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:6187adnlpzgc$.gkzwkcdgyxdr.dlg@40tude.net...   
   > 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.   
      
   Neither are women.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Actually the sex ration is about 107 men per 100 women, globally the current   
   ratio is about 101 men to 100 women.   
      
   If sexual frustration is your problem, then group marriages and/or polyandry   
   which can readily absorb these excess males would seem to be a ready made   
   solution to the entire issue. Though a group marriage would tend to be   
   better since you're always likely to have a wife that is willing at any   
   moment for your advances.   
      
   In short, you are undermining the whole idea of monogamous marriage.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Then make prostitution legal.   
      
   For the rest, throw them in jail and subject them to involuntary servitude.   
      
   > Certainly for China and India, this is already a major   
   > headache and likely to get worse.   
      
   Don't know about China, but in India a lot of female babies are killed at or   
   shortly after birth.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   So you spend 24/7 trying to find something to fuck?   
      
   Man, you've got to be sexually frustrated.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)