is polygamy next?

Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago to Culture
177 comments | Share | Flag

what do you think of multiple wives / husbands??? -- j
.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "There's nothing like eating hay" said the White Knight. "You like eating hay?" asked Alice. "I didn't say I liked it, I said there was nothing like it," he replied.

    --Alice in Wonderland Through The Looking-Glass -- Lewis Carroll.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Good thing there was no such thing as alimony or child support. One would have raid entire kingdoms to pay them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Many of the arrangements were political in nature as families, tribal units, and nations sought to gain an alliance or as a result of war became part of the winning side. The pick of the litter became waves or concubines, the pick of the male line became hostages. Or some such variation. In some system s they were married off to key leaders of the dude or dudette in charge. There was always something extra thrown in horses, weapons, gold or troops and of course land. Think of it as historical manifest destiny. Whether they got it on or not was measured by the number of sons produced and to some extent daughters who could be married off for some gain. As far ss the rest of goes ''too much information' or nobody's business' except hollywood fantasy and FMSM led by supermarket tabloids.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    One of my friends commented on people who get pissy about not getting a nearby parking space...at the gym. (He makes a point of parking far away when he goes to the gym.)

    Jan, amused
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago
    It's fine with me if it happens.

    I doubt it will ever be common, because for most of us, living with multiple adults causes more stress than it avoids. I've tried it and wouldn't do it again.

    I believe the abuse situations that most people in the West associate with polygamy (both because of that cult a few years ago and because of Islam) would be better prevented with legal plural marriage, because people who think their very living arrangement is illegal don't dare go to police for any reason.

    Indeed the same argument can also be (correctly) made against criminalization of just about anything that was legal to do 100 years ago.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    One of the Big Advantages in starting over in a hypothetical Gulch is the ability to shed the detritus of laws and regulations that have accumulated over the years. I think that cloning and chromosomal selection and male pregnancy and...who knows what else...would be available if there were not barriers to their happening.

    (We could even get those Thorium reactors, Thoritsu!)

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The only culture I am familiar with that has polyandry is Tibet - and that is because it is so difficult to survive there that it takes more than one man to support a family. A pair of brothers generally marry a woman and together they can support a family.

    However, if the family does well and becomes well off, then your theory is substantiated by the fact that then the younger brother generally splits off to get his very own wife. So this is a purely economic decision that allows a family to survive even under the most difficult conditions.

    However, many cultures exhibited wife-sharing with high status visitors. These were probably not sissy-man cultures...

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Probably was never around a good number of his concubines. Probably saw most of his wives once.

    If he spent one day with each of them it would be 3.27 years before he would spend time with the first one again.

    There are some great relationships.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you for the corrections.

    I would suspect that we are looking at a multiple chain of events: better childhood nutrition leading to larger body size overall; a shift away from farm jobs to white collar jobs leading to physically weak office workers; the low-fat program resulting in obesity and diabetes; the athletic fad amongst affluent people somewhat reversing the effect of the initial shift away from manual labor and farm jobs.

    It would be an interesting study...or probably, book.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Probably takes supply and demand to make it happen. Think the guys are denying science through stalwart disinterest!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Think Wiki has a math problem. I buy the 10%-20% on weight, but 30% overall doesn't seem consistent with this for the average weight difference.

    Avg man today is 195 lbs. Average woman is 166 lbs. That would put the average strength delta at 31%-47%, depending on the 10-20% ratio. BTW in 1960 the average man was 166 lbs and the average woman was 140 lbs. I wonder how the strength to weight ratios vary from 1960 to now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Concocting protein globs a la "The Matrix" is a wholly artificial process. Farm implements, pesticides, and herbicides are all tools to increase yield, but the plant itself grows naturally according to its time and season.

    Communication begins with ideas naturally processed in the mind. The delivery methods may be aided significantly by tools such as this forum, but the communication itself is natural. The same with the Engine of the World: the only difference between the medieval marketplace and the marketplace of today (aside from the reach of government of course) is that of the aids afforded to those who peddle their wares.

    In my mind there is a distinct difference between aids to a natural process and a wholly new process as she is suggesting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This statement is based on an incident that occurred around 2000: A woman discovered that she was pregnant AFTER she had had a complete hysterectomy. The ectopic pregnancy implanted on the reverse side of her gut, developed a placenta, gestated, and the baby was delivered by c-section. Comments at the time were made to the effect that there was nothing to prevent this from happening to a man (hormones would have to be carefully controlled - but that is trivial for an INF doctor).

    I had frankly thought that we would see this happening in reality by 2015...perhaps it was more of an anomaly than I realized.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Feeding the people in the world today is a wholly artificial process, as is this communication and the Engine of the World.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I have some friends that are gay, and as open-minded as I want to be, don't think I would like to watch them kissing.

    I like the FSM afterlife Q&A on this subject. "In heaven there are beer volcanoes and hookers. What about gay people? Do they have hookers too? Why yes, of course, but they are invisible to the straight people"

    In so far as kids are concerned, there are a lot to adopt, or artificially inseminate, or wait until Jan's suggestion becomes technically possible.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Science Fiction. SciFi. ...not sure what you are asking...

    If there is something particular, please PM me: I will be glad to help.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Could be. According to that Bronze Age book whose authors thought the world was flat and could not figure out where the sun went at night, Solomon had 300 wives and 900 concubines. Given that report, Solomon must have be one hell of a guy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Here we go again? RightsGranted. The citizens gave that right to the states. The states used it to entangle the concept with a ton of legal requirements. That part came under the purview of the federal government using primarily Article IV of the Constitution Full Faith and Credit to laws of the states by other states. There was also a mention of the 14th Amendment

    That would be Section one

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

    The part used by the Supreme Court in one of the cites.

    The chain led from rights granted by citizens to the State government to state government to oversight procedure only in those areas required by the Constitution.

    Now as to the validity of the 14th Amendment. In common with the 16th Amendment on Income tax there was and is a question on validity. There was and is some complaints filed way back when.

    Since then it's been sour grapes and hot air with no action by anyone to repeal or abrogate.

    In other words you talk to the talk but are you wiling to walk the walk along and that question includes Mr. Scott and Mr Dilorenzo. Show me a valid action that is not just some scam to separate money from the gullible cherry pickers.?

    I wrote a poem about that exact subject posted previously.

    Ode to Prince Albert of Bore

    Put it to rhyme

    One line at a time

    The election rout

    Was never in doubt

    Two centuries three decades

    Have passed in a flash

    There's been enough time

    To cry, moan and whine.

    You could have amended

    But couldn't be tempted

    Electoral still wins

    Despite tears and whims

    No matter the issue

    It flew by and missed you

    With never a question.

    What need of elections?

    The old constitution?

    There's a new substitution

    They'll tell us what's right

    Three knocks in the night

    Took your couch then your house,

    For some mooching louse.

    All that's left from the past

    Is your couch potato ass.

    Also applies to the 14th and 16th Amendments

    I think i'll rededicate this to the Couch Potato Party who helped gave us a one party system of government
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    And, where in the Constitution does it state the government has anything to do with marriage?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo