Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

[Greatest I am]

Sure, there may be "varying degrees" of love (if it even makes sense to "measure" love). But why not have varying degrees of love for several spouses, just like we have varying degrees of love for several children?

Free will is an option for sure.

It may be that multiple partners is outlawed due to eugenics. In the sense that, over time, a sub-group of society who allows many mates may have an advantage wealth wise over those who just have the one mate.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

It may be that multiple partners is outlawed due to eugenics. In the sense that, over time, a sub-group of society who allows many mates may have an advantage wealth wise over those who just have the one mate.

We're not talking about biology or sociology. I've been referring to your statement - your personal opinion - that "This modern Gnostic Christian thinks marriage is the way to go, with a single mate, be that a mate of the same gender or not. Love is what is important. Not gender." If love is what matters, how can you restrict it to one mate?

 

[Greatest I am]

We're not talking about biology or sociology. I've been referring to your statement - your personal opinion - that "This modern Gnostic Christian thinks marriage is the way to go, with a single mate, be that a mate of the same gender or not. Love is what is important. Not gender." If love is what matters, how can you restrict it to one mate?

I cannot do anything like restrict what people will do. I would just vote against multiple partners if given the chance and I have given my reason for doing so. Love is great and yes, it is possible to love many but I do not believe in giving one part of society an advantage over another. I think a level playing field is better for us.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Love is great and yes, it is possible to love many but I do not believe in giving one part of society an advantage over another. I think a level playing field is better for us.

So you think people with multiple partners would have an "unfair advantage"? How?

 

[Greatest I am]

So you think people with multiple partners would have an "unfair advantage"? How?

Income potential.

If I have 2 or 3 wives or if a wife has 2 or three husbands, the family fortunes would be advantageous with more contributing to it over the families that are only two people who can earn and contribute to the families fortunes.

Imagine a town with a polygamous tribe on one side and a monogamous tribe on the other. The larger family units, if all are working, will gain more of the local wealth than the smaller families.

Over time, the monogamous families will go extinct or be confined to the poor section of town.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Income potential.

If I have 2 or 3 wives or if a wife has 2 or three husbands, the family fortunes would be advantageous with more contributing to it over the families that are only two people who can earn and contribute to the families fortunes.

Imagine a town with a polygamous tribe on one side and a monogamous tribe on the other. The larger family units, if all are working, will gain more of the local wealth than the smaller families.

Over time, the monogamous families will go extinct or be confined to the poor section of town.

So you must be against education too, because educated people have more income potential.

 

[Greatest I am]

So you must be against education too, because educated people have more income potential.

Not at all. Education is good as long as the playing field is relatively equal.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Not at all. Education is good as long as the playing field is relatively equal.

Where's the distinction? The playing field is as equal in opportunities for plural marriage as it is in opportunities for education.

 

[Greatest I am]

Where's the distinction? The playing field is as equal in opportunities for plural marriage as it is in opportunities for education.

I disagree for both areas.

Ask a millionaire if he has as hard a time as a poor man to get education and a wife.

Specific to plural marriage. If I had 2 wives instead of the one helping to enlarge my coffers, my position over those who only have the one wife would eventually drive them to extinction if we look at the longer picture over generations.

If the marriage playing field is not equal the eugenics comes into play.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

If I had 2 wives instead of the one helping to enlarge my coffers, my position over those who only have the one wife would eventually drive them to extinction if we look at the longer picture over generations.

You're just repeating yourself. I asked you to explain the distinction between plural marriage and education: If a man with two wives has an economic advantage over a man with one and a man with a degree has an economic advantage over a man with none, what's the difference? For that matter, why not oppose marriage period because married men have an economic advantage over unmarried men?

If you oppose plural marriage because of its economic unfairness, why not oppose education because of its economic unfairness? It would seem to make sense to encourage anything that produces an economic benefit.

 

[billvon]

Specific to plural marriage. If I had 2 wives instead of the one helping to enlarge my coffers, my position over those who only have the one wife would eventually drive them to extinction if we look at the longer picture over generations.

If you demand that your wives work to fill your coffers rather than have kids, your way of life will quickly go extinct, out-competed by men who work to support their wife so they can have a lot of kids.

 

[Greatest I am]

You're just repeating yourself. I asked you to explain the distinction between plural marriage and education: If a man with two wives has an economic advantage over a man with one and a man with a degree has an economic advantage over a man with none, what's the difference? For that matter, why not oppose marriage period because married men have an economic advantage over unmarried men?

If you oppose plural marriage because of its economic unfairness, why not oppose education because of its economic unfairness? It would seem to make sense to encourage anything that produces an economic benefit.

The evolution of man's intelligence should not be restricted and educational competition is fair play when one on one whether it give wealth or advantage or not. we actually want to give the most intelligent the advantage.

Now if two intelligent men are competing for wealth and one has many wives and the other not, then the wealth playing field is not level and that is what I see as improper eugenics.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If you demand that your wives work to fill your coffers rather than have kids, your way of life will quickly go extinct, out-competed by men who work to support their wife so they can have a lot of kids.

If you think that todays children will work for their parents and not their own families you have a point. I do not see that as the case as most of those I know work for their own families or self-interest.

I am sure there are exceptions but not likely statistically significant.

We all give to our extended families and are charitable to others not rerlated but tend to make mure our own do not go to need before being generous to others.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

The evolution of man's intelligence should not be restricted and educational competition is fair play when one on one whether it give wealth or advantage or not. we actually want to give the most intelligent the advantage.

Then why should the evolution of his social structure be restricted?

Now if two intelligent men are competing for wealth and one has many wives and the other not, then the wealth playing field is not level and that is what I see as improper eugenics.

As long as both have the same opportunity for plural marriage, what's the problem?

 

[billvon]

If you think that todays children will work for their parents and not their own families you have a point.

?? No such assumption. The man who supports his wife so she can have a lot of kids will out-compete the man with two wives who demand they support him, leaving no time for kids. That's simple evolution.

 

[Greatest I am]

Then why should the evolution of his social structure be restricted?


As long as both have the same opportunity for plural marriage, what's the problem?

None at all if all if things are equal is my answer to both questions.


Regards
DL