Jump to content

Prenuptial Agreements


Althalus

Recommended Posts

 

Your specific examples are really bad ones.

 

8%~ of the world's population is gay/lesbian. Heterosexuality isn't necessarily "natural".

 

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Homosexual intercourse cannot result in reproduction, therefore it does not fulfil its natural pupose.

Really? Then why only humans and dolphins enjoy it? And in general, if sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it?

 

If food's only natural purpose is nourishment, why do we enjoy it? It's a side effect, it is irrelevant to the natural function of it.

 

It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry.

Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal.

 

You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages.

I've already gone over my problem with multiple marriages, I don't see what you're trying to prove.

 

The need of many (especially males) to mate with as many humans as possible.

This is a primal instinct, one that as humans, and not merely animals, we can and have forgone throughout history.

Not at all, today more than ever males are out seeking to mate with as many females as possible. It exists today on a very large scale.

 

Because society today tells us its ok to [bleep] whoever we want with no thought for the consequences.

 

Divorce.

Cheating, affairs, and lovers.

Something that has really only become as widespread as it has throughout the past half century due to the decay of morals and values in society.

What? Cheating is nothing new. The Bible itself poses rules against affairs, etc ("You shall not commit adultery" / "You shall not covet").

 

But these have become morewidespread as people lose respect for marriage.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Your specific examples are really bad ones.

 

8%~ of the world's population is gay/lesbian. Heterosexuality isn't necessarily "natural".

 

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Homosexual intercourse cannot result in reproduction, therefore it does not fulfil its natural pupose.

Really? Then why only humans and dolphins enjoy it? And in general, if sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it?

 

If food's only natural purpose is nourishment, why do we enjoy it? It's a side effect, it is irrelevant to the natural function of it.

 

You're missing my point. Why should sex be fun? Dogs don't do it for fun, why should we?

 

It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry.

Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal.

 

You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages.

I've already gone over my problem with multiple marriages, I don't see what you're trying to prove.

 

 

I completely misunderstood your quoting. You just pulled in three issues or something.

 

The first being polygamy, for which I think you answered with "Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal."

That answer is fairly simple. It's been legal forever, and it's legal today. Not all can engage in polygamy today, but most democratic (and some others too) countries respect the lifestyles of other cultures, and allow men that belong to such cultures, to have more than one wife.

 

The second is yet referring to polygamy. You said it's still frowned upon, for which I answered- "It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry."

 

The third being marriage as a contract. You said it's natural for us to have one spouse. For which I answered- "You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce."

In other words, I see no reason for non-marriage relations with more than one partner to be okay, while marrying should only be a one time experience. If we were meant to only be with one partner, we'd find them at some point and be with them for the rest of our lives.

 

The need of many (especially males) to mate with as many humans as possible.

This is a primal instinct, one that as humans, and not merely animals, we can and have forgone throughout history.

Not at all, today more than ever males are out seeking to mate with as many females as possible. It exists today on a very large scale.

 

Because society today tells us its ok to [bleep] whoever we want with no thought for the consequences.

It doesn't matter, if people didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Sure, there's less respect to sex today, but that doesn't change the fact that many males still would like to mate with as many females as possible. That blank off means we're not "supposed" to only be with one partner.

 

Divorce.

Cheating, affairs, and lovers.

Something that has really only become as widespread as it has throughout the past half century due to the decay of morals and values in society.

What? Cheating is nothing new. The Bible itself poses rules against affairs, etc ("You shall not commit adultery" / "You shall not covet").

 

But these have become morewidespread as people lose respect for marriage.

 

Again, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat on their partners for a reason. That reason logically being humans as a multi-partners species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point. Why should sex be fun? Dogs don't do it for fun, why should we?

 

I am missing your point. Enjoyment is a side effect of sex, not its natural purpose. I still don't see where you're going here.

 

I completely misunderstood your quoting. You just pulled in three issues or something.

 

The first being polygamy, for which I think you answered with "Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal."

That answer is fairly simple. It's been legal forever, and it's legal today. Not all can engage in polygamy today, but most democratic (and some others too) countries respect the lifestyles of other cultures, and allow men that belong to such cultures, to have more than one wife.

 

Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US?

 

The second is yet referring to polygamy. You said it's still frowned upon, for which I answered- "It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry."

 

I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all.

 

The third being marriage as a contract. You said it's natural for us to have one spouse. For which I answered- "You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce."

 

Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to.

 

It doesn't matter, if people didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Sure, there's less respect to sex today, but that doesn't change the fact that many males still would like to mate with as many females as possible. That blank off means we're not "supposed" to only be with one partner.

I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes.

 

Again, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat on their partners for a reason. That reason logically being humans as a multi-partners species.

So in your ideal, natural world, we wouldn't have relationships at all then? That's what it sounds like you're condoning.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point. Why should sex be fun? Dogs don't do it for fun, why should we?

 

I am missing your point. Enjoyment is a side effect of sex, not its natural purpose. I still don't see where you're going here.

 

Why do we have that side effect?

 

I completely misunderstood your quoting. You just pulled in three issues or something.

 

The first being polygamy, for which I think you answered with "Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal."

That answer is fairly simple. It's been legal forever, and it's legal today. Not all can engage in polygamy today, but most democratic (and some others too) countries respect the lifestyles of other cultures, and allow men that belong to such cultures, to have more than one wife.

 

Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US?

Because of the consensus there. That's irrelevant to our discussion though. What I'm trying to get across with the polygamy point, is that if it exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?

 

The second is yet referring to polygamy. You said it's still frowned upon, for which I answered- "It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry."

 

I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all.

It's not only for sexual satisfaction, it's a cultural behavior, that is more than acceptable in many cultures.

 

It's bigotry in my book, because the West knows mostly only one form of family unit, and thinks that's the way the whole world should be like. That's a consensus based on what the West is used to, and not necessarily how things "should be like".

 

The third being marriage as a contract. You said it's natural for us to have one spouse. For which I answered- "You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce."

 

Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to.

No matter how you put it, marriage is a step forward in relationships (albeit a big one). It's also a step artificially created by humans. The point of all this, is that if you claim multiple relations are okay, so should be multiple marriages. Marriage is just a contract invented by humans that is based on feelings, and feelings can and do change over time.

 

It doesn't matter, if people didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Sure, there's less respect to sex today, but that doesn't change the fact that many males still would like to mate with as many females as possible. That blank off means we're not "supposed" to only be with one partner.

I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes.

You have to agree others do though. If, like penguins for example, our species was supposed to only ever be with one partner, we'd find that one partner and be with them for the rest of our lives. The mere fact that the desire to be with more than one partner exists (even if only to some of us) automatically serves as evidence to show we're not "supposed" to ever be with only one spouse.

 

Again, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat on their partners for a reason. That reason logically being humans as a multi-partners species.

So in your ideal, natural world, we wouldn't have relationships at all then? That's what it sounds like you're condoning.

Not at all. I believe I'd want to marry at some point, and I sure as hell hope all of my future & past relations will be/were mutually monogamic. However, I'm well aware that's because what society made of me, and not necessarily what I'd be if I was raised somewhere else and with a different approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why do we have that side effect?

 

I still don't know where you're going with this. You tell me?

I completely misunderstood your quoting. You just pulled in three issues or something.

 

The first being polygamy, for which I think you answered with "Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal."

That answer is fairly simple. It's been legal forever, and it's legal today. Not all can engage in polygamy today, but most democratic (and some others too) countries respect the lifestyles of other cultures, and allow men that belong to such cultures, to have more than one wife.

 

Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US?

Because of the consensus there. That's irrelevant to our discussion though. What I'm trying to get across with the polygamy point, is that if it exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?

 

Why was there consensus there? Because the minority - aka the unnatural, were the only ones who wanted it. If society really really wanted more than one spouse, it would be far more legal and accepted than it is today.

The second is yet referring to polygamy. You said it's still frowned upon, for which I answered- "It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry."

 

I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all.

It's not only for sexual satisfaction, it's a cultural behavior, that is more than acceptable in many cultures

 

It's bigotry in my book, because the West knows mostly only one form of family unit, and thinks that's the way the whole world should be like. That's a consensus based on what the West is used to, and not necessarily how things "should be like"..

 

There are two reasons for polygamous marriages. 1. To have an obscene number of children. 2. Sexual satisfaction. Any man is witness to this, and I have in fact heard several interviews with polygamous husbands using the allure of lots of sex to try to persuade people to their point of view.

The third being marriage as a contract. You said it's natural for us to have one spouse. For which I answered- "You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce."

 

Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to.

No matter how you put it, marriage is a step forward in relationships (albeit a big one). It's also a step artificially created by humans. The point of all this, is that if you claim multiple relations are okay, so should be multiple marriages. Marriage is just a contract invented by humans that is based on feelings, and feelings can and do change over time.

 

And this contract is meant to be lifelong and binding. I've already stated my opinions on this matter.

It doesn't matter, if people didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Sure, there's less respect to sex today, but that doesn't change the fact that many males still would like to mate with as many females as possible. That blank off means we're not "supposed" to only be with one partner.

I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes.

You have to agree others do though. If, like penguins for example, our species was supposed to only ever be with one partner, we'd find that one partner and be with them for the rest of our lives. The mere fact that the desire to be with more than one partner exists (even if only to some of us) automatically serves as evidence to show we're not "supposed" to ever be with only one spouse.

 

As a matter of fact, several different animal species mate for life. It used to be that the majority of humans did mate for life, we would find that partner and stay with them.

However, humans are followers. We do what we are told to. And as society became more and more "liberal", it began to be "ok" to break your marriage contract, and find other spouses. As a result, more and more people don't mate for life. Please see my example at the bottom of the post.

 

Not at all. I believe I'd want to marry at some point, and I sure as hell hope all of my future & past relations will be/were mutually monogamic. However, I'm well aware that's because what society made of me, and not necessarily what I'd be if I was raised somewhere else and with a different approach.

 

Let me explain it this way. Looking at the animal kingdom, some species mate for life, and others don't. This is usually based on what makes sense for that particular animal.

 

I will use humans as an example. Our extended lifespan is 80 years. We'll use that as an average.

 

Let's assume one has children at 20. Yes, we are physcially fertile earlier but this is the age at which full maturity is basically guaranteed for both members (male and female).

 

We mate, have children, etc. We stay together, as do other animals, to help raise them. Assuming we have children at 20 this makes us 40 at miniumum by the time they are adults and no longer require caring.

 

At this point, old age begins to kick in. While technically still capable of reproduction, women's egg cells become more and more dangerous to use and closer to menopause (hence the higher ratio of genetic disorders in children from older mothers). At this point, we can consider practical reproduction to be over.

 

Since we are no longer reproducing at this age, there is no natural need to have another partner, therefore we might as well stay with the same partner, grow old, etc.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I still don't know where you're going with this. You tell me?

 

Just answer the very simple question- If sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it?

 

 

Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US?

Because of the consensus there. That's irrelevant to our discussion though. What I'm trying to get across with the polygamy point, is that if it exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?

 

Why was there consensus there? Because the minority - aka the unnatural, were the only ones who wanted it. If society really really wanted more than one spouse, it would be far more legal and accepted than it is today.

 

You can't take Canada and the USA as examples for the rest of the world, and for all times. First, there are places in which polygamy is a majority. Second, at certain times polygamy was the most popular form of family unit.

 

You ignored the most important part of this quote though- "If it [polygamy] exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?"

 

The second is yet referring to polygamy. You said it's still frowned upon, for which I answered- "It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry."

 

I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all.

It's not only for sexual satisfaction, it's a cultural behavior, that is more than acceptable in many cultures

 

It's bigotry in my book, because the West knows mostly only one form of family unit, and thinks that's the way the whole world should be like. That's a consensus based on what the West is used to, and not necessarily how things "should be like"..

 

There are two reasons for polygamous marriages. 1. To have an obscene number of children. 2. Sexual satisfaction. Any man is witness to this, and I have in fact heard several interviews with polygamous husbands using the allure of lots of sex to try to persuade people to their point of view.

3. That's what your culture expects you to go with. 4. That's the reality you've forever known. 5. Disbelief in monogamy. etc, etc.

 

Your experiences don't shine the same each time. You can't use it as an example that occurs every time.

 

The third being marriage as a contract. You said it's natural for us to have one spouse. For which I answered- "You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce."

 

Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to.

No matter how you put it, marriage is a step forward in relationships (albeit a big one). It's also a step artificially created by humans. The point of all this, is that if you claim multiple relations are okay, so should be multiple marriages. Marriage is just a contract invented by humans that is based on feelings, and feelings can and do change over time.

 

And this contract is meant to be lifelong and binding. I've already stated my opinions on this matter.

 

That 'meant' part is where I think the root of our discussion stands. Things more than usually don't go the way they're meant to. If we were naturally only after 1 partner through our lifetime, the institude of marriage would work like magic, divorces would have never been brought up. It's not that simple, monogamy isn't in our nature, it's grown into us, much like morals and the like.

 

It doesn't matter, if people didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Sure, there's less respect to sex today, but that doesn't change the fact that many males still would like to mate with as many females as possible. That blank off means we're not "supposed" to only be with one partner.

I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes.

You have to agree others do though. If, like penguins for example, our species was supposed to only ever be with one partner, we'd find that one partner and be with them for the rest of our lives. The mere fact that the desire to be with more than one partner exists (even if only to some of us) automatically serves as evidence to show we're not "supposed" to ever be with only one spouse.

 

As a matter of fact, several different animal species mate for life.

That's exactly my point. Humans are not that type of species.

 

It used to be that the majority of humans did mate for life, we would find that partner and stay with them.

The Bible itself shows clear signs of polygamy, cheating, et cetera. Your statement is simply not true.

 

However, humans are followers. We do what we are told to. And as society became more and more "liberal", it began to be "ok" to break your marriage contract, and find other spouses. As a result, more and more people don't mate for life. Please see my example at the bottom of the post.

First you say that if we weren't after monogamy, divorce would have been brought up much earlier, and then you say humans are followers that do what they're told...

 

Let's say they are. The idea itself had to sprout somewhere- why would it, if we're naturally monogamous?

 

Not at all. I believe I'd want to marry at some point, and I sure as hell hope all of my future & past relations will be/were mutually monogamic. However, I'm well aware that's because what society made of me, and not necessarily what I'd be if I was raised somewhere else and with a different approach.

 

Let me explain it this way. Looking at the animal kingdom, some species mate for life, and others don't. This is usually based on what makes sense for that particular animal.

 

I will use humans as an example. Our extended lifespan is 80 years. We'll use that as an average.

 

Let's assume one has children at 20. Yes, we are physcially fertile earlier but this is the age at which full maturity is basically guaranteed for both members (male and female).

 

We mate, have children, etc. We stay together, as do other animals, to help raise them. Assuming we have children at 20 this makes us 40 at miniumum by the time they are adults and no longer require caring.

 

At this point, old age begins to kick in. While technically still capable of reproduction, women's egg cells become more and more dangerous to use and closer to menopause (hence the higher ratio of genetic disorders in children from older mothers). At this point, we can consider practical reproduction to be over.

 

Since we are no longer reproducing at this age, there is no natural need to have another partner, therefore we might as well stay with the same partner, grow old, etc.

 

It's a nice theory you made there. It could easily be that since males don't need 9 months until they can start producing another fetus, that made us that way. You say it makes sense for our species, I think it makes sense for our species to be based on 2 behaviours- males would want to mate with as many females as possible, and females would be the ones protecting and taking care of the babies.

 

Your theory makes sense, and same goes for mine. However, I have evidence to support the human desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just answer the very simple question- If sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it?

 

I never stated the only purpose of sex was reproduction. Rather, the most basic and natural purpose of sex is reproduction.

 

You can't take Canada and the USA as examples for the rest of the world, and for all times. First, there are places in which polygamy is a majority. Second, at certain times polygamy was the most popular form of family unit.

 

You ignored the most important part of this quote though- "If it [polygamy] exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?"

 

If some people like sleeping with little kids, that means that at least some of us want to do that. Why should this be the case, if we are naturally supposed to sleep with other adults?

 

Humans have always done unatural things, and will continue to do so. Just because someone does something doesn't make it natural.

 

3. That's what your culture expects you to go with. 4. That's the reality you've forever known. 5. Disbelief in monogamy. etc, etc.

 

Please, show me a polygamous culture where women have the same rights as men. Show me that, and I'll concede that point.

 

 

 

That 'meant' part is where I think the root of our discussion stands. Things more than usually don't go the way they're meant to. If we were naturally only after 1 partner through our lifetime, the institude of marriage would work like magic, divorces would have never been brought up. It's not that simple, monogamy isn't in our nature, it's grown into us, much like morals and the like.

 

Just because something is natural doesn't mean everybody will do it, as you've already stated. Why do some people chose to remain celibate? That certainly isn't natural.

 

That's exactly my point. Humans are not that type of species.

 

And you've still failed to prove why. Do you seriously think that, out of the species that mate for life, every single animal automatically mates for life? I doubt it. I find rather the majority will do what's natural. There will always be some who don't.

 

The Bible itself shows clear signs of polygamy, cheating, et cetera. Your statement is simply not true.

 

Key word majority. I'm not denying that polygamy, cheating etc are nonexistant, rather than they are not and have never been practiced by the majority of humans. A quick look at any history book will tell you that the overwhelming majority of cultures have had monogamous relationships intertwined.

 

First you say that if we weren't after monogamy, divorce would have been brought up much earlier, and then you say humans are followers that do what they're told...

 

Let's say they are. The idea itself had to sprout somewhere- why would it, if we're naturally monogamous?

 

Because not everyone does what's natural. The world isn't perfect.

 

 

It's a nice theory you made there. It could easily be that since males don't need 9 months until they can start producing another fetus, that made us that way. You say it makes sense for our species, I think it makes sense for our species to be based on 2 behaviours- males would want to mate with as many females as possible, and females would be the ones protecting and taking care of the babies.

 

Your theory makes sense, and same goes for mine. However, I have evidence to support the human desire.

 

Nor am I denying the human desire. However, it is natural for the father to care for his young, and then move on. Even the majority of animals stick around as mates for at least the first phases of their childrens development.

 

If desire was really to be the be all and end all of society, why are fathers who abandon their young/spouses so looked down upon in today's society, hence the "deadbeat dad" title?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?

 

I think women's rights would have a huge part in that. Until the last 50 years they were more of a possession than a wife.

 

Marriage and monogamy is a man made idea. Evolution is much slower than this huge population boom, and we have the same bodies as our tribal ancestors who did not announce their love to the world by throwing flowers to the bridesmaids. We have the same hard wiring as they did. Fear of female rejection, 'survival mode' when starving etc is proof of this.

 

What actually happened was authorities would keep a selection of fertile women for themselves, and someone eventually had the idea to make it illegal to 'steal' his fertile women. This is where the foundations of adultery came in.

 

Now that women have an equal say to what happens in the relationship, we see more fighting and more divorce. Years ago a backhand would have stopped an argument before it started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?

 

I think women's rights would have a huge part in that. Until the last 50 years they were more of a possession than a wife.

 

Marriage and monogamy is a man made idea. Evolution is much slower than this huge population boom, and we have the same bodies as our tribal ancestors who did not announce their love to the world by throwing flowers to the bridesmaids. We have the same hard wiring as they did. Fear of female rejection, 'survival mode' when starving etc is proof of this.

 

What actually happened was authorities would keep a selection of fertile women for themselves, and someone eventually had the idea to make it illegal to 'steal' his fertile women. This is where the foundations of adultery came in.

 

Now that women have an equal say to what happens in the relationship, we see more fighting and more divorce. Years ago a backhand would have stopped an argument before it started.

 

Yes, it's certainly true that there was a lot more of "forcing a happy marriage" then there is now.

 

Yes, it is also true that women have an equal say now. I think a lot of men aren't ready to compromise to the degree they need to to make a successful, two way marriage work. However, I still think that it is possible and a lot of people don't want to put in the effort, men and women alike.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?

 

I think women's rights would have a huge part in that. Until the last 50 years they were more of a possession than a wife.

 

Marriage and monogamy is a man made idea. Evolution is much slower than this huge population boom, and we have the same bodies as our tribal ancestors who did not announce their love to the world by throwing flowers to the bridesmaids. We have the same hard wiring as they did. Fear of female rejection, 'survival mode' when starving etc is proof of this.

 

What actually happened was authorities would keep a selection of fertile women for themselves, and someone eventually had the idea to make it illegal to 'steal' his fertile women. This is where the foundations of adultery came in.

 

Now that women have an equal say to what happens in the relationship, we see more fighting and more divorce. Years ago a backhand would have stopped an argument before it started.

 

Yes, it's certainly true that there was a lot more of "forcing a happy marriage" then there is now.

 

Yes, it is also true that women have an equal say now. I think a lot of men aren't ready to compromise to the degree they need to to make a successful, two way marriage work. However, I still think that it is possible and a lot of people don't want to put in the effort, men and women alike.

 

So are you arguing against what I said about it being in our hard wiring to have multiple partners, or ignoring what I said and repeating yourself? :s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't take Canada and the USA as examples for the rest of the world, and for all times. First, there are places in which polygamy is a majority. Second, at certain times polygamy was the most popular form of family unit.

 

You ignored the most important part of this quote though- "If it [polygamy] exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?"

 

If some people like sleeping with little kids, that means that at least some of us want to do that. Why should this be the case, if we are naturally supposed to sleep with other adults?

 

Humans have always done unatural things, and will continue to do so. Just because someone does something doesn't make it natural.

 

What you seem to forget is, though, that polygamy is only 1 form of having multiple partners through life. You have many others to show it's a human desire, and not a rare one at that.

 

You also have to understand that pedophilia is a perversion, wheras having multiple partners (or wanting to) isn't.

 

 

Lastly, that "some" part, is better phrased as "the majority of us", and the polygamy part is better phrased as "any form of having more than one partner".

 

3. That's what your culture expects you to go with. 4. That's the reality you've forever known. 5. Disbelief in monogamy. etc, etc.

 

Please, show me a polygamous culture where women have the same rights as men. Show me that, and I'll concede that point.

 

I can't, because there isn't. However, that does not mean that mutual relationships are "the right way" (I'm neither saying they aren't, only that the West has a very specific lifesyle it encourages people to pursue, based on a consensus, and is going to stay that way even if it's not the right way.)

Polygamy was widely accepted at past times, and if the Bible has it right, since almost the beginning of time.

 

But we're straying away from the point. The point is that this desire to have more than one partner exists for thousands of years, and that shows we're not meant to ever only be with one partner.

 

 

 

That 'meant' part is where I think the root of our discussion stands. Things more than usually don't go the way they're meant to. If we were naturally only after 1 partner through our lifetime, the institude of marriage would work like magic, divorces would have never been brought up. It's not that simple, monogamy isn't in our nature, it's grown into us, much like morals and the like.

 

Just because something is natural doesn't mean everybody will do it, as you've already stated. Why do some people chose to remain celibate? That certainly isn't natural.

Take a species that is "supposed" to ever only be with one partner. Penguins for example. Some (a tiny minority) of them choose to remain celibate, but those who don't, only ever mate with one partner, they don't have the desire to mate with more than one.

 

Humans, however, do have that desire, and that desire is nothing new (as shown with the polygamy, cheating, affairs and adultery points).

So, again, why do we have that desire, and how comes it's nothing new, if we're naturally supposed to only ever have one spouse?

 

That's exactly my point. Humans are not that type of species.

 

And you've still failed to prove why. Do you seriously think that, out of the species that mate for life, every single animal automatically mates for life? I doubt it. I find rather the majority will do what's natural. There will always be some who don't.

 

I can't prove it, and neither can you prove the other side of the equation. It's not proveable, we're only assuming what seems most logical. However, I've shown firm evidence to support my theory, and you haven't.

 

As for the majority doing "what's natural"- if what's natural is having one spouse, then the majority isn't doing what's natural. Both today and at past times.

 

The Bible itself shows clear signs of polygamy, cheating, et cetera. Your statement is simply not true.

 

Key word majority. I'm not denying that polygamy, cheating etc are nonexistant, rather than they are not and have never been practiced by the majority of humans. A quick look at any history book will tell you that the overwhelming majority of cultures have had monogamous relationships intertwined.

You're the one who said humans follow blindly what society tells them to.

 

Morals could pose a great analogy here. We both agreed that morals were invented by humans, and that these are unnatural- yet the majority of the earth's population, both today and throughout history, believe murder is wrong. Because that's what we were taught, because people follow what society dictates almost blindly.

 

I, myself, believe in monogamy, and I'm 99.999% certain that I believe in monogamy because that's what society has taught me, rather than because that's what's natural.

 

I don't think monogamy is what's natural for us, which is why I'm certain marriage is not for anyone, and not every marriage can survive the years.

 

 

It's a nice theory you made there. It could easily be that since males don't need 9 months until they can start producing another fetus, that made us that way. You say it makes sense for our species, I think it makes sense for our species to be based on 2 behaviours- males would want to mate with as many females as possible, and females would be the ones protecting and taking care of the babies.

 

Your theory makes sense, and same goes for mine. However, I have evidence to support the human desire.

 

Nor am I denying the human desire. However, it is natural for the father to care for his young, and then move on. Even the majority of animals stick around as mates for at least the first phases of their childrens development.

 

If desire was really to be the be all and end all of society, why are fathers who abandon their young/spouses so looked down upon in today's society, hence the "deadbeat dad" title?

 

Because that's what's acceptable by society today, not necessarily because that's what's natural for us to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?

Are you... are you kidding? The Romans were horrendous at staying monogamous! They had worse divorce rates than we do! And with the marriages that actually did last married men and women were both encouraged by society to cheat as much as they frikin' wanted! They also notably controlled pretty much all of the known world for a millenium. And divorced a lot for most of it.

 

Really, "the good ol' days" weren't so perfect.

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point. Why should sex be fun? Dogs don't do it for fun, why should we?

 

I am missing your point. Enjoyment is a side effect of sex, not its natural purpose. I still don't see where you're going here.

 

Why do we have that side effect?

 

Sex is fun because if it wasn't, nobody in their right mind would do it. There is a cost to acquiring a partner (not necessarily monetary value, mostly all the invested time and emotion... the actual biological cost in humans is buried under culture and etiquette), you can also get a venereal disease, your genes only have a 50% probability of being passed on, it leaves the door open for 'jumping genes' which muddle up our genome, and over time systematically demolishes the all the best gene combinations (someone's hatchet example). Biologists can sometimes come up with tantalizing theories on how sex replaced cloning in eukaryotes but at the face of it, we still have no idea.

hiccup.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point. Why should sex be fun? Dogs don't do it for fun, why should we?

 

I am missing your point. Enjoyment is a side effect of sex, not its natural purpose. I still don't see where you're going here.

 

Why do we have that side effect?

 

Sex is fun because if it wasn't, nobody in their right mind would do it.

Countless animals do it without enjoying it.

 

Anyway, this point is slightly off topic. I was trying to exlain to Yguy why gay-ness isn't unnatural but decided to give it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you could just say that, but sure. Assuming you know what animals think and feel, then that's just further pushing my argument that sex doesn't make any freaking sense.

hiccup.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.