@parados,
A man can love two women para. One for being an expert cook who knows how to satisfy one of his appetites and the other for being a really cute chick with nice tits who satisfies another. They say that Nigella Lawson is both in one. Which I doubt. Her food looks ghastly. But if she is she's a prodigy and there are not many of them dropping their clipboard next to your desk.
Living with the chick and dining out of tins and microwaved ready-mades has its ups and downs although I will admit that living with the other is easy if you leave the lights off.
So monogamy is an attack on men's rights. And on evolution, which has never heard of monogamy and might well have foundered long ago if it had. The losers, according to Darwin, are not fit to breed anyway. That's right isn't it? Or have I got my science wrong?
The disadvantage is, obviously, having to do what you're told by two women who both have you in an appetite addiction lock.
Do you think that women needed persuading to be the wife in sole possession of a potato picker rather than be the fifth wife of the lord's eldest son and living at the court? In the days when our traditions were gradually being formed, if the lord's son could only have one wife then there's four have to wed potato pickers. So you can see that there would be fierce competition.
I'm not sure there's a simple answer. But once the word "marriage" starts getting frayed at the edges there's no telling whether it will not fray some more. As it stands, in the sensible states, the large majority it must be remembered, it has a definite and unambiguous meaning and once fraying sets in it might, the word I mean, take on the apect of a Maltese lace doily that the bulldog chews for entertainment and/or to floss its teeth.
The neighbours can probably get used to two blokes living together in their street but I don't know if they could if it was a bloke with three, self-evidently contented wives. If wives 2 and 3 demand their rights to be "married" to the guy along with wife 1, who is equally enthusiastic, what is there to say that hasn't been said on behalf of same sex monogamy?
Once individual rights have priority over the meaning of words like "marriage", it seems to me we are on the less steep section of a slippery slope.
Has that argument been put to Mr Obama?
