XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: me4guns@centurylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Just Wondering"  wrote in message   
   news:542df77d$0$861$882e7ee2@usenet-news.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.   
      
   True, particularly since the very opposite would most likely   
   occur.....you're no longer limited to just the pool of unmarried people.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)