"Monogamy is not meant to satisfy the female libido. It would be far-fetched for anyone to argue that, especially when the evidence runs in the opposite direction: Monogamy kills eros. But monogamy is a cultural constraint aimed at protecting the natural result of sex--namely, children."
"...But monogamy is a cultural constraint aimed at protecting the natural result of sex--namely, children."
Both good for the children produced and good at limiting the spread of nasties that hitch a ride with promiscuous hookups.
But some want to believe that modern medicine and social support would make such considerations irrelevant if "rascally rethuglicans" would get put of the way.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
MSimon wrote:I favor monogamy - after the children arrive and until they reach majority.
But no concern for diseases spread or reproduction systems damaged in the meantime?
MSimon wrote:
But no state can enforce it. If they could divorce would be outlawed. And even that only helps a little.
The State USED to enforce it. It USED to be a major problem when a husband abandoned his wife and children. (in philosophical terms, we call that an "Injury.") People suffered when their breadwinner refused to own up to his responsibilities.
When the US government got into the business of taking care of husbandless women and fatherless children, the mindset to punish the shirks dissipated.
Again, with Libertarians, the problems caused by tolerating people's indulgences are simply glossed over and ignored. It's easier to ignore consequences now that government feeds and houses the people involved in the mess they created.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
If you want to look at it in civil terms, marriage is a contract, and divorce is dissolution of a contract. Contracts are classically binding unless fraud is demonstrated or the involved partied agree. Both are usually a painful process.
... wait, contracts are considered old fashioned oppression by "modern" "liberated" people, used to entrap the little guy.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
hanelyp wrote:If you want to look at it in civil terms, marriage is a contract, and divorce is dissolution of a contract. Contracts are classically binding unless fraud is demonstrated or the involved partied agree. Both are usually a painful process.
... wait, contracts are considered old fashioned oppression by "modern" "liberated" people, used to entrap the little guy.
Marriage is more than just a contract between two people. More importantly it is a contract with the entire community. It is a recognition that there exists a state of mutual exclusivity between these two people, and that others in the community are duty bound to refrain from interfering with it.
There is a reason why there are witnesses and sacred vows to a marriage, and why it is a ceremony. It is intended to reinforce the contract with the rest of the community that these two people are "off the market".
Alienation of Affection used to be considered a legal (civil law) offense, and constituted grounds for damages. It has fallen into disuse as Marriage itself has slowly declined.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
