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 (148274)	10/20/2004 10:43:18 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A job is not your life, and is easy to walk away from, so I cannot, off hand, think of anything comparable. Maybe you can enlighten me. For the rest, it is just confirmation that the women are close to chattel, insofar as they do not have an effective voice in their own household and its composition. Furthermore, without a marriage, there is no commingling of assets, so at least the women gets to take out of the arrangement that property which had always belonged to her, including a separate bank account, so it is not necessary to have a court intervene in the division of assets. If the man wants to provide for survivors, he can, through simple testamentary disposition. In the absence of a will, whatever children there are have a claim in addition to the legal wife. For a childless woman, well, at least she was under no illusion, as might be with a childless wife, who is an afterthought after taking care of the children in the disposition of assets, which will ordinarily not be large.

To: jttmab who wrote (148274)	10/20/2004 7:27:48 PM
From: TimF	Respond to 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