"ya'unnerstan' that, Pelgrum?"
.

I should have typed other primates point well taken.
I do stand corrected on a woman can have children conceived by more than one partner. When I read your thread I had to look it up for myself. I'm glad to be corrected. I do enjoy learning new things and ideas.

Alright.
(best John Wayne voice)
"That's a mighty fine filly ya got there, pardner. You treat her right, she'll treat you right.But I don't know if I approve of this here relationship the two of you got goin'. You best just keep that betwixt yerselves. Ya hear?"

And my horse is still cute!!!

Precisely.

Hey, SHE is a good looking mare!! But not smart enough to consent. (drat!)

I see no need for government (state, local, national) involvement in a contract of marriage other that the issues of mental capability and consent are established. She (not the horse) and I agree, draw up a contract, execute it and then record it at the local registrar. Done. If problems arise, refer back to the contract, hire an arbitrator. Get the "Government" out of marriage.

Still not getting there. Rights are rights, regardless of the prevailing (mob) opinion.

Disconnect the governments link to marriage, IE. tax codes, and marriage becomes just a contract in the eyes of the government. No excuse to license, charge, fee, fine, encourage, or restrict, or otherwise interfere.

"You want to enter into a contract with your horse? Get him to sign this paper and your set." Laughter heard from around the room. Embarrassed man walks out. End of story.

then, where did the Bushmen originate? . there's a
natural cave down there somewhere which contains
the earliest evidence of a fissile reaction on earth.
could that be 1 plus 1 equals 27? -- j
.

Personally, I don't care who marries whom if mental capability and consent issues are applied. (Which means, of course, a man cannot marry his horse i.e, a horse can't give consent). To paraphrase Jefferson, "whether a man marries a man or a woman, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg nor diminishes my marriage."

Nevertheless, the prevailing sentiment of the local (state) culture, which issues the license, should be the answer to violating rights.

Yes, African.

Ancestral Journeys by Jean Marco. Good book that deals mostly with the proto-Indo-European migrations...but in order to describe those you have to start with Africa and go all the way through India and Asia.

The people who now live in a particular place did not necessarily originate there - so they may be very close to a root of the human tree but still not original where they live. For example, the Denisovans were an archaic human sub species that was contemporary with the Neanderthals. They lived in Siberia...but their modern genetic descendants live in Melanesia.

Jan

stuff? . shucks;; I'm at school again, learning about
things I never knew!!! -- j
.

of africa? . you need to update wikipedia;; it talks of
14 groups from which modern humans descend. -- j
.

Is it OK then for the state to violate rights?
Paraphrasing Ayn Rand; "would 50 dictators be better than 1 dictator?"

Isn't it wonderful how much interesting 'stuff' one can pick up??!

Ha! I am quite interested in paleoanthropology and genetics. Yeah - we can now analyze the genomes of a lot of the old bones we have dug up over the years...and the results are interesting. I had always thought that the Basques were a primordial people in Europe...turns out they displaced a Celtic tribe and the Basques are relative newcomers. Everyone displaces everyone else: the only natives anywhere on Earth seem to be the Bushmen!

Jan

Kevin, we just seem to get conversations going in
interesting ways, around here. . I try not to mock or
disparage, but instead build forward with the positive
content . . . if there is some! . I feel rich for having
friends in here, and a snack every day, so ... here goes!!! -- j

p.s. Thanks for your positive ideas, sir!!!
.

Your post became a hit and has brought out a lot of comments rooted in emotion rather than reason. (although not all). I had to go back over some of your other comments to be sure you weren't just mocking me. Lol.

One could spend days responding to all the emotion you have stirred up. :)

you are a fount of knowledge, Jan;;; Thank You! -- j
.

I am impressed. . I put the whole paragraph into my
"new words" file!!! -- j
.

we're working on that, every day!!! -- j
.

Yes. I'm not sure how the justices should handle it, but I reject the idea that gov't should encourage certain traits or family structures.

waytodude -

We are primates - we are just an un-hairy subgroup of that Order. Observation of our remaining hairier cousins can illuminate some of human interactions.

A single human female can conceive simultaneously from multiple male partners. The most famous (and first medically documented) case of this was in the 1950's, when a British woman gave birth to fraternal twins, one of which was black and one of which was white. More importantly, one of the children was O pos and one was A pos blood type - but the O pos child (female) was later discovered to have a sub-culture of A pos red blood cells. This was crucial to our knowledge that you could transplant stem cells from one individual to another. (Obviously, this had happened spontaneously en utero for the twins.)

I enjoy your posts too, waytodude. Thank you for your comments.

Jan

In anthropology, pretty much everyone agrees that members of the genus "Homo" are hominins: Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, etc. Some people include non-Homo genera that are in the direct line from which humanity evolved...so some people call Australopiticines 'hominins'. Hominids are species that are closely related but not on the 'main line' that lead to human evolution, so some of the early ape-like primates such as Orrorin are in that category. (Everyone who is a hominin is also a hominid, but the reverse is not true.)

Glad you enjoyed the word-tidbits.

Jan

I bow to your eloquence. (Then I chuckle at your nod to Hugh Hefner!)

Would you consider Hinduism as another in your list of non-monogamous religious traditions? It seems to me that, prior to communism, most of Asia, India, Africa, and primitive regions of Australia, S Am, and Central Am were all optionally polygamous...now India and the few remaining primitive areas are what remains of non-monogamous tradition. I mention this because it draws attention to how 'modern' monogamy is.

Jan