Thinking that sexual orientation is a evolutionary dead-end is way too simplistic. You are extrapolating and individuals personal actions to and entire culture/society.
Some of our most prolific producers in the world may have been homosexual - such as Leonardo Da Vinci (perhaps at the top of the prolific genius list).
My guess is a society tolerant of all sexual variations will far outperform the only STRAIGHT and narrow society - benefiting from all types of additional art and design.

So if "natural law" is defined as "law" leading to a superior society, then a society allowing, supporting, and treating homosexuals and other sexual orientations as "full" members would be the society conforming to Natural Law.

No, nor Australia, nor Scotland. Only about 20 sheep.

I will never understand why anyone would want more than one woman. One gives you everything you need and most of what you want with less than 1/3 the work that two would be.

Can you imagine the girl feuding you would have to get in the middle of an referee all the time. It would be like having twin teenage girls that always wanted to use each others clothing but did not want the other using there clothing. only it would not end after a few years of mediating the infighting. I can think of no greater hell on this earth.

I say this both with a bit of jest and fun, but also with some seriousness. I would want to be at work all the time.

Are you from New Zealand by any chance? And PS, I have no plans.

Their is a case in Utah that challenges our anti-polygamy laws. A federal court said they were unconstitutional. Its already that far up.

I have lived next door to a polygamist wife (well not married, but in spirit) and she was nice, when her husband was around he was nice. They were good neighbors and did not attempt to push their ways on me. I had no problem with them.

I would suspect that not all are like these people. Each of this guys wives had a separate house. Some wives worked outside the home and some watched the kids during the day. This particular "Marriage" was not a welfare case and worked with society well. But many are highly dependent on welfare and take advantage of the system.

The problems that are encountered with Polygamy are not directly tied to the polygamy but more so to welfare and those groups which exclude themselves from society and live apart with a desire to force there values on younger generations rather they want them or not.

I have no problem with polygamy but I do have a problem with people who wish to force their values on me or others. I also have a problem with those that take advantage of, or plan to use welfare. I have not experienced a polygamist that did these things, but most of the articles you read in the press deal with polygamist that do one or both of these.

Not expecting sharing!!! (Want appreciable life expectancy.)

As long as we agree that it is none of our business, then whether or not that particular threesome ultimately agrees with Pisaturo or not is up to them, not up to me.

Jan

Polygamy, or whatever else, must be the "business" of one who speaks for the children.

Rand didn't have much to say about children, and the treatment of children in the eyes of the law. The Gulch was small--small enough that the only children in it were those in typical families. I doubt Rand would have approved of polygamy, much less tried to write a comprehensive set of laws governing who takes responsibility for children.

In the Gulch the solution was easy: nobody got in who was irresponsible toward children. (One family came in precisely because they found the Gulch the best possible place to raise two self-confident boys.) But Galt would never have opened his community up to the kind of shenanigans we see today.

Polygamy, furthermore, diminishes the worth of the gender represented in plurality.It also threatens civil war. Face it: the most common form of polygamy you'll ever see is polygyny--note the extra y and n. Polygamy means "many spouses." Polygyny specifically means "one husband, many wives." (In contrast, polyandry means "one wife, many husbands.") What happens when one man may legally marry more than one women? That leaves certain other men out. Men get so desperate to redress the left-out state that they will kill to do it. You might as well host mortal gladiatorial combats to thin out the ranks of men, so the men left over could enjoy the society of more than one woman each.

Even Nathaniel Branden did not plump for polygyny or polygamy. He offered serial monogamy--one-on-one at any given time.

Probably correct and bestiality is next....but you have to be a masochist to want more than one wife!

All this gay marriage thing is, is a jobs program for attorneys. Homosexuals have more interpersonal problems, spats and breakups that do hetros. The divorces are going to be ugly, expensive and potentially violent.

consenting adults can have their privacy. But discerning individuals can have an opinion and be enlightened. Polygamy is a return to the primitive, a tribal notion. What egoist would see his rational self interest met by a threesome or foursome long term? From Ron Pisaturo's book, " Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty (and I DO NOT agree with many of his arguments but on polygamy, I think I agree) : "A sexual threesome is an absurdity. It is like presenting your life’s work to two people who are paying attention only half the time. That is worse than presenting to an empty room. As the number of participants increases, the situation becomes even more anonymous and self-abasing. Such a gathering provides physical sensations with spiritual anonymity."
K, not sharing db :)

I am all for artificial processes, blarman. I look forward to the day when there are Gestational Incubators so that no one has to carry a fragile fetus around inside of themselves any more.

Jan
(Of course, the people who want to gestate can continue to do so - and it is theoretically possible for a male to carry a fetus too.)

It would not be difficult to combine the chromosomes from two people. Right now, the problem seems to be that in cloning from somatic cells, all of the right developmental steps (especially the lungs, but I suspect the placenta too) do not occur.

Even hetero couple will begin choosing the chromosomes that will go into baby. If Dad has perfect pitch but Mom cannot carry a tune in a bucket, why not make sure that baby can sing? Less trivially: if one member of the family has a hereditary disease, make sure that does not carry over.

Once we get to the point that cloning itself works better, people will be able to combine chromosome sets. And I think that SF goes too far in predicting degradation of a species via absolute cloning. Remember - identical twins are clones. They are definitely different individuals with distinct personalities and not just robotic copies of each other.

Jan

Old Dinio would like to marry some old fossils I know.

Polygamy has been the baseline relationship for most of human history: Since the beginning of recorded history, with few exceptions, if you were able to acquire more than one wife, you certainly did so. This persisted long past the accepted social role of polygamy, as high ranking officials of Church and State were expected to have a 'stable' of mistresses up through the 18th century. Until Communism took over China, the majority of the population of the world was polygamous: Africa, the ME, India, and China.

Polygamy works, and has done so for thousands of years. Now, do not ask me "How?" I have known a number of polygamous families (Hey, I live in CA), but they remained stable for a decade or less. (Slightly OT: I can only recall one 'open marriage' that has remained stable - and that one has done so for 40 years.) Our American society does not provide good roles for polygamy.

Now, on the side of monogamy: You can generally tell a lot about the sexual arrangement of a species by looking at sexual dimorphism. Amongst the early hominids, the males were twice the size of the females (as is true of gorillas), but as you get closer to the modern human line, dimorphism decreases until we get to the present point. To some extent, we seem to actually be evolving towards monogamy.

Our current human dimorphism is that men are about 10-20% stronger than women of the same weight, and about 30% stronger overall (per Wiki Sexual Dimorphism). But dimorphism is becoming functionally less in modern times. During the Victorian era, it was not 'feminine' to exercise; now it is sexy to be 'buff'. I can tell you, from personal experience, that I am physically stronger than an average male white-collar office worker (even one who is almost 7 feet tall!). Once I beat them arm-wrestling (for example), however, they go out and buy a set of weights; two years later they are Much stronger than I am.

I agree with the comments on this thread that indicate that an individuals personal life is not anyone else's business as long as it is consensual or a goat.

Jan
(But I am sure, a very nice goat...)

But that's not a natural process - it's an artificial one. I hardly think that qualifies.

If the government is allowed to redefine marriage, there is no way they can prevent it. Muslims are licking their chops right now.

It's also highly doubtful from a legal standpoint that the laws governing age of consent can stand either, opening the door to legalized pedarasty. Pandora's box has been opened.

Why not? They've been "secretly" practicing it for years in Utah. I've seen some TV about a guy and his "sister wives." Frankly, I admire his stamina. I suspect, however, that the women are subservient types, and certainly not heroes by any stretch. I strongly doubt that heroic women would be willing to share their hero-husband, or that he'd allow such a situation. But, as to the legality? Who cares? I don't care if some guy marries his horse, just so long as they don't invite me to dinner.

I can't see how anyone could justify allowing gay marriage but not polygamy. Polygamy, unlike gay marriage, actually has been practiced in many societies throughout the world.

We are close - maybe a decade - to being able to clone effectively from somatic cells. In the future, gay couples will almost certainly be able to procreate.

Otherwise I agree with you.

Jan

Bravo. Well stated. Beware of the 'little black box' of legal pigeonholing.

Jan

If all parties involved are competent, consenting adults, why would anyone care what they do?

Best insight here: "...it seems some people go out of their way to misunderstand. " Thanks, Esceptico. Good reminder for when the social media starts moving through multiple levels of irrationality. As far as the question goes, it seems inevitable and will give the liberals another thing to have parades about.

Absolutely. One step closer to eventual acceptance of Sharia. The liberals are already getting excited!

Goats are too capricious for matrimony. Sheep, on the other hand, are warm in the winter. Knit mittens and they are warm on both hands. I have sheep (and goats) available for dinner, for companionship, for mittens (sheep only) or even for questionable matrimony. Just please do not tell me your plans.

Shearing lessons NOT included.

Relationships should not be a government issue, but between the consenting adults. Therefore, I am not clear if the question is vis-a-vis government or simply what, absent government, what do I think of it. If the latter, it is none of my business so long there is an absence of force or fraud.

It could be, like dogs, it is easier to have two or more than one because they entertain each other. Now, before you feminists get your amygdalas in knots, I am joking. I say this because it seems some people go out of their way to misunderstand.