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: D. Long who wrote (161113)	3/18/2006 5:47:25 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

I also think it is a way to more guarantee the paternity of children, particularly male children. In many early societies (a prime example is Egyptian), power/inheritance of the throne passed through the female - simply because there was never any doubt about who was the mother. By and large, though, marriage provides stability in which to rear children and thus perpetuate the species.

To: D. Long who wrote (161113)	3/18/2006 7:14:29 PM
From: ig	Respond to of 793841

Slavery isn't a core, universal human "tradition". Maybe, I don't know; but it's a lot older than "marriage." Homo sapiens have been holding each other as slaves a lot longer than we've been holding each other in monogamous heterosexual marriages (just a different kind of slavery, some like to say) -- and we won't go into homo erectus males fighting with each other over who keeps possession of the sexiest and most females, because that would add a coupla million years to the argument.