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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (12459)	9/27/2006 12:28:20 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I'm not supporting polygamy. Neither am I disparaging it. It was the accepted method of caring for the weaker members of a society for a lot longer period of time than monogamy has been. Often, a father or brother was socially obligated to take in the women and kids of extended family members who could otherwise not take care of themselves. Richer or more powerful men took multiple wives, not the weak and stupid men, as you suggest. Today, in our "advanced" society, the process is very similar, except the government takes in those unable to care for themselves instead of individuals. There are all sorts of programs to provide money, food, and housing for single women and unsupported children. It's just a different social arrangement, same objective. Polygamy is tolerated by only insulated, backward cultures. That's another pretty bigoted comment. Many, if not most, of the most advanced cultures of their times encouraged polygamy. You can't use your modern day American mores' to judge every other society and what works (or used to work) for them. Any society that provides a means of caring for its weak and inept can't be called "backwards." I note that you don't object to serial polygamy, only parallel polygamy.