Thanks, Lady K. Thai is getting fatter!
My ex-wife must have been a true hippie. Nesting for her was when she believed she couldn’t go it alone. All of her husbands were default positions! I called her a butterfly, flitting from flower to flower. But she clung to her children from two marriages and saw the husbands or boyfriends as a somewhat stable place for them to visit her. Dammit, she was beautiful–looked like Natalie Wood. Monogamy for her meant being tied down. So many men; so little time!
God man 
God man?
I like the sound of that. It has a certain megalomanic ring to it.
I meant ‘good man’ - damn these sticking letters 
but people do see monogamy/celibacy as heavenly qualities I guess 
- I see you as a good man for thinking like that, and please don’t take that in a patronising way 
Not many people are monogamous these days, and serial-monogamy doesn’t count 
I look at the whole thing this way.
The human mind learns by experience. This can be said in a puzzle, like the name of the Beast 666, “to regulate our behavior so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass.” or simply as we say what we see.
The mind is evolving to regulate human behavior over time for the survival of man. A relationship is about raising children that respects certain ideals, and the ideal of what our job is as mind is one of the most important.
Secondly, every mind has the same definition, and thus the same function. The greatest thing, therefore that two people do together is time related, insuring the future through family, and in the pursuits of their life learning how to do their own work, as mind. Two working together give each other the gift of time through complementary activities.
This was once said in a metaphor, to become one, in body, mind, and soul. And, it is true, the health of any society can be measured in terms of its marital expressions. If one cannot add one and one to make a family, they cannot add a nation to become more than a heap of people.
A man, religiously and scientifically, is defined as one male and one female. It is both a physical fact and a psychological fact.
I’m sorry, 8659, but either I didn’t understand what you were trying to say, or I did and it still didn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a whole lot of social conditioning and religious expectation to me. That’s not what I’m looking for.
Before that can be answered it would need to be understood what was meant by natural…wouldn’t it? When we were primates we may not have been… in which case it evolved over time… all things occurring in nature are natural so in that sense it was natural… but was it our original state, and is it best… are perhaps better questions…maybe
If it is a man made concept… then it can be said to be as natural as a tank…
See, this is the kind of stuff I’m not looking for. I’m not a philosopher, but I do know that philosophy is not an arguing of semantics. The context of the OP tells you what I’m driving at.
makes me think of how some people think that all philosophy is is arguing over semantics…
What I said should have implied that I am not sure but leaning to the idea that monogamy is socially conditioned, and thus in other words a man made activity for the most part. And as such it is basically unnatural. but then it was made in order to adapt to conditions that may have arisen primarily due to the limitations of our environment… It may be that it is best… or at least can be given particular situations… rarely is a thing best in all situations… So I would think there is no sense in it being necessary to be monogamous further it should neither be illegal to be alternatively married and such…
Magsj is beginning to understand, YES, God man!