Posted on 07/11/2007 12:33:05 PM PDT by renardicus
Homosexuals have claimed for a while now that they are "born that way", and that their innate desires are a part of "who they are". They try to use this supposed "fact" to convince people that Gay marriage should be legal. Even though it is absurd to base laws on "human desire", their tactic is often effective because many people are more willing to sympathize with them if they believe there is no choice involved with them being homosexual.
The funniest part about the whole thing is, if we follow their own logic, polygamous marriage would have to be legal as well on the basis of it being innate in humans. Even if those in favor of homosexual marriage try to dismiss polygamy as being totally different due to more than two individuals being involved, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of men out there are naturally attracted to more than one woman. In fact, the majority of men in the world have to suppress their innate desires in order to remain monogamous. While infidelity is common among men, there are plenty of men who are able to remain faithful to their spouse. This is proof that human beings aren't victims of their own nature like many liberals claim they are.
While I think much of evolutionary psychology is junk (including much of what is written in the article I posted), I thought this article was humorous in the way it unintentionally promotes polygamy in much the same way homosexuality is promoted. I also enjoy it when "apparently" liberal social scientists in similar fields inadvertently contradict each other's goals with their research and position statements.
# Humans are naturally polygamousThe history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.
Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.
Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.
In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)
The marriage of two absolutely useless fields of study.
Could be worse. Could be Evolutionary Sociologists.
Or School of Educational Evolutionary Sociology.
Why is this threatening to people here? We have a lot of natural instincts that we invented civilization to change.
Your assertion is based, no doubt, upon scientific analysis.
Regardless of the validity of the study my question to you is this. If the resulting children are well fed, well educated, and well disciplined and all of the adults involved are there of their own free will and there is NO government assistance being paid out. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S ???
This species of researcher hasn’t reached that point in their development where their olfactory function can detect BS.
We are born a bundle of contradictions. We have a conscience yet we are constantly violating it. Hmm...whose worldview matches up with that?
Then my husband is unevolved. And he’d best stay that way! LOL
How much do you need? Humans are pre-programmed to be selfish, and we teach children manners. They're programmed to be tribal, and we teach tolerance.
Now, if you're one of those "the world is 6000 years old" people, we have no common basis to talk about this topic.
Why is this threatening to people here? We have a lot of natural instincts that we invented civilization to change.
It's not, it is supposed to be threatening to liberals who make the argument that homosexual marriage should be legal due to them being born that way. If we legalize gay marriage based on innate desires, we would have to do the same with polygamy for the same reasons. I intentionally used evolutionary psychologists as a source because there can be no claims of "conservative bias" by liberals.
Ogden Nash wrote:
Hogamus, higamus
Men are polygamous;
Higamus, hogamus
Women, monogamous.
Seems right to me.
I was born polygamous, Jesus Christ graced me monogamous.
This is ridiculous. Everyone knows men are bigger than women so they can protect themselves from the women.
(Running away...)
The marriage of two absolutely useless fields of study.
Most of the findings from evolutionary psychology are diametrically opposed to the standard leftist view of human nature. Conservatives should welcome the fact that 20th century Marxist pseudo-science in sociology and psychology is increasingly refuted by evolutionary arguments.
I concur...
Humans are “programmed” by whom?
I think the Lorena Bobbitt comparison Mrs. Vitter used could almost guarantee it! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.