Does the fact of Evolution .... (moved)

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If we take the basic premise of evolution that a creature that lives long enough to breed and pass on it's genes via mates, and (as is often the case with a few animals) they do this by breeding with multiple partners, then yes.

Yes, the act of marriage is a construct brought about by society, but monogamy can be found in many species of animals. Elephants are an example that spring to my mind.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

- DNA from two beings blends and creates offspring with characteristics from each.

- Should humans have multiple partners?

I'd say the first does not impact the second at it's foundation or core.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't think humanity's history of statistical semi monogamy makes any difference one way or another morally.

It means that anyone using the "It's natural." argument is out of luck, but that's true of most moral positions.

(Personally I think it's up to the people involved in the relationships as to how many other people are allowed to be involved.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Once for life.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The fact of evolution describes the facts we see in nature. It has no bearing on how we 'ought' to act.

Obviously, many have difficulty with monogamy. Perhaps there are evolutionary explanations for that. This still doesn't have any bearing on how we ought to act.

It's 'natural' to die in childbirth. It doesn't mean we're obligated to do so.

 

[homohabilis117]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

Habilis thinks morals represent arbitrary cultural constructs. Social constructs, and the symbolic meaning human societies imbue into those constructs, are not part of the domain of biological evolution. However, this is not to say that one system might not correspond more closely to the ideals of God, if He exists. The "beyond-nature" part of culture, could very well be mans means of perceiving the reality of God. Habilis thinks if your question asked: "should the fact of evolution affect human moral systems?" it would go to the heart of what you are asking. Habilis position is: should the fact of gravity influence morals? Neither should evolution, which is also a fact, like gravity. Once evolution is extended into realm of morals, it ceases to be fact and becomes philosophy.

 

[dad]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

The fact of evolution is a fact of creation. In other words, no proof, evidence or fact exists that can deny it all was created, and any evolving was after the fact. That means that the foolish dreams of how sex and relationships came about as a result of evolving rather than creation are worthless time wasting nonsense.

 

[jayem]

Our species evolved from hominids who instinctively sought out multiple partners. That doesn't mean we should reject monogamous relationships. But it helps to explain why they're so difficult for many people to maintain.

 

[digitalgoth]

The fact of evolution is a fact of creation. In other words, no proof, evidence or fact exists that can deny it all was created, and any evolving was after the fact. That means that the foolish dreams of how sex and relationships came about as a result of evolving rather than creation are worthless time wasting nonsense.

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

There are some scientists that believe that during the hunter-gather portion of human history, that there was not a lot of monogamy, as it does not appear to be something your average human acts on. And that "monogamy" like "marriage" came about with the agricultural age as a way of making sure that ownership of resources would pass down from one to another, and by bringing in monogamy (of course, females being monogamous) and codified societal relationships would guarantee your particular progeny would inherit those resources since we weren't groups of people running around killing animals and picking berries, where it would be much less important.

 

[durangodawood]

We should not be constrained by whats biologically "natural".
Culture should be free to evolve toward institutions such as marriage, if we find value in them.

 

[JackRT]

Elephants are an example that spring to my mind.

Not really. The herd is made up entirely of females and immature animals. The bulls compete for breeding privileges in season. Who knows which bull will dominate next season.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

Not at all. Humans choose to go against their instinctual biases all of the time. There is also the naturalistic fallacy, that what is natural is automatically good. Monogamy is really a question of ethics and morality, not science.

As a description of the human race, we are serially monogamous at best.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not really. The herd is made up entirely of females and immature animals. The bulls compete for breeding privileges in season. Who knows which bull will dominate next season.

After I typed it out and switched off my laptop for the night, I suddenly realised: damn, that's wrong.
I know there are animals that are monogamous, but I keep forgetting the name of it. I imagine it's something small and furry. Or a bird. It's probably birds.

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Hi! Some answers:
Creation Truth Orthodoxy
Earth Age 10,000 Years Old

 

[JackRT]

After I typed it out and switched off my laptop for the night, I suddenly realised: damn, that's wrong.
I know there are animals that are monogamous, but I keep forgetting the name of it. I imagine it's something small and furry. Or a bird. It's probably birds.

I know that Tundra Swans mate for life.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know that Tundra Swans mate for life.

Osprey's mate for life too.

 

[Shemjaza]

After I typed it out and switched off my laptop for the night, I suddenly realised: damn, that's wrong.
I know there are animals that are monogamous, but I keep forgetting the name of it. I imagine it's something small and furry. Or a bird. It's probably birds.

Gibbons.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gibbons.

... not an answer I expected to see, to be honest.

 

[Shemjaza]

... not an answer I expected to see, to be honest.

They mark territory and scare away invaders with duet screaming from a mated pair.

If you see them at a zoo, they are actually quite cute.