Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT: Monogamy 'Destroys More Lives Than It Saves'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/01/nyt-magazine-monogamy-destroys-more-lives-it-saves ^

Posted on 07/01/2011 8:58:45 AM PDT by chessplayer

It's Fourth of July weekend - how about cheating on your spouse?

For those not thinking about it, a piece to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday marvelously titled "Married, With Infidelities" is recommending it:


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dansavage; enemedia; enemywithin; infidelities; infidelity; marriage; monogamy; moralabsolutes; nyslimes; nytimes; thedestroyers
Yup. Marriages need more cheating to make the marriage stronger. The 1970`s are being recycled.
1 posted on 07/01/2011 8:58:46 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Yes, folks, the NYT is really THAT stupid.

“Journalism is for those who were too stupid even for politics.”


2 posted on 07/01/2011 9:01:17 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I marriage is of such little value, why did the NYT support gays getting married?


3 posted on 07/01/2011 9:01:48 AM PDT by edcoil (The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital. -- Joe Paterno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Okay, is it just me, or does this person sound like someone who has smoked a bunch of dope?

Seriously, striving for monogamy isn’t a bad idea, especially considering genital warts, HIV, and a few other STDs which have no cure. Not to mention those which can get treated, but which it bites to have nonetheless.

Oh, and there’s also abusing your kids with the fact that you’ve got parents who have relationships with who knows however many people.

Sheesh, it sounds like whatever this person has been doing, they lost their common sense.


4 posted on 07/01/2011 9:05:49 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
and champions at mixing drinks,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.
24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty
and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.


5 posted on 07/01/2011 9:06:31 AM PDT by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
BREAKING NEWS: EVERYTHING CIVILIZATION HAS LEARNED OVER THE MILLENIA IS WRONG... more to follow.
6 posted on 07/01/2011 9:07:20 AM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Yep...the ideas of the cultural Marxists....like that sick boy sodomizer Herbert Marcuse and Bill Ayers who also was a wife swapper and admired boy/man sex and his “loving”, Bernadine who is known for her “smash monogamy” statements.....and her “put the forks in” the stomach of Sharon Tate. The immaturity of her and her followers who did fork signs with their fingers to glorify the mind and thinking of Charles Manson....are the warped sick twisted self haters who want to promulgate their worldview.

Why would people give these idiots a platform? Because of the constant conditioning in public schools by Marxist textbooks designed by sick minds like Bill Ayers-—diversity is good!!!!!! It is a lie....some things are evil and destroy relationships and civil societies and they have to be condemned and upheld by laws.


7 posted on 07/01/2011 9:07:57 AM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

I marriage is of such little value, why did the NYT support gays getting married?

One word - PROVOCATION

They want to hype the gays marrying because they know to the religious who do care, that is a decent insult to get them mad. After all, they need to have the impression that gays are so vastly hated for imitating what is sacred in order to keep their politics rolling. Without exaggerated hatred, identity politics would crumble.


8 posted on 07/01/2011 9:08:14 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Good point, but you miss the point. The NYTimes’(liberal, 60’s radical, satanic) agenda has always been to tell people to do whatever is right in their own eyes, God is dead, etc.


9 posted on 07/01/2011 9:09:28 AM PDT by Obadiah (If you don't believe you can win, there is no point in getting out of bed at the end of the day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
why did the NYT support gays getting married?

Despite what they claim, the answer to the "why" is "to destroy marriage".

10 posted on 07/01/2011 9:09:31 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

And Divorces are just dandy for the legal class and those Family Courts.
Where would we be with out them, eh?

/s


11 posted on 07/01/2011 9:09:37 AM PDT by TruthConquers (.Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

It’s part of the new morality of secular humanist libtards. If it promotes one’s pursuit of self actualization, then it’s ok to do it.


12 posted on 07/01/2011 9:12:48 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Don't think of them as dangerous, disgusting sexually transmitted diseases. Think of them as beneficial challenges to the immune system.

Yeah, we've seen this all before. Usually the origin of these stories turns out to be a journalist who wants to sleep with somebody else's wife.

13 posted on 07/01/2011 9:13:55 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
This is because homosexuals rarely have what heterosexuals would consider a monogamous relationship.

So, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice redux becomes Bob and Carl and Ted and Alex?

Once the dam of morality is breached, the flood of evil will be difficult to stem.

14 posted on 07/01/2011 9:15:31 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

not surprised,the old gray lady is still a whore


15 posted on 07/01/2011 9:16:53 AM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Lots of birds and animals mate for life and never cheat. It would seem they are more civilized than humans are.


16 posted on 07/01/2011 9:18:45 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

More words of wisdom from that homo infested commie rag?


17 posted on 07/01/2011 9:19:36 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I’m gonna try this reasoning on dear wifey

bet it really resonates with her

it’s the Grey Lady and all right?


18 posted on 07/01/2011 9:22:03 AM PDT by wardaddy (Palin or Bachman..either with Marco....but Bachman bashers can kiss my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

No thanks.


19 posted on 07/01/2011 9:23:17 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Let’s see. Just going over the generations of my family that I actually knew. My great-grandparents were monogamous. My grandparents were monogamous. My parents were monogamous. And I am monogamous.

It’s worked out pretty well for us, but I thank the NYT for its concern.


20 posted on 07/01/2011 9:27:25 AM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." -- G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Dan Savage, America’s leading sex-advice columnist

Yup. Sigmund Freud was THE expert on sex, and look at all the trouble he caused over the years.

21 posted on 07/01/2011 9:28:12 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Crap like this only is taken seriously in Manhattan


22 posted on 07/01/2011 9:28:25 AM PDT by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded my brains fell out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
This is why Ann Coulter calls the left demonic.
23 posted on 07/01/2011 9:28:44 AM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would http://see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
FTA:

"Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy."

The NYT is a civilizational wrecking ball, a loud megaphone for the defining down of deviancy. May all who are involved in sustaining this hideous organization, in any way, be cursed.

24 posted on 07/01/2011 9:28:50 AM PDT by bkopto (Obama is merely a symptom of a more profound, systemic disease in American body politic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
I used to buy the NY SLIMES to line my bird cage! Now, the NY SLIMES is not worth it for that!!

NYT all the crap fit to SPREW.

25 posted on 07/01/2011 9:30:37 AM PDT by ExCTCitizen (Palin/Bachman 2012 (what will the NAGS say??? :-) ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

assuming you survive the answer,
if she insists on nothing outside marriage,
you can try Islam for a backup plan.
then you can be faithful,
and still get at least 4 for variety...


26 posted on 07/01/2011 9:31:44 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
The 1970`s are being recycled.

It's scary how right you are. You can pull 70's back issues of fairly mainstream publications like Readers Digest and read articles containing crap like this. Personally I wake up every day thinking I am a teenager again reliving the whole Carter Administration.
27 posted on 07/01/2011 9:32:26 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Actually, very few animals mate for life and among mammals, only two species do it and both of them are having severe problems. Humans with infidelity and a small rodent that lives along the northwest coast is dying out.

Before this thread goes much further someone will claim that the Bible says we should only have one wife. That is wrong. The Bible makes no such declaration, in fact among the early years it was customary for the wife and children of a deceased man to go to his brother. That kept the Hebrews from needing any sort of welfare system.

In Paul’s first epistle to Timothy he did say that leaders of the Church should be husbands of one wife which - by intimation - means that everyone else could have more than one wife.

Now, I have to say that I don’t think polygamy will work well in our society. Women have rights here that would make any such policy difficult to deal with.


28 posted on 07/01/2011 9:33:56 AM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

Expanding family courts influence guanantees growth of the criminal courts as well when all those angry offspring reach their teens.

Growing The State is a neverending cycle.


29 posted on 07/01/2011 9:40:52 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Yup. Marriages need more cheating to make the marriage stronger. The 1970`s are being recycled.

Really. What a joke. I wonder if the author and the staff practice what they preach. "Honey, I have to work late tonight......"

30 posted on 07/01/2011 9:47:49 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse ((unite))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

actually, though many here would debate you, you have a good ally in Martin Luther himself. he himself said the same as you, and in fact, he attended a royal wedding, where the man married a SECOND wife.

...even the Catholic church has condoned this, under extreme circumstances. after a war in south america,
i read they officially permitted weddings with more than one wife, because so many men had been killed.


31 posted on 07/01/2011 9:50:59 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

Quite a few birds do as well.

Rodent not doing well surprises me...they have large, frequent litters and unless they’re absolutely terrible at avoiding danger or there’s some sickness I don’t know about, it’s quite against the odds not to have at least a slowly increasing population purely from the size of the litters.

I used to raise tame rats and mice at different points in my life and no one would blink at a litter of 8.


32 posted on 07/01/2011 10:02:30 AM PDT by Fire_on_High (Stupid should hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

They are making the argument a bit prematurely but it is nevertheless valid. Homosexual marriages are certain to produce extreme violence between the partners. The legalization of homosexual marriage will prove to be the very best way to discourage marriage.


33 posted on 07/01/2011 10:23:09 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This IS my blog site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Dan Savage. Isn’t he the one who went around Republican offices licking doorknobs and pens to try and spread the flu. I think the flu kills more people (old people and babies) than AIDS. Yeah, I think he fits right in with the Times as a voice of morality.


34 posted on 07/01/2011 10:23:38 AM PDT by techcor (I hope Obama succeeds, in being a one term president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


35 posted on 07/01/2011 10:26:23 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Escaped rubber-roomer Dan Savage again.


36 posted on 07/01/2011 10:35:19 AM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

homosexuals are not monogomous.

the idea is to cheeping normal marriage into the fetishist.

see brave new world.

fUN FuN fuN


37 posted on 07/01/2011 10:50:49 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

The ny times supported gay marriage because they want to destroy the institution of marriage.The times wants to destroy all institutions that people of faith hold dear.


38 posted on 07/01/2011 11:00:26 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

You remind me of a Pakistani Muslim fellow I used to work with. He would tell us all that Islam did allow him to have four wives, and he gave a very detailed history of this not unlike why the Jews did this in the Bible (guys getting killed in battle, women needed to be supported, etc.)

Then he would roll his eyes and say “Of course....nobody is crazy enough to actually try it today!”

The good news is that obviously he had never met Osama Bin Laden.


39 posted on 07/01/2011 11:05:08 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

ny slimes does more for satan than any other a$$ wipe paper.

LLS


40 posted on 07/01/2011 11:15:06 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"! I choose LIBERTY and PALIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Although Dan Savage no doubt didn’t mean it this way, he might be correct depending on what the terms of reference are. Generally speaking, infidelity means an act or instance of disloyalty, a breach of trust or the lack of fidelity to a defined purpose....this certainly applies to one who has left the confines of their marriage to seek sexual gratification elsewhere. However, this same definition also applies to the situation where one of the marriage partners has decided to wantonly withhold sexual privileges from the other..... since marriage is the legal union one forms with another to obtain the privilege, promise and expectation of having sex under the only form that God approves off, this too is an act of absolute infidelity. I wish more people would talk about this form of infidelity... the second and arguably the far more egregious and familiar form of going outside the marriage would not exist in many many instances if his/her spouse would not have taken it upon him/herself to commit the first form of infidelity inside the marriage. So... this form of ‘infidelity’ often is occurring simultaneously with the concept of monogamy since the party being denied remains faithful in not going outside. Does ‘staying faithful’ under that scenario ‘destroy more families than it saves’? Well, I can attest to having seen many individuals and marriages absolutely shattered by one party within the marriage tightfistedly controlling the sexual destiny of that marriage. It may be right under these circumstances that ‘staying faithful destroys more families than it saves’.....if one defines ‘staying faithful’ as ‘not seeking sex outside the marriage’ as opposed to its more appropriate meaning of ‘providing the sex to your partner that is rightfully owed to that partner’.
41 posted on 07/01/2011 11:22:27 AM PDT by hecticskeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
I marriage is of such little value, why did the NYT support gays getting married?

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

42 posted on 07/01/2011 12:21:27 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (To ACLU & its plaintiffs: Stop dragging the public into your personal struggle w/ God. -Mark Baisley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fire_on_High

“Quite a few birds do as well.

Rodent not doing well surprises me...they have large, frequent litters and unless they’re absolutely terrible at avoiding danger or there’s some sickness I don’t know about, it’s quite against the odds not to have at least a slowly increasing population purely from the size of the litters.”

I would imagine something else is involved. Disease, poisons, loss of habitat. I doubt monogamy is causing them to die out. If that was the case they would have been extinct long ago.


43 posted on 07/01/2011 2:08:25 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

>> Yes, folks, the NYT is really THAT stupid.

That divisive. Communism runs through its veins.


44 posted on 07/01/2011 2:28:29 PM PDT by Gene Eric (*** Jesus ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
Polygamy has major issues in a population with standard male to female ratios.

You end up with a lot of young men with no prospects. Bad things happen in such societies.

45 posted on 07/01/2011 2:56:52 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

Humans are not inherently monogamous. I could guarantee that almost no straight man or woman could walk out of this chat saying that they only felt a crush on one person of the opposite gender. It’s up to any given person, however, to exert their own self-control or face consequences, some as severe as the possibility of contracting an incurable STD (Herpes Type II or HIV) or one that leaves bad prospects for the future (genital warts and cancer later on in said region). Then there’s also the fact that a person unfaithful to one’s spouse would also have to be a liar to one’s children as well, often in the form of claiming you were so busy to be around with them, when in fact you were messing around at their expense. Then there’s the fact that God simply doesn’t condone you doing so.

“Before this thread goes much further someone will claim that the Bible says we should only have one wife. That is wrong. The Bible makes no such declaration, in fact among the early years it was customary for the wife and children of a deceased man to go to his brother. That kept the Hebrews from needing any sort of welfare system.”

The key point here, though, is that what makes some pedophile and his compound way different from those living in ancient times is the fact that God actually had some sanctioning in the case of Abraham, Jacob, or in the case of Moses. From all that is going on, I doubt he is sanctioning such groups as the Nation of YHVH or the Warren Jeffs and his FLDS ranch out in Texas, would you agree?

As far as modern society goes, I do agree that it simply doesn’t work out. It especially doesn’t work out with the serious perversions that go on. I doubt any of the major religions would publicly approve of it, especially in the U.S. and Europe.


46 posted on 07/03/2011 2:08:00 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

The good news is that obviously he had never met Osama Bin Laden.

I don’t think he didn’t but I would assume that he means a sane person living in the civilized world versus living in some #@$%#%^& of a place in Pakistan that looked so dilapidated it could practically be considered a wastebasket.


47 posted on 07/03/2011 2:10:55 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Good grief.

If you don't want to be faithful, then DON'T GET MARRIED.

48 posted on 07/03/2011 2:16:09 AM PDT by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

The Warren Jeffs fiasco was brought about by his penchant for very young wives. Had he been a bit more prudent and settled for women past the age of consent the State would probably have left him alone. In my opinion, he succumbed to a similar feeling of invincibility as did Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner and John Edwards. Each had the idea that they were so big, so important that they could get away with anything.

I must admit that I once maintained two wives in the same house... for awhile. I knew going into the situation that it couldn’t work forever and that I would end up crying. In time one or both of the women - and I loved them both - would decide to leave. I was fortunate that one stayed but I still miss the one who left.


49 posted on 07/03/2011 9:50:47 AM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

“The Warren Jeffs fiasco was brought about by his penchant for very young wives. Had he been a bit more prudent and settled for women past the age of consent the State would probably have left him alone.”

I agree wholeheartedly. In all honesty, Hugh Hefner and his girlfriends are practically his harem, to say the least, but nobody cares because they make no attempts to get at a marriage license. However, I don’t see a need for polygamy to ever be something that most of society to promote and support. Our welfare system is pretty corrupt as it is, and among the few that tarnish the reputation, it makes it a pretty rediculous hurdle to desire supporting, or to be held accountable to support with what is going on. However, if you took a look at my own list of things to worry about, polygamy is not the number one thing I have to chase after. Taking care of my own family and keeping it so without having to ask for a welfare handout, ranks way higher. But then again, that is society’s problem in general, worrying about the fact that it is somehow oppressive that there could be people don’t agree with what you do (The homosexual agenda immediately comes to mind).

Again, it’s important to work with the laws of the land, which I don’t believe condone polygamy, and it’s worth reading about (Romans, chapter 13)


50 posted on 07/03/2011 1:08:25 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson