How Long Has Marriage Been the Union of a Man and a Woman? Scientists Say—4.4 Million Years
by Peter Sprigg
October 7, 2009
Some people believe that religious dogma is the only reason why anyone opposes same-sex marriage. Those who believe the human race began with Adam and Eve, and that their relationship was God’s model for marriage, believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. But those who don’t believe in the Bible, who think Adam and Eve are a myth, and who don’t accept a Christian view of the human person, have no reason to believe marriage is an opposite-sex union. Right?
Wrong. They should take a look at a front-page article in the Washington Post about the newest claim by evolutionary scientists. The scientists believe that a primate skeleton found in Ethiopia is that of a human ancestor—one that lived 4.4 million years ago. Almost at the end of this long piece, the article describes what C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University, says about the social organization of this species:
The males, he argues, pair-bonded with females. Lovejoy sees male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage.
So, how long has marriage (i.e., “pair-bonding”) been a male-female union? About four million, four hundred thousand years, if this secular scientist is to be believed. And what was its purpose? To insure “male parental investment in the survival of offspring”—something which the advocates of same-sex “marriage” contend is now no longer necessary.
And what will we be discarding, if we change the definition of marriage from being a union of a man and a woman? Only “a hallmark of the human lineage.”
Marriage is not merely a religious institution, nor merely a civil institution. It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself. And it doesn’t take a Bible to prove it. In this case, evolutionary theory points to the exact same conclusion.
‘Ardi’ May Rewrite the Story of Humans: 4.4 Million-Year-Old Primate Helps Bridge Evolutionary Gap (see third-to-last paragraph)
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
You folks believe in evolution now?!?!? When did that happen??
If pair-bonding can be proven in A. ramidus, which I am not at all sure Lovejoy can prove and indeed he has been criticized for saying so, then how does that preclude pair-bonding between two homosexually oriented persons? Indeed if pair-bonding is genetic (and there has been a gene associated with males bonding with females in many animals such as ferrets which has an analogous gene in man) then what is to say a homosexual pair-bond has any less efficacy for two humans to find fulfillment and companionship in this life?
Basing your argument on the theory of one anthropologist? This kind of eeasoning from lone theory to general fact here reminds me of where the bible’s ultimate authority lies – in the speculations of the ‘believer’.
Its hilarious. Former haters of darwin come out for evolution and science just so long as they think they can use it to justify their hatred of homosexuals.
So how come you use the arguments of science when it suits you, but if science refutes your position you argue that it’s a matter of faith?
@Patrick – You’re exactly right. It is a great example of using what is convenient to support your views, regardless of how silly you sound doing it. I’m sure if tomorrow they discovered you could prove homosexuality should not exist using the stem cells of fetuses, we’d be reading a blog posting about that too.
This sounds more like cohabitation, which is wrong, and punishable by eternal hell. This isn’t even marriage! This proves nothing! Let’s just stick to using a really old book (which is full of many crazy, immoral things) to justify gays being evil. Let’s not use a lie like evolution to support our gay hating, okay?
Haven’t these guys heard of the naturalistic fallacy?
And they now seem to believe in evolution? Are they going to become Social Darwinists now? As apparently what is natural is right.
And what happens when someone points out to them that in fact the weight of evidence from archeology, anthropology and genetic studies is that humans societies have been generally polygamous, as are our closest cousins (chimps, monkeys, apes). And I won’t even get into the research on the natural occurance of homosexuality in species.
Excellent, FRC has just invalidated the Bible’s Creation and Flood Narratives.
Now, that’s worthy of a press release, how about it Peter Sprigg? You get first authorship.
So I guess we can get back to teaching science now that the FRC “believes” that humans evolved from earlier primates. After all you just said marriage evolved!
Thanks FRC – send Ken Ham a note for us.
It seems to me that you folks are misusing evolutionary theory in the very same way the Nazis did. You should be careful whose company you keep.
Ardi probably seldom bathed, ate raw meat and went naked. So we should do the same? On the other hand, glad to see you’re accepting evolution.
As a believer I say what a stupid argument, get a grip!
Even if you could prove that pre-human primate societies had anything that could be called marriage (which is not the same as a pair bond), since when do we emulate the natural world? Clothing isn’t natural. Neither are vaccinations, birth control (oops I think you guys don’t like that one actually), firetrucks, the internet, or farm rotations. Everything that has increased our quality of life in the last 10,000 years has been quite un-natural.
We base our social policies on a combination of fairness, reason, and compassion. I’m sorry that your hatred allows you none of these things.
So C. Owen Lovejoy says that, millions of years ago, some people could be said to be ‘pair bonded’?
And you’re using this fact to argue that *marriage* is a hallmark of the human species?
Marriage is not the same thing as ‘pair bonded’: I’m sure plenty of non-married people consider themselves ‘pair-bonded’.
So how does the fact that humans form couples prove that marriage is the only acceptable pair bond?
Where did you learn debate, Peter Sprigg?
You are Not serious……..are you??
Conjecture on the nature of possible bipedalism is seized upon as a weapon to be used in the support of bigotry??
Family = what, exactly? I assume you’re not against adoption (are you?), which allows the addition of unrelated and non-reproductive members to a family??
Even if you are horribly right and all of the mechanisms that led Ardipethicus (or it’s ancestors) to bipedalism are mainly because of pair bonding-
A biological imperative does not equate to a moral absolute – we should be 4 million years wiser than this tosh!
Does this mean that FRC now endorses evolution? I thought that FRC supported creationism?
By: Box Turtle Bulletin » Breaking: FRC Touts Evolution | October 7, 2009 at 7:06 pm
[...] evidence shows that marriage “as a union of a man and a woman” has been around for 4.4 million years. That’s quite a switch from the old Darwinism-leads-to-eugenicsargument. But when gays are in [...]