I don't think celebrity status can be blamed either. They are just as accountable as anyone else. Their choices are no tougher nor is their brand of sorrow any different than any of ours.

Celebrity status does however, draw attention to every aspect of their lives and so we see their lives play out at every supermarket checkout stand.

John/Jane Doe down the block is a BS/WS too but they certainly won't make the tabloids.

Mulan I am not saying celebrity is a excuse for infidelity, just that it seems to come with the territory.

It would seem that when the "rules" are made by humans, rather than by God, that there is no "universal" rule of right and wrong, only changing societal "norms" and "mores," and each person can "make up" the rules for themselves as they go along.

Relativistic morality and humanistic reason prevail.

Are we really surprised by Hudson, or Hollywood, or the Media in general?

I don't think monogomy is unrealistic ~ I think that it is unrealistic for people to enter into a monogamous agreement, "hoping" that they won't cheat on their partner. How many movies have we seen where the soon-to-be-groom is asked by his single friends, "How can you think about being with just one woman for the rest of your life?"

I think to some extent, it comes down to the fact that here in America, at least, many see M as the end of something, rather than the beginning of something spectacular. Does the spectacular part take work and energy and focus? Heck yeah!!! But what worthwhile in this world doesn't?

Coming from the generation with the highest D rate, is it any wonder most of us don't know what the heck it takes to create a healthy M? My H and I didn't do what it took to open the doors of education (books) and assistance (MC) until our M blew up in our faces from infidelity.

Did we have whisperings from "life" that our M was not strong? We sure did, in hindsight. Did we act on those whispers? Nope. We waited until "life" shouted at us, make it or break it time, before we put out the effort.

Just my 2 cents.

Spidey

I think they are a bad example for marriages! Just more excuses for people to cheat. Uggghhhhhh! Makes me want to gag!

Oh, for Rice Cake, FH! Not this nonsense again, please.

In the scheme of human his2ry (some 3 million years of it), these universal rules made by God are a pretty recent human development/discovery (last few thousand years).

Not meant 2 be an insult, just a point of perspective.

-ol' 2long

2Long, your "distain" for anything related to God is wearing thin, even if you try to hide it in the guise of a "disclaimer," as in the quotation.

YOU accept the Evolutionary theory and I accept the Creation theory. YOU suppport a wacko who tries to explain everything by his imagining of "punctuated equilibrium" (with NO proof other than his own conjecture and refusal to even consider Creation as a viable cause of 'what we actually see'). But we'll not get back into that discussion, at least not at this time or in this thread.

ONE last time.....the "issue" that needs to be addressed before you drop back into your choice for evolution is very simple....IS Jesus Christ who he says he is?"

If not, "have at" any theory you want. If he is, then it establishes "TRUTH," whether you or I or anyone else likes it.

So if you want to take "objection" to God's Commandments and substitute using ever changing "humanistic mores and morals" to define "right and wrong" and "acceptable" behavior, then have at it.

You HAVE the free will (God-given or "Ape evolved"-given...your choice) to choose any set of Standards that you wish. However, what you don't have the right to do as just "another fellow human" is to mandate your chosen set of Standards (whatever they may be) to me, your wife, or anyone else. You CAN object to someone "selecting" God's commandments as their "standards," but it would seem only fair to ask you WHAT substitute you'd suggest and WHY it would be "superior" to God's commandments.

When you "kick out" the "refererent," the "constant," you eliminate "right and wrong" as applicable to anyone else's choices and constrain it to only apply to yourself, since if YOU have the right to choose your own "standards," then so does everyone else even if you don't agree with them.

So, are you arguing that monogamy is NOT the desired form of marriage? Evolutionistically speaking, you seem to be arguing in a similar vein to the Fundamental Mormons who will "kick out" and "excommunicate" even their own sons in order to keep the ratio of males lower than the available "wives." Impregnate as many females as a male can in order to up the chances of "survival of the fittest" for his particular genetic line.

Or...as so many in Hollywood want it these days...an "open marriage" and a "don't get caught" attitude.

NOT very conducive to Marriage Building, wouldn't you agree?

um...

HUH???????

Since I can find nothing in your post that has anything 2 do with what I was alluding 2 or what I believe 2 be true or releveant 2 this discussion, I shall not respond.

End of discussion, such as it wasn't.

-ol' 2long

2-long -

I am busy arguing on another thread, so can't really give this one its due. As you know, I am a Christian, and believe in the Bible. But forget that for now.

Let's assume that the Bible is just written by men and has no truth. Are you with me? Then, is there any reason to think that monogamy is unrealistic?

From time to time, I am home from work and check out the talk shows. On one show there is usually a woman looking for the father of her child. She swears up and down that one of the three "candidates" is the dad. Sadly, after the DNA testing, none of them are the father. So she moves on to the next 3 possibilites.

I'm not kidding you when I say that one woman had 17 men tested, and still hasn't found "dad".

I know you are a scientist. But by looking at it as a scientist, can you see the case for monogamy? Sheesh, when I had my two boys, I knew there was no doubt who the father was. So glad for that.

believer:

I'm not quite sure I follow you, but taking your assumption statement at face value, I do not think that monogamy is unrealistic at all, given those assumptions.

As for what I believe. I believe that the Bible was written by men (it certainly has been translated, edited and reprinted by men) but contains Great Truths. And yet that doesn't change my "conclusion" about monogamy at all.

But it isn't a scientific matter - it's about feelings and spiri2ality.

I can't even imagine being in that woman's postion of not knowing who the father of her child is - after testing *17* candidates? That's not just promiscuity, that's NUTS!

-ol' 2long

But 2-long -

If you are not a believer, then it has to be a scientific matter. It certainly cannot be about feelings and spirituality.

Let's look at the survival of the fittest theory. Since females and their young need protection, it makes sense for a female to hook-up with, and be monogamous with a male. After all, he hopefully won't eat his young, although I know that does happen in nature.

Of course, the male needs some perks too. He has regular sex (yay!!!!!!!), and knows that his young are his.

Translating this over to humans - animals and humans are much different. You can argue that we all came from the same pond, but somewhere along the way, humans evolved. Otherwise you wouldn't see men laying their life down for another. Genetically that doesn't make sense.

"If you are not a believer, then it has to be a scientific matter. It certainly cannot be about feelings and spirituality."

Perhaps it seems it must be so, must be "either/or".

But that isn't me. Never has been.

"After all, he hopefully won't eat his young, although I know that does happen in nature."

Perhaps "not eating one's kids" is on the list of potential ENs that didn't quite make it 2 the Harley's "top ten" list? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As for laying one's life down for others... Ever hear of dolphins helping shipwrecked sailors 2 shore? What genetic benefit 2 the dolphin is there in doing that? Evolution isn't just of physical forms, it involves intelligence. I think that compassion is a good example of evolution of the mind (and this example isn't even a human one, but one that many scientists these days believe is "on par" with that of Chimpanzees [check my data, though. I've not followed the subject since Junior College, when I was interested in it for a couple years).

-ol' 2long

I bet God ( and darwin probably) winces everytime theres one of these debates on this board full of people in pain and hope.

I commit hereof to never contribute to one again.

2-long - SNORT - as Melody says. I think we have come to an agreement. The Harley's need to add "not eating one's kids to the EN list!

And for Bob, they should add "a disinclination for making God and/or Darwin wince by debating evolution/creation/science/religion on Marriage-Building 4ums! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That okay, bobbers? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

Bob - As a fellow believer, I don't think God winces at these debates. If you are truly a believer, you need to know that. God calls us to walk along with HIM. If you don't trust in HIM, how can you walk with HIM?

Now, back to 2-long. I will read more about the dolphins. My first thought is that they were trained, or got some kind of pleasure from assisting.

I am a big animal lover, but haven't seen animals acting like humans. I know that a mother will protect her own. But as far as animals being heroic, I don't think so. For every thousand humans that have sacrificed their lives for a cause, there might be one animal. And that is very doubtful to me.

"My first thought is that they were trained, or got some kind of pleasure from assisting."

They weren't trained. These are accounts, going from modern time back 2 greek and roman times, of dolphins in the wild saving people from drowning by pushing them to shore (sometimes pretty long distances).

This isn't the same thing as risking their lives 2 save people, though.

I'm not a dog person, but don't dogs sometimes risk their lives for their owners?

-ol' 2long

Ah, 2-long, you are such an idealist. I love dogs, but no, sadly, a dog isn't going to risk his life for his owner. He may bark and wake up the owner, or may snuggle up with the owner in a snowstorm. But risking their lives? Nope.

Risking lives is a human trait.

I know that there are stories of dolphins rescuing people, just like there are stories of mermaids rescuing sailors. But haven't observed it or seen it checked out scientfically.

Dolphins have a instinct to push their newly born young up to the surface of the water so the youngsters can breathe. It's believed that if/when dolphins assist struggling and sinking human swimmers, it's because this instinct has been triggered.
Mulan