Thanks to Wired for excerpting my post on what DNA has to say about one-man-one-woman marriage. When the editors told me that they were going to run the excerpt, I thought at first that it might be a bit stale by the time the magazine came out. But it seems today that the proper form of marriage is on the nation's mind again...
More like this
You probably know that I am quite interested in the history, current state, evolution and future of the institution of marriage, mainly because it is an important indicator of societal attitudes towards sex and towards gender-relations, which is the key to understanding political ideology. Between…
You probably know that I am quite interested in the history, current state, evolution and future of the institution of marriage, mainly because it is an important indicator of societal attitudes towards sex and towards gender-relations, which is the key to understanding political ideology. Between…
This is two years old (February 16, 2005) but still as provocative....(also my belated contirbution to the Blog For Choice Day) and I'll repost the second part of it next Friday.
-----------------------------------------------
William Raspberry wrote an editorial in Washington Post last weekend (I…
Please, someone, tell the priests to go tend to their rituals and quit pretending to ha have any understanding of reality. A new archbishop has tried to use biology to argue for his archaic moral position, and I just want to slap him.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan yesterday said advocates of gay…
Not stale, fascinating, but irrelevant.
The issue doesn't have anything to do with science or what the DNA tells us--that's irrelevant. The issue has to do with what voters perceive as the sin of homosexuality.
Biology, Anthropology, alas, contribute nothing to the resolution of this issue.
I really don't see what this has to do with the current debate on gay marriage. Your post seems more like an argument for 19th century Mormonism rather than modern gay rights.
Xguy, I think Carl's point is that people who argue heterosexual marriage is the only moral option because it's the "natural" option, don't know what they're talking about. He doesn't accept that the predominant form in human history is the only acceptable form of behavior.
Or perhaps it is none others business than the 2 humans invoved in the relationship. Marriage is the union and celebration of love, it is a not a subject that should be debated between politicians, nor is it any person's right to tell any human that they can not marry the mate of their choice.
Xguy, I think Carl's point is that people who argue heterosexual marriage is the only moral option because it's the "natural" option, don't know what they're talking about. He doesn't accept that the predominant form in human history is the only acceptable form of behavior.
Are you saying that a homosexual marriage could be described as natural? How could a non-reproductive form of marriage be considered natural?
No, Xguy, the simple point is that "natural" does not equate with what modern societies consider to be moral. People have to look for other foundations for their morality.