XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:15:09 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:   
      
   > 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. :-) )   
      
   I wasn't saying that, but simply pointing out that   
   imbalances in the "marriage market" will create negative   
   knock-on effects that need to be borne in mind.   
      
   The sex-selection abortion issue is actually one of the   
   parade examples of how perfectly correct liberal policies   
   can lead to uforeseen and damaging consequences.   
      
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   That past is not as far gone as you might think. In fact,   
   it's still within living memory in the West (if only just).   
   And it has certainly not been long enough to breed a primal   
   urge out of our systems.   
      
   Wars are a good explanation actually why in the past   
   polygyny would have been socially acceptable, useful (safety   
   net for women left without support) and without negative   
   effects: so many young men would die in combat that the   
   survivors could have many wives and there would still be   
   enough for everyone.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Which is, in genetic terms, an acceptable substitute.  Your   
   personal genes might not survive but at least the same   
   family line will carry on.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)