Hello Trixie,
   I had no idea that my tongue-in-cheek remarks about marriage are
going to start another big Internet discussion that begins to rival our
big fall debate about feminism. OF COURSE, I did not mean everything I 
said seriously; I thought I made that clear with "I really wanted them 
all" or "what a waste of natural resources". I was setting the stage  
for the main point, namely humor in marriage. That said, you disregard 
in your reply the gender differences between male & female psychology.
I won't get here into a physiological discussion of spermatogenesis vs.
ovulation, but these processes do have hormonal consequences that can 
be character-forming, and while I agree with you that "being in love" 
can be only towards one person at one time, that "time" can be of very
different average duration between the sexes. For further information,
read the libretto of The Marriage of Figaro, specifically the stage 
character of Cherubino. So, as you can see, the sentiment is not new.
   Kevin Lochner came to my rescue with the Polyandry citation from the 
Vikipedia, which is more than what I could have quoted off hand. But 
anyone who had traveled to Tibet and the Xinjiang province of China 
(as we did, twice, in the 90's) has heard of these things. I do not 
advocate the practice for adoption in Western societies.	       
   Postscript only to Trixie: Philip was to send me banking information
in relation to his birthday money!	    Love, GGPA & S