Is it unnatural to be monogomous?

[Afterburner]

Just because it wasn't institutionalized doesn't mean it wasn't natural. However, here is what more I have to say on the subject, after thinking about it.

We are part of nature. Therefor everything we do is natural. Some of the things we make are of themselves not natural, but nothing we ourselves do is unnatural, else we wouldn't do it.

[Joe Bonham]

It depends on what you mean by natural. One could consider insanity and sociopathology natural if by natural you mean simply anything that happens in nature. But if by "natural" you mean healthy and normal, then clearly the definition changes considerably.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Bohemund

It depends on what you mean by natural. One could consider insanity and sociopathology natural if by natural you mean simply anything that happens in nature. But if by "natural" you mean healthy and normal, then clearly the definition changes considerably.

Exactly. Because of our big brains, it cannot be argued that everything we do is natural. Our brains as powerful as they are are subject to some very twisted and abusive stuff, which changes our behavior(s) greatly.

[Afterburner]

Then if we are going by natural meaning "normal" than almost everything we do is still natural... somewhere, which is the key word. polygamy is perfectly natural in many places, along with polyandry. It's all a matter of personal beliefs and social upbringing.

[masked_marsoe]

Then if we are going by natural meaning "normal"

Saying something is "normal" is going to get us into a mess. It's far more flexible than "natural", and doesn't have any fixed position.

polygamy is perfectly natural in many places, along with polyandry

Yeah, that. Do our laws need to match this? Provided the correct checks against abuse are in place, I don't see why not.

Theoretically of course, I don't see it gaining mainstream support.

[thejadefalcon]

If it was acceptable for women to have many husbands and men to have many wives and the same time... part of me would be quite hesitant (I want a one-to-one relationship), but I suppose I'd accept it. The problem comes when people mis-micromanage their time in the relationships and someone gets jealous and causes trouble. Also, domestic abuse (on women and men) is far more common than most people know and if someone got a load of spouses, they'd be able to ruin the lives of a group of people at once. That's my other concern.

If, however, humans could be perfectly loyal and loving to every member of the relationship, I'd accept it without a second thought. But unless we reach a new evolutionary plateau where no-one will ever rape, murder or maim again, that's unlikely.

[masked_marsoe]

Originally Posted by thejadefalcon

If it was acceptable for women to have many husbands and men to have many wives and the same time... part of me would be quite hesitant (I want a one-to-one relationship), but I suppose I'd accept it.

Chances are, if it was normal and you grew up in a society that viewed it as normal, you too would think it was normal without a second thought.

Also, domestic abuse (on women and men) is far more common than most people know and if someone got a load of spouses, they'd be able to ruin the lives of a group of people at once. That's my other concern.

I'm not so sure. Domestic abuse continues because it is largely invisible to the outside eye, or the victim is unlikely to want to reveal their abuser. I think if there were several people in intimate relationships, then there would be several witnesses, several people willing or ready to report violence.

[Mr. Matt]

Who in their right mind would even want another wife? One would be bad enough!

Anyway, I read a theory once a while ago that said the emotion commonly known as 'love' is actually our primitive body's way of keeping us with a single partner. Several other species are monogamous, I often wonder if they experience the same sensation.

But I'm all in favour of the 'three in a bed' concept, myself. As I've said many times before, do whatever you want so long as no innocent bystanders get hurt. Or splashed.

Ugh.

[Jeff]

If I recall correctly, the main body that initiated the one man and one woman marriage principle was Christianity because of the Adam and Eve story. They felt it was going against the will of God to have more than one partner. I could be incorrect in this, I'm not entirely sure this is the case, but I do have a strong sense this was the main reason for it to be such a mainstay in western culture, since the majority of western culture is of the christian (or some variation of the general principles and doctrine) faith.

[adelphospro]

Well Adam and Eve didn't really have anything to do with it until WAY later, in fact many people in the Old Testament had more than one wife. However it is because of the "the two shall become one" thing I believe.
God meant for a man and a woman to stay together in unity, each living within the boundaries set up by God. That way they would work together in unity and peace. I don't remember when God commanded that you should have only one wife, if ever, Ill look it up.
At first though what they did was in response to the command by God to "be fruitful and multiply" and 'fill the whole earth' or something like that, but after a time that was no longer necessary.
Actually if you read the early parts of the Old Testament you can see that having more children meant that your "clan" was bigger. There are records in the Old Testament that record small (almost primitive) battles between families (like 40 against 30 and such)