XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: fmhlaw@comcast.net   
      
   On 10/2/2014 4:25 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "Just Wondering"  wrote in message   
   > news:542da30d$0$16413$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...   
   >> On 10/2/2014 5:34 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >> But you favor all consensual marital arrangements.  If that is so, and   
   >> two women voluntarily consent to be married to one man, the premise   
   >> that another man would remain unmarried is irrelevant.  The   
   >> alternative is to force one of the women to give up the husband of her   
   >> choosing in order to marry this other man even though she doesn't want   
   >> him for a husband, or for both of them to remain unmarried.   
   >   
   > Or maybe a woman will marry two men and overall the balance is maintained.   
   >   
   > There seems to be an impression that a marriage will only exist of   
   > multiple wives.   
   >   
   I was just trying to point out that if you value consent in marriage,   
   outlawing polygamy because someone will be deprived of a mate is   
   counterproductive.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)