Marriage and Morals –

by

The current climate in this country at this time (America, early 21st century) is anything goes, the kinkier, the better. Plain old heterosexuals are regarded as somewhat second class, and/or persecutors of whichever minority is protesting. This is somewhat contrary to the historical rules of most of human existance. Inherent in the human is the drive to procreate, and, speaking for the male, to spread his seed as far and as wide as possible. Societies have evolved rules that are designed to protect women and children so that the society and the species may prosper. Most have developed the one man, one woman, and their children pattern. Where one sex is conspicuously scarce other patterns have been used. In many war torn societies where the men were killed off polygamy was considered ok. The reverse was true in early Polynesian expansion (and other places), when the women were rare, and polyandry was occasionally practiced. Even in those societies where the multiple spouses were ok the standard one woman, one man was the norm. Look around at Moslem societies today. Even though up to four wives are allowed and as many concubines as can be supported, the normal family unit in Moslem countries is still the one woman, one man pattern.

I can only really be an authority on heterosexuality. Yes, I am that square. Monogamy may or may not be natural by our current social lights, but it is the norm over most societies throughout history. Why has this evolved? According to Eastern Orthodox Christian thinking, God does not make souls. God finished creation and then rested. What He did, rather than creating each new soul, was set up a mechanism whereby the parents create the soul in the act of procreation. This is somewhat at odds with Western thought, particularly Protestant. However, this does explain some otherwise puzzling things. If there is a merging of soul-stuff with the sex act, then it becomes apparent that one night stands and irresponsible sex with various partners is dangerous to the soul. If there is a sharing on a real level then there is some shredding of the soul when indiscriminate partners come and go. On the other hand, a monogamous long-term relationship leads to the strengthening of the soul bond. This sounds somewhat preposterous until we have actually experienced this merging and sharing. It takes several years for this to become apparent to us – somewhere between seven and fifteen years is what I observe with most couples. It seems to take thirty to fifty years to fully mature. Check around you. Observe the people that you know that are in a long and satisfying marriage. You can see the external effects of this blending, which takes place over many years. These couples tend to be more satisfied with life in general than those who have never taken the time and effort to develop this long term merging. Also observe those who have not been in a long and faithful relationship. They tend to be much more bitter and cynical about life. I do not know if this soul-bonding is possible in a homosexual relationship. The homosexuals that I have known over the past several years do not seem to exhibit this. It may be out there, but I have not observed it.

It is an interesting phenomenon worth noting that, while birth control is readily available and cheap, the majority of children born in this country are illegitimate. The general dumbing down of our society is nowhere more evident than in our stupid and ignorant disregard of natural law where our own lives and offspring are concerned. There is more venereal disease in the population than at any other time in history. In spite of the current worship of nature, we do not seem to want to learn about or deal with our own nature. Our society seems more interested in brain controlling our children to care more about “Mother Nature” as goddess than about human nature and the proper control of same. People seem more interested in the government taking control of everyone’s life than they are about taking control of their own lives.

The conclusion that I can draw is that there is more to the standard Christian doctrine of fidelity than the do your own thing crowd seems to want to admit. There seem to be good and practical reasons for the morals that have developed and preached for centuries. Not to mention that in my observation the people who lead an immoral life seem to be pretty much less than happy, productive people.

It may be observed that the statement that is made is Exodus 20:5 about visiting the sins of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation is not a statement of a harsh and vengeful God, as many would have it. Genetic damage shows up in subsequent generations. This seems to hold for hateful and abusive behavior as well. Children reflect the genes of their parents. Children reflect the emotional and spiritual damage of parents also. It can take several generations to clear up this damage. Looks to me like Exodus 20:5 is just a flat statement of fact about human life.

Where am I going with this? Not necessarily anywhere in particular. However, if your moral code is “do your own thing” or “whatever feels good” or “I do what I want when I want” I would suggest that you have not formed an adult and informed set of personal morals. If you have rejected any constraints on your behavior then your moral code is that of a child. I do not necessarily suggest that all people need to follow the traditional Judeo/Christian moral code blindly, just because papa said so. However, to reject that set of morals without careful and informed consideration is really quite stupid. One’s moral code should enable one to live with oneself and one’s neighbors in some sort of sane balance.

We have swung the pendulum too far (as usual). We have gone from a society that would condemn and persecute (and perhaps prosecute) anyone who did not adhere (at least publicly) to the standard puritanical set of morals and behaviors of the time to a society that is totally afraid to say that anyone’s behavior is unacceptable, unless one of the political hot topics has been violated. Look at the difference in the treatment of Don Imus and known carriers of venereal disease. Imus was hounded out of his job for making one stupid (but poitically insensitive) remark. Our public health departments are not allowed to make a community aware of a known and active spreader of venereal diseases, much less stop the individual from continuing to infect (and kill) unknowing victims. Look at the difficult time we have with known sexual predators, who could be stopped rather easily if we decided to do so.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: