God loves polyandry!
The 67% inaccurately named Family Research Council* has a press release on Ardi, a relatively complete Ardipithecus ramidus skeleton and the oldest known fossil. Strangely enough, the FRC seems to think Ardi supports their bizarre hate-boner for same-sex marriage:
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.
The dishonesty herein isn't really surprising. First, they equate "pair-bonding" with modern, western-style marriage, even though in many species pair-bonding is neither exclusive nor a lifelong commitment. And, of course, they just can't resist sneaking in the word "secular" before "scientist"- because, you know, these are those evil evolution-worshipping secular humanists, not the real kind of scientists who know that when reality contradicts the Bible, reality is wrong.
The funniest part, though, is they seem to think that there's something magically double-super-special about male parental investment. The FRC isn't arguing for two parents involved in raising every child; they're arguing for male parental involvement, specifically. Well, gosh, by that rationale, shouldn't gay male couples be the best choice for child-rearing? The lucky little podling can get a double dose of daddies as he grows up! Think how handy that would be: One can be the breadwinner while the other is a stay-at-home dad, assuring plenty of time for teaching Junior how to play football.
In fact, if male parental involvement is so critical, two male parents may not be enough! I suggest we should institute polyandry, the practice of women having multiple husbands (or at least multiple male mates). Junior will get all the male parental involvement he can stomach, and Mom will always be assured of a steady income (several, probably) to support a stable environment for child-rearing. Heck, with all those partners-in-childrearing around, she can even take some time off now and then, to generally get away from the pressures of Mom-hood. Motherhood will no longer mean 18 years of no social life!
(She may have to learn to live with the toilet seat being left up, though.)
* They do no research and don't give a damn about families. I'll let them have the "Council" part, though I've been playing so much City of Heroes lately it makes me think of these guys.
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.
The dishonesty herein isn't really surprising. First, they equate "pair-bonding" with modern, western-style marriage, even though in many species pair-bonding is neither exclusive nor a lifelong commitment. And, of course, they just can't resist sneaking in the word "secular" before "scientist"- because, you know, these are those evil evolution-worshipping secular humanists, not the real kind of scientists who know that when reality contradicts the Bible, reality is wrong.
The funniest part, though, is they seem to think that there's something magically double-super-special about male parental investment. The FRC isn't arguing for two parents involved in raising every child; they're arguing for male parental involvement, specifically. Well, gosh, by that rationale, shouldn't gay male couples be the best choice for child-rearing? The lucky little podling can get a double dose of daddies as he grows up! Think how handy that would be: One can be the breadwinner while the other is a stay-at-home dad, assuring plenty of time for teaching Junior how to play football.
In fact, if male parental involvement is so critical, two male parents may not be enough! I suggest we should institute polyandry, the practice of women having multiple husbands (or at least multiple male mates). Junior will get all the male parental involvement he can stomach, and Mom will always be assured of a steady income (several, probably) to support a stable environment for child-rearing. Heck, with all those partners-in-childrearing around, she can even take some time off now and then, to generally get away from the pressures of Mom-hood. Motherhood will no longer mean 18 years of no social life!
(She may have to learn to live with the toilet seat being left up, though.)
* They do no research and don't give a damn about families. I'll let them have the "Council" part, though I've been playing so much City of Heroes lately it makes me think of these guys.