Monogamy is unnatural

  • Thread starter Thread starter LokisMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
I liked the analogy for sleeping around: “If you win 600 million in the lottery would you still go around breaking into cars to steal change from the cupholders?”. That was priceless, I must remember that one!
Click to expand...
I know, right??? Soo good! I had never thought about it that way before, but that is exactly right. 🙂
 
Yep.

This is another area where science and religion both dovetail nicely and battle extensively. It’s where we are tempted by Satan easily.

Our human physiology is not designed for monogamy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals) however, that is where free will and intellect come in – making us “higher than the animals”. 🙂
 
Miserissima said:
Yep.

This is another area where science and religion both dovetail nicely and battle extensively. It’s where we are tempted by Satan easily.

Our human physiology is not designed for monogamy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals) however, that is where free will and intellect come in – making us “higher than the animals”. 🙂
Click to expand...
Exactly! And that compels us to rise above our nature.

Reminds me of a joke a monk friend of mine told me recently. A large grizzly was about to devour a missionary in the forest. The missionary started to pray fervently to God: “Please Lord, instill Catholic sentiments into the soul of this vile creature!”.

Whereupon the bear suddenly crossed himself and said “Lord, please bless this meal I am about to eat”… 😛

The truth in the story is that a wild animal can only respond to its nature, not rise above it. We were given a conscience by God, and He meant for us to use it.
 
Randy_Carson said:
👍

That was a devastating reply. Thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...
It was forcefully written. Excepting for its unapologetic clarity I actually wish it were a little less “devastating.” We Christians are bound to show patience and kindness to our attackers, too. It does not seem as if there was much love lost between the author and his enemy. I would have liked to have seen that improvement in it.
 
EasterJoy said:
It was forcefully written. Excepting for its unapologetic clarity I actually wish it were a little less “devastating.” We Christians are bound to show patience and kindness to our attackers, too. It does not seem as if there was much love lost between the author and his enemy. I would have liked to have seen that improvement in it.
Click to expand...
Ummm, I dunno… it seems like this thing that men do, like a man has to prove himself in order for another man to be willing to listen to him. Look at all the stories about boys being bullied but when they stand up to the bully, they become best friends!
 
Miserissima said:
Yep.

This is another area where science and religion both dovetail nicely and battle extensively. It’s where we are tempted by Satan easily.

Our human physiology is not designed for monogamy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals) however, that is where free will and intellect come in – making us “higher than the animals”. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, human physiology is not designed for monogamy, but we have evolved in such a way that we became monogamous. This doesn’t mean that at our biological core we weren’t monogamous; any process of evolution makes any characteristic already ingrained. Our brains evolved over time but that doesn’t mean you can shed one part of the brain and still be considered human.

Heck there’s evidence that even in polygamous societies people tend to stay with only one wife.

It’s in an article from Scientific American, but I only read the print version since I can’t access the web version:

scientificamerican.com/article/our-secret-evolutionary-weapon-monogamy/

Either way this shows that humans are made by God to be monogamous.
 
EasterJoy said:
It was forcefully written. Excepting for its unapologetic clarity I actually wish it were a little less “devastating.” We Christians are bound to show patience and kindness to our attackers, too. It does not seem as if there was much love lost between the author and his enemy. I would have liked to have seen that improvement in it.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have to admit that Matt Walsh can sound like he’s ranting rather than making a good argument.
 
Thanks Xantippe for being the person who introduced me to his blog. He is a top-tier jimmy rustler, I love him.
 
I like what he said in the blog post. However, I think monogamy is not “merely” supernatural. The body itself does tend toward attachment to only one during the conjugal act. That’s why people who look at porn become addicted. The body releases addictive chemicals like endorphins or oxycontin in a sexual experience, attaching the person to the object of the gratification. If the college professor’s argument were correct, the body would want to be repelled from any attachment to a sexual target, whether to porn or another person. Yet the body fights to desire one. The body tends toward “attachment,” not detachment like the professor argues.
 
I agree that his tone is always very harsh, but it definitely makes for a more interesting read, and I think helps get the point across. And he was being bullied by that guy, so its hard to not justify such a harsh response back.
 
CatholicWhovian said:
Yeah I have to admit that Matt Walsh can sound like he’s ranting rather than making a good argument.
Click to expand...
His argument was sound, and it was intelligent. I think if he had passed over noticing the insulting tone and just answered, it would have been even more effective, not to mention a stronger witness.

*Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. For: “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep the tongue from evil and the lips from speaking deceit, must turn from evil and do good, seek peace and follow after it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears turned to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against evildoers.”

Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good? But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. *1 Pet. 3:9-18

No one in the secular world would blame him for fighting fire with fire, but when you insult those who insult you, what merit is there in that? (The pagans do as much, et cetera…)
 
I know of this blog post by a blogger which I follow on Patheos who is tired of Matt Walsh’s writing style.

patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/09/25/on-not-fighting-matt-walshs-cultural-warrior-contagion/

Don’t get me wrong I do agree with most of Matt Walsh’s posts, but I think he has to change his writing style. Defending family values is fine, but we have to do it charitably and in a way which doesn’t sound offensive. Or else we’ll be fueling the angry conservative stereotype.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top