Monogamy and Marriage are Unnatural

Monogamy is unnatural and against humanity and nature. All species must spread their genes and create as much genetic diversity as possible in order to assure survival. Nobody lives forever, and over half of marriages end in divorce. In order to save humanity we must realize that monogamy limits diversity, slows reproduction yada yada.

It doesn't matter if there are 37 billion elvis impersonators running around selling condoms and cheap marriage licenses in Las Vegas's for-profit chapels. If we all just stopped listening to his music, Elvis would be dead tomorrow.

But more importantly. Deep down inside we are not Romeo's and Juliets, we are sperm and egg. Sperm and egg like to fertilize and be fertizlized as often as possible to ensure that babies continue to exist.

And when's the last time you saw an animal get married? Never. They flee from that stuff like they flee from tsunamis. Ofcourse, penguins wear little tuxedos, but isn't that more like post-modern irony then nature?

Not only do biologists tell us that monogamy is a freak occurance in most animals, anthropoligists tell us that allo parenting, not the nuclear family is the most effective way to assure the survival of human offspring. Plus, more genetic diversity bodes well for when that next super-flu hits.

So what, 51 % of the human race is woman and 49% is man. What's that gonna be like in 100 years? 99 % of women keeping the 1% of men in underground caves where they use them for occasional procreation, but mostly for mowing the lawn and talking about how their day went? Hog wash!

I mean zero disrepsect for people who consider themselves 'committed', even though you're all unnatural demonic scoundrels. But I'd really like for someone to explain the flaw in this logic. And if you can, please continue for many many pages, perhaps 100 so that there's enough opposition postings to your postings so that I can still continue to believe exactly what I believe.

PEACE

Many species of birds are monogamous, though I do like the OP's point. Abstinence is not natural and those trying to push it are out of touch with reality imho.

reply to post by snusfanatic

I'd say there's a huge dichotomy between the male sperm and the female egg.
Men have a stable hormonal system, women have their "moon" cycles.

Women's bodies bear the brunt of heterosexual sex. Humans have a 9-month pregnancy and the need for somebody to care for a helpless infant. It can even be parasitic on the woman's body, and claim her life.

So while the male can happily spread his seed, the woman requires a far more secure and fixed position.

That is a violent clash of needs.

reply to post by halfoldman

Through-out species and cultures monogamy is more natural to females than males.
Having many female partners seems more natural to the male.
At least that is a common cultural construction.

reply to post by snusfanatic

Monogamy and Marriage are Unnatural

Don't confuse marriage and monogamy as being one in the same. Monogamous relationships exist in nature between male and female of many species. Some species of birds mate for life.

That being said, marriage... as in the legal joining of male and female in a binding union, was created over a period of hundreds of years by various religions as a means of controlling royal blood lines. Male nobles had a nasty habit of siring offspring with any number of mistresses, leaving bastard children claiming title and thrones. The church wanted to assure contiguous lineages which they could manipulate to control entire nations.

In point of fact, humans are among a very few species that mate with other like sub-species. Interracial marriages are akin to lions and leopards mating in the wild. It's not that it is totally unheard of, but nature prefers the same thing as the clergy did... an orderly procession.

Oh, and lest I be fallen upon for speaking verbotten words and concepts... that last part was not a racist statement. Not in the least. I was merely making an observation of what occurs in nature.

reply to post by redoubt


And how do you know that nature prefers such an order? Have you actually studied anything or are you going by pseudoscience?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by redoubt

 

And how do you know that nature prefers such an order? Have you actually studied anything or are you going by pseudoscience?

hey, all you have to do is to get out of your computer chair and spend some time in a library or with nature. Observe your fellow creatures and study what is known of their personalities and habits.

It's no big mystery... no secret.

Actually, monogamy and polygamy (as well as polygyny and polyandry-- look 'em up...) vary widely among species.

Even more interestingly, patterns of monogamy vary within species. My favorite example is a certain species of tern (a kind of bird) with two main colonies; one on the east coast of the US and one in the South of the US. The former colony is relatively "wealthy," with lots of food around. These birds tend to "sleep around" a lot with each other and have less firm bonds of monogamy. The ones in the south, on the other hand, live in a harsher environment, where there is less food. They are more rigidly mongamous, because its a more efficient way of managing a tight food supply. Can a lesson be applied to human "decadence" in times of wealth and "uprightness" in the face of spartan hardship?

I've been called many names but never a demonic scoundrel.

And we humans are much more than sperm and eggs. We are thinking people with souls. Wild animals we are not.

Unless you've been living in a cave your must have surely noticed the young teen girls having babies. Many times they have no idea who the father is.

It is my opinion that we have enough babies being made to more than satisfy our future needs.

I will agree that monogamy is not as practical as a woman having several husbands. We need one to do the building and plumbing, one to keep the garden and livestock healthy and fed, one to repair the automobiles and one that attends to our personal needs.

That worked very well for me until I finally made a commitment to one mate.

And I did not have them all living under the same roof with me.

But I do like the idea we had when I was in my hippie years. Make love not war.

It's funny that most of the people who say that homosexuality is " unnatural".

... are also the type of people who believe there should be no sex without marriage.


Marriage !! a completely imagined concept !! oh the irony !

reply to post by dizziedame

But I do like the idea we had when I was in my hippie years. Make love not war.

Ditto

Once upon a time there was a tavern
Where we used to raise a glass or two
Remember how we laughed away the hours
And think of all the great things we would do
...
Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


while i appreciate the discussion and hope it continues on this thread, about whether or not monogamy is natural for humans - it has surprised and entranced me..... i want to personally thank you for 'getting it' right off the bat.

reply to post by The Sword


Simple proof go watch swans.

Here's some food for thought from Mothers and Others by Hrdy:

"To put men in perspective, step back for a moment and consider paternal behavior in broad comparative perspective, across all 5,400 or so species of mammals in the world. In the majority of them, fathers do remarkably little beyond stake out territories, compete with other males, and mate with females. With outlandish auditory and visual displays which often entail specially evolved weaponry, bellowing, barking, or roaring, males engage in fierce contests to rout their competitors. Then "Slam, bam, thank you ma'am" and the inseminator is off."

Any one ever seen a rap video?

I posted this in another thread about a different topic yesterday in response to a person who said promiscuity was natural, animals did it in nature, and nature knew best. It fits here, too. Marriage I am not going to comment on.


"Is that not the way almost all creatures in nature behave? Promiscuous animals is what ensures survival.

Nature knows best!"


MY RESPONSE:


Nature knows best.
Well, does nature have STD's in the animal kingdom (besides the Homo Sapiens)?

If an animal eats something that makes them ill, do they eat it again? If they come to a water source that is contaminated, do they drink?

Are we not better than the animals?

Truly, if ALL people behaved like "animals" i.e unprotected sex with multiple partners at will, the human species would eradicate themselves within a generation due to STDs.

If ALL people, homosexual or heterosexual, decided to mate for life with a chosen partner, and stick to that commitment, while preserving their virginity until deciding upon a mate, then we, as a human species, would be able to eradicate all STDs within a full generational cycle.

So, maybe nature does know best.

A lofty, unattainable principle I heard given by a microbiologist in college. Interesting, isn't it?

It's also natural to go extinct, which we would by STDs if we only did what was natural.

reply to post by 547000


Also another way to look at it

Nature isn't forgiving, is she? Play by nature's rules for the species.

What we have to remember is that sex is Naturally for reproduction, and Naturally any use of sex for other than reproduction is Unnatural. The most Natural form of sex is rape, as any other form of sex is just society and conditioning and all that, and it's easy to see these are all unnatural. And SCIENCE supports this because proportionally, rape causes pregnany more efficiently than any other form of sex.

People who have sex that is not rape are just icky in the eyes of most people and we have to stop them indoctrinating children with their Unnatural icky fetishes. I'm not prejudiced, I even watch videos with people doing unnatural things in. Of course I only watch so I can pray for their salvation ... with one hand.

These people should be made to see that consensual sex is the beginning of the end because it doesn't make enough babies. If you put 100 men who engage in consensual sex together on a deserted island in 50 years there will only be old men there, not a child in sight. But if you put 50 rapists and 50 nubile women onto a deserted island they will breed so fast they will soon cause their food sources to go extinct and all starve to death, proving overpopulation is Natural and good.

reply to post by thegoodearth


Nature can go stick it to where the sun don't shine. I like the fact that I can go to a dentist instead of having a tooth ache for years.

reply to post by 547000


I laughed out loud!~

God Bless~

PS- Your signature made me laugh too~ I had T-shirt that said that years ago. Sweet!