Man
This is Adam as painted by Albrecht Dürer. He is a man.Adam was a father, the father of the human race. Since the time of Adam all fathers have been men. No man has ever been mother to a child.
All children that have ever been born have had exactly one father.
Woman
And this is Eve, the other half of the painting. She is a woman.Eve was a mother, the first mother and mother to all humanity. And since the time of Eve all mothers have been women, without exception.
And all children that have ever been born have had exactly one mother.
And whether Adam and Eve actually existed or whether they are figures of myth is of little consequence in this regard. It is self evident, supported by human experience and biology that the pairing of exactly one male with exactly one female is what required to produce a child - the next generation to carry on.
To meet this necessity God, if you are a believer, or culture if you are not, has provided the institution of marriage. And necessity it is, for without the next generation there is no future at all. Cultures which fail to procreate disappear, overwhelmed by those that do.
And Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. And it has been this way, to coin a phrase, since Adam was a cowboy. To be sure there have been societies that have adopted plural marriages(1) but no long term progressive society has ever been anything other than monogamous, unique pairings with one man married to one woman.
Other benefits from marriage ensue of course, such as companionship but it is the raising of children that is the primary purpose.
And none of this was in any doubt until very recently.
But in this age of absurdity there are those who see this arrangement as a civil rights violation. And those that point out what used to be called the "facts of life" are called "bigots".
Perhaps we should to go back to first principles for these folk - and give them the kindergarten talk about the "birds and the bees".
But they probably would be sloganizing far too loudly to hear a word.
To meet this necessity God, if you are a believer, or culture if you are not, has provided the institution of marriage. And necessity it is, for without the next generation there is no future at all. Cultures which fail to procreate disappear, overwhelmed by those that do.
And Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. And it has been this way, to coin a phrase, since Adam was a cowboy. To be sure there have been societies that have adopted plural marriages(1) but no long term progressive society has ever been anything other than monogamous, unique pairings with one man married to one woman.
Other benefits from marriage ensue of course, such as companionship but it is the raising of children that is the primary purpose.
And none of this was in any doubt until very recently.
But in this age of absurdity there are those who see this arrangement as a civil rights violation. And those that point out what used to be called the "facts of life" are called "bigots".
Perhaps we should to go back to first principles for these folk - and give them the kindergarten talk about the "birds and the bees".
But they probably would be sloganizing far too loudly to hear a word.
(1) In societies where men can have multiple wives many men have no wives. This leads to violent warlike societies which have a need to conquer their neighbors. This serves two purposes foremost the capture of additional women to make up for the shortfall of wives and secondly the elimination of surplus males.
The only time christian society has supported polygamy, that I am aware of,was in parts of Germany after the thirty years war. In this case there had been a major population decline through the ravages of that war - and the males had suffered far more than the females leading to a shortage of the former and a surplus of the later. Thus for one generation polygamy was permitted to rebuild the population as a pragmatic solution to rebuilding their society.
Related Link:
"Perhaps we should to go back to first principles for these folk - and give them the kindergarten talk about the "birds and the bees".They're teaching about the "birds and the bees" at kindergarten now?
ReplyDeleteAnd Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of
ReplyDeleteprocreation. And it has been this way, to coin a phrase, since Adam was a
cowboy.
Not so much. As you alluded to anthropologists find at least some amount of
polygamy in most societies (cf. the old testament) and biological evidence
suggests for most of the history of our species there has been a much greater
variance in the mating success of males than females (ie few males had
children to many females). This is evidenced by our sexual dimorphism and the
relatively small variety of Y-chromosome sequence in modern humans (this is
also why "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" lived about 120 000 years
apart from each other).
You are probably right that cultures that have adopted marriage as a way for
males to claim reproductive rights over a particular female have been able to
move along by limiting this source of conflict, which is pretty near universal
in tribal societies. But does that really sound like a principle we should
enshrine in law! For most people marriage doesn't have anything to do with
reproductive rights (we even let post-menopausal woman marry!) or God's
favorite way of bringing up children (of course, you're more than welcome to
hold to that view) it's simply a way in which people can declare their
commitment to someone and have society recognise that relationship. I can't
image why someone shouldn't be allowed to do that just because they happened
to fall in love with someone of the same sex (and if the closest thing you can
get to a secular argument for it is "that's the way it's always been" not many
others will).
Hi David. A couple things you say I wonder about:
ReplyDeletecultures that have adopted marriage as a way for males to claim reproductive rights over a particular female
That's only one perspective. Another way of looking at it is that a man is committed to a women to the benefit of herself and the children. From a man's perspective, it's a voluntary reduction in freedom to the mutual benefit of the family as a unit.
I can't image why someone shouldn't be allowed to do that just because they happened
to fall in love with someone of the same sexThat's what a civil union was originally meant to handle, and nothing a contract couldn't handle. Gay couples don't just want tolerance though, they want endorsement and full rights to have children, albeit from other parents.
Some people feel that there is a better natural balance having both a father and a mother in a person's life, and this feeling ties in with the natural aversion to encouraging single parent families, easy divorce and same sex parents - as things society could be trying to reduce not expand.
These situations are tolerated, because sometimes there is no alternative, or its the best alternative. They don't have to be encouraged though. (At least that is the way I read the protest against weakening the sacrament of marriage.)
Hi Zen,
ReplyDeleteThat's only one perspective. Another way of looking at it is that a man is committed to a women to the benefit of herself and the children. From a man's perspective, it's a voluntary reduction in freedom to the mutual benefit of the family as a unit.
Sure, but that's part of the drift from marriage = reproduction to marriage as an institution that people choose to enter in to.
If you separate marriage from reproduction gay adoption (you're other comments) becomes a different argument.
You mean if you break it down to the point it can mean anything, you can make it mean anything?
ReplyDeleteIf you are comfortable arguing that marriage is all about male control, I'm comfortable arguing that women are smarter than that.
No, I mean if Andrei's argument is marriage should be between and a man and a woman because marriage has always been about reproduction then he doesn't have much of an argument.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of NZers don't see marriage as a female trick to ensnare males or male hedge betting. Neither do they think of it at as a plan from God for bringing up children. Being a forward looking sort of a bloke I'd like to see laws reflect that (and I don't see how that would stop religious people from seeing their marriage as a sacrament).
Anyway, I'm off, have a good weekend
H David. I think Andrei's argument is much deeper than that.
ReplyDeleteIt's perhaps because those that advocate marriage (as distinct from state recognition of a relationship) seem to boil it down to the crude.
The vast majority of NZers don't see marriage as a female trick to ensnare males or male hedge betting.Exactly. I didn't suggest that females trick men, and your characterisation of men controlling women in a monogamous relationship, versus say polygamy or not having marriage at all, is IMHO, only going to reinforce the common interpretation rather than the sacramental concept.
Neither do they think of it at as a plan from God for bringing up children.Which explains the huge number of divorces with children involved and single parent families. It's a pity more don't see the fundamental importance of a whole family, and treat it with more respect. This would require a major shift in society though, and instead we see it only getting worse.
Being a forward looking sort of a bloke I'd like to see laws reflect thatThis is the interesting part. That's what I thought this was about for a long time. Now I'm not so sure, and not sure of the impact on recognition, versus endorsement, versus entitlement.
Such thoughts will play out more clearly when and if the polygamy debate comes around.
(and I don't see how that would stop religious people from seeing their marriage as a sacrament).Neither do I, and I'm not so sure why this idea often brought up. I don't think people argue their own marriage is personally devalued by gay marriage, or polygamy, or arranged marriages or whatever, I think that argument is put forward mostly by gay lobbyists who make the argument and then debunk it.
I see good potential though for the religious community to promote marriage by covenant as a Christian marriage, and separate it out from state recognition.
That's a big discussion for another day though.
hAve a good one.
"I see good potential though for the religious community to promote marriage by covenant as a Christian marriage, and separate it out from state recognition."
ReplyDeleteQuite, indeed the state need not recognise anything beyond a contracted partnership. It should ideally have as little to do with the state as possible, then it becomes academic. Marriage becomes a personal thing between consenting adults. Religions will recognise specific rules around what marriage means for them.
I strongly support allowing gay marriage, but I'd deregulate laws around it so it became strictly contractual (existing ones are assumed contracts based on law at the time).
I largely agree, LS.
ReplyDeleteThe complications though with the state being involved is recognition of various relationship types as having equal entitlements, especially in the absence of a contract, which is slightly different than equal rights.
Just as de facto relationships are increasingly treated as equal to a marriage, and in some cases this has resulted in property splits to the shock of a cheating partner.
Funnily enough, this is now affecting gay couples, who statistically have a higher propensity for "adultery".
It's also affecting married couples whose cheating partner has established a long term de facto relationship elsewhere. Suddenly the property is divided up in three ways, because the de facto wife and the actual wife (assuming its the husband who is the cheating slime in this case) are deemed equal. Basically, that's polygamy via the back door.
And again, marriage and families is about rasing children, because that is the justification for such laws:
While protection of children was a motive for the laws, Professor Parkinson said, they will have an ongoing effect on those who have been divorced and want to keep their property separate in a second relationship. There's more to the picture than just state recognition of relationships. It comes back to marriage being about families.
New De Facto laws
it's simply a way in which people can declare their
ReplyDeletecommitment to someone and have society recognise that relationship.Why does society need to recognize that relationship? To what purpose?
The reason why the "in sickness and in health until death do us part" model of marriage is important is because of the investment and commitment required in time and financial resources to raise kids.
Make no mistake about it - gay marriage is not about anything other than further weakening the institution of marriage a long term goal of the left. By separating reproduction from marriage it essentially becomes meaningless.
The well meaning people who support it are in the terms of Stalin "useful idiots".
The problem is of course the lefts onslaught on marriage has resulted in a massive lowering of the birth rate which is leading to a demographic crisis.
Who is going to inherit the earth?
Its not going to be western liberals, that's for sure.
PS monogamous marriage is not about a male securing "reproductive rights" over a female. Given the asymmetry between males and females it actually helps to equalize this as compared to the harem type of arrangement that exists with polygamy don't you think?
Or the sire and run model where the father conceives a kid and takes no responsibility for its upbringing, leaving the mother holding the baby - literally.
Monogamous marriage is the fairest and most successful way of managing the issue of ensuring that there will be a generation to follow yet devised.
We abandon it at our peril.
"They're teaching about the "birds and the bees" at kindergarten now?"
ReplyDeleteThey'd be teaching them gay sex in kinder Sean, if they could.
"Monogamous marriage is the fairest and most successful way of managing the issue of ensuring that there will be a generation to follow yet devised."
It is also one of the reasons for the success of western society. Which explains why the left hate it so much.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting discussion--until the juvenile loudmouth turned up.
ReplyDeleteM K,
ReplyDeleteThey'd be teaching them gay sex in kinder Sean, if they could.
Give them time. They will be claiming that by talking to the little ones about families of Mummy an Daddy they must also talk about " families" with either two Mummies and/or two Daddies otherwise some of the little ones in such situations will feel discriminated against or left out or some such claim .. stories told will have to inclufe stories with such families .
Such may not yet be the case but then did we ever think that any form of sex education would enter the sphere of kindergartens?
Mrs Mac
Sorry Big Clip,
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to comment on a post, at least read it. Otherwise you are just trolling and for that reason your comment was deleted.