Why monogamy?

[Jane_the_Bane]

When one listens to conservative Christians these days, it seems that monogamy is treated pretty much as a (god-)given, an institution that has been willed by God Himself and mustn't be questioned as a consequence to that. Sex before marriage is a BIIIIG no-no, masturbation is often a major taboo and, curiously enough, even *monogamous* relationships are regarded as a matter of shame for as long as the wedding ceremony hasn't been performed.

Now personally, I see that this is a cultural phenomenon that has little to do with "naturalness", and has much more to do with the heritage of bourgeoise morality and ancient middle eastern patriarchal structures than anything else. (After all, the scriptures of the OT are brimming with polygamous relationships that God doesn't mind at all, and in the *original* way of counting the "Ten Utterances" (a.k.a. the "Ten Commandments"), wifes are counted among the husband's possessions. Oh, and culturally speaking, monogamy is pretty much a European phenomenon, although the spread of Western culture by means of colonization has carried it into almost every country of this planet.)

But that's not what I want to discuss. I want to hear the Christian justification of their particular ethics, a proper explanation of their rigid rules with regards to all things sexual. *Are* there any particular arguments in support of white middle class morality? Or does it all boil down to an unspecified "God wants it that way", that isn't even based on scriptural backup?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh, maybe I should add the following:

Before any of you start accusing me of "just wanting to justify my own sinful desires", I'd like to point out that I'm in a monogamous relationship that is so utterly stable that most "sexual revolutionaries" might instantly be tempted to call me conservative/backwards/repressed or what-have-you. So no, I'm not looking for cheap excuses.

 

[kopilo]

I don't know where of if the bible states that ploygamous relationships are wrong but logically it is easier to remember important dates and details about whom you are involved with if it is a monogamous relationship.

With the sex before marriege, well I guess it's up the individual but I believe it is more of a health risk to have sex with a large number of people, rather then a few. Hence only having sex after marriege may reduce the amount of people someone has sex with.

With masturbation some people say it's to do with some passages about spilling seed on the earth, but I went to a christian school who basically were pro-masturbation.

By the way, you shouldn't need to defend yourself before you are either challenged or attacked.

 

[Brennin]

Now personally, I see that [monogamy] is a cultural phenomenon that has little to do with "naturalness", and has much more to do with the heritage of bourgeoise morality and ancient middle eastern patriarchal structures than anything else. (After all, the scriptures of the OT are brimming with polygamous relationships that God doesn't mind at all, and in the *original* way of counting the "Ten Utterances" (a.k.a. the "Ten Commandments"), wifes are counted among the husband's possessions.

You appear to contradict yourself.

 

[quatona]

I don't know where of if the bible states that ploygamous relationships are wrong but logically it is easier to remember important dates and details about whom you are involved with if it is a monogamous relationship.

Well, that´s an answer I have never heard before. It gave me a good chuckle - it is so simple and so true.
Then again, if God´s laws are primarily based on preventing us from losing track on what´s on our schedule, wouldn´t forbidding marriage completely have been the even more effective law? (I mean, howmany men forget their wedding day, although they have only one wife? ). And what about our friends, acquaintances, colleagues, children. They actually cause the same problems - why is there no limitation to their number?

With the sex before marriege, well I guess it's up the individual but I believe it is more of a health risk to have sex with a large number of people, rather then a few. Hence only having sex after marriege may reduce the amount of people someone has sex with.

Actually I doubt that God may have set up this rule for this reason. Usually He seems to leave it to us to which extent we accept health risks. Every handshake is a health risk, after all, nonetheless handshakes aren´t forbidden by God, neither are skiing, diving, mountain climbing or bungee-jumping.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You appear to contradict yourself.

No, the "one wife and one husband"-part is the younger part, whereas the "wives as the husband's exclusive property"-part is much more ancient than that. To this day, there's a discrepancy in the treatment of promiscuity, gender-wise.

 

[justanobserver]

I heard it said once that polygamy was having one spouse too many; monogamy was the same...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Haw-haw.

Hey, perhaps that's why Polyandry is such an uncommon phenomenon! Women are simply smarter than men, and realize that the negative aspects of keeping half a dozen husbands outweigh the few benefits it brings.

 

[Merlin]

Monogamy is an ideal, not a requirement.
God made one man and one helper.

 

[Caylin]

Monogamy is an ideal, not a requirement.
God made one man and one helper.

I'm no one's "helper."

 

[kopilo]

Well, that´s an answer I have never heard before. It gave me a good chuckle - it is so simple and so true.
Then again, if God´s laws are primarily based on preventing us from losing track on what´s on our schedule, wouldn´t forbidding marriage completely have been the even more effective law? (I mean, howmany men forget their wedding day, although they have only one wife? ). And what about our friends, acquaintances, colleagues, children. They actually cause the same problems - why is there no limitation to their number?

Actually I doubt that God may have set up this rule for this reason. Usually He seems to leave it to us to which extent we accept health risks. Every handshake is a health risk, after all, nonetheless handshakes aren´t forbidden by God, neither are skiing, diving, mountain climbing or bungee-jumping.

Well considering this is in the open to discussion section, I wasn't really including God, but I'm glad you had a chuckle and I like the way you thought of these things being apart of what God has predecided.

I'm also told it's impossible to get an STD from bungee jumping, climbing, skiing, diving or sky diving (w/o blood being involved).

I mean one could even argue that getting our of bed or even staying in bed is a risk, but I think what it comes down to, is what risks the individual is willing(or forced) to take vs what benifits they precieve taking the risk could create.

 

[Moros]

Monogamy is sort of interesting in that it occurs so rarely in nature - there are only something like 5 creatures that are biologically monogamous.

Humans aren't one of them.

 

[Garnett]

Monogamy is sort of interesting in that it occurs so rarely in nature - there are only something like 5 creatures that are biologically monogamous.

Humans aren't one of them.

I don't understand this. What defines animal polygamy? What defines the length of an animal's relatuionships? Surely it could be argued that an animal is monogamous within each of it's relationships, which coincidentally all last the same length of time up until sex with a new partner?

Why are humans not considered monogamous? What defines biological monogamy?

Lots of questions I know. Sorry.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't understand this. What defines animal polygamy? What defines the length of an animal's relatuionships? Surely it could be argued that an animal is monogamous within each of it's relationships, which coincidentally all last the same length of time up until sex with a new partner?

Why are humans not considered monogamous? What defines biological monogamy?

Lots of questions I know. Sorry.

Well, there are some birds (and certain species of desert mice, IIRC) that stay together for life once they've met and mated. Other species, such as lions, build harems that are the exclusive property of the dominant male. Others, like bears, are of a more solitary bent and meet only to procreate. And others, like bonobos, are entirely promiscuous and even engage in sexual acts like masturbation for the sheer fun of it.

Recently, some scientists have argued that Man might be biologically inclined towards "serial monogamy", concentrating his efforts on one partner for a time before moving on to find another mate. I don't believe they're correct, though, especially since monogamy is pretty much a European phenomenon, and doesn't feature prominently in most other cultures.

 

[quatona]

Well considering this is in the open to discussion section, I wasn't really including God, but I'm glad you had a chuckle and I like the way you thought of these things being apart of what God has predecided.

I'm also told it's impossible to get an STD from bungee jumping, climbing, skiing, diving or sky diving (w/o blood being involved).

Then again it´s highly unlikely to break you neck while having extramarital sex, either. (I must admit, though, that I may not be familiar with the most extreme bizarre practices. Anyways, they could be used in marital sex as well).

I mean one could even argue that getting our of bed or even staying in bed is a risk, but I think what it comes down to, is what risks the individual is willing(or forced) to take vs what benifits they precieve taking the risk could create.

Exactly my point. And here we have a moral rule ("no sex unless married") that, according to what I understood to be your argumentation, has the purpose of telling us what risks are unacceptable out of a sudden.
In view of the fact that you can reduce the risk of extra-marital sex to a minimum (which is far lower than any of the risks that are regarded perfectly acceptable), I cannot really follow this theory.

 

[kopilo]

Then again it´s highly unlikely to break you neck while having extramarital sex, either. (I must admit, though, that I may not be familiar with the most extreme bizarre practices. Anyways, they could be used in marital sex as well).

Well with the breaking of necks, it proberly lies more along the lines of who's husband or wife doesn't agree with extra martial sex.

Exactly my point. And here we have a moral rule ("no sex unless married") that, according to what I understood to be your argumentation, has the purpose of telling us what risks are unacceptable out of a sudden.

Huh, one would expect it is up to the individual to decide which risks they believe is more dangerous, and which one's they are willing to take, no?

In view of the fact that you can reduce the risk of extra-marital sex to a minimum (which is far lower than any of the risks that are regarded perfectly acceptable), I cannot really follow this theory.

The minimum being the removal of sexual organs?
I think you meant the risk of STDs from extra-marital sex, sure risks can be minimised (generally) given any hazadus situation. However even if the risk is small, I'm not sure how it isn't any greater when you introduce more people into the mix.

Put it this way, if someone has an STD, one would assume it could only spread as far as the number of people who they are having sex with. The more people the further it could spread.

 

[quatona]

extra martial sex.

Huh, one would expect it is up to the individual to decide which risks they believe is more dangerous, and which one's they are willing to take, no?

Yes, my point exactly.

The minimum being the removal of sexual organs?
I think you meant the risk of STDs from extra-marital sex, sure risks can be minimised (generally) given any hazadus situation. However even if the risk is small, I'm not sure how it isn't any greater when you introduce more people into the mix.

Put it this way, if someone has an STD, one would assume it could only spread as far as the number of people who they are having sex with. The more people the further it could spread.

I´m afraid we are chasing different rabbits here, Kopilo.
I am not disputing that there are differnt degrees of risks coming with different forms of behaviour and activity.
I merely wondered (and I have the OP question in mind here) why God would prohibit something for the reason that it bears a certain health risk, whilst he seems not to be concerned with ruling these things in other cases, rather relying on our reason to decide for ourselves whether to accept the risks of bungee-jumping, shaking hands, getting out of bed, driving in the rush hour, or climbing an 8000m mountain.

 

[kopilo]

*rolling on the floor laughing*, err I mean, All's fair in love and war?

Yes, my point exactly.

I´m afraid we are chasing different rabbits here, Kopilo.

Damn; well at least one of us spotted it.

I am not disputing that there are differnt degrees of risks coming with different forms of behaviour and activity.
I merely wondered (and I have the OP question in mind here) why God would prohibit something for the reason that it bears a certain health risk, whilst he seems not to be concerned with ruling these things in other cases, rather relying on our reason to decide for ourselves whether to accept the risks of bungee-jumping, shaking hands, getting out of bed, driving in the rush hour, or climbing an 8000m mountain.

Fair enough. In truth with the velocity of this world, I'm unclear to what God wants or means, and I know as a christian I should live my life by what God says but all I have to go on is the bible, a few extra scriptures and God's word which may be just my imagination.

In short, I don't know, maybe it is apart of 'Gods plan' or maybe it has been something added to Christianity long ago, when the faith may have been used as a personal instrament, (eg, crusades).

 

[Athene]

Monogomy to me is the best situation to raise children, or maybe I'm just saying that because of my own personal experiences. I've raised kids on my own and now I'm doing it with my husband and it's a lot easier when there are two pairs of hands. But then maybe it would be easier still if we were like lions and only had one man to a group of women, and we could all raise our kids together and chat and drink lots of tea and only use the man when we want our jollies.

Anyway, I don't really care, I'm happy with monogomy, I don't want to have to find a new partner every few years and hope he's a nice stable character who won't be horrible to my kids - but if there are people who want serial monogamy, or polygamy or whatever then power to them/

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

I have found when reading the Old Testament that:
1. The first relationship was one man and one woman and 2. The marriages with more than one wife are never as "blessed" as the ones with only one wife.

Example David has all kinds of problems with women while Abraham and Sarah had a productive, encouraging relationship. The only big problem with them ever was when she encouraged him to sleep with the servant. You also hear very little of the women who are one of many wives where those that are one wife, one husband the women play a bigger role in scripture.

That's just me though.