Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy (really bigamy)

7 views
Skip to first unread message

cheryl

unread,
Jul 28, 1986, 3:53:03 PM7/28/86
to
In article <9...@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> v...@trillian.UUCP (Tom Courtney) writes:
>In article <15...@ihlpa.UUCP> stri...@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) writes:

>>> On a slightly different but similar topic, what about the laws agains
>>> polygamy? In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is
>>> dangerous enough to be outlawed?
>>> - E. Eades
>>
>>An interesting point, and I thought about this for a while. My guess is the
>>laws were set down to protect women in a time when it was easier for men to
>>take advantage of them.
>
>I find it interesting that most people mean "multiple wives" by polygamy, and
>that the notion of "multiple husbands" is much rarer. I wonder what causes
>this?

In Tibet, Polyandry was practiced because property is passed down
through the women. They can have as many husbands as they want.
In some areas, the rule was that when a woman married, she also got
*all* of his brothers in the bargain. (A bride for seven brothers!)

Cheryl

Don Licsak

unread,
Jul 29, 1986, 9:00:21 AM7/29/86
to
>
> You can develop a strong argument for polygamy based on the protectionist
> attitudes toward women common in just about any period of history. Women need
> a man to provide protection and status. Women are incapable of handling their
> own financial affairs (remember, I'm pretending to be a protectionist. THIS
> IS NOT REALLY ME! Okay?). Some women manage to escape male protection -
> widows and single women who have no male guardians. The more women a man
> marries, the more he protects. Fewer poor widows and destitute spinsters
> become a financial burden on the community, church, state, whatever. (The
> term spinster came about because unmarried women in England circa 1600, I
> think, were required by law to do so many hours of spinning per day - to keep
> them out of trouble and make sure they were productive members of socity.)
> If you have a male-dominated society, it kind of makes sense to have the male
> dominate as many females as he can, no?
>
> Karen Christenson
> "Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea

Speaking only for myself, monogamy is the only way to go. I have enough
problems maintaining a working relationship with one wife, never mind
compounding the situation!

We do live in a male dominated society. However, don't forget that
saying about "the power behind the throne." It's awesome!


--


Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak
Health Systems International
New Haven, CT 06511


"I'm the person your mother warned you about"

0 new messages