The Mating for Life Myth
It is advisable to avoid discussions which are not based in scientific proven facts because they are a waste of valuable time, This is applicable for the mating for life issue since most humans use to claim to be true everything that benefits themselves or their beliefs even if their claims are an obvious lie or affects the integrity of another species, their life, and freedom, it is not a surprise that creationists use some treats from other species that apparently follow a systematic pattern to reinforce their claims, dismissing at the same time the species they use as an example as inferior to themselves. Not to mention than systematic imposed monogamy in any species the humans included is a deviation of natural sexual behavior rather a “virtue” as some creationists seems to think.
Some species apparently mate for life, but what it is really clear is that most of them obviously do not, and when occasionally they do it they do it only for survival purposes with no moral implications, why then creationists and moralists of all walks do choose the first example of sexuality to suggest how human sexuality should look like?. Why not the other way around?. I say this to make clear than these claims are based on an outdated and dangerous religious morality, a silly idealization of human sexuality that does not match reality and never did. Monogamy as a choice could be OK, even so it remains an aberration, a deviation of natural human sexual behaviour, but systematic monogamy and the encouragement of it is naturally wrong, as wrong as moralizing on the non monogamous lifestyle of adult individuals.
There is no scientific evidence available to assure than pigeons or any other species mate for life as part of their nature, but rather an overwhelming amount of information that clearly demonstrate than monogamy its just a social and political construction and that all species randomly do behave monogamous as I said before primarily for survival purposes. Ignorantly, but mostly maliciously creationists assure the contrary of this, even when they consider themselves intrinsically different than a pigeon, creationists use the apparent permanent monogamous behaviour of pigeons as an example of how we humans should sexually behave, the comparison is not just unscientific and ridiculous, but rather a sign of an unhealthy moralistic obsession with a natural acitivity as sex is, when people think to be a completely different species than the species they use as a moral example to implicate and illustrate how human sexual behaviour should be we cannot describe such a kind of person in any other way than as a barking mad.