" Brian Fitzaptrick writes:
To understand the danger posed by homosexual âmarriage,â you must join the great scholars in asking some fundamental questions. Why do some civilizations flourish? Why do others perish?
Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilization was written back in the thirties by an Oxford anthropologist. In Sex and Culture, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a societyâs destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. They highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called âabsolute monogamy,â in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman, sexual outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce is prohibited.
Absolute monogamy promotes cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margaret Mead termed the âcentral problem of every society,â to âdefine appropriate roles for men.â Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist, attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneurâs lust for money or status, but to his love of family. The central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self - sacrificing married man who doesnât spend his income on himself, but prefers âto work and save primarily for wife and children.â
Civilizations cease to grow, found Unwin, within two to three generations after retreating from absolute monogamy. Moral standards erode when a societyâs members chafe at the discipline imposed by monogamy, and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, âWhat sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.
If individualistic selfishness and self - seeking are not checked, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin warns us, a society will lapse into âsexual anarchy.â In The American Sex Revolution , Sorokin wrote that âboth men and society are degradedâ as a culture becomes âsexually obsessed.â âThe members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure...to these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh...the society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood, of childhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.â Divorce, desertion, and deviance become commonplace, when âwhat used to be considered morally reprehensible is now recommended as a positive value; what was once called demoralization is now styled moral progress and a new freedom.â Sorokin describes this as âmoral schizophrenia.â....
Such selfish, undisciplined societies meet ugly fates. In his Social and Cultural Dynamics, Sorokin studied 1,623 âinternal disturbances in Greco-Roman and European history,â and found that sexual permissiveness almost always precedes or accompanies âan explosion of sociopolitical disturbances.â Unwin found that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether.
What does all this mean for homosexuality and âgay marriageâ? No sector of our society is more obsessed with sex, or more promiscuous, than the homosexual subculture. To accept the practice of homosexuality is to make irresponsible sexual behavior easier for our society. To permit homosexual relationships to be formalized is to establish a dangerous precedent that people may form sexual unions outside the healthy one - man, one - woman framework. In effect, weâd be rejecting Unwinâs âabsolute monogamyâ model for good, because rights are very difficult to withdraw once theyâve been granted.
What of Meadâs âcentral problemâ in society, defining the duties of the male? Homosexuality does nothing to channel men into the husband/father/provider role that so benefits society. Male homosexuality entices men away from that role, by offering a sexual outlet with no strings attached .... Lesbianism eliminates male responsibility altogether....
According to Unwin âthe historical evidence [suggests] that homosexuality is a habit that appears in a society ... that has been absolutely monogamous, and is relaxing.â If Unwin is correct, then the increasing prominence of homosexuality in our culture confirms ominously that America has strayed too far from the straight and narrow morality that invigorates cultures. To give homosexual couples the right to marry would be like taking another giant, virtually irrevocable step down the road to sexual anarchy and cultural ruin. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3064153/posts
To understand the danger posed by homosexual âmarriage,â you must join the great scholars in asking some fundamental questions. Why do some civilizations flourish? Why do others perish?
Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilization was written back in the thirties by an Oxford anthropologist. In Sex and Culture, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a societyâs destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. They highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called âabsolute monogamy,â in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman, sexual outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce is prohibited.
Absolute monogamy promotes cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margaret Mead termed the âcentral problem of every society,â to âdefine appropriate roles for men.â Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist, attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneurâs lust for money or status, but to his love of family. The central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self - sacrificing married man who doesnât spend his income on himself, but prefers âto work and save primarily for wife and children.â
Civilizations cease to grow, found Unwin, within two to three generations after retreating from absolute monogamy. Moral standards erode when a societyâs members chafe at the discipline imposed by monogamy, and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, âWhat sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.
If individualistic selfishness and self - seeking are not checked, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin warns us, a society will lapse into âsexual anarchy.â In The American Sex Revolution , Sorokin wrote that âboth men and society are degradedâ as a culture becomes âsexually obsessed.â âThe members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure...to these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh...the society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood, of childhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.â Divorce, desertion, and deviance become commonplace, when âwhat used to be considered morally reprehensible is now recommended as a positive value; what was once called demoralization is now styled moral progress and a new freedom.â Sorokin describes this as âmoral schizophrenia.â....
Such selfish, undisciplined societies meet ugly fates. In his Social and Cultural Dynamics, Sorokin studied 1,623 âinternal disturbances in Greco-Roman and European history,â and found that sexual permissiveness almost always precedes or accompanies âan explosion of sociopolitical disturbances.â Unwin found that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether.
What does all this mean for homosexuality and âgay marriageâ? No sector of our society is more obsessed with sex, or more promiscuous, than the homosexual subculture. To accept the practice of homosexuality is to make irresponsible sexual behavior easier for our society. To permit homosexual relationships to be formalized is to establish a dangerous precedent that people may form sexual unions outside the healthy one - man, one - woman framework. In effect, weâd be rejecting Unwinâs âabsolute monogamyâ model for good, because rights are very difficult to withdraw once theyâve been granted.
What of Meadâs âcentral problemâ in society, defining the duties of the male? Homosexuality does nothing to channel men into the husband/father/provider role that so benefits society. Male homosexuality entices men away from that role, by offering a sexual outlet with no strings attached .... Lesbianism eliminates male responsibility altogether....
According to Unwin âthe historical evidence [suggests] that homosexuality is a habit that appears in a society ... that has been absolutely monogamous, and is relaxing.â If Unwin is correct, then the increasing prominence of homosexuality in our culture confirms ominously that America has strayed too far from the straight and narrow morality that invigorates cultures. To give homosexual couples the right to marry would be like taking another giant, virtually irrevocable step down the road to sexual anarchy and cultural ruin. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3064153/posts
