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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (382)	8/1/2006 6:24:53 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 1695

I think it's rather difficult to come up with good reasons against polyandry and polygamy. Obviously it wouldn't be most people's choice- and of course that's one reason not to worry about it too much. Why make something illegal that isn't that much of a "problem". As far as the inner cities go, it would be FABULOUS if women were getting married there- one father spread among 4 wives is better than no father, imo. And if women want to be the second wife of a rich successful man why shouldn't they be able to do that, and eschew the losers of the world? I mean by what right do all men deserve a wife? (And conversely, as the situation works out in SF, what right do women have to a husband? None.) I find the "stability" aspect of serial marriage in America so ridiculous a proposition I can't see why we prohibit anything else. I mean some people run through 5 or 6 wives, or husbands. That's monogamy and polyandry - it's just spread out over the years, and actually much more disruptive to the social fabric of society.

To: thames_sider who wrote (382)	8/1/2006 10:47:07 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1695

TS, I don't want you to think I was singling you out in my post about polygamy. You and several others were discussing this, and when I was ready to post your message was the latest one. Nonetheless, I am glad you found the article I posted worthy of the careful scrutiny you gave it. I also found some of the author's assertions a bit hard to swallow. As to my general feelings on the subject: I don't know whether you are a parent, but most of us who have raised children went through the "why not" stage in the teen years. "Why can't I dye my hair purple?" "So what if he is ten years older than me?" And countless other "why nots." A parent might begin by trying to answer those questions with patience and logic, but before long it becomes, "Because I say so!" That's how I feel about gay marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, and a lot of other special-interest demands. Our country has become splintered, and there are too many special interest groups posing too many "why nots." I'm tired of them. It would be a different matter if these demands involved "fundamental rights," but they seldom do. Our forefathers, with great wisdom, defined fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights. When any of these are placed at risk, then "why nots" are not only acceptable, they are essential. But with the type of "why nots" we are talking about that involve privilege, not rights, the burden of proof is on the asker to do the persuading. Moreover, these matters involve fundamental change in our traditions, our heritage, and our culture. I'm only one citizen, but until I am persuaded, which I am not, my answer to these "why nots" will still be, "Because I say so!"