Polygamy is natural and an inherent immutable orientation. I understand that for religious reasons some people may oppose it, just as they oppose homosexuality, but that does not mean society has the right to keep discriminating against polygamous people when society has removed the restrictions and discrimination against homosexual people. We need to legalise polygamous marriage NOW.
@@markcroydon3195 how exactly is it immutable if it depends on socioeconomic forces to be a viable matting strategy? How is it immutable if our species naturally selected for monogamy in every society since the invention of written history. If polygamy was the natural state of our species then it would have withstood outside pressures. I don't think you know what that word means.
Some of the least 'high value males' aka deadbeat dads are also doing this, successively if not simultaneously, impregnating multiple women who fall back onto the state.
Possibly an anomaly where men with a certain personality and combination of ‘dark triad’ traits are appealing to women at a base level, possibly because they present high status behaviours despite being low status.
True. My father had six children with five different women over a 22 year period, between 1964 and 1986. He did marry one of them (marriage lasted 4 years; the relationship itself was 12 years) and had one child in wedlock, before getting divorced, and then getting someone else pregnant (and then leaving again). Sadly, he took his own life when he was 50 (when my youngest sister was 4). It's not a great model: 2 of us were adopted, me and another sister, who also took her own life; one died in childhood in a motorcycle accident; of the remaining 4, I never met him, one sister has a few memories one has one memory, the other has none (he left when she was 18 months old). However, he was everyone's favourite uncle, and I've heard many stories from some of my cousins (I've met 16 of them - there are 45 in total; he was one of 15) and they all remember him with great affection.
@@twcnz3570 Do you think technology, philosophy and and development would have grown at an equal pace, or a slower pace if polygamy was still the norm? If it is studied and found that children grow up better under a house of monogamy, what would be the positive outcome for polygamy? Just curious if you feel the that technological advances are somehow inevitable as humans evolve, or if it is driven by culture, or both.
@@jasonharter4876I think technological advancement is inevitable but the rate of that advancement is determined by multiple factors such as the availability of resources and the culture of the people.
Also anthropologists have come to the conclusion that matriarchal societies are far more violent worldwide (and have been throughout History) than patriarchal ones.
SILVAIN DURAIN (he's a French writer who has done a lot of research on that, worked along with anthropologists & studied tribes in South America plus other parts of the world). He explains & narrates everything, online you'll find him really going deep into those subjects, interviews etc... IDK if you'll find it translated into English though . Go check him out anyway: SILVAIN DURAIN (among a few others).
Aside from the royal family, in ancient Egypt monogamy was also pretty much the norm. Family life as portrayed in wall paintings and written on ostraca was remarkably like our own ideal of monogamy.
Monogamy was also the norm in virtually every ancient civilization, including Ancient Greece, Babylonian, Indian and Chinese. Often their rulers did have multiple wives, as did some nobles, but the average citizen did not. Monogamy is simply the most efficient means of creating and growing the next generation of humans in civilization states.
As a man who has 0 interest in women other than my wife (no, I'm not blind, I see attractive women and I notice their beauty, I just don't want them, because I have my wife), I totally agree with monogamy. On the other hand, if people want to have open relationships, it's their lives. I just don't think people should cheat (that is, lie).
It's almost like we're born into a body that defaults to animal instinct and have to work and sacrifice to raise our consciousness from animal to human. Hnmmn, now where have I heard that before? 🙏
Lol, there's no objective reason why you should replace your biological desires with values artificially created in society. You can do this, just like vegans stop eating properly, but this doesn't make this strategy superior or "more human". People have different values, you see.
Polygamy may have been the norm for much of human history, but in the transition from tribes to civilizations, monogamy became more advantageous for various reasons. One is the need to keep track of genealogies to prevent inbreeding and another is to determine property rights, which were important with the rise of agriculture and animal husbandry. Finally, powerful men would allow their male subordinates to marry their daughters in order to gain their support for the big projects of labor often required in a civilization.
I am a second language English speaker, and I find it always funny that there are husbanded animals and husband as word for a married man. Probably these men are all husbanded by their wives.😂 The origin of the word is "house bonded" I guess. In some German dialects "Hus" means house.
@@miriamlana833 _Hus_ is an old Germanic word for "house" and _band_ is similar to the Dutch word _bond,_ which means "league". The word husband means "to use or manage judiciously". The husband exercises responsibility over his wife and functions as a kind of steward. He exercises authority over her _for the sake of others,_ not necessarily for himself. This would suggest that the relationship between husband and wife is not isolated from the broader society, but in fact is an integral part of it. Under this definition, the wife has rights as well as her husband. After all, no man gives his daughter away in marriage without expecting some kind of benefit in return.
Exactly. Monogomay is really a bribe in order to get males to work harder. No bribe means the males will not work at all. Keeping multiple women was an expensive task which many men and males in all species do not want. In non pair bonding communal species the amount of male ancestors to female ancestors are pretty similar. Unless you are guarding the females there is very little chance you can be sure that the offspring will be yours. In polygamous societies its not like the males stick around. That is not the case in any species. The main male has to take care of all of the women essentially by himself with the women doing alot of the work to feed and raise the young while the male defends the group. This evolved to a few males then eventually one male to each female. She is incorrect in the polygamy thing in that every single group on earth had some form of effective monogamy for most people but the very highest male often still had more females and in no society was polygamy a common occurrence in large societies with a single male having 20 or so women without a very large tribe of essentially monogamous members with them. It went one man with alot of women and then alot of mostly monogamous relationships with the rest of the males going out on their own. Monogamy was still the norm in general society with just the exception of the tribal leader. She is blinkered to the one percent alot like most feminists.
I think it’s more accurate to same society forced women to be monogamous for those reasons. I don’t think there’s been any period in history where men of means were strictly monogamous as the norm
@@priestesslucy3299 marriage is where paternity laws need to be updated the most. Why should men be enslaved to support a child that isn't their own offspring? Current laws determining paternity are ridiculous
People should have the freedom to choose, period. It doesn’t matter what you believe or what makes you comfortable. And they won’t “always” choose the wrong thing. Not sure where you pulled that idea out of.
"What's natural" is NOT synonymous with "What's Best". Its natural to get filled with rage. To not wear clothes. To hate not trust people outside of "your tribe". But to move past and become better, is what it means to be Human. The potential to better one's self, and the rest of Humanity.
I can understand a primal impulse in men wanting multiple women, but women wanting to be one of many wives? That's takes more effort to wrap my brain around. I thought women were naturally monogamous. But I guess protection, status, luxury, etc are higher priority.
There's a reason why in the Bible, Solomon has 1,000 wives: women are wired to seek high status men, have very little use for most men. When women are socialized by a decent Christian culture, they appear to be naturally monogamous. They are not.
@TimBitts649 Solomon married 700 women to keep peace with pagan kings. Daughters of these kings had no choice. That is why God told him that he had done evil in HIS eyes. Also these pagan cultures sacrificed infants to Baal and other gods. Solomon allowed it to happen. Whatever happened to many of Solomon's children?
There is a distinct difference between having multiple wives and having multiple partners. One set have rights due to being in a marital contract, giving the man responsibilities to each wife. The other set have no rights and therefore the man has no accountability nor responsibility to provide. You can't compare the two.
Yet they are equally as bad for civilized society. You ideally want as many kids to have a mother and father as possible. The "baby daddy" concept, which was mostly practiced by the uncivilized black lower class in the United States, has spread like wildfire into all ethnic groups and has caused millions of kids to grow up in single parent homes. This is mostly because the culture no longer values marriage or the obligation of parenthood as highly as it used to.
Thats a lie. I can marry one wife in a way that legally obligates Me to her in absolutely no way. And I can marry two or twenty or two hundred wives. In a way that legally obligates Me to all of them and that protects all of them and myself. You are speaking from a place of legal ignorance.
@@SherrickDuncan In many places and countries, with the marriage contract, a man is obligated to do the provisioning of the necessities and so on whether the woman has money or not.
Polygamous societies, needed 100,000 years to go from caves to agriculture. Monogamous societies, went from writing on stone tables to technological advances in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics etc. I wonder which one is better?
More like promiscous societies took that long. Polygamous societies are the link to monogamous ones. Society is still several percentage points polygamous and always has been. Plus muslims and african tribes and the king of thailand.
You are an interesting fellow from the few comments i've seen you post here, how do you know this stuff? What books did you read to get this knowledge>@@freneticness6927
@@freneticness6927Even in "polygamous societies", only like 10-15% of men have more than one woman. Monogamy leads to high trust and high technology, polygamy leads to scrubs raping women and murdering men who have multiple women.
@@myronbourne6937polygyny works only in perfect circumstances. There are selfish men who want multiple wives so he can feel powerful, then end up having multiple families with dysfunction and drama. I’m Muslim and I have multiple family members who have been raised in polygynous homes. Two wives for each man, a house for each wife, but the man almost always has a favorite and gives less time to one family. This is really stressful and makes children and wives feel abandoned, jealous, and like they’re the worse family. That’s why monogamy is ideal for children over anything else. This is the reason polygyny is allowed in Islam, but not encouraged *unless* the man is marrying a widow, orphan, single mother etc. so basically circumstances where he’s doing good not only for himself, but for the woman as well. But of course if a Muslim man would like to marry multiple women just for the heck of it, and can afford it, God will reward him if he’s a good husband and keeps everyone happy and in harmony.
It favours loose morals and sleeping around more than anything. Its not like one or two men are keeping a massive haram of loyal females. As the poet said " these hoes aint loyal".
No, it’s not. Monogamy isn’t even Biblical. Polygyny is the standard form of marriage as it has been supported and regulated in the Bible. Nowhere where it says where says a man can have one wife. Only women can have one man.
Polygamous marriage with men having multiple wives occurred at times in which men died at a far higher rate of dying at younger ages. There were just significantly more females than males around generally, so it's not about 'low status' men having none and 'high status' having many, it's low status men having few or one, and high status men having many. If you have a bunch of 'low status' men who have no wives et al, you'll have chaos and violence and lawlessness. It doesn't work.
Its more about alot of men being derelict and some men being responsible and keeping more wives under their protection. These responsible men therefore had more kids which made more responsible males which made monogamy. In large tribes most people were monogamous whereas the head of the tribe may have more wives as is seen in a lot of cults. Real polygamy in which the only relationships are polygamous have never existed anywhere. All societies have been essentially monogamous with the exception of some high ranking members. Even in muslim societies. Its just that christian and roman societies banned official polygamy altogether even though someone like caesar joked about having alot of kids and had children with cleopatra out of marriage just like mark anthony did.
@@freneticness6927 I think your term of "derelict men" needs some consideration. There were plenty of low men with high birth and low... everything else... to give the lie to your hypothesis. In general I think that 'derelict men', as far as I can understand the term, would likely end up with no wives, and likely live short lives in comparison to 'responsible men'. Frankly though if we look at any historical rendering of violence and military actions we see that 'responsible men' have a higher rate of mortality compared to 'derelict men', at least as far as I would consider the terms. And most of history is violent conflict after violent conflict.
@@UnbeltedSundew I agree that most men even in polygamous societies were mostly monogamous throughout history. But many men who didnt have wives did so because they just lived in their own groups and chose not to have wives for a long time. Spartans didnt get married until they were thirty. Abraham apparently didnt until he was very old. Its just that most women were under the protection of some men. There were roving bands of men but not roving bands of women. Those who chose to protect women ended up having families. Its just like in nature where there are alot of roving single or groups of male lions and other animals going about but some animals which have families of one or two or more at some point.
Change your soundtracks. Back to the '70 and '80s. Just what you want to be, you will be in the end. Love will find a way, if you want it to. I believe there comes a time when everything just falls in line. We live and learn from our mistakes, the deepest cuts are healed by faith. Live every moment, love everyday. Cause if you don't, you might just throw your love away. Or go back 2000 years and look for what you want from Luke chapter 1.
If polygamy was the norm for humans, it would be so... outside of religion, the majority of humans still choose a monogamous marriage. Polygamy is the exception, not the rule.
I'd argue that the polygynous society is a function of an ability to dominate others. Which doesn't make it wrong per se, it just has been that way sometimes.
You dont believe we have always been a semi polygamous society then. Every species is semi polygamous we have found out and the only reason why people didnt think that was for biblical reasons with adam and eve and two of each kind. Most kings and high members of society had and still have multiple illegitimate kids. The thing is where people pair bond in marriage. Boris johnson or donald trump will have alot of wives and mistresses in reality. Its just where the bond between pairs of people are kept. Polygamy is the mid point between monogamy and everyone having relations with everyone.
Oy vey that’s very anti-semitic of this woman to speak positively about Christianity. No one is allowed to do or discover good things outside of the Jews otherwise the ADL will have to get involved to fight the injustices. 109 countries and counting are all wrong to be mean to Gods “chosen ones.” It is always the host countries fault, every single time! Oy veeeeeey where are my shekels!
@@abotariq257That story is descriptive not prescriptive. Yes Solomon had hundreds of concubines but the Bible specifically prohibits polygamy. The Bible is filled with stories of people disobeying God’s orders and doing their own thing. Also Solomon suffered severe punishment from God because of his lust. The entire Kingdom of Israel was nearly destroyed because the dude couldn’t keep it in his pants.
Like Abraham, David, Solomon, and others? Seriously do Christians even read their Bible or do they just listen to whatever lies their pastor decides to spew out on Sundays to justify the beliefs they took from pagan Rome?
Monogamy produces productive civilizations, that's what we are used to. also, pretty much most men and women lived in monogamous relationships, since most of them could only travel very locally and most weren't rich enough to sustain multiple relationships at once in subsistence conditions.
I think monogamy has only one downside: When the number of men and women willing to marry doesn't match, it generates involuntary celibacy for some. How should this problem be solved?
@@FOURTEEFIVE men can compete for the best women and women for the best men, but without a possibility to win at all for some, competition is not healthy but destructive.
Nobody owes anyone their body. So you don't solve the problem. If you can't find a partner, or if there aren't enough partners to go around, then that just sucks. But there's no reasonable or ethical "solution" to that problem that doesn't invade someone else's autonomy.
@@JesseLeeHumphrywhy?? You don't say the same for poor people, financially disenfranchised people. We have social programs for the lower financial classes. Why can't we do the same for lower status men??
Well, if polygamy is the norm, then there is no need for modern civilization. Monogamy is the price we pay to have a functional society, to live in peace and harmony instead of constant ravaging, fighting and incessant brutality
Polygamy was never widespread and was only reserved in certain human societies for the 1 in a hundred men in a tribe who had a few more wives than the mostly monogamous men. This women is just blinkered with the 0.1% most successful men feminist mindset. Most women in history were not in massively polygamous relationships. They were mostly in monogamous lower status parts of the tribe wherever in the world you went.
@@freneticness6927 heck in some poorer parts of the world Polyandry is practiced.. A woman marries two or three men (often brothers) to consolidate resources and labor without overproducing offspring
Remember from the past having more Sons have it's reasons to have strong Sons men to have society and to bound hands and feet. Now what is a Man? Nor What is a Woman?
If polygamy was the better choice it would have survived against external forces such as Christianity. As Thomas Sowell points out, people have been making decisions based on the what works best for the immediate circumstances. Evolutionary theory also confirms this.
Polygamy has always existed and still exists in society. Pure monogamy is a myth made by religious people. Alot of people are mostly monogomas but people having multiple kids with multiple women have existed at every point in history for pretty much all societies.
Polygamy has survived against external forces as it still exists to this day (just not in common circle). - I get back to that bracketed comment. Ofcourse I agree with what You said about it being a better choice but only for the average man (which happens to be most guys). It is practical for this system as the alternative with average men would be detrimental for both the man and woman and not to mention the child/ren. It would wastr energy and resources that simple do not exist or is stretchable. Now, to address the (common circle comment). I believe that polygamy is practical and logical for men that are resourceful enough to share money amongst his mistresses etc. Wealth provides more free time as one could simple now delegate tasks to hired workers, more money, better education for children that is shared amongs commited wives and for the wives a better comfort and protection. Simply put wealthy resourceful men are the gatekeepers for polygyny and average men which is majority of men is better inclined to monogamy.
One form of polygamy is where a marriage is arranged for a man and woman, and then she brings her sisters too for their shelter and protection. An example of polyandry comes from india where a woman is married to all of the boys in a family.
@@NINacideIt wasn't a tradition, a superstition and it was done to keep the islamic horde away from committing crimes against women during the invasion era
Having significant numbers of men without wives, or the potential to even have a wife, is neither good for them, nor for society. A totally disproportionate number of male prisoners are single and I can't see how having a society with large numbers of frustrated and resentful men, benefits women in any way, not to mention the undermining of women's status resulting from polygamy.
It completely depletes the manpower of the society aswell as those men will not work to support society. See grass eaters. The only prominent polygamous societies were the desert ones where having a large herd of animals was more important than work and even in those societies the main man had a few more wives and most of the rest of the people were mostly monogamous. Those societies do not need to work very much and only need to keep livestock like the mongols. But when they bumped into settled societies their culture completely collapsed. Todays society is much more promiscuity for all and no one is really keeping loyal. But the male manpower in society is definitely decreasing but in the cerebral centered world it seems to matter less. Women are once again gravitating to what will ensure the survival of their offspring in a world where controlling the means of production means more than physical labour. Most women and men will still have one or two children together though but the bottom 50% of men may be generally overlooked by women whereas most women will still find someone who will have a kid with them. It just means that alot of men will check out of society, the society will be poorer and the women will have to raise offspring completely by themselves. Returning to the random young raising style of our fish like ancestors.
@@freneticness6927 You are quite right, but i will also say that even a great number of women are not having kids as well... the number of single and childless women as risen and it is rising substantially.
@@knightheaven8992 I do not see a problem in the population naturally trending down a bit anymore than im worried about it trending up a bit. It is factually pretty much always one or the other.
@Infimathy bible was changed many many times. so I dont trust corinthians. But Solomon was a historical figure who clearly had many wives and was considered a righteous man.
I'm sorry to insult you, but just how bad is your listening comprehension? Because your comment counters literally nothing which was said in the video.
@patrickobrian9669 Evidently my "listening comprehention" (on a platform which solicites comments) is less than you would prefer, so, again, please provide STATISTICS.
Monogamy only works in a world where women dont have the right to chose, or the power to chose. Which is why monogamy seemed to work in the past. Its not because monogamy was a better solution. Its simply that women couldn't choose. In a world where women are free, theyll always chose a hugh status man with multiple partners than a monogamous partnership with a low status male.
I would love to see the actual data and region that monogamy produces lower crime rates, lower domestic violence and less economic inequality. I see all of those in monogamous America everyday, in massive scale.
Monogamy and Polygamy both work and both face similar or same problems. It’s up to the individuals involved to make it work. I’ve had a friend raised by parents that were in a poly, and he’s wonderful.
The trick to having multiple spouses is, you have to marry Identicals. this way everyone thinks you just have the one spouse. Twins, triplets and if you have a lot of money quadruplets.
The myth of polyamorous relationships is unfortubately very persistent. Nevertheless I haven’t witnessed any of those relationships ever succeed longterm. Someone is always miserable and suffering, sometimes even consenting to it against their own intuition. If there are functional open relationsships is surley not the norm and very rare.
Have you ever spoken to a commited polygamous couple and if so how many? What kind of misery and suffering have these people face? (Btw I am actually genuinly curious here)
I ask because if the suffering had to do with money or time in anyway well it is not the nature of the relationship but the lack thereof which kills the relationship after sometime. Western people who I know personally tried it have done it solely for pleasure and then play catch up with other IMPORTANT factors of any relationship. I made a comment earlier which I will say again that I don't think in anyway that it works or works sustainably well amongst commen people which has enough/little/no resources. Polygamy works amongst resourceful individuals that have both time and money to make these relationships last. I may no one for every polygamous relationship that failed that you have studied that works atleast where I am from.
In reality its just that all women essentially became pregnant at one point either voluntarily or not. But not all men were successful at making those women pregnant. It just takes one or two serial rapists or tribes killing all of the men in another tribe to half the amount of male ancestors you have. Or the men in a tribe wandering off to live in caves allowing the females to be put under the protecting of harder working males. Monogamy forces men in tribes to work harder as much as it disallows women from being hypergamous.
Monogamy is ingrained on Judeo Christian merits but its also a precaution for risks of STDs, economic factors and the cost of divorce in a 21st century culture. Ultimately its gamble on having a compatible partner.
It's always been about the desires of man/flesh and not about a strong family unit based on true love and a secure family unit caring for the future of the children
Open relationships: both partners agree to be open sexually Polyamory: both partners agree to be open to loving more than one person Polygamy: men are allowed to marry several women. Women don't have that right. Please don't confuse these concepts, they are very different. E.g. polyamory is based on values such as trust, equality. Very different to polygamy
Acutely observed and articulate. Most of Louise Perry’s articles are also a pleasure to read for the same reason. But I wish she spoke a bit louder during interviews. I often find it hard to hear her.
Greeks and Romans were monogamous well before Judaism and Christianity. Actually it was the opposite, Christians became monogamous in practice through Roman institutions. Either way, history has shown that monogamous societies are more prosperous, children become better off, and most importantly monogamy is also theoretically a product of biological and cultural evolution. The polygamist societies are actually developing nations, unstable, high crime, low income, and simply behind the times. In short, monogamy breeds loyalty and quality. Even high value men are unable to raise too many children because feuds and bastardization becomes a source of generational burdens to the families and communities of irresponsible polygamy. Also, what’s next? Tax deductions for a man with 1,000 wives and 10,000 kids, public benefits and the like? The worst thing about these arguments, especially from wannabe intellectuals is that they presume people, men and women, are like cattle who failed to evolve from their primitive beginnings. There is more to say on this, and the game is shrouded in secrecy and agendas, but in short, we don’t want Solomons, Sultans, and serpents ruling the world. It’s why Spartan men and women are most admired, even though at mythical proportions at times. Stay a wolf pack since unlike the felines they evolve and adapt and live on rather than go extinct like the lions. Omnia mini Graeca est!
I don't like the idea of rating human beings as "high status" and "low status". It feels far too much like a return to "Übermensch" and "Untermensch" which is a lesson that should be so far behind us we can't even conceive if it.
Not true at all polygyny is completely biblical and there are many scriptures that back that up. David was a man after God's own heart and God had him do all his desires one of which was giving him multiple wives. Man and woman coming together to be one is a symbolic reference to reproduction. 2 flesh become 1 = a child created from two humans.
You are right, our one man, one wife system came out of Roman culture. But the Church rejected the Roman norm of serial marriage, divorce and remarriage. Yet all the elders of Israel had multiple wives: some had more than a hundred. The biblical command of one man-one wife is stated only for those who wish to be a bishop. It was the Catholic Church that made that restriction universal in the year 375 A D.
@@dartskihutch4033 Seriously? For one, open sexuality trespasses the boundaries of loyal homogenous relationships facilitating lies and dishonesty which easily cross over to other social deviant behaviors associated with crime and mayhem. Don’t believe that? Look at modern American big city life.
@@wlodell so 1. Ridding of loyalty altogether isn't exactly an improvement from having at least most people who have some. It's like saying if no one was employed, then we wouldn't have an unemployment issue! 2. Most criminals come from single parent homes, while stats on polygamy's effects on children is too limited to even compare. This if anything, is a huge oversight to the many other problems that create criminals, and whether your dad has 4 wives instead of 1 is likely very low on the priority list. 3. You didn't address how it's economical.
Polygamy is sinful. I don’t know what she’s talking about or when she says it came from Rome, the Roman empire, especially the people who were in charge or sinful people who believe the multiple God Jesus came to tell us how God wants us to live.
Most women wont knowingly settle for an average guy because now there's always a chance that the high-status guy you have a crush on might break up with his current squeeze and sweep you off your feet. If you had enforced monogamy it would remove all doubt in your mind that the high status man is *taken* and *unavailable* if hes already married, and that your only options really are the guys left over who havent gotten married yet.
But Judaism and Christianity, the religions which promoted monogamy, came to the world due to the Roman Empire. Btw, the "four wife rule" in Islam is primarily a restriction of excessive polygamy and for making shure that no single woman has to be involuntary celibate or widow in a demography with a great lack of adult males which the ancient Arab/Beduin society was because of constant tribal wars.
@@miriamlana833well, it wasn't Rome's doing, it was because Jesus died in Roman territory and is where the religion began. That's not the same at all as "Rome created it" but rather Jesus created it and the Romans followed it eventually.
@@dartskihutch4033 yes, the Romans originally only adopted the ancient Greece religion and gave the gods new names, Zeus became Jupiter and so on. But later Rome was the deciding catalyst for monotheism.
Restricting women from sharing high value men and settling on otherwise undesirable men isn't helping the species. It's not biblical or according to the Quran either.
You get the absolute best of both worlds- genetically- in a monogamous society where married women freely express their desires without concern of punishment from their husbands. Average Joe hubby gets at least one child out of the deal, and she gathers superior seed for most of her children. A focus on quality with diversity maintained.
Thats not necessarily a good thing. That means the bad genes could get passed down with the good. Being genetically diverse can be just as genetic defect causing as being genetically undiverse. like ligers and mules have very diverse genetics but that is not good for them as they are often infertile. Some survival of good genes is good for society. No one wants jeffrey dahmers or harvey weinstiens genes to be passed on.
Not sure she can really claim Christianity is responsible for monogamy when most marriages depicted in the bible had many wives and more concubines. It has a lot more to do with roman culture than with scripture.
It is the best/ only way because God designed humanity to live monogamously. When mankind deviates from God's design, it brings upon itself the hurtful, demoralizing corruptions that destroy our society. And as a nation devolves into debauchery, it opens itself to being conquered by another nation. It's coming!
The women can. They hold the power, not men. If you can't find at least two women who are foolish enough to ALLOW you to sleep around on them, then you can't "marry" anyone. You can't marry one without her consent, let alone two. And if you're in the U.S. no one will even acknowledge your filthy relationships even if you do find two fools who are desperate to be with you. Sensible women aren't going to allow themselves to be disrespected by a man.
@@myronbourne6937 It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. The women have the power and authority in any country. If the women don't agree, it won't happen, so it doesn't matter what men want. They will also have other men, so you will be a brother husband. The most you can do is cheat, and anyone can do that.
@@shayemoore Yeah I can tell you've never been to a majority Muslim country 😂 I'll let you live in your little fantasy land while I go take care of all my wives. Have a good day!
@priestesslucy3299 Whenever someone makes this argument, I always ask them to please point me to this shinning example of this monogamous married couple that the bible holds up as the standard we should all be following. I'll just get crickets. 😂 Then they'll usually hold up some cryptic, ambiguous quote from someone who wasn't married or monogamous...😂
@@realmrdangerThe human genepool is female DNA dominant. That means more women have contributed to it. The aggregate of men are not and have never been polygynous 🤦🏻♀️
@@realmrdanger I never refuted that. Women are not monogamous by nature either 🙃 They go for the better providers and genetic diversity for their offspring. By your logic the majority of men should just accept that they are genetic dead ends because they were never owed a wife and offspring. Biblically men should not be making their wives take their last names either 🙃
I didn't hear the divorce statistics which is to say nothing of separations or people living separate lives under the same roof.Be careful before you leap.
Rome and greece. Certainly not the massively polygamous desert dwelling jews where all of the patriarchs and almost all of the kings of israel were polygamous.
No, it is not, and Christianity is NOT the only example in which monogamy is the norm. … and women don’t normally want to share a man, not now or historically.
Polygamy was the pattern in the past for SOME, yeah. It was never the overall norm, because only some powerful, wealthy, or otherwise status men had a bunch of wives, but most had none or owe. Christianity made it the norm to have only one wife.
Most people chose to be monogamous in pre-Christian European societies, although polygamy and polyandry were not completely illegal until the Christians took over.
Judaism insisted on monogamy as well, while there are examples of bigamy in the Bible, it never works out well for them. Bigamy ruined David's household, ruined Solomon's household, caused problems for Abraham, problems for Isaac, problems for Jacob. The cool thing about the Bible is that it tells the truth even about it's heroes, shows their failings, and shows that you don't ever get away with violating God's standards, even if you are God's chosen.
