Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (148266)	10/20/2004 10:09:14 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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. The fact that it is voluntary does not mean that it is something the state wishes to sponsor through marital contract. So if they want to live together, let them, but do not expect the state to uphold their arrangements. Besides, if there were a marital contract, could the subsequent wives be shoved down the throat of the first wife? And if not, would every party have to consent to the contract? And if that were so, how would a bond be dissolved? Would all parties have to agree to a divorce settlement? What would happen to matters like child custody or the division of assets in such a case? Etc...... I agree, it is possible to argue against something on the basis that the reasoning is specious, and masks a religious agenda. It may even be true. I think they will affirm prior rulings, which is that the Ten Commandments may stand as long as they are "contexualized" properly, as being part of the historical character of a building or part of a display affirming various sources of ethical thought, such as the Code of Hammurabi or the Analects of Confucius.