What Reasons Show We Were Designed To Be Married?

[wizanda]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

 

[Thanda]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

What type of proof were you hoping for?

 

[NewChapter]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

Actually the New Testament says that it is not good to marry and that whoever can bear not marrying should not marry...Matt. 19:10-12:

Matthew 19:10-12
English Standard Version (ESV)
(10)The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (11)But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. (12)For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

 

[Augustus]

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

Not proof, but evidence that such a system is socially beneficial perhaps:

"Any system that produces a surplus of single men is likely to be unstable. Polygamous societies suffer “higher rates of murder, theft, rape, social disruption, kidnapping (especially of females), sexual slavery and prostitution,” note Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson in “The Puzzle of Monogamy”. source

Monogamous marriage arguably evolved as a way to prevent the 'hoarding' of women by powerful males and as such societies were more successful then it became the norm.

Things that stand the test of time frequently [not always] have a very sound reason for existing.

 

[wizanda]

What type of proof were you hoping for?

So an example could be, a woman is only designed to sleep with one male.... That there is a chemical bond between two people, that makes them want to stay together as a couple; that bond doesn't work with multiple partners.... etc

Anything that would be scientific proof, the religions have it right, and God said, 'you're meant to spend your whole life with one person, who you might end up hating'.

 

[Quintessence]

... why we're designed to be married to only one person?

I think the term you were really looking for there is monogamous, since marriage (a social contract) can be between any number of people.

Humans are not (and as far as we know have never been) obligate monogamists, so I'm not sure why you are asking this question. It doesn't apply to the species. There are species that are obligate monogamists, but humans are definitely not among them.

 

[Jumi]

None. Nothing shows we were designed to not be married either.

 

[wizanda]

Nothing shows we were designed to not be married either.

That we could beg to differ, after years of being with just one person, we often see detrimental affects.

I think the term you were really looking for there is monogamous, since marriage (a social contract) can be between any number of people.

Thank you for trying to clarify; yet really meaning any form of legal Marriage...

Since in the west it is illegal to marry more than one person, then questioning all of it...

The legal binding contract holding two or more people together, is there any science behind it, as it seems to cause more problems then good, and curious if it is just another stupid idea from religions or can we find more to it?

Like why bother getting married, when people seem far happier with a contract in love, then on paper...

Known friends who've been together years, got married thinking it will keep them together, and instead it made them split up soon after.

The reason for heading into questioning monogamous legal binding marriages, is that is this a failure of mankind, would we be more productive with more open community based family relationships?

Could it be that marriage in monogamous sense, does more to damage the world, due to its self serving nature; compared to a polygamous community, where everyone is working for the whole?

Within a more open community, there is less attachment, less suffering; so has marriage led us a way from Oneness, by having so much attachment to one being?

Etc?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Humans were never "free love" types, really. Where plural relationships and marriages exist, it's almost always in the form of one man having a number of brides or a harem. There are cases of women having a number of male partners at once, but that's much, much more rare. Such things tend to be tied into wealthy males hoarding females and it increases competition between less well-off males. It causes social instability.

So normative monogamy tends to produce a more stable and advantageous society, as well as also having a positive correlation with human rights and egalitarianism:

"The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages. Yet, monogamous marriage has spread across Europe, and more recently across the globe, even as absolute wealth differences have expanded. Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences."
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657

 

[Estro Felino]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

Maybe I understand what you mean. As I said before, humans are all different than one another, because they have different DNAs, so they are all unique. It is impossible to compare us humans with animals, because animals behave according to their instinct. Humans have free will, so they can use their instinctual part to be creative and take decisions, which may be very different than other people's decisions.
So therefore, any generalization becomes inappropriate. We live in a society where social roles have been abolished, so one behaves according to their personal taste, and not according to rigid social schemes, as they used to in the past. And yet, there are still lots of couples who choose monogamy, because that's their nature. A man and a woman who are in a relationship, and who are both possessive (which is normal, when you're in love), choose mutual faithfulness out of necessity....(and if I can add something, it can look and sound very romantic)

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

The fact that our ankles widen as the near the foot creates a perfect place to attach the shackle for the ball chain.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A man and a woman who are in a relationship, and who are both possessive (which is normal, when you're in love)

Yes, it is normal to be jealous and possessive over the one you love/your mate. You expect them to feel the same about you, as well. The only time it's really a problem is when it's to an extreme extent or based on unwarranted insecurity. I've noticed polyamorous types trying to shame partners of poly people who aren't so enthusiastic about their partners dating and having sex with other people. Because you should obviously be so happy that your partner is banging someone else, while you have deep feelings for them. No, it's natural to not be happy about that. It's the few who think it's wonderful who I look askance at.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

There's your answer: children.

As for animals, which ones? Chimpanzees live in a mixed-sex herd, elephants in a herd where the only adults are females, and golden hamsters are solitary. Humans are unusual, of course, in the length of time it takes them to mature.

 

[allfoak]

I think the term you were really looking for there is monogamous, since marriage (a social contract) can be between any number of people.

Humans are not (and as far as we know have never been) obligate monogamists, so I'm not sure why you are asking this question. It doesn't apply to the species. There are species that are obligate monogamists, but humans are definitely not among them.

Always question the question.

 

[RedDragon94]

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

I think that when we take one sexual relationship at a time it's much safer and healthier. When you have more than one sexual partner it creates jealousy and stress.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

So an example could be, a woman is only designed to sleep with one male.... That there is a chemical bond between two people, that makes them want to stay together as a couple; that bond doesn't work with multiple partners.... etc

Anything that would be scientific proof, the religions have it right, and God said, 'you're meant to spend your whole life with one person, who you might end up hating'.

- Married men live longer and healthier, on average, than unmarried men.
- Sexually transmitted diseases. Keep in mind that prior to the 1940's (advent of antibiotics), syphilis was just about as big a killer as tuberculosis. Not to mention all the nasty sequelae of the many, many other STD's that we now only think of as nuisance diseases. (consider also the next 50 years could see the end of all our antibiotics and a return to the disease and death of the last 100 centuries).
- and there's DavidMcCann's answer: children. We don't run in herds, we don't always react as a tight-knit pack to defend and care for the young of others.

 

[Covellite]

No proof we're designed to be married to only one person.
During the period of savagery, group marriage was common. At the begging, among all members of the tribe.
The circle tends to narrowing with a society development.
Marriage is now (mostly) defined by being married to one person.
In future, marriage will go through more changes.
Even today we can see a "polyamory" lifestyle, where couples choose to be in loving and committed relationships with more than one person, sometimes living all together in one home.
I believe that future will bring more choices to fulfill different kinds of personal preferences.

 

[sun rise]

I know I'm not the only guy that finds one woman quite enough and would go bonkers trying to deal with two or three who would either gang up on me or put me in the middle of a fight between them or both depending on the day.

 

[Milton Platt]

Fair enough we have to raise children together; yet mammals in nature generally live in a commune society, thus the offspring have a more balanced education...

So is there any proof other then our made up religious texts, to show where and why we're designed to be married to only one person?

I would postulate that the divorce rate among humans is evidence that marriage is perhaps not in our DNA. That does not make it a bad thing....we live in a society where certain legal rights are conveyed by a marriage license.

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually the New Testament says that it is not good to marry and that whoever can bear not marrying should not marry...Matt. 19:10-12:

Matthew 19:10-12
English Standard Version (ESV)
(10)The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (11)But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. (12)For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

However, these texts include - NO SEX.

That isn't what is being discussed.

The thread title is, -- What Reasons Show We Were Designed To Be Married?

Evolved for sex - sure, - but what about marriage?


*