--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > "Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of > > > proof and make a devil's advocate argument. > > > > > > For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, > > > polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way > > > to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be > > > more "natural" than two-personal marriages given the > > > assumption that men are sexually voracious; > > > > An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong. > > OF COURSE IT'S SEXIST!!!! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT > THE DIFFERENCES ABOUT THE SEXES!!!!! HOW COULD > IT NOT BE SEXIST????? > > IS IT NOW POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO POINT OUT THE > OBVIOUS BEHAVIOURAL, MENTAL, AND OTHERWISE > DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES?
The "differences" Raunchy "pointed out" ARE NOT TRUE, Shemp. That's the point. They are cultural and social myths *about* men and women that do not hold up when examined scientifically.
