Comments on: How Long Has Marriage Been the Union of a Man and a Woman? Scientists Say—4.4 Million Years http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Canton http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2014 Canton Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:14:49 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-2014 Does this mean that FRC now endorses evolution? I thought that FRC supported creationism? Does this mean that FRC now endorses evolution? I thought that FRC supported creationism?

]]> By: grassdog http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2013 grassdog Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:36:38 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-2013 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! 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!

]]> By: Mollie http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2007 Mollie Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:42:55 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-2007 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? 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?

]]> By: Dave http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2000 Dave Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:04:35 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-2000 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. 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.

]]> By: Tom Hall http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-1997 Tom Hall Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:56:41 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-1997 As a believer I say what a stupid argument, get a grip! As a believer I say what a stupid argument, get a grip!

]]> By: Angela http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-1991 Angela Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:32:44 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-1991 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. 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.

]]> By: Rick http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-1990 Rick Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:50:27 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-1990 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. 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.

]]> By: DCA http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-1987 DCA Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:15:32 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-1987 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. 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.

]]> By: Brad http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-1985 Brad Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:17:59 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-1985 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. 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.

]]> By: W K Clifford http://www.frcblog.com/2009/10/how-long-has-marriage-been-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-scientists-say%e2%80%944-4-million-years/comment-page-1/#comment-1984 W K Clifford Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:20:08 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=1834#comment-1984 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. 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.

]]>