Polygamy Pwns...

[DeletedUser]

(( I decided to take on the role of devil's advocate for awhile. In this debate I'm roleplaying a pro-polygamist. Everyone else, argue your positions as you see fit. If, in the event, there are more pro-polygamy advocates than anti, I'll "change my mind" and argue anti-polygamy. ))

There it is ya peeps, polygamy is the only true way to go. Women need a man, and men need women. We could argue all day long about the religious role of such, or historical examples, but I'm not going there because it would be way too easy (plus, there's that annoying thing called rules that forbids such). Instead, I'm arguing that polygamy, the act of having multiple wives, is natural, whilst monogamy is not.



note: this is not a debate about age of consent. If you go there, I will pwn u.

 

[DeletedUser]

I like how woman need a man and man need women. So polygamy ain't workin both ways? A bit chauvinistic. Marriage is in no way natural, so I find it hard to say that it would be natural to have one spouse or multiple spouses. A polygamist marriage is a choice that usually ends up being one spouse, lets say male, making his conquered wives subservient; kind of weird but whatever floats the boat. There are always natural urges, but having multiple relations cannot be boiled down to "I was hungry so I ate." I can very honestly say that if I wanted to have multiple relations that the decision was made rationally, it would be dishonest to say it was natural and doing so would be a pretty pathetic way to victimize myself.

 

[DeletedUser]

What about women having multiple husbands? Or women having multiple wives/men having multiple husbands? Is polygamy 'natural' purely for men to have multiple wives, or is it just as natural for all other scenarios?

 

[DeletedUser]

Oi oi! Two posts, that's it?!? Omg!

 

[DeletedUser12324]

This links in a tiny bit with the whole meaning of life thread. If we were put on this earth just to breed then neither would make any sense.

I personally think relationships are a hastle, it just puts extra pressure where it's not needed.

If you want sex have sex if you want a friend get a friend. There is certainly no need for more than one spouse.

 

[DeletedUser4013]

I can see the argument for polygamy being the rule rigure in nature. There are very few species that pair with a single mate for life. As a species, we are not one of them. We have a desire and urge to propigate the species, more so than any other on this planet. Marriage and monogamy is a forced institution on our species which may or may not be necessary.

In a way though, both are artificial forms of Natural Selection.

 

[Aicy]

Polygamy is defiantly much more beneiftial in nature and allows more progressive evolution.

This is because polygamy allows one male to monopolize lots of females (this is pretty common among animals). What happens is that the males will of course fight over the females to seize control, and the bigger, strong, smarter, genetically supirior male will get lots of booty and kids whilst the little weakling just dies like the hopeless computer addicted loser he is.

In monogamy, almost everyone gets a wife and reproduces. This is not how natural selection and evolution works and along with all our medical cleverness (no one dying because they are born with genetic faults and weaknesses) allows everyone to reproduce and pass on their genetics which are not the ideal, meaning that our species is no longer evolving but more devolving with us becomming more and more reliant on technology to survive.

A good example of this is our brain size. The human brain has been shrinking for the last 20,000 years. This can be explained with low infant morality, and also because we started writing things down and no longer need to remember everything. 20,000 years ago the human skull was 20% larger than now.