Polygamy

[Rían]

Thanks for the correction, JD - you're better at history than I am!

I'll amend it to: that by the current laws of this country (including constitutions as laws), Mr. S. cannot be president. If the citizens of the US decide that they think that the situation that originally caused this definition of "who can be president" has changed, then the voters can take steps to bring this issue to a vote.

I see this as the same reasoning - if the the citizens of the US decide that they think that the situation that originally caused this definition of "who can marry" has changed, then the voters can take steps to bring this issue to a vote.

Note that the only change was "who can be president" to "who can marry". It's the same idea, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I would say this is right - at least as to my feelings.

Yay! See guys, I really do read your posts and try to understand them
How about you, IRex? Do I seem to understand what you believe?

[GrayMouser]

Just to clear up the terminology,

Polygamy= one person with multiple partners

Polygyny= one male, multiple females

Polyandry= one female, multiple males

Polyandry is rare throughout the animal kingdom for a simple reason: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.

Polygyny has been practised in the majority of human cultures over time, either in the form of polygamous marriage or in socially sanctioned forms such as concubinage.

There's actually a simple rule of thumb to tell if a species is polygamous rather than monogamous or promiscuous (all morally neutral terms in biology, of course) .

Dimorphism refers to the bodily differences between the sexes (peacock's tail etc.) The key is body-size dimorphism.
The larger the (average) male is than the (average) female, the more likely the animal to be polygynous- not because the male dominates the female, but because if one male has ten females, nine males don't, and that one had better be strong enough to keep the others away.

First look at the amount of sexual dimorphism in the four species. As Diamond notes, "chimps of both sexes weigh about the same; men are slightly larger than women, but male orangutans and gorillas are much bigger than females" (p. 73). These are interesting facts from comparative anatomy, but what do they have to do with behavior? Throughout the animal kingdom, polygynous species (i.e., those in which each dominant male breeds with multiple females), are sexually dimorphic. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. The only way a male can pass on his genes is to breed with a female, and to better the odds, the more the merrier. But since there are only so many females to go around, from day 1 males are in competition with other males for those females. An arms race begins in which males are selected for their ability to win out against other males for access to the females. And since nothing escalates like an arms race, you end up with male gorillas and orangs that are not only twice the size of the females, but armed with huge canines, and loaded with secondary sexual characteristics like crested heads and silver backs that are easily recognizable at a distance and help to attract mates.

Chimps, on the other hand, show little sexual dimorphism, less even than humans. The gibbon (an ape, but not a great one) shows the least sexual dimorphism. Males and females look identical at a distance and the gibbons' strict adherence to monogamy should win an award from the Moral Majority (though that would mean acknowledging man's common primate ancestry and therefore ditching creationism). Going simply by the dope sheet of sexual dimorphism, an evolutionary handicapper would bet the rent that Homo sapiens would, by nature, be mildly polygynous. And he'd walk away from the pay window a big winner. A cross-cultural analysis of 853 societies revealed that 83% of them are polygynous. Polygyny occurs frequently, even when legally prohibited. There are an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 polygynous marriages in the US; a study of 437 financially successful American men found that some maintained two separate families, each unknown to the other (Buss, pp. 177-178). Polyandry (one female with multiple males), on the other hand, is "virtually absent" among hunter/gatherers and confined to "agriculturalists and pastoralists living under very difficult economic conditions" and disappears quickly "when more usual conditions are present" (Symons, p. 225).

http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.miele-immoral.html

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Thanks, Mizz Pants. Very interesting article.

[Valandil]

Makes me wonder if "polyandry" could begin to appear in China. With the "one family - one child" policy going for so many years, they have an overabundance of males (sadly, there's a preference for boys... many girls are either: aborted when the gender is determined, placed in an orphanage or have "accidents" - very high rate of infanticide). A bride may become a rare thing!

[Arien the Maia]

very interesting Graymouser

[Daisy Baggins]

why is it you cant seem to grasp the idea that you CANT simply discriminate against a group of people (be they black or jewish or gay or all three for that matter) just because you don’t want them to have the same rights as you no matter HOW many of your friends and fellow citizens want to discriminate against them too.


Why is it that you cannot seem to grasp the fact that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. Since this is true, there is NO discrimination involved.


There already is a problem with the number of women in India. They have been selectively aborting females for sometime. I have seen reports of men in India who because of their good financial situation would normally have no trouble finding a wife be cannot find one.

[Rían]

Oh, that's interesting, Mouser - "Polygyny= one male, multiple females" - never heard of that term.

We (hopefully) learn something new every day!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Daisy Baggins
Why is it that you cannot seem to grasp the fact that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. Since this is true, there is NO discrimination involved.

And WHO says that marriage can only occur between a man and woman?

There already is a problem with the number of women in India. They have been selectively aborting females for sometime. I have seen reports of men in India who because of their good financial situation would normally have no trouble finding a wife be cannot find one.

Yes - some areas of India it is really bad too. Part of it is because of the practice of dowries. Families don't want daughters because then they have to worry about paying out dowries.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Daisy Baggins
Why is it that you cannot seem to grasp the fact that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. Since this is true, there is NO discrimination involved.

and you declare this to be the way it is because you are god? two men can marry just as easily as a man and a woman. they wont blow up or something. but the point is that they arent ALLOWED to marry officially. THIS is the discriminatory part. whats so confusing about that? If the constitution said that only females may marry males then the MA court could not have ruled as it did. But it did. see.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
IRex, I CLEARLY grasp your argument, IMO. Let me state in my own words what I think your argument is, and please correct anything I might have wrong (I'll keep the context to American marriage, to keep it simpler) : It is the right of the people of America to marry whomever they choose, therefore it is wrong and discriminatory to say that one person can't marry another person, as long as they are both consenting adults.

Is this about right?

I'll discuss the rest of the post when you are satisfied that I clearly understand what you are saying.

ok

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And WHO says that marriage can only occur between a man and woman?

Apparently, Daisy

and who says it should also include same-sex marriages? Apparently, you, JD

As you are both equally important human beings, I think your opinions have the same weight. Hmmm, sounds like a good idea how to run a country

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
[B]and you declare this to be the way it is because you are god?

And you declare otherwise because you are god? But wait - you don't believe in god anyway, IRex so it looks like you are just 2 humans of equal importance that have different opinions on what is best in this matter

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ok

Is that "ok" an agreement that I have clearly grasped your argument?

or is it an "ok" about my "I'll discuss the rest of the post when you are satisfied that I clearly understand what you are saying."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
and who says it should also include same-sex marriages? Apparently, you, JD

I feel that it doesn't matter who marries who - personally it's none of my business. I therefore don't see why it is anyone elses business. Marriage does mean much anyway - with the amount of divorce - but I still think it is a good thing. I think marriage allows for things to be worked out finacially and so forth. For instance - if a person goes into the hospital and they are part of a gay couple - the partner is not able to see them if it's "family only visiting hours" That is stupid. There isn't the "silent will" benefits if you are gay - because you can't get married. Gay couple can not be on each other's insurance plans, etc. It would be nice to rectify these things.

[Rían]

Would you like to get married or civil-unioned someday, JD, if the right person (note "person", not "woman" ) came along? Just curious

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Would you like to get married or civil-unioned someday, JD, if the right person (note "person", not "woman" ) came along? Just curious

I would like to get married - but I think I'm too difficult to get along with. j/k

[Daisy Baggins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and you declare this to be the way it is because you are god? two men can marry just as easily as a man and a woman. they wont blow up or something. but the point is that they arent ALLOWED to marry officially. THIS is the discriminatory part. whats so confusing about that? If the constitution said that only females may marry males then the MA court could not have ruled as it did. But it did. see.

This is my opinion. And it is just as valid as yours. In any definition of marriage that I understand, two men or two women can never marry. Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman.

It is you opinion that it is discriminatory, but I totally disagree with you. I think that gay marriage would be a disaster for this society.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I would like to get married - but I think I'm too difficult to get along with. j/k

You're cute, though! And I think you're a softy underneath (but I won't tell anyone)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And you declare otherwise because you are god? But wait - you don't believe in god anyway, IRex so it looks like you are just 2 humans of equal importance that have different opinions on what is best in this matter

a contrare. ms. daisy is declaring "marriage can only occur between a man and a woman". She is setting a standard by which all others MUST follow. How godlike. Meanwhile Im saying NOBODY can say certain people cant marry. They dont have that right to limit others freedom. ms. daisy wants to limit peoples freedom. i want to let everyone be free. now if you dont like the term "god" to describe her mentality then perhaps "dictator" would be more appropriate.