Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!tristan!loren
From: loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <70445@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 26 Oct 90 04:07:20 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <15490@netcom.UUCP> <1426@beguine.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 95

In article <1426@beguine.UUCP> danielg@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Daniel Gene Sinclair) writes:
>In article <15490@netcom.UUCP> barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>>>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
>>
>>	Looks to me like humans aren't monogamous innately. Even in
>>cultures like ours, which sanctify monogamy, the studies all say
>>that most people aren't.

	It depends on how one defines "monogamy", I guess. If one
means a lifelong partnership with only one partner, then our species
is probably not monogamous. But if one expands "monogamy" to include
serial polygamy, relationships with one partner at a time, then our
species is much closer to that.

	I think that what people actually do is also governed by
economic considerations. In circumstances where women are economically
dependent on men, then we do not see terribly many women seeking
divorce, for instance. When men and women are not economically
dependent on each other, we see a lot more love affairs and divorces.
Just consider people in show business, for instance.

	As to "sanctifying" monogamy, if it was truly a "natural"
thing, why does one need the whole weight of Church and State behind
it? Only if was something that was not quite natural.

>I agree that humans are not innately monogamous, but this is because they
>are spritiually fallen (oh no, one of those !).  So I think that
>'naturally', we gravitate to what is *not* natural (i.e. intended by God
>to give us satisfacion).  So I think that examination of what exists in
>culture will not necessarily give us what *should* be.  No matter how far
>we look, I think that we will find that Scriptural methods will always
>lead to life and health and satisfaction, body and soul.

	What Scriptures? The Bible? The Koran? The works of Homer and
Hesiod? The Vedas?

	I prefer to think of us as having advanced in certain ways
from our simian ancestors, even if it is not as much as some of us may
have hoped. And "dan", if you still believe in the literal truth of
the Bible, then carry the discussion over to talk.origins. If you do
so, then why do you believe in Adam and Eve, and not the Hindu
primordial couple Yama and Yami? Or that the two survivors of a great
flood, Deucalion and Pyrrha, re-created humanity by throwing stones
backward, over their shoulders?

>Of course, there will be those who say 'Solomon had man wives' etc., etc.
>So who wants to argue all day?  I submit that monogamy is at least
>encouraged as best in Scripture, esp. in the New Testament.  For example,
>Christ and his *one* bride, the church.

	And I note that the Roman-era Jewish historian, Josephus,
defended his having two wives by saying that polygamy is a custom
among his people. And it was not just Solomon who had several wives
and concubines in the OT, it was several others.

>Also, as a qualification for a church leader, Paul
>writes that he must be husband to one wife.  Ok, ok, so you have lots of
>examples of polygamy in the bible.  Decide for yourself.  As for me, one
>is plenty, and I think plenty satisfying.

	If that is correct, then Paul had disqualified himself, since
he, according to his own statement, was celibate. He even urged
celibacy for others, and he thought that marriage was nothing more
than a safety valve for those who could not manage celibacy. He
apparently urged those who were married to consider ceilbacy -- think
of it, a celibate marriage.

>Spouting off again without thinking, 

	That's what you sound like.

>dan

> **** The shallow man has *** |  Do not be overly righteous, nor overly
> **** has opinions;       *** |  wise: why should you destroy yourself ?
> **** the deep,           *** |      - King Solomon, wisest man of his 
> **** convictions.        *** |        day, Ecclesiastes 7:16.

	You mean, one must be silly and wicked sometimes?????

	What an excuse for mischief -- the Bible permits me to be
silly and wicked.

	For more info on Biblical wickedness, consult my Biblical
Satanic Verses, available from me by e-mail.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@star.stanford.edu