XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:06:58 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:   
      
      
   > Marriage is a cultural construct. I think the confusion, other than that   
   > resulting from religious beliefs, may come from the fact that babies are   
   > born to one woman, and the sperm donor per kid is one man. Even if the   
   > woman had more than one sex partner at the critical time, the child will   
   > be the result (except in the most unusual cases) of one man's sperm   
   > winning the race to the egg. Witness the observation that kids generally   
   > look something like each of their parents.   
   >   
   > When marriage is decoupled from procreation (as it is for all but the   
   > most fanatical, literalist, legalist religionist in the cases of the   
   > elderly and otherwise infertile marrying, as well as those who are   
   > childless by choice), then there is no logical barrier to any folks   
   > marrying. Although some groupings would seem to be both unwieldy and   
   > prone to internal strife.   
      
   While I am absolutely in favour of removing all barriers to   
   any type of consensual marital arrangement as a matter of   
   principle, I am not entirely certain about your assertion   
   that there are no logical barriers.   
      
   Social stability would be one realistic concern: unless a   
   very great deal of work goes into laying the groundwork and   
   all parties concerned know themseves and each other very   
   well indeed, polygamous arrangements would seem to me to be   
   potentially more unstable and at risk of fracture.   
      
   In addition, polygamy by its very nature reduces the pool of   
   available candidates for those who remain unmarried.  This   
   most definitely creates social unrest, as can be seen in   
   China and India today where (for reasons of sex-selective   
   abortion) a surplus of unmarried and effectively unmarriable   
   men are causing serious social problems.   
      
   Another aspect: procreation does remain an issue.  It is   
   entirely reasonable and rational and indeed a biological   
   imperative for a man to see his genes passed on.  Any   
   multi-spouse arrangement will have to allow for this, and   
   the stresses this causes.  This pressure is exacerbated by   
   the reduced birthrate both in the West and anywhere with   
   rising wealth rates: it means a man does not get as many   
   chances at procreation as he used to. Following on, this   
   also means that the upbringing of offspring and its cost   
   becomes a major factor -- who has a say, and who pays?  In   
   rational terms, that would also be a disincentive for me   
   personally to engage in such a setup.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)