New-Bruce, are you a pooftah?
Posted on 05/13/2015 10:48:49 AM PDT by EveningStar
Trevor Burrus is a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.
Our modern view of marriage — one that has generally predominated in Western societies over the past 200 years — is the outlier. Historically, marriage has been about finding good in-laws and securing economic advantage. And marrying for love is a thoroughly modern invention ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Oops. answr = answer
No “modern invention” to it.
What IS “modern” is that marriage has been separated from the function of procreating and raising children. And it is not even a NEW “modern” take on marriage. The Romans of the Imperial Age were well into the various forms of “non-traditional marriage” arrangements, all without the benefit of divine blessing. It was not uncommon for, say, a patrician Roman to marry his horse, or take multiple wives, or even an exclusive homosexual relationship. For the lower levels of society, trying to emulate these fanciful versions of “marriage” was just too expensive and rarely indulged in.
The pagan tribes within the Roman Empire, as a matter of course, did pair off as man and woman, as this was the most efficient economic unit that could be formed below the clan and tribal level. Had just about nothing to do with “divine” or “moral” standards. Or even “love”, for that matter.
There should always be a woman between a man and his colon (unless he has a semi-colon, but I digress...)
Or between the man and another man’s colon.
There may have been myriad reasons in history for a man and a woman to marry, love being just one of many. But the institution of marriage — between a man and a woman — has not changed. No successful civilization has encouraged the sexual congress of same-sex couples, let alone elevated that perversion to the status of marriage.
Is the writer a sodomite?
“Marriage is a constantly changing social institution...”
Socialists have long made this wrong assumption, based on a corruption of marriage, the dowry.
The truth is that marriage is a *biological* construct that humans innovated, that is far superior to what animals use.
That is, male animals have the prerogative to spread their DNA among many females. Female animals have the double prerogative to get the best male sperm donors (for more than a single offspring), *and* (at least some of them) to have a male present as a provider to *exclusively* help her raise her offspring.
The trouble begins when there is more than a few males around, so the best sperm donor is likely also not the best provider.
Marriage is a great idea to provide the best outcome to the man and woman, in exchange for monogamy, and the best provision for their offspring. As a biological system it is a brilliant idea.
However, it can be fouled up by the dowry, because the male is likely *not* the best sperm donor, even if they are a more capable provider. And the bond between the couple is financial, not monogamous. Which risks the prosperity of their offspring.
Considering the ultimate tyranny that was ancient rome..
the author is probably a close personal friend of Caeser Obie from Nairobi....
Disgusting. Cato Institute should be ashamed.
New-Bruce, are you a pooftah?
General Copyright Statement:
Most of the sourced material posted to Free Republic is posted according to the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. We used to post full text of most articles so we could document history as it’s being made, but more and more news agencies are now requesting us to post excerpts and links only to their material, and some are requesting that we post no material at all from their sites. We are complying with all such requests. Click here : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
for the latest list of copyright requests. Please send takedown requests to: jimrob@psnw.com
yeah yeah yeah....we know that Bedouin herders in Biblical times had scores of wives. Still the exception and not the rule.
All of that might be true, but bottom line, the marriage was between a man and “A” woman
The king of France never sent off to Austria for a Prince to cement relations between the countries while thwarting the power of a German king.
The “A” might be considered wrong because in many societies one man might have more than one wife, but each of those transactions is a single marriage
That’s alright! It gave me a chance to express my opinion.
The Gay-to Institute went homo a couple of years ago.
It is s mental disorder with at least half trying to kill themselves.
Would you answer that question?
This article is a farce.
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.