SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jttmab who wrote (148274)10/20/2004 7:27:48 PM
From: TimF   of 281500
 
OT

"It seems to me that polygamy is necessarily a degradation of females, creating a household where position is determined by the ability to court the favor of a male."

I can think of a number of things that are degrading to females, but are allowed and are allowed contractually.

That might be an argument for allowing polygamy, it isn't an argument that there is no potential secular purpose for banning polygamy, or for (as Neo put it) refusing to give it legal sanction. Whether or not their actually should be a law against polygamy is getting away from the initial point. There are plenty of things the government could constitutionally ban or require that it probably should not ban or require. Having a potential secular purpose is not the same as having an uncontroversial or unimpeachable secular purpose.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News