1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Humans Truly Monogamous?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by SalixIncendium, Jan 18, 2018.

  1. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Vestigial Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    17,749
    Ratings:
    +31,480
    Religion:
    Hindu
    It is a widely accepted social consensus that humans are monogamous creatures, intended to mate with one partner for life. This is a tenet in religious belief structures and is, for the most part, universally accepted in Western culture.

    However, when one views divorce rates, in some countries, the divorce to marriage ratio tips the scales at 70% or more, with the median appearing to be around 40%.

    Divorce demography - Wikipedia

    Given this information, do you think humans are truly a monogamous species? Why or why not?

    For the purpose of this thread, we are defining monogamy as mating with one mate for life. The whole "until death do you part" kinda thing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,560
    Ratings:
    +32,580
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    First of all, the norm is not monogamy for life. The norm is serial monogamy--having one partner at a time, but several during one's life. And that has been the case for almost every culture. Because of deaths from pregnancy, it has been less common for women to have multiple partners, but it still has been common in history.

    So, under your definitions, humans are not monogamous.

    And, in practice, even serial monogamy isn't really the norm. When genetics tests for paternity were first introduced, people were surprised at how many children in marriages were not from the marriage.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,521
    Ratings:
    +2,817
    Thank you poly. You have given us a very good example of exactly why when 10 scientists are asked to interpret QM, they will give you 8 different interpretations. We could say, the statistics dont lie, we can also say factually the statistics don't tell us anything also. They measure a cloud formation at one particular point in time. Statistics says nothing about the past, the statistics says nothing about the future, it works at one single point in time.

    I am sticking with Richard feynman on Quantum Mechanics and Niels Bohr is nuts. It works that is all it does specifically at one point in time.
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,962
    Ratings:
    +3,328
    Religion:
    None
    I’d argue the exact opposite. The reason this is such a dominant tenet of so many religions is precisely because it’s widely accepted that we’re not monogamous animals. If we were naturally monogamous, we wouldn’t need rules telling us to be. :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,560
    Ratings:
    +32,580
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    it is usually a good sign that certain norms are being ignored when a series of laws are passed upholding those norms.
     
  6. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,639
    Ratings:
    +13,859
    Religion:
    none
    I agree, religious rules tend to be built around what was noted to be culturally effective, not necessarily what was 'natural'.
     
  7. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,838
    Ratings:
    +2,535
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    No, I don't think so at all. In fact, in the early stages of humanity, I think that having multiple sex partners was necessary in order to keep the human race going when survival rates were very low.
     
  8. Araceli Cianna

    Araceli Cianna Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Messages:
    260
    Ratings:
    +160
    Religion:
    Witchcraft
    I do not believe so. Considering divorce rates I'd say we are more likely serial monogamists.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    41,495
    Ratings:
    +21,790
    Religion:
    disciple of Jesus, Gandhi, & Siddhartha
    Instinctively, no. Our closest relatives that we share 98% of our genes with are certainly not monogamous, and I do believe we share that characteristic.

    However, because of our very long childhood (my wife claims mine is still only in-progress), human culture (learned) has it that monogamy of one form or another is best for Junior and Junioress. This was especially true in olden days (even before me!) because work often involved being gone for fairly lengthy periods of time and only Mom had the fixtures to feed them.
     
Loading...