XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: kiltmac@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/2/2014 6:34 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.   
      
   Yes, as I said, prone to internal strife.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   So you're saying India and China might want to consider 'recruiting' men   
   into the gay lifestyle? Perhaps with a few pointers from Marcus   
   Bachmann? (Though you'd have to reverse the therapeutic directional   
   arrow in that case. He, however, might want to move to China, which   
   would be a win all around. :-) )   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   I think the whole genetic lottery is less of an issue in our, and other,   
   social species that have long lives after the age of healthy   
   procreation. At least for modern humans. Consider the great advantage of   
   having grandparents that are involved in their grandkids' lives.   
      
   In the past, it was considered vital for men to pass on their genes, so   
   much so that women were subjugated by law and custom and religion.   
   Though even there, where polygyny was generally accepted, many men were   
   left out. Probably part of the reason for wars of conquest--too many   
   horny men without access to women in their own communities.   
      
   But even there, there was usually a defined and important role for   
   uncles and non-family men in the raising of children. Kin selection   
   seems to be fairly common in a wide variety of species. If you can't get   
   a woman to breed with you to have your own kids, your sister, brother or   
   other close relative could probably benefit from your assistance in   
   caring for and teaching the kiddies.   
      
   In kin selection, it's not your individual genes that have a better   
   chance of being passed on, but genes very similar to yours. While there   
   are advantages to leaving a brood of squalling brats, uncles (and aunts)   
   do provide a measure of stability to the otherwise nuclear family that   
   can give an advantage in the whole making future generations business.   
      
   Plus, in most cases, uncles and aunts can give the kids back when they   
   grow tiresome or over-demanding. Try that as a parent. :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)