Just Curious? A Sunday Silly.
This doesn’t really fit here at TAH, but this place has some of the more astute and erudite readers around so please forgive the audacity.
Thesis: Same sex “marriage” is currently a genetic dead end. Cloning and/or other future technologies may change that, but it IS currently a dead end.
And set aside any religious convictions for now, if you will. Although it might be said that in parts of the world certain religious zealots have demonstrated a willingness to emphasize the “dead end” aspect with enthusiasm.
Here’s my question: How many wives should one man have? I’d argue that genetically it makes far more sense. And in some parts of the world, etc.
I find the idea intriguing, if a bit frightening.
What say you?
Category: Geezer Alert!, Pointless blather
Well, under the circumstances, I’d say as many as a man (or woman) wants.
After all, it’s no longer about societal views or norms. It’s want you want.
Multiple wives, multiple husbands, cousins, farm animals, siblings, inanimate objects… the same sex marriage “reasoning” applies to all, equally.
And “marriage equality” is the goal, right?
As many as he can support (financially and emotionally) who are willing I suppose.
For some guy that’s 0. For some it might be 2 or 3.
Good luck finding a wife that’s willing to share though.
To answer the question put forth – more than one wimmin is self abuse.
To offer a “hmmm” (opinion for thought) as to the increase (at least in acknowledgement) of same-sex marriage and other shenanigans, I remember reading some years ago about group of animals that, during periods of overpopulation, would same-sex the hell out of each other until their population became under control again – seems like it was some manner of rodent that did this.
We people always try to present ourselves as the “finestkind” available but the fact is we’re still subject to some very basic inborn tendencies which, in some case, we really don’t comprehend mainly because all aren’t affected in the same way.
More than one wife (in periods of plenty or youth) and same-sex activities when overpopulated.
Frank #3: Knew about that element. Opted to leave the Malthus take out on purpose.
Well, that depends, Zero.
Assuming that marriage is about procreation, the protection of the results of procreation, and there is a need for procreation at a rate greater than simple replication, then it would make more sense for men to have multiple wives than the reverse. Simple math here – there are many more restrictions on the ability of females to reproduce than on males.
If marriage is NOT about procreation at all then it doesn’t matter what arbitrary rules are applied to what is called marriage. Then the society must decide what criteria to use to define it and what sort of restrictions, if any, are wanted/needed.
Dear Lord, one is more than enough…
Are we talking in terms of ensuring genetic diversity for the future, or what the law should allow?
In the former, I don’t think we need to worry about genetic diversity – we’ve got plenty, modern medicine can already tweak genes, and gay people have always been around and society hasn’t imploded yet.
If it’s a question of laws/rules/what’s allowed in marriage, I feel this is something the government shouldn’t have any involvement in whatsoever. If someone wants to be married to a man, woman, a pair of midget twins or an iguana, that’s their business, not the state’s. If they can find a church that supports whatever they want and can ‘marry’ them, so be it – they’re at liberty to what they want, and I’m at liberty to think they’re strange for doing so.
OWB #5: Yer quite right. I didn’t mention procreation directly, however I DID mention genetics specifically. [grin]
I don’t much care who rolls in the hay with whom. Just trying to follow a current trend to a reasonable conclusion.
@7 That all sounds fine and dandy, except for the fact that marriage IS the State’s business. The Church does not issue marriage licenses, regulate hospital visitation, collect inheritance or death taxes, etc.
@9 I understand that it currently is, but I’m saying it SHOULDN’T be the role of the state. Get rid of tax credits, death taxes, etc., and allow hospital visitation and other rights to be handled via a living will or, in the absence of one, the discretion of a court of law.
The truth about the invention of marriage is that women can have children without getting tangled up with a man (and we do it all the time), but a man can’t have children without getting tangled up with a woman, hence getting married means that you know which ones are your children. (Hah! Sure it does.)
In the interest of genetic diversity, marriage creates a bottleneck that multiple partners eliminates. Inbreeding, as was practiced by the pharaohs of Egypt, allows serious genetic weaknesses to appear permanently.
So then, how many husbands should a woman have?
Ex-PH2 #11: how many husbands should a woman have? Fair enough. It would be interesting to see how that idea might fit overtly around the world?
Fine by me.
Reminds me of the old joke–what’s the punishment for bigamy? TWO WIVES.
“I’m saying it SHOULDN’T be the role of the state.”
Completely agree with #10. I about crapped when I saw my first paycheck after my divorce. What a crock….
If you want to know how to do this correctly, from a purely practical sense, go take a close look at a guy out in Utah named, ALEX JOSEPH, who was a veteran of the United States Marine Corps.
http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/AlexJoseph.htm
As I understand it, he sent his wives to colleges, universities, and/or trade schools, and then put them to work in the careers of their choice, supporting themselves and the family with their combined incomes.
Though deceased, his descendants continue to hold the positions of power and influence in that county.
The numerous children were educated in a military academy built and operated by the family.
Plural marriage among the Mormon pioneers was not always just about sex.
It also made it possible for aged widows to continue to have companionship and support.
Houses were designed so that each wife’s room had a separate entrance, insuring privacy, respect, and decorum.
The primary goal of plural marriage among the ancient Israelites and among the Mormon pioneers, was to rapidly produce many children in a short amount of time, in order to be raised within the faith, and to counter the degenerate influences of a hostile world.
Problem with marriage nowadays is that it’s like a Social Security card. Everyone wants to use it for the wrong reason! Marriage is a religious vow before God. Fine, but government insists on using it as a standard for taxes, entitlements, etc. Your Social Security card was never intended to be a secure means of identification – but nowadays it is (so in the interests of security I should purge my 201 because my SSN was my service number and on every stinkin’ piece of paper.
What is needed is a truly secure ID, and a civil union which becomes the criterium for taxes, entitlements, etc. Make marriage a religious rite again, and as the man above so wisely said, if you can find a religion to bless whatever wierdness you choose to indulge in – have at it.
If you are a Bible believer, you are limited to one wife. I don’t know where it is, but the Bible says, “Man cannot serve two masters.”
Satire by Mark Twain about polygamy, from “Roughing It”:
http://www.online-literature.com/twain/roughing-it/16/
The bit about the “breast-pin” is classic.
You apparently are not up on recent (the last 30 years?) developments in genetics. If you understand the concept of the selfish gene, homosexuality may in fact be adaptive in some cases, especially in situations with a lot of environmental stress.
I think it’s the wrong question. Men and women swap and trade each other out so rapidly now that marriage is a moot point. The question shouldn’t be “how many wives should a man have?” but rather “how many children can a man afford?” The legal system currently punishes men for how many children they sire, not for how many women share their bed. That needs to be the determining criteria.
Find and read a book called Sex At Dawn (http://www.sexatdawn.com/).