 Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814  Well, I'm certain I couldn't prove it to your satisfaction, anyway. You seem more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, than in learning and broadening your understanding of the world, regardless of the topic. | I've clearly given my reasons for thinking the way I do. And all you come up with is BS like the below. Quote: |
I don't call you narrowminded to insult you, fx. When a person is presented with facts that contradict his view (as I have just done), and instead of embracing or even addressing the facts, clings to his disproven view anyway (as you have just done), this is person is being narrowminded.
| You have NOT disproven what I said. I base MY standard on the biological standard of it takes one man and one woman to procreate. THAT standard is CONCRETE. If you would read back you would see that my exact quote was not based on marriage, it was based on the universal exchange that it takes to procreate nearly EVERY living thing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has found a "use" for homosexuality. It's just an aberration like albinism, retardation, and conjoined twins. All of which have also been "observed in nature". Retardation is close the rate of occurrence in the population as homosexuality depending on who you consult on your numbers. Quote: |
Or willfully ignorant, if you prefer.
| I actually prefer to think that anyone who denies the obvious defective characteristics of homosexuality are being "willfully ignorant". Quote:
You sidestepped my "JACK else to say," which was the majority of my post. It consisted of proof that "one man and one woman" is not only NOT the standard, it's not even the most common.
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. | That's based on social norms. Social norms brings us cannibalism, human sacrifice, slaverym and as you mentioned polygamy. Which also happens in nature. LOL. Quote: |
Instead of admitting I had proven you wrong, you changed your argument from "one man one woman is the standard" to "where's the same sex part?"
| And you completely left trying to justify same sex marriage and went to trying to show just how many ways humans have modified "man and woman". The difference is that "man and man" is the "black sheep" of human unions. Quote: |
I didn't address "the same sex part" because it wasn't part of your assertion that "one man one woman is the standard," which you offered after I said, "Before that, marriage was traditionally (and legally) between one man and as many women as he could afford to support."
| But your first post was a lame justification of same sex marriage as if it's just another human option. Of course I don't buy that for one minute. Based on my biological standard of one man and one woman. Quote: |
There was no "same sex part."
| It seems you totally forgot about what you posted in the first place. Quote:
I've heard it said that "it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong." You appear to be a big man, but I've never known you to admit to being proven wrong.
Here is yet another chance.
Consider this a growth opportunity for you.
| I think you are just showing your zeal to "prove me wrong" in something. Maybe you ought to work harder on being right in your own points. Leave proving ME wrong to the professionals.  |