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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161046)	3/18/2006 6:12:01 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

Its hard for me to find Polygamy, on its face, to be illegal so long as it is between consenting adults and not children forced into it. HOWEVER, my BEEF with polygamy is that VERY OFTEN these "families" have many multiples of children, cannot afford them, and WE THE PEOPLE end up supporting them. 90% or more of the people would agree that its hard enough FINANCIALLY raising even TWO children today, to think that they can AFFORD to raise 5, 10 or more is PREPOSTOROUS and thus FOR THAT REASON if for none other it should be banned. jdn ps: I am only addressing FINANCIAL matters. I would agree that looking at it purely from the childs viewpoint it very well might be good to have more then one mother available within the household for parenting.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161046)	3/18/2006 11:19:39 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

<Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long slow suicide, thank you.> Nadine, yes it has. When the state decided it was a better father than a lot of fathers, the stage was set for women to marry the state, ditching their useless husband for something better. Hordes of women and children in NZ are now married to the state, which makes no demands of them. Doesn't get angry. Doesn't want sex, with or without a headache. Always pays the money on time. Even hassles the previous incumbent, threatens him and generally makes his life miserable, taxation being a lot of fun. Demanding he attend the "new father's" court where he is berated and stripped financially. How about that for an indignity. This bloke takes your wife then puts you in his courtroom and lectures and robs you. Women traditionally seek a good supporter, protector and funder. The state isn't all good, but a lot better than marriage after it has gone stale, or even before. Plenty of women get the bit on the side AND the state provider, who like a good but dull husband provides the essentials while she goes out and has fun, but doesn't even have to go out as she can have a live-in bloke while Husband-state funds the whole menagerie. Unfortunately women on their own don't seem to be good raisers of children and the state seems to be a less than adequate father, who does more than provide funds though women denigrate his role [women's lib and women-can-do-anything-even-be-a-father arrogance]. You can see the result by counting the prison numbers [offspring of state-fathered families attend welfare and prison in prodigious proportions] and child abuse hospital numbers. Not to mention failed education and many other measures of life's miseries. Governments are not good at anything, so it's not surprising they are useless as fathers. Until governments decided they wanted to cuckold regular husbands, things were going along well enough, with women doing a better job of their most important role of selecting some wheat from the chaff among males on offer. Then making it work. For the most part. Now, they aren't so particular [not that they always were] and realize it's not a lifelong risk they are carrying, so they can test drive, ditch, get funding, pick up another, lather, rinse, lather ... In the past, marriage was a big deal and had lifelong consequences and whole families got into the act, with barriers to entry "Can I have the hand of your daughter in marriage?" Shotguns at the ready. Now it's a quick nookie in Nevada and the deal is done. To be undone in 24 hours if necessary. With the taxpayer picking up the tab. People wonder why a lot of young men are gunshy. "Where are the men?" is the plaintive cry. Males might not do as well as girls at school [who have brains which grow to adult size three years younger than boys so that one is easily explained too] but they aren't totally stupid. They can see that the State is a much bigger and tougher bloke than they are and they have seen what happens to guys who think that they can be men. The state and women work them over pretty good. Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161046)	3/18/2006 12:13:02 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect To me, it's too much of a "slippery slope." Give people the contractual right to do anything they want with their property in dealing with each other, but hold marriage to a "one man/one woman" arrangement. This is not a logical answer from a libertarian position, but the other answer will totally destroy "marriage."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161046)	3/18/2006 2:43:43 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 793838

Charles Krauthammer speaks for me on this issue Me too. Funny that some of us (ahem) said "polygamy rights" would be next on the slippery slope when Lawrence was being decided. Certain professors poo-pooed that eventuality, I recall. It is logically inevitable. But the law isn't logical, so who knows if polygamy will ever find pride of place as has gay marriage. Derek