XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: me4guns@centurylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Alex W."  wrote in message   
   news:dlfyd90j069e.150e1scts2vxv.dlg@40tude.net...   
   > 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.   
      
   Perhaps, but on the other hand it offers better stability and longevity of   
   the overall marriage for the support/care of any children.   
      
   > In addition, polygamy by its very nature reduces the pool of   
   > available candidates for those who remain unmarried.   
      
   On the contrary, it opens up the pool. because you are no longer limited to   
   just those candidates who are unmarried but to anyone whether they are   
   married or not. Of course, you might have to seek permission, approval or   
   whatever from the other spouses, but the opportunity does exist to become   
   married to those already married.   
      
   >  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.   
      
   And oddly enough it's the females that are most often aborted, or killed as   
   infants.   
      
   Seems the problem is a bit different than just the practice of polygamy.   
      
   Even if it were just polygamy, there's nothing to that says that a a man   
   will have multiple wives. Maybe the wife will have multiple husbands....or   
   it might be a group marriage which may be balanced or there may be more men   
   or more women.   
      
   I think if you look the reasons have little to do with the practice of   
   polygamy and rather involves other issues in that society.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   What stress? The stress only exists if you allow it to exist.   
      
   Oh, and FYI, group marriage and "open sex" was the norm for much of   
   humanity's history.   
      
   To claim that stresses would arise is in conflict with this historical fact.   
      
   >  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.   
      
   Which actually means with multiple wives his 'chances' would improve, even   
   if he shared those wives with others.   
      
   > Following on, this   
   > also means that the upbringing of offspring and its cost   
   > becomes a major factor -- who has a say, and who pays?   
      
   All in the marriage, which means the cost of each child is spread around   
   more, becomes less of an individual burden, and the death of a spouse while   
   tragic is not nearly as devastating as it might be when you have multiple   
   spouses in the marriage, and overall you have less chance of leaving any   
   surviving children parentless should more than 1 spouse die in an event.   
      
   >  In   
   > rational terms, that would also be a disincentive for me   
   > personally to engage in such a setup.   
      
   Your call. Others might decide differently.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)