Posted on 07/30/2013 5:48:37 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
I believe God made man and woman to be what ever they have to be, that is why he laid down a few very specific rules, for instance for a man to lie with an other man as he would lie with a woman is an abomination.
There is no reason in the world for this to happen, on the other hand any one in their right mind should be able to see reasons for the plural marriages that took place.
Monogamy was “created” because it creates a familial environment that is the best platform for a mature, fulfilling, and happy life.
It gives the woman a sense of security. It keeps the man from bending to his natural will to have multiple (multiple) partners.
Each of the above individual instincts of the sexes, if not met or tempered, will lead to an unhappy, or unbalanced life.
Man is not monogamous, but Civilized Man is.
There are a lot of men, today, who struggle for children not his own, and do it at the point of a gun.
It’s benignly called “transfer benefits”.
Indeed!
Funny how ‘Evolution” and “Nature” and “natural selection” “evolved” so many trillions of cells and millions of favorable behaviors all by “accident” and independent random changes in the DNA of quadrillions of random different creatures and plants and species, but there is no such thing as an ‘intelligent designer” ......
r/K Selection Theory, which in humans produces Liberalism/Conservatism. Restrict resources, and force competition to get them and you get the K-strategy, like in wolves - Competitive/aggressive/protective, monogamous, high-investment parenting, later sexualization of young, and loyalty to the competitive in-group. Make resources freely available and eliminate competition, and the r-strategy emerges, as in rabbits with free grass - cowardly/competition-averse, promiscuous, single-parenting, earlier sexualization of young, and no loyalty to in-group. One strategy produces quality in an environment where only quality survives, while the other produces sheer numbers, in an environment where even the most mentally and physically defective can get food.
People don’t understand how our grasping this information terrifies Liberals. If Liberalism is just the r-selected reproductive strategy in humans, then Liberals aren’t hyper-intellectual, or the future incarnation of mankind. They are just the bunny-people - rabbit like r-strategists within our species who are too stupid to even recognize that what is motivating their cowardice, promiscuity, single-parenting support, earlier sexualization of young, and lack of loyalty to in-group is base urges, and not their brains or morals.
Also, understanding that resource availability will skew the proportions of strategies can be powerful as well. Hell, just recognizing how different Liberals are, and viewing them as aberrant outsiders in our species, who are programmed to have no loyalty to our in-group, is helpful.
God did make it this way. because this is how He created the world. But understanding His mechanism helps fighting Liberals, because it strips them of even the faintest shred of intellectual support for their position, hoisting them upon their own evolutionary petard.
The alternative leads to violence and it probably wasn’t over children, in most cases. Early man didn’t grasp the concept of paternity. They fought over women and that led to instability and hunger all around.
The Bible also gives some great examples of the problems with multiple wives.
You're a Mormon, right? Don't know if you learned that in your church, but it is absolutely wrong.
Because something exists in the Old Testament doesn't make it "condoned by God." David committed murder and adultery; were they condoned by Him?
God didn't approve of divorce because He handed down guidelines on when it was & wasn't permitted. Just as Jesus said, divorce comes from the hardness of man's heart. It has nothing to do with God's original plan, which was one man joined to one woman.
Deuteronomy 17:17 expressly forbids multiple wives for kings. Why would God approve them for anyone else? Also, in the New Testament, marriage partners are always referred to in the singular---"husband" and "wife". Never more than one wife.
you’re preachin’ to the choir.
after 32+ years of marriage, I think 1 one wife is probably more than enough.
if for some reason I was no longer married for whatever reason, I will not do it again....the kids are grown and I do not need any more....I will chance ticking off the creator with a less than biblically accepted relationships with members of the opposite sex.
Look at all of the aboriginal tribes around the world that we have knowledge of that that had/have monogamy as the family basic.
College students sit in dorm rooms smoking weed to come up with hypotheses like these.
Seems the Ghetto displays the opposite. They all want to be babby daddys to a dozen Ho’s.
Also, if this is an overriding instinct enough to cause man to become monogamous, why do Homosexuals persist, and also desire marriage?
Three obvious examples in action today that the theory ignores to speculate in things long past defining the present.
“... A new study comes to a startling conclusion: Among primates, including perhaps humans, monogamy evolved because it protected infants from being killed by rival males.”
I file this in the same folder where evolution explains my wife’s shopping habits. The omni-theory strikes again. Some of the things that pass as science these days, funded by taxpayer dollars, is astounding.
How does something like this “evolve”? Survival of the infant depends on the behavior of the parent?
pure bunk
“Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
- Charles Darwin
Heavenly created or not, it provides such profound biological advantages to offspring that it is a superb idea.
However, do not fall into the trap of assuming that monogamy and marriage are the same thing. Because socially enforced marriage is “monogamy plus” providing far more advantages to the husband, wife and offspring than just monogamy.
Look at it biologically. “Basic reproduction” means that males have the prerogative to make offspring with as many females as possible. Females have the double prerogative to get the best sperm available, but with monogamous animals, the best provider male to help raise her offspring.
And when there are many males, these are not likely the same male.
However, socially enforced marriage offers the man the advantage of a guarantee that his DNA will go to at least *some* offspring; it offers the woman a guarantee that if she compromises on having the same sperm donor and provider male, that the provider will stay with her.
And if offers the huge advantage to their children that they will be raised on a “life success” track, instead of a more animalistic “survival” track.
However, marriage is not easy and requires two things to be successful. The first is that it *must* be socially enforced, that once married, both people must be regarded as “hands off” by other people.
And second, that the dowry, or involuntary marriage, is forbidden. These two things subvert the entire idea of marriage, such as marrying an old man to a preadolescent girl, and couples not marrying out of sexual attraction and breeding selection, but for other reasons, usually financial.
I understand.
True, but not a sustainable cultural model once the outside subsidies dry up.
Also, if this is an overriding instinct enough to cause man to become monogamous, why do Homosexuals persist, and also desire marriage?
Homosexuals don't desire marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Homosexuals desire acceptance and respectability, and think that imposing their lifestyle on those who are not homosexuals, even to the point of parody of normalcy will somehow make them acceptable or respectable. Homosexuality is not a sustainable cultural model, either. If strictly practiced, there can be no future in it.
What's the other example? I only counted two, both deeply flawed and reliant on parasitic or predatory relationships with more normal family-based cultures to sustain themselves. Both are similar in their selfish pursuits of the individual's desires, and not behaviours which are conducive to the survival (or generation) of progeny. Neither is a sustainable cultural paradigm.
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.