Um, Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were busily drafting the Constitution of the United States back in 1787. It didnt go into effect until 1789. No, I dont imagine any of them are dueling it out anymore.

IMAGINE THAT!

Point?

exactly!

Krimsa said:Yes, I did misunderstand. I didn't connect the statement with that background premise is all. I was only assuming the "generic polygamy", not any particular form or practice. So we are in agreement there as well.

I would be curious to meet actual polygamists but then I would feel like I was staring at them and they were on display and thats not very polite. I wonder if there are any women who have more than one husband? You dont really hear about that as often but presumably it occurred at some point in history, somewhere. The thing is, from a biological standpoint, it only requires one male of the species to impregnate multiple females.

men are to insecure to be in the position of having to share themselves with one woman, prideful biengs we are

Yep. It doesn't seem in keeping with males primarily because there is a competitive nature due to the steroid testosterone hormone. That is something based in all male mammals. It serves a purpose. Females have it also produced in the ovaries but just a much smaller amount. You have androgen, we have estrogen.

And here i thought it was just a bad case of indigestion.

Wanna know a strange thing about these hormones? As men age, they produce less testosterone and more estrogen and the same occurs with females, just opposite, less estrogen and more testosterone. Its thought to be a biological function to keep us together in long term relationships even into old age. Interesting huh? I saw it on some show about human sexuality.

yeh i can believe that, i know i'm alot more emotional now than i was when younger, how bout you - less emotional?

Yes, polygyny makes a whole lot more sense from a biological/evolutionary standpoint than does polyandry. Wikipedia has some interesting data on current and past practices of both.

To me, the fundamental purpose of any type of marriage is to further "the survival of the species". Not just the procreation part, but the child rearing and education and integration into society parts. Without that whole aspect, "marriage" is just individual people sharing common interests and has no effect on racial survival.

I think it's interesting that a group marriage where all the "parents" share all the responsibilities of raising the children, offers much more security for the children than does a monogmaous marriage. One or more of the "parents" could be lost and the rest could just "close ranks" and continue on, thus maintaing some continuity and stability for the children. This type of arrangement is, in spirit if not in practice, actually in place in many cultures where entire extended families live together under one roof.

It is unfortunate that in many cases recent laws have actually been instrumental in subverting that fundamental purpose - to provide security and continuity for the children.

Not really going anywhere with this, just ruminating.

Well Im 36 and I think this probably starts happening a little later on. I'll let you know. Its definitely measurable of course. Thats also how they check for menopause and all that.

My understanding Sky is that even if polygamy is criminalized in a given state, very often it is over looked and it becomes a situation that law enforcement would just assume not waste their time on. They would only feel it necessary to become involved and step in if a report was made to CPS or there was some other allegation of abuse of either children or spouses taking place. Then they would need to conduct a thorough investigation of such matters and rightly so.

The high profile cases we hear about on the news are generally the compounds where there can be 100s of people living together in a fortified community protected by armed gunmen. These are generally the circumstances surrounding the FLDS but there are probably other strict fundamentalist factions that practice polygamy to the extreme and their activities can be questionable. I draw that distinction but I am not arguing with your position.