Prev: HOT DATING&CHATTING WITH LOVELY PARTNERS
Next: ASD on the Web
From: DC on 7 Sep 2008 14:00
"In 'I Don�t: A Contrarian History of Marriage,'
http://atu.ca/IDont Susan Squire explains that...there is
no single coherent principle behind modern marriage. As
currently practiced, the institution is a hodgepodge of
biblical, classical, courtly and Christian rules and mores.
What we know as 'marriage' is rooted in warring historical
efforts at regulating procreation; tamping down sexual
lust...; and � only relatively recently � celebrating
companionship and romantic love. Those of us who speak
reverently about the sanctity of marriage must also
acknowledge that modern matrimony is less a sacred vessel
than a crazy quilt..."

NY Times book review: http://atu.ca/1e8b2

From: Blue on 7 Sep 2008 14:46
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:00:08 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody(a)pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>"In 'I Don�t: A Contrarian History of Marriage,'
>http://atu.ca/IDont Susan Squire explains that...there is
>no single coherent principle behind modern marriage. As
>currently practiced, the institution is a hodgepodge of
>biblical, classical, courtly and Christian rules and mores.
>What we know as 'marriage' is rooted in warring historical
>efforts at regulating procreation; tamping down sexual
>lust...; and � only relatively recently � celebrating
>companionship and romantic love. Those of us who speak
>reverently about the sanctity of marriage must also
>acknowledge that modern matrimony is less a sacred vessel
>than a crazy quilt..."
>
>NY Times book review: http://atu.ca/1e8b2
>
Likely predominate, although it's just as likely it was two people
getting together to survive. Combinations, percentages and pendulium
swings

thank you.

The 50's kind of resemble the birth and death of an age.

If there's anybody around in a hundred years, I wonder what they'll
think of their ape like ancestors?
From: Doug Laidlaw on 8 Sep 2008 04:22
DC wrote:

> "In 'I Don�t: A Contrarian History of Marriage,'
> http://atu.ca/IDont Susan Squire explains that...there is
> no single coherent principle behind modern marriage. As
> currently practiced, the institution is a hodgepodge of
> biblical, classical, courtly and Christian rules and mores.
> What we know as 'marriage' is rooted in warring historical
> efforts at regulating procreation; tamping down sexual
> lust...; and � only relatively recently � celebrating
> companionship and romantic love. Those of us who speak
> reverently about the sanctity of marriage must also
> acknowledge that modern matrimony is less a sacred vessel
> than a crazy quilt..."
>
> NY Times book review: http://atu.ca/1e8b2

No one religion or philosophy has the whole lowdown on marriage. I suspect
that if we weren't so out of touch with our instincts, marriage would
be "doing what comes naturally." That isn't to say that there is no reason
against promiscuity except religion. There are other monogamous animals.

The real issue, problem or whatever, is the idea that sex should be confined
to marriage. We are sexually mature before we are ready to marry. The
present resolution of this quandary is that adultery is immoral, but
fornication is not. I have views about that, but don't want to start the
argument up again. In other respects, I largely agree with the OP.

But there is more to it than regulating procreation. Some couples prefer
childless marriages, but they still want marriage. In "Animal Societies"
it was argued that among ants and bees, the nest or hive, not the
individual insect, is the organism. Isolated, one insect dies. I half
believe that for us, the couple is the organism. We talk about our "better
half." The song "People" talks about a person with a partner feeling made
whole at the deepest level. Of course, some are quite happy single, so the
simile is imperfect.

Doug L.


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: HOT DATING&CHATTING WITH LOVELY PARTNERS
Next: ASD on the Web