Evolution may not have tiers, ratings, or levels of ascension but God has bestowed all those traits upon man, where nothing is anomalous in His light.
If thatās the case, someone needs to fire their quality control department. Thereās some design flaws in place thatād cause bankruptcy in any other context.
2 Likes
No.
Arguably, following the previous point, they are nonexistent.
āLike all marriages: very poorly.ā
Yes, thatās it. I implied things stop evolving, by saying nothing ever stops evolving. 
That may have been your intent, but you said weāre more evolved. We are not. Are are no more or evolved than anything else.
1 Like
Oh. I had no idea that were as evolutionary advanced as, oh, letās say, some sort of prokaryotic bacteria, dug out of a glacier thatās estimated to be 4 to 5 million years old.
Golly, I guess our cognitive functions are the same as a one celled organism that lacks a nuclear envelope, Golgi apparatus. Hell even a symbolic relationship with mitochondria, which was an evolutionary adaptation for survival by some eukaryotic cells. But since Iām not a self proclaimed expert in literally everything (like some people) Iāll just have to take your word for it.
Arrendis is being kinda Arrendis, Mr. Thorne, but sheās maybe not quite wrong, either. Some life forms are more genetically and structurally complex; others, less-so. But itās a romantic notion that evolution is something that goes āup,ā or that being more complicated is necessarily better.
Which is āmore evolvedā: a super-complex, highly-specialized creature that has developed an elaborate symbiosis with a certain plant of which there are five still existing in the universe (oops, make that four; might be down to three next week); or, a stolid generalist predator thatās so good at what it does that itās stayed its numerous, relatively-simple self for geological ages?
Evolution doesnāt go āup.ā It doesnāt even always go towards greater complexity. Some of the simple stuff you seem to kinda sneer at is likely to survive even if humanity manages to glass itself (now that would be an evolutionary event for the ages! An ecological hard-reset across the light years).
Evolution just goes forward, without purpose, without goal, without desire. Itās a phenomenon, not a race.
It just āis.ā
1 Like
I didnāt say it did.
True
Wrong.
It moves forward with a unknowing purpose to survive. Those species that fail to survive, die out, no longer evolve.
It involves many races. Billions upon billions.
Iām not quite willing to ascribe purpose to a mindless process, especially since its mechanisms generate vast numbers of meaningless or harmful changes for every beneficial one. Though maybe if you believe in the Makerā¦?
Otherwise, I think anything weād call āpurposeā is something we super-complicated horror shows impose on it.
1 Like
I guess thatās true. Purpose does imply, some sort of intent based on intelligence. So, I would agree with you.
1 Like
Something you said earlier that I, also, agree with ā¦
But polyamorous and open relationships for the sake satiating oneās own sexual apatite, oftentimes wrapped in a thin wrapper of ālove is love, and I love many peopleā is justā¦.Ick.
Iām not sure Iād go quite so far-- Iāve known a few people who seemed to prefer that way of approaching things. I guess I kind of feel like itās troubling, but at the same time I donāt feel like Iām someone who should be going around judging people.
People can live how they choose. But I donāt want to share a partner, with anyone. Thereās more to love than enjoying one anotherās physical presence (or the various things āphysical presenceā might be euphemistic for), and being bound into a whole network rather than being mutually entangled with a single other seems like a difficult basis on which to build the kind of deep trust and relatively uncomplicated affection and support Iād be looking for.
I donāt want to conclude harsh things about people just for that reason. I think itās really, emphatically not for me though.
1 Like
Polygamy quickly defaults to polygny and causes societal instability.
1 Like
Being as evolved doesnāt mean we have the same capabilities, and nothing of the sort was even put forth. Youāre intentionally misrepresenting things in an attempt to argue against a strawman while simultaneously presenting an inverted appeal to authority. Cut the crap.
Yes, you are just as evolved as a single-celled prokaryote. Let me drop you in the environment theyāve evolved to survive in, and give you the same rate of energy (chemical and thermal) input, in the same manner as one of them needs, and weāll see if you survive as long as they do. Somehow, I doubt it.
Different capabilities for different niches.
2 Likes
Same rate of energy? How would that work? Iām a multicellular organism and the prokaryote is singular. This false equivalency and you know it.
And, yet, I do share the same environment with many prokaryotes, that live in the dirt, and on surfaces of stuff, and I seem to be surviving just fine. Or are you collapsing extremophiles with all prokaryotes?
Has anyone else noted, and found it strange, that humans do not share a common ancestor with any life forms in the cluster, save for a few select species that we live intimately with (dogs, cows, wheat, rice, etc)? Very strange indeed.
I donāt know that Iād call literally everything we can eat āa few select speciesā. Itās not like humanity is native to New Eden. After all, the Amarr have records going back to pre-Dark Ages dating and the closure of the EVE Gate.
So, no, I donāt think itās particularly odd that we donāt share a common ancestor with the microbial mats we find on thousands of different planets across the culture. If anything, Iād say the stranger scenario is having humanity on so many worlds before the (re-)development of space flight.
(moving to off-topic, cuz it is)
No.
It is outright perversion and such marriages have no legal basis.
Legal rules for marriage stem from purpose of this institution - a cooperation between one male and one female for purpose of creating children and upbringing them. (For this cooperation male and female participants are carefully selected to Fit each other by social, physiological and other criteria).
Marriage contracts signed with violation of this are considered legally void.
A family is a cell of a society, its building block. If you alllow a corruption in basic building blocks of your society, your whole society will rot.
So, tell me please, how having multiple partners in legal sense is any better than procreating indiscriminately like some sort of wild animals or gallentes (which are almost the same)?
2 Likes
Straightforward as has been answered by many compatriots of the State within this thread, resoundingly ānoā. They are not allowed in the sense they are not legally recognized. As for a āsimilar arrangementā with polyamory, while I could see the possibility of such a situation potentially unfolding in oneās private life it seems that it would be exceedingly uncommon and while not wholesale disallowed it would run rather heavily counter to the vast majority of Caldari cultural patterns.
As for the Achuran, it is certainly allowed though not exactly common. I can not say I have ever been in a relationship involving more than one significant other ( while I would not necessarily be opposed to such circumstances they have only once had the opportunity to blossom and I chose simply not to pursue the possibility ) I value my own company too greatly and with even one partner I desire to spend most of my time aloneā¦that said I envision it would work as any other does, friendships or otherwise. Valuing the time spent with those others and finding ways to ensure that was known and well communicated. It would mean creating space to listen to each other and navigate through emotions positive and negative.
The short answer is āNo.ā
The long answer is that if you want to get married, you inform a corporate marriage arrangement agency, who will then attempt to find a match for you which ticks the following boxes:
- Opposite sex, because otherwise you can not have children, which defeats the point.
- Same ethnicity, on account of heritage preservation.
- Similar physical appearance, on account of heritage preservation.
- Similar personality, because if people canāt get along, this may result in a divorce.
- Similar socio-economic bracket, because when one part of a marriage has a significantly higher net worth, it can lead to friction due to an unequal balance of power.
This works for us because it conforms to our traditions. I can not guarantee that it would work for the polity you mentioned. In general I would suggest only making drastic changes to the way such matters are handled when it is absolutely necessary.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.