Are Humans created Monogamous?

[Jacob Samuelson]

Hi RF,

Of course there might just be something in the air as there are OPs already popping up around this issue, but I am curious to know from everyone's different religious background how they consider the creation of man in being monogamous.

As background, I have been doing a lot of study on the history of Polygamy and its permission in God's eyes during Jewish, Muslim, LDS, etc. histories. From a very modern and 'sophisticated' society we tend to get goose pimples when we hear the word polygamy. In my opinion, this is probably attributed to a highly sexualized acceptance in media. We marry for sex and nothing else. These guys with multiple wives just want more sex. Gross. But the question we ask morally, Is it better to be married and have sex or not married and have sex?

Most religious practices encourage marriage before sex. Fornication is a terminology often thrown out and was for a long time punishable by death or shunning in many faiths which included sex before marriage.

So Today, I would say its is fairly accepted in the world to have sex before marriage. With multiple partners. I think statistically the average person has had 4-5 sexual partners in their lifetime Is this morally better or worse than Polygamy, which is being married to multiple partners under God, with consent and understanding that primarily woman would have 'sister wives' to hang out with.

I believe marriage would be better than no marriage any day. Again, not that I practice nor agree with polygamy, but at least I understand in a small way why it could have been permissible to God.

Another thought I had was about Adam and Eve. We have to assume that God created them a certain way to react to their relationship toward each other both sexually and intimately. We often skip over how their children would have children of their own. Incest and polygamy is the obvious conclusion, but because of how gross it sounds, our 'sophisticated' society would go straight to other topics and never address it. This is a don't ask don't tell policy, but so it is for many religions facing hard questions about historical grossness written in their histories.

Now my question is not to gross people out or deny what happened in the Bible, my question is to evaluate if we are inherently monogamous species, like turtle doves or elephants, who generally have mates for life with no inclination of plurality. Or were we designed to by Polygamous, like lions or wolves, and made to mate with multiple partners as was necessary for at least the first couple millennia of the start of the world. Or maybe we are made to be both. The second question: Is the institution of marriage strong enough to support polygamy or because of how weak marriage is today, Is monogamy the only choice? Morally speaking.

What are you thoughts?

 

[The Hammer]

Men are typically polygamist in nature while women tend to be more monogamous.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course there might just be something in the air as there are OPs already popping up around this issue, but I am curious to know from everyone's different religious background how they consider the creation of man in being monogamous.

I believe that we were created to be monogamous, but for various reasons throughout history God has allowed men to have more than one wife under religious law. For example, Islam allowed up to four wives but that as because of the society back then, as women needed protection and a woman without a husband had no protection.

They also point out the practice of polygyny in Islam was created for the purpose of taking care of fatherless children, or orphans. Thus, polygyny was allowable for charitable and honorable purposes.

Polygyny in Islam - Wikipedia

But the question we ask morally, Is it better to be married and have sex or not married and have sex?

According to my beliefs sex is only allowed in marriage. No other sex is permissible.

So Today, I would say its is fairly accepted in the world to have sex before marriage. With multiple partners. I think statistically the average person has had 4-5 sexual partners in their lifetime Is this morally better or worse than
Polygamy, which is being married to multiple partners under God, with consent and understanding that primarily woman would have 'sister wives' to hang out with.

To me, it does not matter what is accepted by society because I believe that sex out of wedlock is not what God wants. I believe that society has become immoral and all manner of behaviors are acceptable that God does not want us to engage in, not just sex, but also recreational drugs and alcohol.

Ideally, one would only have one lifetime sexual partner, the one they are married to, but given most people have sex outside of wedlock and divorce is so common people will have more than one partner.

If a man was permitted to have 'sister wives' then why couldn't a woman have more than one husband?

I believe marriage would be better than no marriage any day. Again, not that I practice nor agree with polygamy, but at least I understand in a small way why it could have been permissible to God.

I believe that polygamy was permissible to God for societal reasons, as noted above, but not so men could have more sex. Of course that is what people think of first and that just shows how corrupt morals have become, Imo.

Now my question is not to gross people out or deny what happened in the Bible, my question is to evaluate if we are inherently monogamous species, like turtle doves or elephants, who generally have mates for life with no inclination of plurality. Or were we designed to by Polygamous, like lions or wolves, and made to mate with multiple partners as was necessary for at least the first couple millennia of the start of the world. Or maybe we are made to be both.

I believe humans wee designed to be monogamous.

The second question: Is the institution of marriage strong enough to support polygamy or because of how weak marriage is today, Is monogamy the only choice? Morally speaking.

I believe that monogamy is what God wants for humans and strong marriages the bedrock of society.
Below is what my religion teaches about sex and marriage.

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

The following law is from the Bahai Book of Laws.

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

 

[Kenny]

Another thought I had was about Adam and Eve. We have to assume that God created them a certain way to react to their relationship toward each other both sexually and intimately. We often skip over how their children would have children of their own. Incest and polygamy is the obvious conclusion, but because of how gross it sounds, our 'sophisticated' society would go straight to other topics and never address it. This is a don't ask don't tell policy, but so it is for many religions facing hard questions about historical grossness written in their histories.

Now my question is not to gross people out or deny what happened in the Bible, my question is to evaluate if we are inherently monogamous species, like turtle doves or elephants, who generally have mates for life with no inclination of plurality. Or were we designed to by Polygamous, like lions or wolves, and made to mate with multiple partners as was necessary for at least the first couple millennia of the start of the world. Or maybe we are made to be both. The second question: Is the institution of marriage strong enough to support polygamy or because of how weak marriage is today, Is monogamy the only choice? Morally speaking.

My view, and I realize that it is a personal Christian viewpoint, is that we are indeed created monogamous.

I don't compare mankind with the animal kingdom because some of the animal kingdom eat their babies and would thus have to promote cannibalism. Or the Black Widow that kills her mate.

As God did with divorce in as much as because of hardness of heart or things that mankind does, He permitted polygamy too. But in the beginning it was not so.

However, in reference to marrying family, God stopped it further down the line. It doesn't say why but I assume that it has to do with genetic risks.

In my world view, I understand marriage to be a blood covenant and it would denote exclusivity in the best of cases. Redemption is available in the worst of cases.

I don't know if I was clear, let me know.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Men are typically polygamist in nature while women tend to be more monogamous.

Women? Monogamous? I'm not so sure. I get the same impression as you, but it could due to other factors that they appear more monogamous. Maybe its because we are less tribal than is natural?

My view, and I realize that it is a personal Christian viewpoint, is that we are indeed created monogamous.

It certainly seems that we are 50% male/female doesn't it? Why 50/50?

 

[Audie]

Hi RF,

Of course there might just be something in the air as there are OPs already popping up around this issue, but I am curious to know from everyone's different religious background how they consider the creation of man in being monogamous.

As background, I have been doing a lot of study on the history of Polygamy and its permission in God's eyes during Jewish, Muslim, LDS, etc. histories. From a very modern and 'sophisticated' society we tend to get goose pimples when we hear the word polygamy. In my opinion, this is probably attributed to a highly sexualized acceptance in media. We marry for sex and nothing else. These guys with multiple wives just want more sex. Gross. But the question we ask morally, Is it better to be married and have sex or not married and have sex?

Most religious practices encourage marriage before sex. Fornication is a terminology often thrown out and was for a long time punishable by death or shunning in many faiths which included sex before marriage.

So Today, I would say its is fairly accepted in the world to have sex before marriage. With multiple partners. I think statistically the average person has had 4-5 sexual partners in their lifetime Is this morally better or worse than Polygamy, which is being married to multiple partners under God, with consent and understanding that primarily woman would have 'sister wives' to hang out with.

I believe marriage would be better than no marriage any day. Again, not that I practice nor agree with polygamy, but at least I understand in a small way why it could have been permissible to God.

Another thought I had was about Adam and Eve. We have to assume that God created them a certain way to react to their relationship toward each other both sexually and intimately. We often skip over how their children would have children of their own. Incest and polygamy is the obvious conclusion, but because of how gross it sounds, our 'sophisticated' society would go straight to other topics and never address it. This is a don't ask don't tell policy, but so it is for many religions facing hard questions about historical grossness written in their histories.

Now my question is not to gross people out or deny what happened in the Bible, my question is to evaluate if we are inherently monogamous species, like turtle doves or elephants, who generally have mates for life with no inclination of plurality. Or were we designed to by Polygamous, like lions or wolves, and made to mate with multiple partners as was necessary for at least the first couple millennia of the start of the world. Or maybe we are made to be both. The second question: Is the institution of marriage strong enough to support polygamy or because of how weak marriage is today, Is monogamy the only choice? Morally speaking.

What are you thoughts?

I think you are assuming "created".

 

[The Hammer]

Women? Monogamous? I'm not so sure. I get the same impression as you, but it could due to other factors that they appear more monogamous. Maybe its because we are less tribal than is natural?

.

I think it has more to do with the reality of raising kids where it takes 12-18 years to reach maturity by societal definitions. That is easier to do with one stable romantic partner over that time period.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hi RF,

Of course there might just be something in the air as there are OPs already popping up around this issue, but I am curious to know from everyone's different religious background how they consider the creation of man in being monogamous.

As background, I have been doing a lot of study on the history of Polygamy and its permission in God's eyes during Jewish, Muslim, LDS, etc. histories. From a very modern and 'sophisticated' society we tend to get goose pimples when we hear the word polygamy. In my opinion, this is probably attributed to a highly sexualized acceptance in media. We marry for sex and nothing else. These guys with multiple wives just want more sex. Gross. But the question we ask morally, Is it better to be married and have sex or not married and have sex?

Most religious practices encourage marriage before sex. Fornication is a terminology often thrown out and was for a long time punishable by death or shunning in many faiths which included sex before marriage.

So Today, I would say its is fairly accepted in the world to have sex before marriage. With multiple partners. I think statistically the average person has had 4-5 sexual partners in their lifetime Is this morally better or worse than Polygamy, which is being married to multiple partners under God, with consent and understanding that primarily woman would have 'sister wives' to hang out with.

I believe marriage would be better than no marriage any day. Again, not that I practice nor agree with polygamy, but at least I understand in a small way why it could have been permissible to God.

Another thought I had was about Adam and Eve. We have to assume that God created them a certain way to react to their relationship toward each other both sexually and intimately. We often skip over how their children would have children of their own. Incest and polygamy is the obvious conclusion, but because of how gross it sounds, our 'sophisticated' society would go straight to other topics and never address it. This is a don't ask don't tell policy, but so it is for many religions facing hard questions about historical grossness written in their histories.

Now my question is not to gross people out or deny what happened in the Bible, my question is to evaluate if we are inherently monogamous species, like turtle doves or elephants, who generally have mates for life with no inclination of plurality. Or were we designed to by Polygamous, like lions or wolves, and made to mate with multiple partners as was necessary for at least the first couple millennia of the start of the world. Or maybe we are made to be both. The second question: Is the institution of marriage strong enough to support polygamy or because of how weak marriage is today, Is monogamy the only choice? Morally speaking.

What are you thoughts?

I don't think that humans are created either way but that we are conditioned one way or the other.

Besides, I don't think that polygamous men are wise. I mean, if you can't please one woman, how can you please many simultaneously? Neither would a woman with multiple husbands be wise, because she would have multiple grown children to look after.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If humans were 'created' monogamous, why would their 'creator' have to give them laws against adultery?

 

[Brickjectivity]

.

I think it has more to do with the reality of raising kids where it takes 12-18 years to reach maturity by societal definitions. That is easier to do with one stable romantic partner over that time period.

Great point.

That's very important. It takes a long time for kids to grow up. I don't disagree that stability is important. My parents stayed together, and I think it was very good for us kids although we were far from family. I think we lacked some training because of that; but overall having two parents was very good. Some kids aren't so lucky, and one of the parents leaves or dies or is away for various reasons. My own parent was in the military, so I missed them a lot. I missed them as if they were dead. Maybe if there had been more family around things would have been better for me. Maybe it would have been the same.

If there are only two parents then often at least one will die before the child reaches maturity. That happens a lot, and it is very hard on children. They don't just ignore it, and often it causes developmental problems. Divorce can upset a child's development and is traumatic, as can military service, long business trips, parental arguing, etc.

Hillary Clinton says it takes a village to raise a child, and I have heard of some cultures where nobody knows whose child is whose. I wonder how that works or if it is stable?

 

[Valjean]

Hominins are "created" generalists. They adapt culturally to the situation they find themselves in.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Men are typically polygamist in nature while women tend to be more monogamous.

I would agree with you. Women must have won a great deal to convince most men to monogamy, in a world socially dominated by men. Well at least in most parts of the world. I sometimes wonder who the first monogamist was in the world and what their reason would have been to only have one wife or husband. I wonder how much they were influenced by jealousy or fear from the womans end. Haha this would make a great Ryan George segment.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

I think you are assuming "created".

Sure. I refer to the animal behaviors based on their creation. A lot of it doesn't make sense what or why they behave certain ways and others do, yet humans were also given unique attributes that drove them to what we are today right? I am just curious if our marital connection coincides more to an animalistic type behavior or one unique in it's own regard, based on our environment or based on morality?

 

[Secret Chief]

What are you thoughts?

My ex-wife wasn't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't compare mankind with the animal kingdom because some of the animal kingdom eat their babies and would thus have to promote cannibalism. Or the Black Widow that kills her mate.

Not sure that is a valid argument, given that what we share with so much other life is really dependent upon how close to us they are in their many ways rather than any differences. Animals seem to display a range of sexual strategies - some of which will coincide with human ones. And cannibalism and mate killing are hardly missing from the human story.

Or perhaps I missed the smiley.

 

[Valjean]

There are many different cultures, and many arrangements that might have some features of today's western marriages. Anthropologists have been arguing for 150 years over what constitutes marriage, and whether all societies have it.
In some societies men and women don't live together in pair bonds, for example. In many others, children aren't raised by their parents.
People, values, and cultures are not all like ours.

 

[Hold]

I don't believe that we are naturally monogamous. I do think it is a cultural or religious choice to remain faithful to a spouse. I know of too many of my male and female friends who cheated or at least almost went too far with someone other than their wife or husband. The more attractive friends had it harder to be faithful because they were tempted more often. I agree with those who felt women tend to honor their marriage vows more than their partners. That does not mean all women are faithful.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think we're naturally wedded to any single system of "~gamy."
Living in the same household, exclusive sexual access, child rearing -- all wildly different in different societies.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If humans were 'created' monogamous, why would their 'creator' have to give them laws against adultery?

Agree with you. There was no creator, none to give or carry any law, thewse are fables. Society gives the laws and monogamy has more pros than cons.

 

[ppp]

Hillary Clinton says it takes a village to raise a child, and I have heard of some cultures where nobody knows whose child is whose. I wonder how that works or if it is stable?

Prior to colonization, there were several cultures that practiced non-monogamy. The one that I best remember are the Nayar of Eastern India. Where if I recall correctly, a woman would get married in an arranged ceremonial marriage that often not a sexual affair. It was a political bond between two clans. The woman could have sex with whomever she wished( I'm sure there were some restrictions there) and any children were considered to be the children of her family. Since this arrangement lasted for at least 1500 years before colonization, I would call that pretty stable.
I ran across a link discussing this a couple of months ago, I'll see if I can find it.