XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: kiltmac@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/2/2014 2:10 PM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   > On 10/2/2014 5:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   > But you favor all consensual marital arrangements.  If that is so, and   
   > two women voluntarily consent to be married to one man, the premise that   
   > another man would remain unmarried is irrelevant.  The alternative is to   
   > force one of the women to give up the husband of her choosing in order   
   > to marry this other man even though she doesn't want him for a husband,   
   > or for both of them to remain unmarried.   
      
   That's one alternative. In my view a silly one, and not at all in   
   keeping with the liberal thinking of our modern era. (Liberal, in this   
   case, refers to the historical use of the term, the one that makes you,   
   too, a liberal; not the current, slandered version you lot have made   
   into a straw boogeyman.)   
      
   In any case, the society makes rules and/or customs to deal with   
   emergent situations such as Alex notes, or it continues in sad and   
   increasing dysfunction.   
      
   On the view that marriage is a social/cultural institution defined by   
   the society, and can change as society's needs change, then the problems   
   are at least theoretically solvable without great upheaval and strife.   
      
   On the view that marriage is and can only be one thing, as defined by a   
   religion, say, then some stability will occur, but at the cost of a   
   number of people being miserable and, in many cases, having to be   
   subjugated in order for the society to not break apart.   
      
   Personally, I think a social structure that is flexible enough in its   
   constitution (both meanings intended) to adapt to emergent social   
   changes will be the stronger and freer for that flexibility than one   
   that rigidly adheres to laws/customs that perpetuate internal repression   
   in order to survive.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)