Which is worse? Slave owning ancestors or polygamist ancestors?

[Broken Glass Can]

Romney has polygamous ancestors.

Now, it turns out Obama has slave owner ancestors. His white mother is descended from slave owners in Kentucky,

Census records, genealogical research indicate forbears of Obama's mother had slaves

[4 High]

So basically this is your way of slinging garbage at Obama? If you dont care, why bring it up?

[AngusThermopyle]

I hear they both have Caveman ancestors.
Do they both hate GEICO?

[AlexM]

Uhm... what's wrong with polygamy? The lack of jealousy and possessiveness inherent with monogamy? That sure is terrible!

[Phil153]

Don't care about ancestors.

Slavery was reasonable given the period's understanding of race based capacity for civilized behavior - which he we have only recently lost in deference to civil rights. Polygamy was not reasonable back in the day. Therefore, polygamy is more of an aberration, and probably more of a sign that something was wrong with their ancestors.

[mark_foley]

Damn I was going to vote for him but the behavior of a canidates great-great-great-great grandfather is very important in my decsion making.

[Dan.]

One of my ancestors likely took a [censored] outdoors. I'll never be elected. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't care about ancestors.

Slavery was reasonable given the period's understanding of race based capacity for civilized behavior - which he we have only recently lost in deference to civil rights. Polygamy was not reasonable back in the day. Therefore, polygamy is more of an aberration, and probably more of a sign that something was wrong with their ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was polygamy "not reasonable" long ago? It's one of the most common mating arrangements in the animal kingdom (if not the most common) and while humans may be above animals in capacity to reason and in terms of spiritual potential, that doesn't mean humans are above animals in the biological sense. Also, many cultures throughout history have utilized polygamy. How about them Turkish harems?!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Some countries in the Middle East still allow polygamy today if I'm not mistaken. I'm just wondering how you are deriving the assessment of "reasonable" or "not reasonable". Given the moderately widespread utilization of polygamy throughout history amongst various cultures, I'm also wondering how you term it an aberration.

If you could explain these things I'd be much obliged. Thanks, and thanks for reading my post.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't care about ancestors.

Slavery was reasonable given the period's understanding of race based capacity for civilized behavior - which he we have only recently lost in deference to civil rights. Polygamy was not reasonable back in the day. Therefore, polygamy is more of an aberration, and probably more of a sign that something was wrong with their ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was polygamy "not reasonable" long ago? It's one of the most common mating arrangements in the animal kingdom (if not the most common) and while humans may be above animals in capacity to reason and in terms of spiritual potential, that doesn't mean humans are above animals in the biological sense. Also, many cultures throughout history have utilized polygamy. How about them Turkish harems?!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Some countries in the Middle East still allow polygamy today if I'm not mistaken. I'm just wondering how you are deriving the assessment of "reasonable" or "not reasonable". Given the moderately widespread utilization of polygamy throughout history amongst various cultures, I'm also wondering how you term it an aberration.

If you could explain these things I'd be much obliged. Thanks, and thanks for reading my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mongamy is the aberration. It's a lot easier to keep women enslaved for several thousand years that way.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't care about ancestors.

Slavery was reasonable given the period's understanding of race based capacity for civilized behavior - which he we have only recently lost in deference to civil rights. Polygamy was not reasonable back in the day. Therefore, polygamy is more of an aberration, and probably more of a sign that something was wrong with their ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was polygamy "not reasonable" long ago? It's one of the most common mating arrangements in the animal kingdom (if not the most common) and while humans may be above animals in capacity to reason and in terms of spiritual potential, that doesn't mean humans are above animals in the biological sense. Also, many cultures throughout history have utilized polygamy. How about them Turkish harems?!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Some countries in the Middle East still allow polygamy today if I'm not mistaken. I'm just wondering how you are deriving the assessment of "reasonable" or "not reasonable". Given the moderately widespread utilization of polygamy throughout history amongst various cultures, I'm also wondering how you term it an aberration.

If you could explain these things I'd be much obliged. Thanks, and thanks for reading my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does "moderately widespread" mean? Polygamy has not been accepted in an overwhelming majority of cultures, in particular Western/Christian cultures. If you took a poll in 1861 in the U.S. and asked people whether slavery should be outlawed versus polygamy being outlawed, polygamy would have won in a landslide.

I think that whether your distant ancestors were slave owners versus polygamists should not be a story either way though.