How do you reach the conclusion that respecting marriage, even a non-existent one by avoiding premarital sex, is more important than not murdering people? — BlueBanana
I do not understand the question as worded, could you rephrase?
Well, it all strikes me as a rationalization to support your personal moral imperative to have as many kids with your wife as possible. It is just as likely (in fact more so) that there will be more children if we abandoned traditional marital norms and normalized sexual free for alls, making certain no fertile female is unimpregnated.
I realize that there is insufficient wealth to care for all these children as we would wish, but the same holds true for your situation unless you are incredibly wealthy. I expect your community can provide for you if you lack the resources, but I don't believe it could if all your neighbors did as you are.
None of this is to be taken as a criticism of your desire to have a large family, but only as a response to your criticism that others don' — Hanover
I will address this according to section (of which there are three).
1. The first part sounds like a border-line ad-hominem accusation that reads like the preface to a condescending dismissal of anything I have to say, but perhaps that is just my misreading; however, i do find it an an odd critique of an argument that the argument is being used to defend the arguer's position. With with the exception of playing devil's advocate or presenting scientific hypotheticals, when isn't an argument used to justify the position one holds to?
The second part is a legitimate point in that the question of whether or not a pronatalist position is better served by a poly-amorous society over-and-against a monogamous society. Well, I did answer part of this in the response to
@T Clark in my point against Polygamy. That is, unless the poly-amorous society could guarantee the 1:1 sex ratio, the situation wherein "Y" would be committed would increase rather than decrease (that is, more, potential persons would be prevented from transitioning into actual persons). However, if a poly-amorous society was somehow regulated to maintain a 1:1 sex ratio (which would be border-line monogamous structurally anyway), the next issue would be providing for the subsequent population. In an elaborate welfare state this may be possible, but that is a highly tenuous suggestion and whether or not mates would want to reproduce and rear offspring under such conditions is highly questionable.
Arguably, our primitive ancestors could have instituted such a system, but marriage in its traditional form seems to have been chosen and enforced because it was demonstrably the best to maximize the production, security, and well-being of offspring. Given the whole of human history, I have not seen any reason to yet doubt their conclusion.
2. I find it odd that a question in the philosophy forum would prompt me to respond with personal information, but this is the first year I have ever made more than $30,000.00 a year in my entire life (which is actually really good money around here), so I am not wealthy. I do not use public welfare, and we have lived quite comfortably as long as I have been married (which is since I was 19). But, I have worked in construction full-time nearly the entire time I was going to school while also having a family with the wife at home with the children. Of course, I work and repair my own vehicles, have bought cheap homes and repaired them to being livable, and have been debt free. I can still afford the little luxuries of life like nice suits, alcohol, tobacco, amazon prime, and several vacations a year....but self-sufficiency, which can be taught, is really how such a lifestyle is doable.
3. I have not criticized other people for not having children. Please demonstrate where I made such a claim to anyone on the Philosophy Forum? What I have done is presented an argument with implications for contraception and have told others that I do not practice it. That is not criticizing others, even if it inadvertently offends them. I presented a syllogism to be debated and presented certain moral implications. IF they are so obviously wrong, then they should be easily refuted without dismissals or critiques of my character being the main case against what I have posted.