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 ^

[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:

[hecticskeptic]

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’.

[Albion Wilde]

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

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[chessplayer]

“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.

[Gene Eric]

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

That divisive. Communism runs through its veins.

[redgolum]

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.

[Morpheus2009]

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.

[Morpheus2009]

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.

[SIDENET]

Good grief.

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

[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. 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.

[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.”

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)