-gamy

-gamy is a root meaning marriage. It is used in words like monogamy or polygamy, which mean "marriage to one person" and "marriage to more than one person" respectively. I don't know any other words using -gamy off the top of my head, though.

I've wondered about marriage and people for a long time now, weird as it sounds. What I've been thinking about is the natural tendencies of humans.

Religion plays a huge role in relation to marriage. In general, as many people are Christian, it is generally accepted that people have monogamous relationships. Polygamous marriages are generally viewed as strange or weird to the general public, though there are factions (such as some Mormons) who steadfastly stand by their beliefs. However, it can't be denied that most of the world is overwhelmingly monogamous.

What I have been thinking about, however, is what humans naturally would tend towards if there was not any interference from religion, ever since the beginning. I'm not absolutely positive on this, but from what I know some animals are polygamous (ah ha, well, in their form of 'marriage') and some are monogamous. Lions, for example, are widely known as a species where the male has several female mates. There are a lot of animals who mate for life with one partner as well.

So, the question is, if humans had never developed religion, would they naturally be monogamous or polygamous?

Finding the answer to that question needs to take some factors into account. One is, are we considering humans as they would be if they developed exactly the same as they have nowdays (i.e. same technology, advancements, societal rules and moral obligations, just without religion) or more as 'animals', the same as the common beast, with no law and civilization? Would removing religion from the equation result in a more disorganized, chaotic society? I don't think we could ever find that out.

Either way, I'll bet that humans would have problems. I mean, they even have problems now, in modern, current-day society, the most obvious being people who cheat on their significant other. If there are people who go out of their way to have more than one lover/mate, does it mean that people would be polygamous? But then it could be considered that either the cheater likes to have more than one lover/mate, or that they just don't love the first one any more but doesn't want to break up. But are we looking at this with humans on the same level as animals? Do animals even 'love' or do they just go for the best mate? Argh. There are too many ways to look at this.

Anyways, if humans are naturally polygamous, I can foresee a rather disruptive society. I personally believe that humans are naturally jealous, so, for example, if a husband has several wives, the wives would be jealous of each other if the husband happens to favor one over the others, which is inevitable. But humans would also have problems being monogamous, as there would always be a prettier/handsomer/better-whatever-than-current-lover/mate person out there. I think that that is why modern society has rules (whether dictated by religion or not) that in most cases say that a couple must stick with each other, no matter what. Then again, rules are made to be broken, and thus problems are created.

In the end, I think that it is impossible to determine what humans would naturally be inclined to do, as religion, civilization, technology, etc. did happen and there's no way to turn back time. But I am of the belief that no matter what humans would naturally do, the best way for civilization as it currently exists is for people to be monogamous. It probably prevents more hassle than it creates.


Salem out.

PS I refuse to change my layout to one of the new ones that they seem to be promoting. I hope that doesn't cause any trouble, but personally I like this nice, plain one I'm using.