XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:31:50 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
      
   > "Alex W."  wrote in   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > True, due to libidos, jealousies and other figments of a marriage.   
   > However, marriage seems to work (in most cases) for a couple of reasons.   
   > One, it provides the male with a steady source of nooky, he doesn't have   
   > th chase after.  Two, it provides her with a provider of home and hearth   
   > with food and safety in mind.  All the marriage ceremony does is to   
   > ritualize the decision and make it "permanent" in the minds of the rest   
   > of the group.   
      
   IME, men like the chase.  We're not by nature monogamous.   
      
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Only because of the expectations of the group.   
      
   The group?  Hardly.  So you want to settle down.  You want   
   to get married.  You might even just want some nooky now and   
   then.  And you can't get it because there are 120-130 men   
   for every 100 women.  young men are always a major source of   
   trouble in society, but usually they setle down -- so what   
   when significant numbers of them cannot settle down?  They   
   remain a source of trouble, and get worse because they get   
   frustrated.   
      
   Certainly for China and India, this is already a major   
   headache and likely to get worse.   
      
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Is it?  Some men live in the here and now and really don't need another   
   > molded in their image to continue a family line, for example.  Others see   
   > their lineage continued in several groupings.   
      
   Those who do not have such an urge at all are, I suspect, in   
   a very small minority.  It is a biological imperative:   
   fight, flee, fuck.   
      
      
   >   
   >   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.   
   >   
   > Show me a man with a lot of wealth and I will show you a man who has as   
   > many opportunities to pass on his genes as you can shake a stick at.   
   > Jealousies arise when he doesn't limit those opportunities.   
      
   Opportunities, maybe, but the figures show that by and large   
   they do not do so.  Unlike other animals, when our   
   environment gets more favourable, our birthrate *decreases*.   
   Billionaires do not have more kids than millionaires, and   
   they have fewer kids than the middle classes who in turn   
   reproduce less than the working classes and slum-dwellers.   
      
      
   >   
   >  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.   
   >   
   > Because the mores in most groups today feel that the man has the   
   > responsibility to pay and support.   
      
   Which does not stop anyone from debating and disputing this   
   point if and when it arises.  The backlogs of family courts   
   are proof of that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)