Moody Mondays and marriage as a social good, rather than just an individual right

In considering the arguments about same-sex marriage, I only recall hearing about individual rights versus property and religious concerns. What I don’t recall seeing, though, is any recognition of the functions other then the traditional property consolidating measure that marriage has always been, as well as sometimes protecting the woman, in the case of the latter Rabbis as cited by Rabbi Jill Jacobs. But I see marriage as benefiting society, in general.

If we encourage people to pair up in the hope of being more productive and protective, for themselves and others, together than separately, then they can also help the rest of the community more effectively.


I spotted an old post that I made a few years ago, as discussions about Marriage Equality were starting to come out into the open.  Many things in our society need to be discussed openly, and in rational and cooperative and empathetic terms.  This was one discussion that turned out to be interesting and reassuring, if not conclusive:

 I had an interesting discussion on the bus today with a gentleman who began opposing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the human race would end, and parted promising to continue the dialogue, and admitting to seeing another point of view. I began by pointing out that since statistically only 10percent of men and 5 percent of women prefer same-sex partners, the human race is not about to end if we refuse to reproduce. I then compared prohibiting gay marriage to prohibiting mixed race marriages, with which he strongly disagreed. I rebutted with the point that both interracial and gay marriages were prohibited on moral and biblical grounds, and that the importance in both cases, human rights aside, is that marriage is about commitment in the context of community. All marriages strengthen community by allowing the community to support the couple and encouraging the couple to commit their contributions and energy to the community. This gives both the community and the couple a vested interest and a stake in the success of the other. Interestingly enough he responded that people need to talk more about these things openly, which is exactly what my friends had said in Spanish as we discussed the immigration law reform, at the bus stop! :-). God talking to me in stereo again Tammy!!


Yassas,   γεια σας!    Salût !  Nos vemos!  Görüşürüz!     ! שָׁלוֹם

Action Items in support of community and cooperation that you can take right now:

1.) Search for two different ideas.

2.) Share them with us in the comments, here, please.


Dear Readers, any additional ideas toward learning, especially multiple #LanguageLearning as part of on-going education and empathy-building, to #EndPoverty, #EndHomelessness,  #EndMoneyBail & achieve freedom for All HumanKind? 

Support our key #PublicDomainInfrastructure  & #StopSmoking for CCOVID-19:
1. #PublicLibraries,
2. #ProBono legal aid and Education,
3. #UniversalHealthCare, and
4. good #publictransport
Read, Write

Stayed on Freedom's Call: Cooperation Between Jewish And African-American Communities In Washington, DC, Ranked Choice Voting and Housing for ALL!!, Teach and Learn (Lesson Plans)!



Preptober for NaNoWriMo 2020 CE

October, 2020 CE = 12020 HE

(The previous lesson plan since this post, and the most recent lesson plan…)

18 thoughts on “Moody Mondays and marriage as a social good, rather than just an individual right

      1. Shavuah Tov to you as well, dear Shira!
        What interested me is the social aspect of marriage and the benefit of “pairing,” as you call it, to society. For centuries, marriage was a religious institution, imbued with a divine purpose. Granted, the higher classes have engaged in marriages for political, territorial, or financial reasons, but there still wasn’t any such thing as a civil union. You are postulating that pairs strengthen society, and you are making a strong argument for it. In this case, marriage loses its religious significance and serves the purpose of society. Then why does a family unit have to be a pair? Why not a threesome, or as Mormons do, multiplicity? Any unit will have the same effect, wouldn’t it?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hmm, well, you do pose an interesting question, and I’ve got some Polyamorous friends who argue that multi-person (3+) sets are great, but I’ve heard their continual ‘Poly Psychodrama’ rants too often to agree with them. While I have nothing against them as consenting adults wanting to enjoy themselves, if that is indeed what happens (time seems to indicate to me that it is not in fact what happens over the long term, or even over more than about a week!), the issue with family units is sex: jealousy, need for attention, and time to devote to any given indivdual, as well as each person’s need to feel loved, I think, make 3+ & polyga*ous units a problem, unless most of them are asexual, but even then, the problem with human beings is that sex hormones seem to be too strong to allow for non-sexual and non-jealous bonds between more than 2 people. I have no issue with 3+, but I’ve seen so much energy and time wasted by ‘Polys’ busy arguing over silly jealousy issues rather than admitting that one of them (usually some guy) just wants to fool around freely. There is no honor and nearly no committment in that.
          But I could be wrong.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You are talking about Western-type society where the only polygamous units are Mormons. I am not suggesting it; just posing a question as to what makes a pair an ideal societal unit. If we look at sexual attraction as the basis of creating such as unit, then it would seem to me too unstable to serve a purpose of strengthening society. Statistically, over 60% of first-year marriages end up in divorce court. Presumably, those are the ones initially based on sex, rather than more stable values.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Thank you! That’s what I was thinking, but not sure how to say: if we build family units on the basis of commitment to principle rather than physical attraction, then I’d agree wholeheartedly, but I’ve never seen such a group of people. As with the Rangers/Anlashok of Babylon 5, or with the patrol of El Ministerio del Tiempo, collegues who become family seem to me to be the ideal. But that’s not what our society sees/has/offers…

              Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, Ashley, that is another thing that couples do, from the point of view of a given faith/philosophical group, but I was thinking primarily of contributing to community in general, as in mutual aid, Blood Donation, First Responders, Volunteering, etc.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Sorry, I didn’t mean to put a cap on it, and I really appreciate your comment: I was just thinking from a secular point of view, but I think you’re right, that nurture matters far more than nature, and that therefore couples adopting kids into say, the Quaker faith, is also a way that marriage sustains community, as with other faiths as well. (just using them as an example, since my 5xs gr grandfather was purchased and freed by Quakers, but he married Methodist, of course…)

          Liked by 2 people

Please Share your Thoughts

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s