Questions of Sexuality

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BS-87 writes:

But human polygyny is much different from primate polgyny because the measure of power for primates is size, whereas the measure of power for modern humans is intellect and wealth.

 

It's not that the females are attracted to powerful males; the males fought each other. Intellect might help a bit, but if humans were recently polygynous, the males would probably be built more like Andre the Giant, simply because only males of that size would have had the opportunity to reproduce (and size is heritable).

 

Peregrinator writes:

"Polygyny" is one form of polygamy. You can substitute "polyandry" if you like.

 

Only if you want to change the meaning. Different words mean different things.

 

So to state that polygamy requires same-sex unions is to state that all the various forms of polygamy require them.

 

And why don't you ever read what I actually write?

 

"To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage"

 

I think if one is going to use a word in a manner inconsistent with its traditional meaning, one ought to state that up front.

 

I use "polygamy" to mean "more than one spouse" because that's what it means.

 

[perdidochas]

While theoretically polygamy, not meaning polygyny, exists, practically speaking it does not. If you examine human cultures historically and anthropologically, only a handful of cultures have had polyandry. Many cultures have polygyny and/or monogamy. If you look at cultures with polyandry, for the most part, it is low status males (often brothers) sharing a wife. It just doesn't seem to be a natural concept for polyandry to exist. Why? Probably due to paternity problems. Few men want to raise (that is put resources into) the offspring of other men (and this is true of the animal world as well). In the case of brothers sharing a wife, that problem is lessened, as any offspring of their common wife would be genetically related to both brothers.

[Peregrinator]

I use "polygamy" to mean "more than one spouse" because that's what it means.

 

And I demonstrated, contra your assertion, that there exist forms of polygamy which do not require same-sex marriage and that these are not logically inconsistent.

 

"Polygamy" does not always mean "group marriage," however much you might like it to be so; and historically it usually refers to polygyny (polyandry and group marriage being relatively uncommon).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Forms_of_polygamy

 

"Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by far the most common. Confusion arises when the broad term "polygamy" is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to."

 

I actually think group marriage is probably more common in science fiction than it has been in history.

 

And why don't you ever read what I actually write?

 

But I do.

 

"To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage"

 

I've shown (repeatedly) that this is not true.

[packsaddle]

Egad, how did THIS get started?

Polygamy is actually fairly common in this country. It just mostly occurs as a time series. My grandmother had a slew of husbands.

"Humans began breeding for intellect." This is a joke, right? I have to wonder about those last guys who married my grandmother, with respect to their intellect. Didn't they notice a rather obvious trend?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

"To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage"

 

I've shown (repeatedly) that this is not true.

 

No, you haven't. You've claimed that a subset of polygamy can be consistent without same-sex marriage, but that is never what I said. If you're going to change "polygamy" to mean something other than what it means, why not change it to "breakfast cereal."

 

PS: packsaddle, read "Never Shake a Family Tree" by Donald E. Westlake(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[NJCubScouter]

I could say a lot about this, but life is too short. If I want to discuss issues like who should be allowed to get married to each other, there are a lot of other forums I can go to, which are not Scouting-related.

 

On the Scouting aspect of the issue, I think Calico has it right:

 

To answer Eng's question, I believe the Boy Scouts isn't even thinking about it because it's not on anyones radar. There is no political party using polygamy as a wedge issue, and there isn't a significant portion of the public questioning the illegality of it, unlike same-sex marriage.

 

Nor is anyone sending letters to council saying "I'm a Scoutmaster and I'm married to six women at the same time." Nor, I suspect, is anyone who is known "around town" as being involved in a "plural marriage" also the Scoutmaster. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt I am.

 

I think another factor is that to be involved in a plural marriage (or whatever you-all wish to call it), you have to be, well, married. Right there you've got an ongoing violation of the law, and maybe you get excluded from the BSA just for that. Without a marriage (whether it's recognized by the law or not), a guy living with more than one woman is just a bad 70's sitcom, updated to be called "Seven's Company", I guess. Being openly gay, on the other hand, does not necessarily mean that you are in any particular kind of relationship or that any government does or doesn't issue a license for it. It doesn't even mean that you are engaging, or have ever engaged, in any type of behavior (even behind closed doors) that anyone would get upset about. It just means that you identify yourself as being oriented to persons of the same gender.

[packsaddle]

I'll pose the same question I posed years ago but rather than use Ed as my example, this time I'll use...h'mmmm...Beavah. So for some reason I decide to respond to the inner woman in me and get the full Monte: surgery, hormones, implants, whatever it takes. And I mean I'm a knockout. Somewhere along the way Beavah becomes so intrigued that he leaves his wife and Beavah and I decide to tie the knot. OK, we're both old, decrepit, gumming our food, etc. So children are out of the question. How does BSA handle the two of us newlywed-but-elderly husband and wife...as registered leaders?

Keep in mind that outwardly, all the cuddling and such appear heterosexual. Just like 'regular' older lovers. But we all know what's happening behind the curtain of that little blue pill...and remember, it's the behavior that so many of us draw the line at. SeattlePioneer, since you seem to be absolutely obsessed about sexuality (and most recently about 'genitalia'), your thoughts are especially needed.

So what about THIS behavior? Physically it's heterosexual. The only hangup is that chromosome thing. So do we start karyotyping people for leadership applications?

And if this superficially heterosexual (but genetically homosexual) relationship passes BSA judgment, then what?

[Trevorum]

I remember that particular thought experiment. And it is no better with Beavah this time .....

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

And what of the other of the twin relics of barbarism?

[NJCubScouter]

Thanks for that image, Pack. Thanks a lot. My skin is crawling now.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, I AM diabolical. Pity my students.

So what advice would any of us have for BSA in this situation?

I guess I could expand on those mental images if necessary.....h'mmmmmm?

[AZMike]

Would incestuous relationships also be okay, as long as the participants are both consenting adults?

 

There are some concerns about genetic disorders from the offspring of consanguine intercourse, so let's presume that either 24 year old brother and 26 year old sister are married but the brother had a vasectomy, or the husband is a 25 year old male and his mother is post-menopausal and they're in a committed relationship, or to make it easier, a 25 year old man and his 32 year old brother.

 

They don't talk about their sex lives, but they're "out" and don't want to hide the fact that they're blood relatives. They hold respectable jobs, are clean-cut, active in their local church and the pastor of their denomination has no problem with the whole incest thing. One of the partners has a son from a former relationship, who may or may not be a sibling as well as a stepson.

 

No one's being hurt. One or both partners wants to be a scout leader, or at least actively involved in a committee position.

 

To those of you who support the cause of openly gay scout leaders, what would be your take on this?

[Peregrinator]

You've claimed that a subset of polygamy can be consistent without same-sex marriage, but that is never what I said.

 

You said that legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. In order to show that this is a false statement, only one counterexample is required. If you disagree with my counterexample (historical polygyny), then it is up to you to show that such marriage contracts are inconsistent with a rejection of same-sex marriage.

 

Even legal group marriages need not require legal same-sex marriage. A man's marriage contract upon entering such a group might simply state that he is marrying all the women in the group, but not the men. Likewise for the women entering the group. And the contract might be dissolved upon the death of any of the spouses.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

You've claimed that a subset of polygamy can be consistent without same-sex marriage, but that is never what I said.

 

You said that legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. In order to show that this is a false statement, only one counterexample is required.

 

In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny, which changes the situation (besides that, I don't agree with your assertions). You need to show it's inconsistent if ALL forms of polygamy are legal, because that's the situation I referred to.

 

Even legal group marriages need not require legal same-sex marriage. A man's marriage contract upon entering such a group might simply state that he is marrying all the women in the group, but not the men.

 

That's also not the situation I proposed.

[NJCubScouter]

AZMike, I have a question for you about your hypothetical adult brother and sister (or brother and brother) openly living together in a sexual relationship:

 

Are you aware of any national BSA policy that prevents them from being adult leaders? I'm not. I don't think there is one. I don't think there needs to be one, because the local unit's authority to select it's leaders takes care of it. My guess is that 100 percent of local units would, and will continue to, choose not to have a leader in that situation. My guess also is that if given the option, somewhere less than 100 percent (I have no idea how much less, I would guess 20 to 40 percent less, though it's not really important) would choose not to have an openly gay leader (and not your two hypothetical brothers.)

 

So if the hypothetical and most-likely non-existent situation of which you speak does NOT require a national policy (other than the policy that units choose their leaders), why does the issue of gay people require a national policy? That's the real issue here. It's not about who should be a leader, it's about who decides who should be a leader. And that is almost never National.