IGX

dead man walking wrote:there is an extensive record of societies in which fidelity is not required or expected in marriage.

my recollection is that there is an view that says once humans settled down and became owners of property, the economic bargain of marriage led to exclusivity (i don't want some other fucker's kids getting my land).

Bingo....with the exception that settling down also meant the need for family based labor force. ergo polygamy becomes the best practice not monogamy.

I suspect the drunken one's entire "human history" goes back to roughly the 1920's in the USA.

"Marriage" as a contract is not now nor has it ever been a static institution in recorded human history. Furthermore, the practice of monogamous pair bonding in primates simply does not happen. Doesn't matter what you wish were true, monogamy as an actual practice is the exception/aberration. Serial Monogamy is the kinship system we claim to practice, the actual practice is much more fluid.

Pretty interesting article written by a former transgender regarding the Bruce/Caitlyn issue and that it could be a psychological issue.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/06/bru ... al-crisis/

Holy Shit.....


You did read that first didn't you?

Walt Heyer is an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery.

Walt/Laura might have a bit of a bias...nomesaying? Jesus fuck this board is like 91% terrified of gender issues and 1% completely sprung by them (EZ). Personally I think it's kind of an amusing fucked up story whatever the psychological issues that gave rise to it....but last nail in what?

Here's a quote from the same website, different and yet typical article....

Meanwhile there’s not a peep about one of the most dangerous activities people engage in all the time—premarital sex. Or extramarital sex. Or, dare I say the word—fornication? Or does that make me sound too judgmental? Probably, but the word fits because sex is loaded with moral implications: The possibility of dysfunctional relationships, of sexually transmitted diseases, of an unwanted pregnancy or abortion. The possibility of guilt, shame, depression, and suicide.

You want to back this retardation?

Culture Wars are so droll...in that the only ones fighting them are the ones who already lost.

Marriage as an institution has nothing to do with "pair bonding", imo. The institution of marriage came about around the same time we got sophisticated enough to dream up the idea of " property rights" and "ownership". If men were going to spend their precious resources raising sons and daughters, they wanted some assurance that those sons and daughters were the result of their seed. Knowing what we know about fidelity rates that's not much of an assurance, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Marriage as an institution has nothing to do with "pair bonding", imo. The institution of marriage came about around the same time we got sophisticated enough to dream up the idea of " property rights" and "ownership". If men were going to spend their precious resources raising sons and daughters, they wanted some assurance that those sons and daughters were the result of their seed. Knowing what we know about fidelity rates that's not much of an assurance, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

You're needlessly hung up on better or worse. There just is.

Retard Drunk Monkey up in here seems to think monogamous marriage is some species prevalent practice with a biological imperative. It's not, in fact it's rare and based on a number of notions including pair bonding that don't correspond with actual practice. Marriage is a useful cultural tool... like hammers and whorehouses...probably less useful than a hammer but with more useful than a whorehouse.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Marriage as an institution has nothing to do with "pair bonding", imo. The institution of marriage came about around the same time we got sophisticated enough to dream up the idea of " property rights" and "ownership". If men were going to spend their precious resources raising sons and daughters, they wanted some assurance that those sons and daughters were the result of their seed. Knowing what we know about fidelity rates that's not much of an assurance, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

You're needlessly hung up on better or worse. There just is.

i just appreciate kaz's restating my basic point from the previous page. i feel validated. it's important for men to support each other.

perhaps we can get robert bly to host an igx retreat. all you guys of uncertain manhood can put the gender reassignment on hold. and if we showed bd more love, he might be less argumentative. imagine how poor turd feels having his ass chewed like a rawhide dog toy.

dead man walking wrote:perhaps we can get robert bly to host an igx retreat. all you guys of uncertain manhood can put the gender reassignment on hold. and if we showed bd more love, he might be less argumentative. imagine how poor turd feels having his ass chewed like a rawhide dog toy.

The trouble is this....when I get a good night's sleep I'm just a jackass. Keeping me overtired, ignored and in the squat rack is much safer for everyone.

The fact that you've had to convince yourselves that marriage doesn't presuppose fidelity, points to the real lack of logic in the homo-marriage discourse.

Of course, this lack of logic is at the heart of the relativist zeitgeist. It's totemic of the new "I think it therefore it must be true" philosophy of, for instance, the gen-Xers. It also happens to be the philosophy that's allowed the "United Nations, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, George Soros and his thousands of NGO's, Hollywood, all of the Hollywood stars, The Music Industry, all of the MSM, the EU, Global Finance, Multinationals, pretty much the entire Irish and European Political establishments and Stephen Fry*" to convince you that gay marriage is just no big deal.

*From Green To Pink: Gay Marriage In Ireland

Nothing could be further from the truth. Before you set about defining what marriage is you might want to see...what...marriage...is..you know historically and shit. You call this cultural relativism. It's not. It's observing what is demonstrably true. Even in the narrow slice of Marriage In AMERICA...People say they want thing one (LIFELONG FIDELITY) ...then they act in a way that indicates they want thing two (FUCKING OTHER PEOPLE).

Obvious finding. Saying you want thing one satisfies some urges not satisfied by getting thing two. Marriage presupposes lifelong fidelity that simply doesn't occur the majority of the time.

Or...we go with the more obvious finding: you know literally nothing about human history and are imprinting blinkered nonsense on an incredibly old, nuanced and fluid cultural tool.

In before, "marriage is for procreation only".

Not as closely as you did, obviously. The only thing I got from it is that ol' Bruce may have other mental issues and may not really want to be a woman.

This only makes me think that I probably need to take a break from FB for a while as I have been pondering on lately.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Holy Shit.....


You did read that first didn't you?

Walt Heyer is an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery.

Walt/Laura might have a bit of a bias...nomesaying? Jesus fuck this board is like 91% terrified of gender issues and 1% completely sprung by them (EZ). Personally I think it's kind of an amusing fucked up story whatever the psychological issues that gave rise to it....but last nail in what?

Here's a quote from the same website, different and yet typical article....

Meanwhile there’s not a peep about one of the most dangerous activities people engage in all the time—premarital sex. Or extramarital sex. Or, dare I say the word—fornication? Or does that make me sound too judgmental? Probably, but the word fits because sex is loaded with moral implications: The possibility of dysfunctional relationships, of sexually transmitted diseases, of an unwanted pregnancy or abortion. The possibility of guilt, shame, depression, and suicide.

You want to back this retardation?

Culture Wars are so droll...in that the only ones fighting them are the ones who already lost.

The only thing I got from it is that ol' Bruce may have other mental issues and may not really want to be a woman.

It's good that you're putting your psychology PhD to good use.

the concept that our personal vows need to be sanctified by some titanic institution like the church or state is fascistic.

yid, you were a much better poster when you first joined and pretended to be humorous and sane.

Thud wrote:yid, you were a much better poster when you first joined and pretended to be humorous and sane.

He's quickly beginning to rival Palin when it comes to useless word salads.

Just going by the author's personal experience. Did I post the right fucking article? Goddamn. I may need to take a break from the internet all together.

Testiclaw wrote:

The only thing I got from it is that ol' Bruce may have other mental issues and may not really want to be a woman.

It's good that you're putting your psychology PhD to good use.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:The fact that you've had to convince yourselves that marriage doesn't presuppose fidelity, points to the real lack of logic in the homo-marriage discourse.

Of course, this lack of logic is at the heart of the relativist zeitgeist. It's totemic of the new "I think it therefore it must be true" philosophy of, for instance, the gen-Xers. It also happens to be the philosophy that's allowed the "United Nations, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, George Soros and his thousands of NGO's, Hollywood, all of the Hollywood stars, The Music Industry, all of the MSM, the EU, Global Finance, Multinationals, pretty much the entire Irish and European Political establishments and Stephen Fry*" to convince you that gay marriage is just no big deal.

*From Green To Pink: Gay Marriage In Ireland

I just want to preserve this hellacious shitscape of a post....it has everything needed to craft a tinfoil barricade against reality.

Thud wrote:the concept that our personal vows need to be sanctified by some titanic institution like the church or state is fascistic.

yid, you were a much better poster when you first joined and pretended to be humorous and sane.

This kinda goes to the heart of the matter here: my views on marriage haven't changed from 5 years ago.

And it's because they haven't changed that I'm now considered crazy or extreme. There's something deeply totalitarian about that.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote: totalitarian

say what?

you're entitled to your view. no one is going to lock you up.

many in society have changed their minds. they may have concluded your thinking is benighted. but you're not being punished or cast out. you're just being bullied a little in a remote and irrelevant place that still allows, even welcomes, bullying, unlike most of society.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Thud wrote:the concept that our personal vows need to be sanctified by some titanic institution like the church or state is fascistic.

yid, you were a much better poster when you first joined and pretended to be humorous and sane.

This kinda goes to the heart of the matter here: my views on marriage haven't changed from 5 years ago.

And it's because they haven't changed that I'm now considered crazy or extreme.

This presupposes that holding the same views 5 or 10 or 50 years later is a virtue. That depends on what those views are, which you haven't really explained. But views on marriage that were widespread 10 years ago were pretty flawed.

For example, conservative people looked at any number of secular marriages that really made mockery of the institution as "none of my business," but had a real problem with the state recognizing gay marriages that were otherwise pretty traditional. And that mostly came down to "ew, two dudes."

There's something deeply totalitarian about that.

No there isn't.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Thud wrote:the concept that our personal vows need to be sanctified by some titanic institution like the church or state is fascistic.

yid, you were a much better poster when you first joined and pretended to be humorous and sane.

This kinda goes to the heart of the matter here: my views on marriage haven't changed from 5 years ago.

And it's because they haven't changed that I'm now considered crazy or extreme. There's something deeply totalitarian about that.

I don't know about your views on marriage, I'm saying your whole identity changed. People first thought you were Rant, now they think you're Turd.

The only thing totalitarian are your views on marriage, which are dictated by religion, which you're trying to pawn of as anthropology.

Testiclaw wrote:

The only thing I got from it is that ol' Bruce may have other mental issues and may not really want to be a woman.

It's good that you're putting your psychology PhD to good use.

So, the desire to mutilate one's body and change genders is not indicative of mental illnes?
Edited for fucked up auto correct

I don't know what to tell you fucking guys. I accept that you look around and shrug and see nothing to be alarmed about and nothing really changing... I just don't get it. Your headspace is so utterly different than mine. Society is going to be more like it is now and you all are sanguine about it. It amazes me. You can look on the ascendancy of lady Gaga and Johnny Weir and Jenner etc and just chill? I go out in public and I see what "normal" is and I... I don't know. It is not ok to me... That is all I can tell you.

bennyonesix wrote:I don't know what to tell you fucking guys. I accept that you look around and shrug and see nothing to be alarmed about and nothing really changing... I just don't get it. Your headspace is so utterly different than mine. Society is going to be more like it is now and you all are sanguine about it. It amazes me. You can look on the ascendancy of lady Gaga and Johnny Weir and Jenner etc and just chill? I go out in public and I see what "normal" is and I... I don't know. It is not ok to me... That is all I can tell you.

If I go outside and look fat is the norm not having your schwantz chopped off

there's an important question being overlooked.

if you do anal with a tranny, does that make you gay?

There was a book written 25 years ago called "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's".

There's a quote from it that I think is pertinent here:

Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned.... Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof.... the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not.

This is why I stated earlier that it's the method and speed of deliberate opinion manipulation that amazes me. It's as if this change was inevitable so long as those who had the motive and means to brainwash us actually decided to do so.

And again, Chomsky was right. But not about who was doing the brainwashing.