Scars Unseen said:
Lady Nilstria said:
In fact, someone saying a person can't control himself or herself is an insult to all humanity.
Are we to assume, then, that you are not a big fan of modern psychology?
As for the rest of your post, well, you are obviously deeply religious and I would never try to sway you from that. I do question some of the specifics, however. If a man/woman combination is supposed to excel, why is it that most people feel more at ease when in the company of their own gender. Not romantically obviously(that's another topic altogether), but just in general. Also, on a historical note, how does the trusting bond part of your argument fit in with arranged marriages? What about extended families? On the surface, it seems that your idea of marriage is focused on the nuclear family, which is a historically exceptional situation.
I'm not trying to attack your stance, merely to provoke discussion.
I'm so Freudian, (or so says my psychology teacher almost every single class period), what can I say. Dah, now I want to talk about psychology, you silly!
Well, that is why I said that a marriage SHOULD bring out the best in each other, but it is reality that that doesn't always happen. I've been blessed to have parents in which that is the case, and they have one of the best marriages I've ever seen, (not that they don't have their problems), but I know plenty of families, including family members, in which that did not happen, and all of them suffered for it. I was stating what should be, not what always is. I wish it was always the best, but people are flawed.
People gravitate to others that are themselves, regardless of gender. Many women are alike in enough attributes or likes to get along well and enjoy each others company, that they don't share with men, and the same is true for men. I myself have more in common with men, with my love of sharp pointy metal objects, fighting, guns, and sports, (stereotypically), though I like "womanly" things as well, like cooking, sewing, and gardening. One must also take into account that many women feel SAFER with other women, and usually men don't have to worry about being hit on by other men, (I think that may be changing, which if I was a guy, personally, would not please me. It'd be stressful.).
Tipsy Giant said:
Why One man and one woman?
I could just say, "Because God said so!" and go "arrrgh" deep in my throat, but I don't think you'd think that a good answer.
This may seem kind of odd to some, and get several different tickets thrown at me, but I'll just go ahead and say it. Because humanity could not survive any other way. It makes sense.
I'll get the homosexuality card out of the way. You still needed a man and a woman to have the baby for a homosexual to adopt. I call this card circular reasoning. (Let's not get into adoption statistics. I actually heard a speech on that this morning, and I have to study for exams, [why I'm writing this in the first place, I dunno].)
There was this one man, (I can't remember his name for the life of me), who was on the program Demographic Winter. He is part of a big atheist think tank. Even he, who in no way was promoting Christianity, said that the only system that works and is sustainable, demographically speaking, is Christianity, the Christian worldview. Christianity mandates one man and one woman coming together to make a stable home environment for mutual support and the raising of a family.
Even if you don't believe a jot of what I'm saying, this website, http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html , is still pretty interesting regardless. I thought it was, anyway.
So, basically, because everything leads me to believe that one man and one woman in a monogamous, (and hopefully harmonious), marriage is the ideal, and dare I say, the only thing that works.
crudus said:
We are vastly overpopulated as it is. We don't need more. There is nothing wrong with polygamy in of itself. However, we don't need to raise our population any more.
Actually, the entire population of the PLANET can fit into a single county in Florida. There's plenty of room. It's how we're managing the earth that's the problem. Ethiopia alone could feed all of Africa, but the government is horrendous, so it's not being put to good use.
And the population rates since the mid 1970's have been below sustainable levels. In Europe, formerly bustling schools are having to be shut down in droves because there are no kids for them. No, the probably isn't inflation, as an economist would said, but deflation.
