolutionary benefit. The evolutionary benefits of monogamy are VERY low. The evolutionary benefits to polygamy are VERY high. There is a lot of academic literature about this. Its not really an argument of if anymore, its an argument of how. 

Not sure how you see a slow collapse of monogamy? Monogamy has become more widespread since the 18th century. Prior to that the concepts surrounding marriage and bondship were much looser in Judeo-Christian society and even more loose in eastern society. 

There are no instances of "biological monogamy" that I'm aware of. Except perhaps a species where the male dies during mating? I don't think that's what we're talking about.

 

The rest of your first paragraph isn't addressing the natural part of the claim. Just because something is rare does not mean it doesn't exist, or in this case isn't natural. I would argue that humans are pretty rare when compared to other species.

 

You're also distinguishing between social and evolutionary benefit, which is not a particularly clear distinction. Sure we can point to being bipedal as an "evolutionary" benefit and forming tribes as a "social" benefit, but both are traits that manifested by chance and were screened against a harsh world to see which succeeded and procreated successfully. Monogamy is one such example. Being social does not make it unnatural, unless dolphin pods or lion prides are also unnatural.

And in our case, the evolutionary benefits of monogamy are huge, on account of our massive development period. The biggest impact is on the survival of the offspring, and since we don't have litters, that's key.

 

Just look at the rates of unwed childbirth and single parent households over the past 100 years. As you said, the social reinforcement of monogamy amps up in the 1700's, and accelerated (though the most prosperous period in the history of the species) through the mid 1900's. It is now in decline, and the social costs are rather obvious. Just look at the correlation between success of the child and the parents relationship. Many of the problems attributed to race by racists are better correlated with family decline, which has everything to do with well intentioned programs with unforeseen effects, as well as the criminal justice system. Another conversation.

 

There are tons of instances of various degrees of polygamist societies, but the most prosperous and reproductive have been monogamist, which is exactly how natural evolutionary pressure expresses itself.

Posted
56 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

There are no instances of "biological monogamy" that I'm aware of. Except perhaps a species where the male dies during mating? I don't think that's what we're talking about.

 

Penguins.  https://www.livescience.com/27434-penguin-facts.html#:~:text=Most penguins are monogamous.,for most of their lives.&text=After mating%2C the female emperor,will lay a single egg.

Gibbons, although not 100%.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon "Gibbons often retain the same mate for life, although they do not always remain sexually monogamous. In addition to extra-pair copulations, pair-bonded gibbons occasionally "divorce.""

Gray wolves.  https://animalark.org/education/learn-about-animals/family-canidae/gray-wolf/#:~:text=Gray Wolves are monogamous%2C often,to 3-years of age.
Gray Wolves are monogamous, often mating for life.  In the pack, only the alpha pair has sexual rights during breeding season. 

For example.

Posted
1 minute ago, pawnman said:

Penguins.  https://www.livescience.com/27434-penguin-facts.html#:~:text=Most penguins are monogamous.,for most of their lives.&text=After mating%2C the female emperor,will lay a single egg.

Gibbons, although not 100%.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon "Gibbons often retain the same mate for life, although they do not always remain sexually monogamous. In addition to extra-pair copulations, pair-bonded gibbons occasionally "divorce.""

Gray wolves.  https://animalark.org/education/learn-about-animals/family-canidae/gray-wolf/#:~:text=Gray Wolves are monogamous%2C often,to 3-years of age.
Gray Wolves are monogamous, often mating for life.  In the pack, only the alpha pair has sexual rights during breeding season. 

For example.

Yeah that's social monogamy, though, right? I'm not sure what biological monogamy means. Even within those species there are instances of non-monogamy, so it isn't "biological."

Posted
8 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah that's social monogamy, though, right? I'm not sure what biological monogamy means. Even within those species there are instances of non-monogamy, so it isn't "biological."

I'm not sure how you'd distinguish them if you want to argue that these are social constructs within the animal kingdom.

Posted
10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'm not sure how you'd distinguish them if you want to argue that these are social constructs within the animal kingdom.

Yeah that's exactly my point. He mentioned social vs biological monogamy, but I'm not sure what the distinction is. There are no species that are 100% monogamous. 

 

Mostly I was commenting on the idea that human monogamy isn't natural, which doesn't make much sense as it was presented.

Posted
Watch The Plot Against the President on Amazon Prime. 
 
Holy crap our government is corrupt.

Synopsis?


I just watched the unedited 60 minutes after watching the actual 60 minutes. Holy crap. What a hit piece 60 minutes did. Man. Amazing liberal editing job. They even had to know the full video was out and they still went out and published their edited junk.

And wow. Biden and K just seething with bold face lies. Never seen anything like it. It was bold in your face flat out lying. With evidence to the contrary already out in public. No fact checking needed. It was as if they were asked what is the most untrue ridiculous way you can answer this. And if K didn’t know the answer, she just awkwardly laughed. Which is her equivalent to Biden’s “come on man”. I’ve never been more sure of who I was voting for then after seeing those two liars tonight.
  • Like 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, Guardian said:


Synopsis?


I just watched the unedited 60 minutes after watching the actual 60 minutes. Holy crap. What a hit piece 60 minutes did. Man. Amazing liberal editing job. They even had to know the full video was out and they still went out and published their edited junk.

And wow. Biden and K just seething with bold face lies. Never seen anything like it. It was bold in your face flat out lying. With evidence to the contrary already out in public. No fact checking needed. It was as if they were asked what is the most untrue ridiculous way you can answer this. And if K didn’t know the answer, she just awkwardly laughed. Which is her equivalent to Biden’s “come on man”. I’ve never been more sure of who I was voting for then after seeing those two liars tonight.

I wonder if this is one of those things where I'd watch it and come to a completely different interpretation.

  • Like 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

I wonder if this is one of those things where I'd watch it and come to a completely different interpretation.

I'm curious about that as well.

 

I could use some feedback on this:

 

I laughed a lot more at "Trump's" lines than "Biden's," but I want to believe it's because they are funnier and based on exaggerations of Biden's flaws, whereas the lines against Trump are more preachy and issue oriented, i.e. meant to have a political message as an undertone. 

 

I thought the Hillary vs Trump one was much better.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm curious about that as well.

 

I could use some feedback on this:

 

I laughed a lot more at "Trump's" lines than "Biden's," but I want to believe it's because they are funnier and based on exaggerations of Biden's flaws, whereas the lines against Trump are more preachy and issue oriented, i.e. meant to have a political message as an undertone. 

 

I thought the Hillary vs Trump one was much better.

 

Laughed more at Trump too, but I think that's tied into the "Trump style" of delivery being even more exaggerated.  Dude's an entertaining, never said he wasn't.  Building on that for the video I think is easier.

I thought Biden's were "harder hitting" for whatever a fake rap battle is.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

I think we can all agree after watching those interviews that Harris is just remarkably unlikable. Her fake smiling laughter “tick” is odd and off-putting.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7
Posted
12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah that's social monogamy, though, right? I'm not sure what biological monogamy means. Even within those species there are instances of non-monogamy, so it isn't "biological."

I used biological monogamy to mean sexual monogamy. Science recognizes three forms of monogamy. Social, sexual and genetic. What most people identify as human monogamy is sexual monogamy where it is actually social monogamy. Sexual monogamy is the pairing of mates for life and is found in nature but humans don't fit the bill.  The biggest evidence of this is the preponderance of adultery in society. If we were sexually monogamous this wouldn't be a common behavior. 

Posted
7 hours ago, jrizzell said:

I think we can all agree after watching those interviews that Harris is just remarkably unlikable. Her fake smiling laughter “tick” is odd and off-putting.

She’s a typical arrogant, smug California liberal.  Hasn’t accomplished anything besides blow married men to get hired and put black people behind bars for drug offenses she herself bragged about.  However, that fake laughter ? Not sure anyone sane could deal with that for 4-8 years. Yikes. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Posted
2 hours ago, dream big said:

She’s a typical arrogant, smug California liberal.  Hasn’t accomplished anything besides blow married men to get hired and put black people behind bars for drug offenses she herself bragged about.  However, that fake laughter ? Not sure anyone sane could deal with that for 4-8 years. Yikes. 

You could just have said "typical Californian"

(From a guy suffering life in the Bay Area)

Posted

This is up there with "you know, the thing!!"

He's confusing Trump with Bush and his wife, multiple times, is side-mouthing "Trump."

 

On a funnier note:

walter-biden.jpg

  • Like 1
Posted
Anyone taking bets on how long Biden will last before Harris takes over if they win?

He’ll serve 12 months; then have the “courage” to step down while his family deals with his newly diagnosed cognitive decline issues. Or they keep his body at the helm, and try and run the country behind the scenes like Cheney did...Either scenario, the most liberal US Senator will be POTUS sooner, rather than never.
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Guardian said:


Synopsis?


I just watched the unedited 60 minutes after watching the actual 60 minutes. Holy crap. What a hit piece 60 minutes did. Man. Amazing liberal editing job. They even had to know the full video was out and they still went out and published their edited junk.

And wow. Biden and K just seething with bold face lies. Never seen anything like it. It was bold in your face flat out lying. With evidence to the contrary already out in public. No fact checking needed. It was as if they were asked what is the most untrue ridiculous way you can answer this. And if K didn’t know the answer, she just awkwardly laughed. Which is her equivalent to Biden’s “come on man”. I’ve never been more sure of who I was voting for then after seeing those two liars tonight.

 

15 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

I wonder if this is one of those things where I'd watch it and come to a completely different interpretation.

It basically lays out all the events that unfolded just prior to and after the 2016 election.  Honestly, I've never been able to put the Steele Dossier, "Russia Gate", General Flynn, Carter Page, Devin Nunes issues into a coherent story.

It's a series of interviews from Trump admin and transition team, DOJ, DIA, CIA, and FBI whistleblowers.

The video presents the entire chain of events and backstories in a way that gives you the nearly complete picture of what happened. Reading the description, I thought it might be a selectively edited and highly spun right-wing propaganda video. Of course, there is a bias, but it seems to be supported by fact after fact after fact. Everything makes sense.

You may watch it and come to a different conclusion, but it'll definitely give you info you didn't have before and make you think little harder about what's going on. If you do find fault in it, I'd be interested to hear it in case I'm being naive.

 

Edited by torqued

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...