Friday, June 28, 2013

7QT Marriage & Evolutionary Psychology

More 7QTs over at Jen's Conversion Diary

1. You know what is messed up; evolutionary psychology is more in sync with Christian understanding of marriage, then our public policy regarding the family. There are a lot of great articles there.

2.

" I really hate the argument that marriage is all about the children. "
That is what I was told today, in an FB conversation. I don't know, if she every thought it out, but children can't survive on their own after birth. They just die, after a day or two. Both biological parents, maternal and paternal progenitors raising their offspring together seems to be a reasonable solution to this problem. We just can't give it's own legal term in our public policy to promote the idea, I guess. And anyone who does... will be socially tormented and ostracized in the community for having such a dumb *ss idea.

3. From Endless Strength over at Catholic Mutt

"My biggest beef with all of this is somehow I am viewed as a bigot, and I think that is so unfortunate and very untrue. But because they think they can redefine marriage, then they think they can redefine the people who oppose that point of view. it's sad and scary."

4. Constitutional Law Professor Ann Althouse was as sore winner.

"Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)"

5. Who’s Yo Daddy? over at Alexandria.

Question 1a: Are ova property? Of whom, under what circumstances? Question 1b: Are sperm property? Of whom, under what circumstances? Question 1c: Is a sperm-fertilized ovum property? Of whom, under what circumstances? If not property, what is it?
Follow the link for the answer.

6. Friendships

A world with Eros but without friendship is a world full of isolated, self-obsessed couples, of love unshared a sad thing indeed. – A priest’s reflection on friendship

7. How Men and Women Cooperate

What she found in her recent study -- published in SAGE's Journal of Social and Personal Relationships -- were surprising gender differences. She and her colleagues found that during high mutual levels of cooperation with a romantic partner, men typically experience an "inphase" response to their significant other's emotions. That is, if the woman in the relationship is feeling more positive, the man will feel more positive. If she feels less positive, he will feel less positive. On the contrary, it seems women experience more of an "antiphase" pattern during high mutual cooperation. If her partner is feeling more positive, she will tend to feel less positive, and vice versa.

8 comments:

  1. Off topic: Where can I find interviews or stories of people living in the poorest communities? I see a lot of stats and I've worked with a couple of fatherless young men, but I'd like to do some broader research. Do you have any books, YouTube channels or blogs to recommend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of material is dated. The research on fatherless has lessened in my opinion. Not popular to talk about the importance of the one man/one woman model.

      Princeton's University Fragile Families


      Best place.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the tip. All of what you've got in your post and that last bit about it being unpopular to talk about one man one woman is the very hallmark of fascism. The State is providing you the moral code and will pursue and punish you if you violate it. I don't use the F-word lightly, either.

      At least I think I don't.

      Delete
    3. OK, I checked it out and the very first click yielded pure, libertine-bubble gold.

      "Nonmarital births to cohabiting couples are overrepresented among historically disadvantaged populations."

      LOL! Pure gobbledygook to hide reality.

      And I love the name - fragile families. What a pathetic fig leaf.

      Delete
  2. One more thing. I was involved in discussion (I'm trying to be more Franciscan these days, but not always succeeding) with an aggressive gay marriage proponent on my blog and developed this idea: There is a natural conflict between sexual freedom and social justice. The more you accept nontraditional behaviors, the more poverty, abuse and social pathologies you see.

    I think this is the heart of the matter. The pro-gay marriage crowd wants to act as if there's nothing to be lost, but all of history has shown that these two things are incompatible.

    Our ancestors weren't stupid people, particularly when it came to personal relationships. Traditional morals weren't developed to unnecessarily eliminate freedom and pleasure. From the Catholic point of view, traditional morals as described in the Bible were given to us by a loving God who doesn't deliberately deny us happiness. It makes sense, then, that traditional morals and traditional family structures produce, on the whole, the best outcomes.

    Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that sexual freedom isn't compatible with social justice. Whew! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/modernism_vs_postmodernism.htm


      Excellent guide.... to understand the nilification.


      I was reading some commentary from younger Catholics in their 20s, I got the sense that America is so deconstructed in its post modernism that there was little to do stop it from its path.

      I guess by nature of my interest in law and public policy, I still want to engage with the law. For them, they were so born further into modern/post modern culture. They see no point in engaging.


      Delete
    2. Reading that postmodernist side of that link makes me want to lie around and drink beer. What's the point of doing anything relevant? There is no "relevant" or "important."

      Delete