In response to a recent fatuous New York Times
Magazinearticle
extolling the benefits of "nonmonogamous" marriages, marriage
scholar W. Bradford Wilcox
details the evidence on the downsides to such
relationships -- e.g., unhappiness, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and
child abuse.
The Times piece Wilcox is addressing featured the
beliefs of sex columnist Dan Savage, who is a vocal proponent of
nonmonogamous relationships. One has to wonder about the
close-mindedness of the Times author who thinks that
the half-baked arguments of a sex columnist against a timeless
human institution are novel or important.
" the half-baked arguments of a sex columnist against a timeless
human institution are novel or important."
Problem is he and his I'll are in large, responsible for the
moral decay that resulted in the recent outrage in New York state
giving legal and moral eqivalency to an immoral aberration.
Mike 3/505| 7.12.11 @ 11:45AM
Typo....meant to type "ilk."
timmah| 7.12.11 @ 12:00PM
I'm sorry Mr. Lawler, what is your point here? That Mr. Wilcox
shouldn't bother to refute fatuous arguments?How does this make him
"close-minded"? You lost me...
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 1:57PM
A simple point, folks. Name a country that allows homosexual
marriages or does not encourage monogamy that has both: an above
replacement birthrate AND does not practice honor killings of
women.
Anommynous| 7.12.11 @ 2:16PM
Ah yes, Dan "Santorum" Savage. Such a classy fellow, him.
CalMark| 7.12.11 @ 3:04PM
"Nonmonogamous marriages" is a variation on the tired old Leftie
Hippie theme that "marriage is just a piece of paper."
That was the 1960s direct assault on marriage. It failed, as
even die-hard lefties continued to get married. Now they're trying
indirect attacks--gay "marriage," "nonmonogamous marriage"
(whatever that is), etc.
Proof that marriage is a divine institution: despite all of
these concerted assaults, traditional marriage just won't go
away.
Mike 3/505| 7.12.11 @ 11:44AM
" the half-baked arguments of a sex columnist against a timeless human institution are novel or important."
Problem is he and his I'll are in large, responsible for the moral decay that resulted in the recent outrage in New York state giving legal and moral eqivalency to an immoral aberration.
Mike 3/505| 7.12.11 @ 11:45AM
Typo....meant to type "ilk."
timmah| 7.12.11 @ 12:00PM
I'm sorry Mr. Lawler, what is your point here? That Mr. Wilcox shouldn't bother to refute fatuous arguments?How does this make him "close-minded"? You lost me...
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 1:57PM
A simple point, folks. Name a country that allows homosexual marriages or does not encourage monogamy that has both: an above replacement birthrate AND does not practice honor killings of women.
Anommynous| 7.12.11 @ 2:16PM
Ah yes, Dan "Santorum" Savage. Such a classy fellow, him.
CalMark| 7.12.11 @ 3:04PM
"Nonmonogamous marriages" is a variation on the tired old Leftie Hippie theme that "marriage is just a piece of paper."
That was the 1960s direct assault on marriage. It failed, as even die-hard lefties continued to get married. Now they're trying indirect attacks--gay "marriage," "nonmonogamous marriage" (whatever that is), etc.
Proof that marriage is a divine institution: despite all of these concerted assaults, traditional marriage just won't go away.