[Flipside]

Or for divorced women and single mothers to get a job, beyond whore.

The fact of the matter is that marriage has never been an institution. Unfaithfullness in marriage was at it's highest during it's 'Golden Days', since no-one could get divorced, men got 'Mistresses' and women got 'Friends' (in 'high' society at least - and they were high most of the time). In fact, for a while it was considered fashionable to have affairs.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Fashionable eh?

They should be hung...

[Bobboau]

you'r the one idealiseing that era.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Flipside
The fact of the matter is that marriage has never been an institution. Unfaithfullness in marriage was at it's highest during it's 'Golden Days', since no-one could get divorced, men got 'Mistresses' and women got 'Friends' (in 'high' society at least - and they were high most of the time). In fact, for a while it was considered fashionable to have affairs.

That doesn't make right.  And High Society isn't a good thing to use as an example, High Society typically suffers from a disconnect from reality.

[Bobboau]

so, how about this, why don't we all just agree not to legislate our beleifes to force them on each other.

[demon442]

Has anyone seen John Carpenter's 'They Live'?  Please see it if you haven't, then read 1984, follow that by watching several hours of  world war videos, grab a gun and go out and have some fun.

Seriously, what's it gonna take to snap the rest of the American people out of this morality trance?  I say we need a gay, black, liberal, economist for a leader.  Gay to sort out problems like these, Black to stem the tide of anti-white sentiment in the ex-minority, Liberal to get the politicians off their asses and thinking again, and an Economist to know the difference between a recession and bad policy.  Too bad that wount ever happen.

[Ford Prefect]

To anyone who says that marriage is threatened by freedom of choice, I would highly recommend The Awakening, by Kate Chopin. The only reason infidelity was more prevalant in higher society was because people had spare time with which to think about something besides how they were going to eat.

My main pet peave with social conservatism is the ease with which people think they can pass judgement on others without having the slightest notion of the implications of their demands; it seems like a complete absence of empathy. I just can't understand how someone could look at two people who are faced with being unhappy with each other for the rest of their lives and say, "Work it out-- you should have known beforehand." Who the hell KNOWS?! The interplay of human emotions is not like shopping for a new god damned car. Does anyone ever stop and entertain the notion that maybe 50% of marriages are ending in divorce because people are finally being allowed to be honest with themselves?

Perhaps my rage is better summarized with a desperate plea to STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. If society ever falls apart, it will not be because of marriage, sodomy, or people jacking off too much.

[Rictor]

Lib: yes, society was arguably more innocent and "moral"  (read: traditional) back in the good old days, but that came at a price. Lessened freedom for many groups, such a women, minorities, them damn kids and so forth. Society was much less tolerant and more rigid, and though it may not seem that way in nostalgic memories, a lot of people were a lot less happy than they are today.

The government is not to blame for what you percieve as the moral degredation of America (and I admit you do have somewhat of a point). The government does not set the agenda on societal issues, social institutions do.

I strongly suggest you watch the recently released Angels in America, its deals with some issues which I think you
wll find fascinating. Trust me on this one, but be warned, its like 5-6 hours long.

[Black Wolf]

Interesting point - I was reading not long ago that a somewhat new view of developmental humans was emerging, being that we are not naturally monogamous. Our closest relative, the Bonobo (a species of chimpanze), is actually far from it, and use sex (including same sex couplings) as a sort of group building activity.

It's believed, through behavioural analysis and stuff, that purely biological human relationships would probably last several years after the first child was born, long enough for the child to be able to walk, talk and come close to surviving on its own. The adults would then be free to pursue other mates.

Food for thought anyway.

[Bobboau]

bonobo is the second closest relitive, the first closest is the chimpansee, well known for monogamy (well as close as any animal gets to it).

humans didn't live very long after there kids reached an age when they could survive on there own untill quite recently.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
I do think it's just a tinge unfair to be quoting from the protected forum at SG...........

Well, he did link to it.....

[Flipside]

True, true, and he doesn't seem to mind, so no matter

[Ace]

Originally posted by Bobboau
bonobo is the second closest relitive, the first closest is the chimpansee, well known for monogamy (well as close as any animal gets to it).

humans didn't live very long after there kids reached an age when they could survive on there own untill quite recently.

Bonobos are also well known for their promiscuity regardless of gender despite having lifetime partners

[Bobboau]

...yeah, that... has been established...

[aldo_14]

"at it like bonobos" doesn't have the same ring to it, though.

[Flipside]

Sounds like a U2 fan group or something

[Flipside]

Bumpzor...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_abstinence

Initiate stage 2........

[Taristin]

*sigh*

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so, how about this, why don't we all just agree not to legislate our beleifes to force them on each other.

[Kazan]

Liberator, Mongoose - let me make something very clear to you

You have can hold your views all you want - I will defend your right to believe what you want

You cannot force those views upon others - I will defend everyone else's (including my own) right not to have other people tell us how to live/what to think

This is why I am pissed with you and your ilk - because YOU ARE NOT UPHOLDING WHAT IT IS TO BE AMERICAN (to be free)