2006-09-25 17:23:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
there really is no conformity with the law of nature in this case... it's a simple fact that these habits in lower animals are highly diversified ..... and although poor people procreate more as if it were a cheap form of pleasure the tendency for the more well educated to be at the mercy of their own gonads
is much lower and matrimonial responsibility less relevant..
2006-09-25 17:42:23 · answer #1 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
fred,
said the nation in a whole would be better off if it practiced polygamy. We're the highest rated nation in the world with divorces, marrying and intermarrying, marrying and intermarrying. Because we try to make the men of the world outside coincide with Christian doctrine, and you can't put the nature of a lamb in a pig. Polygamy would be better off for him. Now, remember, don't you say that I believe in polygamy; I don't. But in the nations where they have polygamy the divorce courts are at ebb, low. And yet, polygamy's wrong; we know. And Sarah, thinking that God would not be able to keep all of His promise true, she told Abraham to take Hagar her maid and to marry her (which polygamy was legal in those days) and to bring the child, and that's the way God had it planned, that she was to have the child only through Hagar. Then when the double covenant was made by man and woman through sex (another covenant altogether; not the original covenant, but another covenant), now what's introduced? Polygamy in all. Then after the beginning, polygamy was introduced both in man and in beast, after the beginning, the fall. Now, the Word of God runs true with nature of God, runs in continuity. That's the reason you see polygamy, because of that. At the beginning it never was so and it won't be so in the world over yonder. Woman was made for man and not man for woman.
2006-09-26 01:41:23 · answer #2 · answered by freddie g 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a time where, in many parts of the world, polygamy made the most sense. In societies where there were far more women than men, and there was a fear of the tribe dying out, you needed as many men procreating as possible.
That said, monogamy is what is best for societies today. We need men (and women) to commit themselves to raising children with love and patience. I would find it difficult to do so if I was thinking about the next woman I was going to "procreate" with.
2006-09-26 00:36:02 · answer #3 · answered by Colin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you mean by "law of nature" what the animals do or what is natural for humans, there are examples of both. Some animals find a mate and stay together forever. Some animals mate as many others as possible.
2006-09-26 00:39:15 · answer #4 · answered by J T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
monogamy appears to be the most evolutionarily advantageous route for humans. Too much energy goes into each pregnancy to produce one or rarely two (and even more rarely more) offspring.
2006-09-26 00:27:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, I was going to ask you to define 'law of nature', but someone beat me to it....but some of the answer to this question have left dumbstruck. I don't know which is more stereotyping the question or some of the answers.
2006-09-26 00:32:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Monogamy. Anyone who actually loves their spouse knows that that relationship is exclusive by its nature. In fact, if you really love them, you won't want anyone else.
2006-09-26 00:27:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Define the law of nature, or at least your interpretation of it. Who the hell knows where you're coming from....
2006-09-26 00:28:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Polygamy.....
2006-09-26 01:11:30 · answer #9 · answered by ThomasR 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think so. Men want to breed and women want help raising children and cooking. I think it would work fine.
2006-09-26 00:26:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋