mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

June 06, 2006

Protecting Marriage as an Institution

The monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a fundamental institution of Western and other civilizations that has evolved to both legitimize the fruits of procreation and provide the basic unit for the socialization of children. As an institution, monogamous, heterosexual marriage has endured for thousands of years, indicating that it is an effective, if imperfect method for the propagation of societal values.

Read the Rest

Posted by: Bluto at 01:41 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

1 How about on Darwinian grounds that homosexuality is, well, anti-Darwinian, and thus shouldn't be blessed?

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 01:48 PM (JQjhA)

2 Don't forget "non-incestuous"

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at June 06, 2006 01:48 PM (RIPcF)

3 monogamous, heterosexual marriage = Western civilization = FASCISM!!!!!! Let me marry my male cousin (if I'm gay) and also my sister, ya Nazis!

Posted by: Post From The DU at June 06, 2006 02:20 PM (Gi7oA)

4 I agree, at least in part: The institution of marriage DOES need to be protected -- from the government.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 06, 2006 02:48 PM (FVbj6)

5 This is an example of the times we live in. When we have to protect marriage as between a man, and a women. Everyone knows marriage is between a man, and a women. The New Agers want to push their everything goes religion on every issue that society stands on.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 06, 2006 03:18 PM (D2g/j)

6 Actually, historically speaking, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and another woman. But, again, maybe that's just historical wishful thinking.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 03:28 PM (JQjhA)

7 Very well, Michael. I hereby announce the Universal Church of the Philandering Phallus, taking as our guiding principle the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply". Membership in the UCPP is open to men only. The brothers of the UCPP are encouraged to impregnate as many women as possible: a minimum of 10 babies shall be required for entry into Heaven. The UCPP also recognizes the Islamic principle of taqqiyeh in the pursuit of its mission. The brothers are thereby encouraged to tell the receptacle women that they love them and have had vasectomies.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 06, 2006 03:55 PM (RHG+K)

8 Look at the divorce rates by stae or by region or by religion. They are highest in the south lowest in the northeast. Among christians by denomination highest among conservative evangelicals lowest among lutherans and catholics. But the lowest rate of divorce is among atheists and agnostics. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Posted by: john ryan at June 06, 2006 03:56 PM (TcoRJ)

9 Interesting stats John. I guess a percentage of Christians are taught that sex outside of marriage is bad, so they marry to have sex and then things turn bad, whereas those with loose morals sow their wild oats first then settle.

Posted by: Jester at June 06, 2006 04:03 PM (TuAMG)

10 This not about divorce stupid. This is about limits. The New Age, (lefturds), do not want limits of any kind. For example, Homo marriage, drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, or it is hate speech. Most people would like to see society, and their children learn limits. Attack, attack, attack on all fronts. Push G-d off the planet, so you can find god within yourself, or believe you came from a fish a few million years ago.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 06, 2006 04:21 PM (D2g/j)

11 Leatherneck--what "everyone knows" and what is true are two very different things. As someone else pointed out, the vast majority of human civilizations that have ever been studied by anthropologists have been polygamous (85% according to one book I just read, I think it was freakonomics). The same book points out that what we have today in America is more accurately described as serial polygamy for high status males. Johnny carson, because of his great wealth, is allowed to have multiple young wives. Given that male/female ratios are fairly even, what this does is deny several low status males the opportunity of exclusive breeding. Trophy wives here are the functional equivalents of multiple wives in Islamic societies. (in fact, he argues that Islamic polygamy is a better deal for children than our divorce culture) Everyone, get down off your moralizing high horses. Societies also differ greatly in their level of tolerance of homosexuality, although I'd say the majority that I've read about are hardly pro-gay. And as for those of you bringing up Darwinian ideas to condemn homosexuality--there is actually some research in third generation sociobiology which shows that homosexuality is an advantage, biologically. Seriously. How else do you explain the vast numbers of species that engage in it? If it were not so, the genetic roots of the behavior would have disappeared long ago. (I don't think it is exclusively genetic in humans, incidentally, which drives my liberal gay friends into rage). Not only does it work as an expression of dominance among competitive males, it also creates an extra male defender of his blood relatives (ie, his sister, his brother, etc). A lot of sociobiology is quite speculative, but thinking back to a book I read on it two years ago, I remember it being fairly convincing logic.

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 04:22 PM (aqTJB)

12 Incidentally, this idea that DPB puts forth in his longer post, that monogamy has existed for THOUSANDS of years is a crock of shyte. Jesus lived in a culture that widely tolerated polygamy (if it was good enough for Jesus' era...). As recently as Charlemagne (note, that's AFTER muhammed), it was widely accepted that a king could have several wives in rapid succession, sometimes overlapping, along with many concubines. We had functional polygamy in the upper classes in many Christian societies until well into the modern era. Indeed, an anthropologist looking at American slave culture of the South might reach quite an interesting conclusion about just how monogamous the white southern slaveowner class was. Marriage is a necessary institution to our civil society, but to root it in some fictional history is not necessary. Nor does gay marriage threaten it in any way. If your marriage is threatened by two guys living together in holy matrimony...you don't have much of a marriage, do you?

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 04:28 PM (aqTJB)

13 As it was in the time on Noah, so shall it be at the second comming of the son of man.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 06, 2006 04:38 PM (D2g/j)

14 I for one was appalled at the reattempt to ignite the whole gay marriage ban again, it would seem to me a whole class of people are being denied the right to decide their partners medical treatment, medical benefits etc. while I disagree on principle to gay marriage, I do believe there should be laws for civil unions, which gives all the protections, and rights for the above. It should not be a closed door, it should give legal protection for those whom wish to live their life together. If we need the Government to define "marriage" for us, then we probably have a problem. For me, as an individual, marriage will always be between a man and a women, I do not need the Government to define marriage for me.

Posted by: davec at June 06, 2006 04:42 PM (CcXvt)

15 Â“However, all things which take place in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but signify the life and death of the nationÂ” - Heinrich Himmler, Germany, 1937

Posted by: Sonic at June 06, 2006 05:06 PM (Gsn6c)

16 jd, Jesus lived and died 2,000 years ago. Monogamy existed at that time (and earlier). Thus, in your own words, you concede the point while calling it "shyte". You should have read the whole post for comprehension though. I used no religious justifications, nor did I condemn homosexuality. I simply pointed that, from a utilitarian point of view, monogamous, heterosexual unions have served as the prime socializers of children. If you don't like heterosexual monogamy, then propose something better, but don't discard something that's working without having an alternative ready. PS: Sorry your folks got divorced, but it was probably your fault.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 06, 2006 05:15 PM (RHG+K)

17 Oh shit, that's cold, Bluto. Which is why I'm laughing my ass off.

Posted by: Vinnie at June 06, 2006 05:29 PM (/qy9A)

18 "I simply pointed that, from a utilitarian point of view, monogamous, heterosexual unions have served as the prime socializers of children." This may be true, but has anyone thought about the fact that children of heterosexual couples benefit more because children of homosexual couples live a life of prejudice and bigotry, which is caused by your conservative activists.

Posted by: d at June 06, 2006 05:29 PM (gs7t+)

19 d: that's possible. It's also possible that having both a father and mother is most conducive to a healthy environment for raising children. In any event, homosexual couples cannot produce children, so that issue isn't germane to the post.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 06, 2006 06:16 PM (RHG+K)

20 IMPEACH TED KENNEDY,IMPEACH TED KENNEDY,IMPEACH TED KENNEDY

Posted by: sandpiper at June 06, 2006 08:16 PM (Zy1Y5)

21 75% of the blacks born in New Orleans are bastards. So what's the diff. They still get their welfare checks and de govment still supplies de govment housing at $67.00 per month. Anyone knows who pays that bill?

Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:29 AM (v72Rt)

22 Right, impeach Ted Kennedy...how DARE there be a senator who isn't an asshole - bigot!!! We need prejudice and bigotry in this country to keep it alive. HATE HATE HATE!!! Isn't that what we're all about??? Damn Ted Kennedy for speaking out against bigotry!!!

Posted by: d at June 07, 2006 08:43 AM (gs7t+)

23 People abuse their children. Therefore the institution of parents having custody over "children" is wrong and fascist The institution of "parents" is based on false history Let's destroy the concept of "parenting" If you disagree, you must be a bad parent and feel threatened or you are a bigot

Posted by: liberal talking points at June 07, 2006 08:55 AM (Gi7oA)

24 Sorry, the book I referred to above was not Freakonomics, it was the Moral Animal, a brilliant work that uses Darwin's own life to illustrate recent research in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. DPB--when you said "thousands of years" and I replied by pointing out that both Jesus and Charlemagne lived in worlds where polygamy was widely tolerated (either through open multiple marriages or through concubinage, much the same thing), what that said was that "thousands" was not accurate. Maybe, at best, "a thousand". Human civilizations have historically been polygamous. That doesn't make that "right". But it does mean that appealing to ancient history to support monogamy is factually incorrect, and thus, "shyte". Homosexual marriages can produce children. It happened to two women friends of mine. Oh, sure, one of them used some other guy's sperm. But if that is not valid, then what about all the adoptions by heterosexual couples? Some heteros also use artificial insemination. I'm familiar with the teleological arguments that modern followers of Aquinas use (infertile hetero couples still follow God's chosen FORM for reproduction, even if they need assistance on the means) but unless one supports that form of religious argument (as you, apparently, do not) then the distinction between the gay parents and the adoptive straight parents is meaningless. My parents have been married since 1961, and still live together, often without bickering, although that's day to day. They don't think their gay next door neighbors threaten their marriage. Would someone please explain how the institution of marriage is threatened by gay couples? Incidentally, Dave--very well said.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 09:57 AM (aqTJB)

25 jd: monogamous marriage, as an institution, has indeed been around for thousands of years. I did not state that it was the only form of legitimizing and raising offspring; you're reading something into the piece that isn't there. Unless you're stating that the institution of monogamous marriage was created a thousand years ago, or less. Polygamy has historically been the province of the rich. Serfs and peasants didn't have harems. You state that homosexual marriages can produce children, then admit that the sperm came from a donor. Why be so transparently disingenuous? It seems to be a sign of desperation. Your adoption argument is weak, unless you are advocating that all gay couples who want to marry be required to adopt children. I think you can see why forcing people to adopt is not a good idea. Adoption is a choice that has to be uncoerced, and come from the heart. There is also the question of suitability for parenthood. Note that by my concept of the purpose of marriage, heterosexual marrieds who choose not to have children are gaming the system, but such people are a small minority. In fact, all of your arguments involve focussing on the actions of tiny minorities. Sanctioning gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage by invalidating its definition, and legitimizing other forms of "marriage" under the Constitutional principle of equal protection. A good mechanic doesn't disassemble a working engine unless he's convinced he can reassemble it so that it will function better than it did before.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 07, 2006 10:24 AM (RHG+K)

26 DPB--You missed the part where infertile couples also use sperm donors to create children. And yes, we are talking about a small minority, but if it is a question of principle, and you really see gay couples as a "threat" to marriage because they are, in your opinion, non-procreative, then you should deny infertile couples the right of marriage, to remain consistent. If your point was just that monogamy has been around for thousands of years, well, okay. Since it coexisted with polygamy (or was actually secondary to it in many cultures, you are not correct to say it was only the rich) and in some cultures, co-existed with recognized roles for homosexual conduct, why then is it that you are so deathly afraid of gay marriage as a corrosive force on your marriage and the institution itself? As for your toolbox metaphor--a similar argument could be made against all reforms, couldn't it? Let's not get rid of child labor, or slavery. Let's not desegregate the schools, since we aren't sure if integrated schools can work (this was an argument made by many segregationists). It was also an argument used to deny women the right to vote. It is an argument that appears in Islamic countries in opposition to the right of women to drive. This is a perversion of the conservative values espoused by Burke. Often conservatives are right to resist new changes, but to win the argument, they have to make specific claims about the change, not generalized metaphorical opposition that could apply to ANY change. If you can't actually have any ammunition showing how this hurts marriage, you have a weak argument indeed. And that is evidently the case.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 10:53 AM (aqTJB)

27 Why not let federalism work this out? IE, as Louis Brandeis said, states are the laboratories of democracy. If in five years, marriages are collapsing in Massachusetts, but are thriving in Texas (the opposite of what is happening now in hetero marriages in those states) then we'll know that the rest of the states should not copy. But if, instead, this is seen as good way to resolve a social debate, then the rest of the states can copy Massachusetts, modifying it to meet their own state needs. (If God strikes Massachusetts with locusts, earthquakes, plagues, floods, and the Bachman Turner Overdrive, well, we won't copy it, either).

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 02:26 PM (aqTJB)

28 Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the Republican party preaches all about a state government, but now they are whining because they want to pass this federal law? Anything to meet their own needs...

Posted by: d at June 07, 2006 02:49 PM (gs7t+)

29 G-d said mem sleeping with men is an abomination.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 07, 2006 04:20 PM (D2g/j)

30 Leatherneck, G_D also said that if your wife cooks while she's having her period, that's a sin, that if you blaspheme, you should be killed, that if you refuse to make children with your brother's widow, G-D will punish you...using the bible as a direct reference on how to live your life (or what the LAW of a democratic republic should be) is a very tricky thing. the bible also specifies stoning as the penalty for adultery. Oh, and it doesn't allow divorce. Tell you what--you Republicans come out in favor of those last two things as a question of law in America, and I'll support a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. Deal?

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 04:43 PM (aqTJB)

31 Isnt there more pressing issues in this country than gay marriage? Seriously here

Posted by: Splatter at June 07, 2006 05:23 PM (heS+8)

32 And one more thing: remember here at Jawa when the iranian letter came out, and people all over the conservative blogosphere pointed to surface similarities and said "Democrat talking points!" just because there was some overlap on parts of the letter. Well, you know who agrees with you all about homosexual marriage being an abomination? Islamofascists. You know who agrees with you all about abortion? Islamofascists. You know who agrees with you all about abstinence only education? Islamofascists. I would NEVER make the ridiculous claim that the overlap in your agendas mean that you are allies of islamofascism. But it is at LEAST as fair as what was said about "democrat talking points" in the Iranian letter.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 05:54 PM (aqTJB)

33 Yea, but in Islam they will cut your head off if you do not see it their way. I just think your heart, and mind is twisted. G-d loves you, and died for your sins, so you can live forever. Maybe, you do not believe in sin, and you can find god within yourself.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 07, 2006 06:16 PM (D2g/j)

34 JD has just proven there is some good in every religion.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 07:28 PM (di2KJ)

35 In fact, Islam is BETTER than Christianity, since they actually kill the homosexuals, right rooster? They got courage that you wish we had, huh?

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 08:50 PM (DQYHA)

36 According to the Bible it's also against God's law to touch a pig. So, if you've ever touched a football then I guess you're burning in hell with all of the other infidels. Oh yeah, if a woman who is menstruating even TOUCHES a man (not just sexually, literally touches him -- even his arm) then she is going to hell too. Don't go throwing the Bible around because those of us who support homosexual people can throw it right back at you and make you eat all of your words! God is about LOVE people! Trust me, I was in Catholic school for 16 years! Guess what, homosexuals LOVE as well as heterosexuals! If you don't realize this then you truly are ignorant and stupid, as well as uneduacated. I don't see how loving another human being can be wrong -- whether it be a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Love is love and it isn't defined as being strictly between a man and a woman. I'm willing to bet that at least a couple of people who comment about how horrible homosexuality is, is in the closet themselves. It's known that many homophobes are just scared of their own sexuality. However, if you are Republican and a fundamentalist, then you live your life by judging and hating others, filled with bigotry. Love is such a foreign concept to you judgemental idiots. I guess I can understand why God actaully loving, and others loving each other can be such an "abomination"...my bad.

Posted by: d at June 08, 2006 06:54 AM (gs7t+)

37 D--I think you are misreading the old testament. It doesn't say "go to hell". The idea of punishment in the afterlife is not as clear in the bible as many Christians and their critics think. Satan appears seldom in the bible and much of the afterlife speculation is just that, speculation. The specific passages you reference in leviticus say that those who engage in that conduct are ritually unclean. That meant that they had to engage in purification rituals. A lot of those rules made hygenic sense at the time. More people have been saved by hand washing than vaccines. On love, though, you and I are in agreement!

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 09:23 AM (DQYHA)

38 >>>The monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a fundamental institution of Western and other civilizations that has evolved to both legitimize the fruits of procreation and provide the basic unit for the socialization of children. As an institution, monogamous, heterosexual marriage has endured for thousands of years, indicating that it is an effective, if imperfect method for the propagation of societal values.<<< Yes, and all of that will go down the tubes if gays get their marriages (their current ones) recognized by the government. If gays get married that means that heteros can't. It's airtight logic people.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 03:20 PM (ZucvC)

39 Oh the irony. This post right after a post lauding those polygamous mormons.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 03:27 PM (ZucvC)

40 "If gays get married that means that heteros can't." Uhh...again, logic? I reiterate...uneducated. Guess what, gay people have been getting married in MA for 3 years and we have one of the lowest divorce rates in the nation, and more and more heteros are getting married along with homosexuals. The statement you made makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is the dumbest thing I've ever heard...even for a conservative.

Posted by: d at June 08, 2006 05:48 PM (gs7t+)

41 jd, when I was talking about "going to hell" I was spewing back the same sh*t that the fundamentalists have been throwing out. They say that homosexuals as well as those of us who support homosexuals are all going to hell. I was just quoting them. I get what you mean though