NationStates Jolt Archive

This has nothing to do with the ridiculous assertation that gay marriage is going to lead to 'polygamy and people marrying their cats'. I'd like to look at it aside from the 'gay marriage issue'.

Through much of human history, polygamy (and much less commonly, polyandry) have been practiced by cultures around the world. In fact, in much of the Middle East and Africa, polygamy is still the norm. Some religious sects in the West practice it. The idea of spousal monogamy is clearly a fairly new one, or one confined to certain cultures. Why is this?

My pet theory is that some bright guy figured out that it's hard enough to make one woman happy, much less a group of them.

The religions dominant today have beliefs that consider monogamous marriage the most moral path. I personally feel that this is best because it builds a stronger bond than if the husband had several wives to "fall back on" when things get rough. Only my opinion, however.

Maybe because if a small group of guys in a society have all the women to themselves and the majorit of the guys have no prospects for getting laid it makes them prone to violence and hard to control. Look at Scandinavian countries. People there statistically get laid more often. The people there are also more laid back. In repressed societies, like the middle east and parts of the USA, people get violent.

In the old days, and still in some countries, having many wives (because it was always fairly rare for a woman to have many husbands) was a sign of wealth. It was also a grave responsibility. It made one part of a family 'clan'. Wives, and children, ranked according to custom, or all equal according to custom needed to be provided for an protected by the 'main' man. Clearly, the desire for as many children as possible made multiple wives necessity.

Perhaps in 'modern' times, the need for many children as help around the home/farm, as future providers for their parents, as insurance against the certain deaths of some of them is no longer necessary? And yet, many people view the topic with such distaste, with such acrimony, as though the very idea is an abomination...I don't think our lessened reliance on many children can explain that viewpoint. What can?

My pet theory is that some bright guy figured out that it's hard enough to make one woman happy, much less a group of them.
Well I've always wondered why anyone would want more than one spouse...it's hard enough dealing with one!

But then again, I've seen polygamous relationships (abroad, because the polygamists here tend to be fairly secretive), and it seems to work. Much as living with a large, extended family is different than living with a small, immediate one. The women seemed no more 'discontent' than any women in monogamous relationships, and in fact had strong ties to one another and their children.

So I wonder...is monogamy a conquerer's cultural imposition? Because even the ancient Western civilizations had polygamy.

The idea of spousal monogamy is clearly a fairly new one, or one confined to certain cultures.
Nope. It's not that new or marginal.

And by the way, your definitions of family are quite restrictive. Throughout history, we've seen many more models: clans, communities (kibbutz-like), sister-brother family cells (sisters and brothers marry people from another family, but all these couples live together; it's still done in the Pacific Ocean), and so on.

Family structures depend mostly on the environment, mobility of the group (nomadism, agriculture, pastoralism), threats, economical structure, child/overall mortality, and so on.

I think that in the old days a lot of guys would die in wars and hunting expeditions, leaving a lot of women without a husband.

That would also explain why polyandry is not as widespread.

The religions dominant today have beliefs that consider monogamous marriage the most moral path. I personally feel that this is best because it builds a stronger bond than if the husband had several wives to "fall back on" when things get rough. Only my opinion, however.
A stronger bond perhaps...the same could be said for having only one child instead of many then? I think the human heart is capable of boundless love. One who has ever doubted being able to love their second child as much as the first, and is proved utterly wrong in that doubt can affirm this.

There are a lot of folks that seem to suggest that polygamy leads to oppression of women... reference the recent publicity and government intrusion in Bountiful, British Columbia (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy).

I'd like to see a law that said, "Once you're over 18 (or 19 or 21 or whatever), do what you want." Under 18, forget it... but once you're at the "age of majority", it's not the government's business.

Have a look at both the pro- and anti-polygamy sites for more information... http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/resources.html

There's something to be said about communal living... I think my ex-wife would have benefitted greatly by having another adult around the house, for company if nothing else. My modest salary could have easily fed, clothed, and housed an additional adult. We'll have to see if the next one is open to the idea... :)

Maybe because if a small group of guys in a society have all the women to themselves and the majorit of the guys have no prospects for getting laid it makes them prone to violence and hard to control. Look at Scandinavian countries. People there statistically get laid more often. The people there are also more laid back. In repressed societies, like the middle east and parts of the USA, people get violent.
Hahahahhahaha...interesting theory!

POLYGAMY LEADS TO SOCIETAL VIOLENCE! :D

What's going on in the US then? Are you all secret polygamists? :eek:

Hahahahhahaha...interesting theory!

POLYGAMY LEADS TO SOCIETAL VIOLENCE! :D

What's going on in the US then? Are you all secret polygamists? :eek:
Not just polygamy, lack of frequent sexual encounters. In the US polygamy is rare, but alot of people are sexually repressed and frustrated.

Nope. It's not that new or marginal. I said new, or confined to certain cultures.

And by the way, your definitions of family are quite restrictive. Throughout history, we've seen many more models: clans, communities (kibbutz-like), sister-brother family cells (sisters and brothers marry people from another family, but all these couples live together; it's still done in the Pacific Ocean), and so on. MY definition? Where did you come across MY definition? I'm talking about spouses, not family. My definition of family is much more than a nuclear family. Don't make assumptions.

Family structures depend mostly on the environment, mobility of the group (nomadism, agriculture, pastoralism), threats, economical structure, child/overall mortality, and so on.
Then explain why the majority of Westerners are monogamists, with exceptions.

I'd totally be a polyandrygamist

I think that the people that are against polygamy/polyandry are against it because of jealousy.

Polyandry was found in Tibet through the 18th and 19 centuries. Since life was so hard and resources were scarce, their society organized around women -- one family required many men in order to bring enough food.

I think that in the old days a lot of guys would die in wars and hunting expeditions, leaving a lot of women without a husband.

That would also explain why polyandry is not as widespread.
I was going to say that at first...but then again, many, MANY women died in child birth...perhaps it is just that men could be killed in war and during hunts at almost any time through their lives, whereas women were more likely to die during childbearing years, and not so much after that? Still leaving more women than men...though not necessarily women that would be sought for marrying...

A stronger bond perhaps...the same could be said for having only one child instead of many then? I think the human heart is capable of boundless love. One who has ever doubted being able to love their second child as much as the first, and is proved utterly wrong in that doubt can affirm this.

From a religious perspective, the human sould came from God, who is capable of boundless love, and the human soul was created in his image, so the human is capable of boundless love as well.

I'd say it depends on the reason for having so many wives, if they marry for love, then the bond is as strong. But like in a monogamous marriage, if they marry for power/influence, then it won't be.

There are a lot of folks that seem to suggest that polygamy leads to oppression of women... reference the recent publicity and government intrusion in Bountiful, British Columbia (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy).


The argument could be made that ANY relationship could lead to oppression of women, or children, or men, or whatever. It's not a guarantee.

Clearly it is a cultural thing as well. Communal living only works for those who are culturally able to handle it. The West is much more individualistic and I think most 'mainstream' Western families could not handle communal living were they to be pushed into it. But many more people from other cultures have communal living, with extended families as the norm.

hmm, if for(i'm just for it in general, wouldn't want to practice it myself) both polygamy and polyandry, although i refer to them both as polygamy, yet i'm against homosexuality. i don't like it when people make that arguement.

Not just polygamy, lack of frequent sexual encounters. In the US polygamy is rare, but alot of people are sexually repressed and frustrated.
Then you yanks should get off the computer and go meet people! And start being more open about sex! And stop teaching one another that it's a dirty thing you shouldn't do...and pushing the idea that only hetero couples should be screwing at all...just some ideas we could use up here too :D

hmm, if for(i'm just for it in general, wouldn't want to practice it myself) both polygamy and polyandry, although i refer to them both as polygamy, yet i'm against homosexuality. i don't like it when people make that arguement.
So...a man could have 14 wives, or a woman 6 husbands, but one gay man shouldn't marry another? I guess you're not one of the 'save traditional marriage' people then? Just anti-homosexual?

The argument could be made that ANY relationship could lead to oppression of women, or children, or men, or whatever. It's not a guarantee.


Very true. Hence PS's suggestion that the gov't let adults be adults. As long as people can get out if they need to (not enslaved in the situation), the consequences are up to them.

What I think would be kind of ideal is more flexibility in marriages as not just 'pairings'...so you could have triads, or two couples living together *wink wink, nudge nudge* with their children. And yet...wow would THAT ever get you dirty looks in your home town! No wonder the polygamists hide away in their own little communities! It must suck to come out of them and have people looking down their noses at you.

Very true. Hence PS's suggestion that the gov't let adults be adults. As long as people can get out if they need to (not enslaved in the situation), the consequences are up to them.
Agreed. I think a lot of polygamous relationships in the West are automatically assumed to be 'cults'...and yet it doesn't seem as though the majority of them are.

I know it's illegal to be a bigamist, but can people really be prosecuted for being 'married' (legally only to one, but in fact to many) to more than one person?

So...a man could have 14 wives, or a woman 6 husbands, but one gay man shouldn't marry another? I guess you're not one of the 'save traditional marriage' people then? Just anti-homosexual?

Polygamy is really "traditional marriage", dates back a lot farther than monogamy...

Still, it doesn't make sense to allow polygamy and not same-sex marriage. From the standpoint of a "traditionalist" (which I am not, of course), it would seem that polygamy is more threatening than SSM because it goes even farther and brings more people in to the bond.

Now, same-sex polygamy or polyandry, now that's a whole other discussion! :p

What I think would be kind of ideal is more flexibility in marriages as not just 'pairings'...so you could have triads, or two couples living together *wink wink, nudge nudge* with their children. And yet...wow would THAT ever get you dirty looks in your home town! No wonder the polygamists hide away in their own little communities! It must suck to come out of them and have people looking down their noses at you.

Sure... and if you're religious, you get your faith-community to bless or sanction or what-have-you, whatever the protocols are. The gov't doesn't need to get involved at all.

What I think would be kind of ideal is more flexibility in marriages as not just 'pairings'...so you could have triads, or two couples living together *wink wink, nudge nudge* with their children. And yet...wow would THAT ever get you dirty looks in your home town! No wonder the polygamists hide away in their own little communities! It must suck to come out of them and have people looking down their noses at you.

That or they hide away because they are the FLDS and regularly marry 13 year old girls

So...a man could have 14 wives, or a woman 6 husbands, but one gay man shouldn't marry another? I guess you're not one of the 'save traditional marriage' people then? Just anti-homosexual?
yes, well, i'm also against marriage, i think it's a flawed system. but i'm for having those people together in like a family, but that also doesn't work, for i think that a family should be the large group that people live in, rather like small villages. argh! curse the english language for not having words to explain things!

That or they hide away because they are the FLDS and regularly marry 13 year old girls

Perhaps you might care to read the article (cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/)? Even they don't "regularly marry 13-year-old girls".

I have the impression you are looking at it from the wrong side ;) You are looking at it from a "sex" perspective.

My theory is that the western civilisation fell in love with the idea that there is something like absolute, pure love for just one single human being, that a man and a woman can be made for each other. That marriage should happen because they love each other, that they will be together for the rest of their lives... and many went and made themselves miserable looking for this ideal in the real world.

Other cultures know about love, and value it as well. But to them, marriage is not about love in the first place. It's about securing your own future, sharing the work, get children to sustain you in your old age, it's far more elementary than a western marriage. It's about family unions, it's about gathering wealth, it's about politics, it's about social status.
They have a far more down-to-earth approach to it.

I'm not saying that their approach is better in any way, but it may be the explanation why they still go for polygamy/polyandry, while we have dropped the concept. It just fits their idea of the world and their lifestyle much better....

That or they hide away because they are the FLDS and regularly marry 13 year old girls
FLDS? What does that stand for?

And I think that marriage should be reserved for consenting adults. Age of majority only. Of any gender. I don't think parents should be signing waivers to let their kids get married. They can wait:).

Child brides and grooms...I'm not for that.

yes, well, i'm also against marriage, i think it's a flawed system. but i'm for having those people together in like a family, but that also doesn't work, for i think that a family should be the large group that people live in, rather like small villages. argh! curse the english language for not having words to explain things!
Pueblo?

And I agree. I come from such a background, where family means all of us...from the most distantly related to the closest in blood ties.

Perhaps you might care to read the article (cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/)? Even they don't "regularly marry 13-year-old girls".


oh is that THE article about the whole situation? I seem to recall reading several articles about the FLDS, which did in fact show that 13 year old girls were regularly married to men twice or more their age. You might want to try googling for some more information and not base your opinions on one piece.

I have the impression you are looking at it from the wrong side ;) You are looking at it from a "sex" perspective. Who is 'you'? Do you mean me? If so, you are mistaken...to me it has little to do with the sex aspect.

My theory is that the western civilisation fell in love with the idea that there is something like absolute, pure love for just one single human being, that a man and a woman can be made for each other. That marriage should happen because they love each other, that they will be together for the rest of their lives... and many went and made themselves miserable looking for this ideal in the real world. Yes, and I'll add to that...I also think that this romanticization of love leads to breakups, because people don't learn that relationships are WORK, and the second they start getting difficult, people think, 'This can't be TRUE love'.

Other cultures know about love, and value it as well. But to them, marriage is not about love in the first place. It's about securing your own future, sharing the work, get children to sustain you in your old age, it's far more elementary than a western marriage. It's about family unions, it's about gathering wealth, it's about politics, it's about social status.
They have a far more down-to-earth approach to it.

I'm not saying that their approach is better in any way, but it may be the explanation why they still go for polygamy/polyandry, while we have dropped the concept. It just fits their idea of the world and their lifestyle much better....
And yet, with increased immigration, and with cultures in the West who already see things this way, you would think that eventually this will become more 'normal' and allowed. I hope so, anyway. Why not? Let those who want monogamy have it. And those who want a different type of family have that. No one should be forced into one or the other model of 'family'.

My problem with this is not the polygamy, it is the view that men should be obeyed. Women should have as much power and choice in the marriage.
The men who head up the families in Bountiful make the decisions and demand that the women be demure, unobtrusive and obedient. Men rule and women are never to question their power over them.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/polygamy.html

I also have a problem with children (under the age of majority) getting married (or having kids for that matter, though hey, we all know it happens!)

My problem with this is not the polygamy, it is the view that men should be obeyed. Women should have as much power and choice in the marriage.

I'll agree with that. :) Although some folks seem to think D/s relationships are the absolute bomb... *shudder*

Polygamy, or polyandry, is generally practised by those with the wealth and influence to support a number of spouses rather than simply one. The Koran (one example), insofar as I know, stipulates that the husband must treat all of his wives the same, else he should merely have one.

The reasons for polygamy were as stated: should wife A die in childbirth, wife B... could produce a legitimate heir, thus securing wealth and influence for the family.

FLDS? What does that stand for?

And I think that marriage should be reserved for consenting adults. Age of majority only. Of any gender. I don't think parents should be signing waivers to let their kids get married. They can wait:).

Child brides and grooms...I'm not for that.

they are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

One of the leaders of the church in the US is on the run form the law right now.

Carol Anderson: It makes me uncomfortable to talk with them, to talk with members of the community who have no education who might have Grade 1 or Grade 2 and we’re talking adults, one’s with Grade 7…they don’t have an education. That makes me nervous because if you do decide you no longer want to practice polygamy or you no longer want to be in that community what are your options?

She holds daily classes for the girls where she teaches them to read and write ... and listen to some ideas they have never heard before.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/carol.html

It seems as though people are being kept in ignorance here, isolated and impressionable. In a freer society, with education, with the choice to leave if one so chose, I don't think polygamy would be represented by this sort of thing.

Also, I thought it interesting that lawyers didn't want to push the case (to prosecute for bigamy) because they felt they would lose. It would seem that a case to use the Charter to allow polygamy would probably be successful.

No doubt that would get blamed on homosexuals and the 'gay marriage issue' :rolleyes:

they are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

One of the leaders of the church in the US is on the run form the law right now.

There was a report a few weeks back on Yahoo about a FLDS dominated town that regularly ejects its young males (young teens and up) to allow for multiple wives for the older men. They've been known to dump 13 year olds on the side of the road to fend for themselves.

Overall, I have no porblem w/ P/P as long as all parties are consenting. Any other issues (dominance/abuse/etc.) are the same for any marraige.

I'll agree with that. :) Although some folks seem to think D/s relationships are the absolute bomb... *shudder*
Well...those kinds of CONSENSUAL dominant/submissive relationships are a bit different:)

Yes, and I'll add to that...I also think that this romanticization of love leads to breakups, because people don't learn that relationships are WORK, and the second they start getting difficult, people think, 'This can't be TRUE love'.



Truer words were ne'er spoken

Overall, I have no porblem w/ P/P as long as all parties are consenting. Any other issues (dominance/abuse/etc.) are the same for any marraige.
Yes. And divorce...wow...imagine the prenups! *rubs hands and considers going to law school to prepare for this* Forget taking 'half of what he owns' when there are six other wives to compete with!

There was a report a few weeks back on Yahoo about a FLDS dominated town that regularly ejects its young males (young teens and up) to allow for multiple wives for the older men. They've been known to dump 13 year olds on the side of the road to fend for themselves.

Overall, I have no porblem w/ P/P as long as all parties are consenting. Any other issues (dominance/abuse/etc.) are the same for any marraige.

Yeah I heard something about that. Apparently they get a really poor education (up to 2nd grade or some crazy nonesense) and then aren't allowed to go to school anymore so when these young boys are sent away to fend for themselves they pretty much have no education and no knowledge of the outside world, but they are well versed in construction and masonry and such so if they can find a way to ge a job doing that they are ok.

SUcks to be them though. This FLDS story is going to be big news once the story gets the aattention it deserves.

Yes. And divorce...wow...imagine the prenups! *rubs hands and considers going to law school to prepare for this* Forget taking 'half of what he owns' when there are six other wives to compete with!

well I imagine it wouldnt be a mass divorce so it probably wouldnt be that bad :P

Look at Scandinavian countries. People there statistically get laid more often.
Really? Got a source?

Pueblo?

And I agree. I come from such a background, where family means all of us...from the most distantly related to the closest in blood ties.

not pueblo, but it's very similiar in scottish culture(or i think so, i don't know too much about pueblo culture, or alteast, it's similiar in the scottish part of my family's culture, cause i'm not shure of the actual scottish culture, but only the scottish part of my family does that(well, some polish too), so it's probably scottish culture.)

Yes. And divorce...wow...imagine the prenups! *rubs hands and considers going to law school to prepare for this* Forget taking 'half of what he owns' when there are six other wives to compete with!

Don't even get started on custody. I could see a situation where one wife has children but another actually raises them... it could get weird.

well I imagine it wouldnt be a mass divorce so it probably wouldnt be that bad :P
Not necessarily. Not all of the wives are going to want divorce. But some may. And hey, the man may want to divorce a couple of them too, then marry others...I COULD BE A RICH DIVORCE LAWYER! YAY POLYGAMY!!!!

Don't even get started on custody. I could see a situation where one wife has children but another actually raises them... it could get weird.
For sure. You wouldn't necessarily be able to go with who is the biological mother...much as in native culture the aunties or grandmothers tend to raise children in common...but the law doesn't reflect that. It could though, eventually. Yes, it would be messy...but it would sort itself out eventually!

I'll agree with that. :) Although some folks seem to think D/s relationships are the absolute bomb... *shudder*

Well, the thing with D/s relationships is that they're consensual and that there are specific limits set as to what the dominant partner may and may not do. As soon as those limits are disregarded, it stops being a D/s relationship and becomes an abusive relationship. Any dom who fails to respect his/her sub is a BAD dom.

So, in short:
D/s = good (for those who are into it)
Abuse under the guise of D/s = bad! bad!
Polyamory = utterly strange to me, but presumably good for those who are into it
Abuse under the guise of polyamory = bad! bad!

Not necessarily. Not all of the wives are going to want divorce. But some may. And hey, the man may want to divorce a couple of them too, then marry others...I COULD BE A RICH DIVORCE LAWYER! YAY POLYGAMY!!!!

Well what makes you think the guy is the one making all teh money anyway? :p

Well, the thing with D/s relationships is that they're consensual and that there are specific limits set as to what the dominant partner may and may not do. As soon as those limits are disregarded, it stops being a D/s relationship and becomes an abusive relationship. Any dom who fails to respect his/her sub is a BAD dom.

So, in short:
D/s = good (for those who are into it)
Abuse under the guise of D/s = bad! bad!
Polyamory = utterly strange to me, but presumably good for those who are into it
Abuse under the guise of polyamory = bad! bad!


hehe great summary. I find these thread summaries to be quite helpful and think they should be a common thing.

Well what makes you think the guy is the one making all teh money anyway? :p
I'm not...not really. And I do envision some women would marry multiple men...or there would be multiple couples married to one another...ah, the possibilities! The divorce laws would definately have to be expanded to include all the possible combinations of divions of property, or DEMAND prenuptial agreements to make it simpler...

hehe great summary. I find these thread summaries to be quite helpful and think they should be a common thing.
Agreed. Now let's FORCE thread summaries on everyone! We can make it an NS law!!!!! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAH!

Just kidding! ;)

Just imagine the TAXES you'd be paying in a polygamous relationship! Argghh! Especially if all the adults were working!!! No wonder people call it religion and stay tax exempt:)

So, in short:
D/s = good (for those who are into it)
Abuse under the guise of D/s = bad! bad!
Polyamory = utterly strange to me, but presumably good for those who are into it
Abuse under the guise of polyamory = bad! bad!

So, to summarise the summary...

Consensual relationships are generally good.
Non-consensual/abusiver relationships are never good.

Agreed. Now let's FORCE thread summaries on everyone! We can make it an NS law!!!!! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAH!

Just kidding! ;)

Hey, they might help control thread hijacking. But then again, they might stop thread evolution....I shouldn't even use evolution, come to think of it. That might encourage another Creation v. Evolution thread. :eek: *shudder*

I'm not...not really. And I do envision some women would marry multiple men...or there would be multiple couples married to one another...ah, the possibilities! The divorce laws would definately have to be expanded to include all the possible combinations of divions of property, or DEMAND prenuptial agreements to make it simpler...


I liked the forced prenup idea.

Agreed. Now let's FORCE thread summaries on everyone! We can make it an NS law!!!!! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAH!

Just kidding! ;)


oh oh oh... can we also force everyone to type with a lisp on wednesdays and sundays?

Just imagine the TAXES you'd be paying in a polygamous relationship! Argghh! Especially if all the adults were working!!! No wonder people call it religion and stay tax exempt:)

I thought married peoples got tax breaks - perhaps whatever percentage it is could be multiplied by the number of spouses that you take on.

Hey, they might help control thread hijacking. But then again, they might stop thread evolution....I shouldn't even use evolution, come to think of it. That might encourage another Creation v. Evolution thread. :eek: *shudder*


how about we force all thread starters to summarize their threads every ten pages or else they get deated. then we can say creation is true but so is evolution and evolution is determined by the creator. i dont know why though.

Yes. And divorce...wow...imagine the prenups! *rubs hands and considers going to law school to prepare for this* Forget taking 'half of what he owns' when there are six other wives to compete with!


That raises a good question. How does one determine property rights in a poly-marriage? Do goods remain with the family, not the individual? Or does everything belong to specific individuals? What sort of pre-nuptual agreement would you have if you wanted to opt-out/divorce? Do you only leave with what you came with, with anything earned or purchased in the intervening time belonging to the family?

I've always enjoyed reading about various different kinds of marriages - Robert Heinlein often played around with concepts like serial monogamy, short term contract marriages, clan marriages, group marriages, line marriages -- many of which made the family a much higher priority than the individuals within the family. It certainly made for interesting reading, but I think that in Western society, where individual freedom tends to have a high priority, it could have a very tough sell. (Not that individuals in these family types didn’t have freedom of action and choice, it’s just that they placed family ahead of other priorities. Fortunately, with the larger family size, there were more individuals to contribute to the family in different ways, which actually allowed for a lot of flexibility.)

Anyway, away from the science fiction and back to the real world...

I thought married peoples got tax breaks - perhaps whatever percentage it is could be multiplied by the number of spouses that you take on.
Not any tax breaks I've ever seen (you know I'm not married, but my folks are, as are some of my best friends [doesn't that sound hilarious? Like..I'm not black, but I have friends who are!] and none of them get tax breaks...more like taxed MORE because their income is counted as joined, and hits the higher tax bracket). I'd like to know what these tax breaks everyone keeps bringing up are?

Yes. And divorce...wow...imagine the prenups! *rubs hands and considers going to law school to prepare for this* Forget taking 'half of what he owns' when there are six other wives to compete with!

And herein lies the problem.

I would not personally choose to live in a polygamous/polyandrous relationship. Call me selfish, call me a prude, call me whatever - but I don't see that as being something that I would be comfortable with, or that I would find particularly moral (from my own viewpoint).

I would not, however, tell anyone else that they can't live in such a relationship, should they so choose.

In the end, however, the current government rights and protections associated with marriage couldn't just be extended to these types of relationships. These relationships, should they gain government recognition, would need an entirely new set of laws. There would be no more "you marry someone and they are your next of kin." Instead, there would have to be a set process for what to do if your numerous spouses disagreed on something. There would have have to be different processes for how to split things up - who owned what, etc.

In the end, it would probably be better for people who wish to live in such a relationship to incorporate themselves, with clear contracts on how these things would be handled. The laws we have relating to marriage simply wouldn't work.

I thought married peoples got tax breaks - perhaps whatever percentage it is could be multiplied by the number of spouses that you take on.

Bah. Let's get the bureaucrats out of all of it. Why force people into preselected patterns? Geeze...

I'm for no government recognition of marriages of any kind. No tax breaks, no political advantages of any kind. You want to call yourself 'married', just do it. If you want religious sanction, get it. You want legal sanction, write up a contract, put whatever you want in it, get it notarised, and be done with it. You don't need bloody government approval for your consensual lifestyle choices.

I thought married peoples got tax breaks - perhaps whatever percentage it is could be multiplied by the number of spouses that you take on.

Not in the US. There are tax breaks associated with children, but they are different.

In the US, there are different tax brackets for married couples, but they assume a single-income household (they're old). Thus, in most middle-class families, two people who are married get taxed more than they would as separate entities.

My two-penneth...

I'm actually monogamous at the moment, because my partner said he wouldn't be comfortable with a more open relationship at the moment. We talked about it, no problem.

I'm generally polygamous, I usually have one or two regular partners and a few more casual lovers. As long as everyone talks about what's going on (I don't mean gossip) and understands that the rules are in the relationship then no problem. When they don't, that's a different matter.

I've always enjoyed reading about various different kinds of marriages - Robert Heinlein often played around with concepts like serial monogamy, short term contract marriages, clan marriages, group marriages, line marriages -- many of which made the family a much higher priority than the individuals within the family. It certainly made for interesting reading, but I think that in Western society, where individual freedom tends to have a high priority, it could have a very tough sell. (Not that individuals in these family types didn’t have freedom of action and choice, it’s just that they placed family ahead of other priorities. Fortunately, with the larger family size, there were more individuals to contribute to the family in different ways, which actually allowed for a lot of flexibility.)

Anyway, away from the science fiction and back to the real world...

Science fiction is where I first started reading about different forms of marriages as being 'normal' in futuristic societies. And I thought...why not? Surely we can create the legal contracts to work out any possible divorce/additional marriages scenarios. Science fiction has been a pretty good predictor of future behaviours and societies...it's definitely got some merit. I think science fiction helps us to realise that things have not always been the way they are now, and they may be very, VERY different in the future...so why bother holding onto the 'past', when the past itself has been so mutable?

Not any tax breaks I've ever seen (you know I'm not married, but my folks are, as are some of my best friends [doesn't that sound hilarious? Like..I'm not black, but I have friends who are!] and none of them get tax breaks...more like taxed MORE because their income is counted as joined, and hits the higher tax bracket). I'd like to know what these tax breaks everyone keeps bringing up are?


I don't know anythign about it - I was just spouting off second hand information that I heard.

In the end, it would probably be better for people who wish to live in such a relationship to incorporate themselves, with clear contracts on how these things would be handled. The laws we have relating to marriage simply wouldn't work.
Agreed, and I don't see that as a bad solution. As long as it was allowed, and people weren't being charged with polygamy, and were ALLOWED to make those legal agreements. It would be a legal mess, for sure, and I don't think it's necessary to call it marriage...as long as benefits and rights and responsibilities could be drawn into these kinds of relationships through contract, and were not denied solely because it is not considered marriage. So yeah...get out of it, government!

Bah. Let's get the bureaucrats out of all of it. Why force people into preselected patterns? Geeze...

I'm for no government recognition of marriages of any kind. No tax breaks, no political advantages of any kind. You want to call yourself 'married', just do it. If you want religious sanction, get it. You want legal sanction, write up a contract, put whatever you want in it, get it notarised, and be done with it. You don't need bloody government approval for your consensual lifestyle choices.


I agree with this completely - I was just runnign my mouth for fun

Bah. Let's get the bureaucrats out of all of it. Why force people into preselected patterns? Geeze...

I'm for no government recognition of marriages of any kind. No tax breaks, no political advantages of any kind. You want to call yourself 'married', just do it. If you want religious sanction, get it. You want legal sanction, write up a contract, put whatever you want in it, get it notarised, and be done with it. You don't need bloody government approval for your consensual lifestyle choices.
I'm starting to agree with this position more and more! Weird.

I don't know anythign about it - I was just spouting off second hand information that I heard.
And soon second hand information becomes 'fact' in people's minds...I ALWAYS hear this argument about tax breaks for married couples or for people with children...WHERE ARE THEY??? I WANT SOME TOO!!! :D

Not in the US. There are tax breaks associated with children, but they are different.

In the US, there are different tax brackets for married couples, but they assume a single-income household (they're old). Thus, in most middle-class families, two people who are married get taxed more than they would as separate entities.


oh thanks

that sucks cuz Im gettin married next year. yay, I can't wait to pay more taxes :(

we bought a house together but this way only one of us can get the tax breaks associated with that, which is what happened this year - so at least we can both get teh tax breaks for our new home next year.

we'll never have kids so thats a factor that will never figure into our taxes

My two-penneth...

I'm actually monogamous at the moment, because my partner said he wouldn't be comfortable with a more open relationship at the moment. We talked about it, no problem.

I'm generally polygamous, I usually have one or two regular partners and a few more casual lovers. As long as everyone talks about what's going on (I don't mean gossip) and understands that the rules are in the relationship then no problem. When they don't, that's a different matter.
Yes...openness is key. A lot of times, people think of polyamory as 'cheating'...but cheating is cheating...it's sneaky, it's against the wishes of one of the people in the relationship.

Many Westerners just wouldn't be comfortable with polygamy/polyandry... while for others it would be perfectly natural. Each to their own, as long as no one gets hurt! (unless they consent to getting hurt...you get the idea;))

And soon second hand information becomes 'fact' in people's minds...I ALWAYS hear this argument about tax breaks for married couples or for people with children...WHERE ARE THEY??? I WANT SOME TOO!!! :D


I try not to claim things as fact unless I know that is is in fact... errr uh fact :D

oh thanks

that sucks cuz Im gettin married next year. yay, I can't wait to pay more taxes :(

we bought a house together but this way only one of us can get the tax breaks associated with that, which is what happened this year - so at least we can both get teh tax breaks for our new home next year.

we'll never have kids so thats a factor that will never figure into our taxes
My suggestion if there will be no kids? Don't get married. You'll save way more money. If you can draw up a legal contract to make sure you each have certain rights normally endowed to married couples and get away with no being considered legally married (or commonlaw...that's a hard one to escape!) then it might work out better for you.

Of course, that might piss off your girlfriend if she has her heart set on marriage:) Ah, do what's best for you! (or have a ceremony that isn't legally binding...I'm SO against marriage, does it show?)

I'm starting to agree with this position more and more! Weird.

We'll make a Libertarian of you yet, Sinuhue! We gotta get more of us in Canada :)

My suggestion if there will be no kids? Don't get married. You'll save way more money. If you can draw up a legal contract to make sure you each have certain rights normally endowed to married couples and get away with no being considered legally married (or commonlaw...that's a hard one to escape!) then it might work out better for you.

Of course, that might piss off your girlfriend if she has her heart set on marriage:) Ah, do what's best for you! (or have a ceremony that isn't legally binding...I'm SO against marriage, does it show?)

In Canada, I think you get about three months' living together before it's considered "common-law" -- all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without benefit of clergy or paperwork. There's a potential boat-anchor on your ass...

My suggestion if there will be no kids? Don't get married. You'll save way more money. If you can draw up a legal contract to make sure you each have certain rights normally endowed to married couples and get away with no being considered legally married (or commonlaw...that's a hard one to escape!) then it might work out better for you.

Of course, that might piss off your girlfriend if she has her heart set on marriage:) Ah, do what's best for you! (or have a ceremony that isn't legally binding...I'm SO against marriage, does it show?)


That was always my suggestion too. My fiancee really does have her heart set on marriage though. To me it is only a piece of paper and what is in our hearts is all that matters.

What does getting married have to do with having kids though?

Yes...openness is key. A lot of times, people think of polyamory as 'cheating'...but cheating is cheating...it's sneaky, it's against the wishes of one of the people in the relationship.

I've been cheated on, it's not nice. The guy at the time (he's my ex now...strangely) couldn't cope with the distinction between love and sex.

That's where most westerners fall down, because most of us aren't capable of making that destinction.

In Canada, I think you get about three months' living together before it's considered "common-law" -- all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without benefit of clergy or paperwork. There's a potential boat-anchor on your ass...


In Calif. I think it's 7 years

I'd totally be a polyandrygamist

I think that the people that are against polygamy/polyandry are against it because of jealousy.

Were I to marry the right group of people, I'd want Sumamba there to take notes.

I've been cheated on, it's not nice. The guy at the time (he's my ex now...strangely) couldn't cope with the distinction between love and sex.

That's where most westerners fall down, because most of us aren't capable of making that destinction.


so true

Were I to marry the right group of people, I'd want Sumamba there to take notes.


oh so you are saying that I wouldn't be in that group of people you are marrying? hmmmmpf and stuff :p

We'll make a Libertarian of you yet, Sinuhue! We gotta get more of us in Canada :)
I refuse to be labeled! NEVER!!!!!

In Canada, I think you get about three months' living together before it's considered "common-law" -- all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without benefit of clergy or paperwork. There's a potential boat-anchor on your ass...
Yup. It's hard to not get 'caught' being commonlaw...and impossible if you have children together. It's also illegal to NOT declare being commonlaw. :(

I refuse to be labeled! NEVER!!!!!
Aha! So you are an anti-labelist. I suspected as much! ;)

oh thanks

that sucks cuz Im gettin married next year. yay, I can't wait to pay more taxes :(

we bought a house together but this way only one of us can get the tax breaks associated with that, which is what happened this year - so at least we can both get teh tax breaks for our new home next year.

we'll never have kids so thats a factor that will never figure into our taxes


Well, I would also point out that state and local taxes are different - and sometimes do seem to actually give married couples a break. There are also other tax issues. For instance, some places offer a homestead exemption, but not to unmarried couples. (Luckily, my county doesn't make that distinction - and my boyfriend and I were able to get one on our new home).

Congrats on your new home! Isn't it great (and scary and crappy all at the same time)?

oh so you are saying that I wouldn't be in that group of people you are marrying? hmmmmpf and stuff :p

Well, sometimes I start saying something, and change course mid-stream. After all I didn't know the depth of your affection...

lol

What does getting married have to do with having kids though?
Once you have kids together, you are automatically common-law. No hiding. Joint taxes.

Aha! So you are an anti-labelist. I suspected as much! ;)
DAMN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once you have kids together, you are automatically common-law. No hiding. Joint taxes.

Can you get a common-law divorce?

I'm all for Polgyny and Polyandry. So much so that I'm trying to figure out how to convince a couple of people about the idea. Not gonna happen but at any rate, I say let people do as they please, once they're old enough.

Well, I would also point out that state and local taxes are different - and sometimes do seem to actually give married couples a break. There are also other tax issues. For instance, some places offer a homestead exemption, but not to unmarried couples. (Luckily, my county doesn't make that distinction - and my boyfriend and I were able to get one on our new home).

Congrats on your new home! Isn't it great (and scary and crappy all at the same time)?

oh ok yeah I can't keep up with all these damn tax laws. hell I can't even keep up with a single tax law.

thanks for the congratulations - Yes, it's super great and pretty scary but I haven't found it to be crappy yet (and hopefully never will). I Imagine that our home being brand new cuts down on teh crappyness of it.

Once you have kids together, you are automatically common-law. No hiding. Joint taxes.


That's only in Canada though right?

Can you get a common-law divorce?
Yup, especially if there is property in common, or children. It can be just as expensive.

And Sumamba...yes, I'm just talking about Canada, though I suspect the same may be true for the US.

I am of the opinion that polygamy and polyandry is just fine 'between consenting adults' that is to say, I holw truth to eachother, how ever many each others there are, to be key. They must all have a sort of compromise/agreement. There are several scenerios to illistrate what I mean.
Simplest: each person knows if not about each other person, at least the each person has some other person, and is fine with it. The key is is fine with it. I do not think any legal action should even be possible, if one person is not fine with it, one of the relationships is jeopardized, and the other person will have to choose between the manogamy that this person desires and the polymer. That is to say, they are entitled to whether they deem eachother worthy to be a part of their life. If the polymer wants to continue polymerasing and the monomer wants to have a monogamous relationship, then it is equaly the polymer and the monomer's choice to break it off or accept the whim of the other... as long as both agree, a compromise can be met, like the polymer can be mostly monogamous for the monomer? Or they might, as I said, agree to remove themselves from the other's life.
In other words, I support whatever love may bring, as long as it is held and maintained truthfully. Other people outside the relationship are not included in those involved. Thusly if a monogamous person who is not part of the relationships criticises a polymerous reaction... I mean relationship, the monogamous person has overstepped their bounds and is trying to impose their will where they should have no right to do so. The polymers should tell that person who is attempting to impose a way of life on them to make like a dead string and stop reacting in their solution ^.^
A second scenerio, however, deals with untruth: If person A goes and macfuggles person C, but had agreed to be monogamous with person B, then it was betrayal, even if person B is later told. Person A went against the wishes of person B, and person B was allowing person A to remain a part of their life under the given circumstances. Thusly anger may be wrought apon person A, and a relationship is in jeopardy. Because of untruthfullness and the fact that it was not agreed apon. So person B has grounds to choose not to have person A in their life any further.
I certainly don't claim to be right, but basically a shortened version is just be truthful, be accepting, be kind to each other, and love as you see fit. I can't always practice it despite that I preach it, but I try...
Sorry for the chemistry puns, I just can't help it ^.^

according to my Anthropology professor, polygamy (actually, polygyny) is the most widespread culturally acceptable marriage form. Monogamy is the widest practiced because it is expensive to have multiple marriages (most of those cultures practice brideprice or dowry). The US and most industrial nations should really list themselves as "serial monogamous" marriage practice (the practice of having one spouse at a time, but changing partners once or more over their lives). Polyandry is performed in some, but very few cultures.

edit:
so yeah, I think that both are fine as long as all participants are okay with it.

Polygamy is for people who are weak and won't be able to commit to a single person. If you can't guarantee to love one and only one person for your life, just don't marry.

Polygamy is for people who are weak and won't be able to commit to a single person. If you can't guarantee to love one and only one person for your life, just don't marry.
Hey, maybe monogamy is for wimps who can't handle a little competition...

For the record, I said "Yes [other criteria must be met]" to imply that other conditions had to be met besides the necessity of it being conditional (I say this just to differentiate myself from those who are willing to support polygamy in all cases, even when forced).
Specifically, the additional conditions are aspects with regard to marriage (monetary benefit restricted to one "couple") and children (child not to be raised in a commune setting), et al.

I'd sy, look at Utah, and see why polygamy is a bad idea.
What was the name of that one clan/sect in utah that married only within the family,. and the women were often mistreated or, more of ten that...well, okay, it happened a lot. Spousal rape, physical and emotional abuse, etc...

In some places, where the proportiion of men to women is off, i can see it being practical, like, it seems like it would make sense for someting like polyandry to take place. Likewise, where the number of women vastly outnumbers that of men and such. I'm not talkin on 49/51% gap hre, i mean like, where that gap is divided by MORE tahn 10 or 15 percent...

Polygamy is for people who are weak and won't be able to commit to a single person. If you can't guarantee to love one and only one person for your life, just don't marry.

Or one recognize the benefits of having more income, more security and more adults around the children. And propably more love shared.
Marriage is just a set of rules for living together, a contract.
I don't see why committing yourself to more then one is wrong, then you have to deny the possibility of parental committment to multiple children too or friends.
Love is not something that shrinks with the number of people you love, it's just the time that is difficult to share evenly.
As to sex: No one has anything to do with what consenting adults to with eachother, that is between them.
To be able to love and share ones life with several people is something that is inevitable unless you live just you and your spouse on an island, isolated from any community.

The benefits in a spousal contract are these, but may include more:
Reduction of living expenses.
To guarantee the financially less secure partner an equitable settlement.
To properly compensate a party for his or her role as a caretaker.
To allow the financially more secure party to limit exposure in the event of a breakup.
To disclose expectations of the relationship, both financial and personal.
Distributing property in case of death or breakup.
Obligating financial support during the relationship or upon its dissolution.
Handling the payment of debts.
Dividing the principal residence upon breakup of the relationship or if one of you dies. Setting up the property ownership as 'joint tenants with rights of survivorship' will allow your partner to stay in your shared home. You'll also want to be sure both of your names are on the deed.
Defining support, custody or visitation rights for minor children (although nonbinding).
Specifying health insurance coverage. Create a 'health care proxy' that will allow your partner to make decisions about your health care in case of emergency.
Determining the right to serve as guardian/conservator in the event of incapacitation.
Establishing the right to make medical decisions.

And this is objects that may be worth considering when formulating such relationship:
1. Agreement participants
2. Primary agreement
3. Purpose
4. Property
5. Children
6. Termination of the relationship
7. Sickness and emergencies
8. Death

I think that in the old days a lot of guys would die in wars and hunting expeditions, leaving a lot of women without a husband.

That would also explain why polyandry is not as widespread.
Polygamy was originally a part of Islam for reasons of welfare. Apparently in 7th century Arabia there was a surplus of women and children. Women couldn't usually fend for themselve so they needed a husband. There were not enough men for each woman to have one so having more than one wife was legalised.

Polygamy was originally a part of Islam for reasons of welfare. Apparently in 7th century Arabia there was a surplus of women and children. Women couldn't usually fend for themselve so they needed a husband. There were not enough men for each woman to have one so having more than one wife was legalised.

That's polygyny, polygamy is not only the marriage to more than one woman. Polygamy includes both polygyny and polyandry, but may also include same-sex marriage and bisexual marriages.

What was the name of that one clan/sect in utah that married only within the family,. and the women were often mistreated or, more of ten that...well, okay, it happened a lot. Spousal rape, physical and emotional abuse, etc...

And the connection between any of these things is...?

Polygamy, rape, abuse and incest are completely seperate things.

Polygamy is for people who are weak and won't be able to commit to a single person. If you can't guarantee to love one and only one person for your life, just don't marry.
Let's turn that around, shall we? Monogamy is for people who are weak and won't be able to comit to multiple persons. If you can't guarantee to love many people for you life, just don't marry.

Just as silly when you say it that way.

That's polygyny, polygamy is not only the marriage to more than one woman. Polygamy includes both polygyny and polyandry, but may also include same-sex marriage and bisexual marriages.
Ahhhh...I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!

You know, this thread is suprisingly thin on the ol' evangelical condemnation. I think they're all busy with the "In Defence of Family" thread.

I hope I've not just jinxed it.

You know, this thread is suprisingly thin on the ol' evangelical condemnation. I think they're all busy with the "In Defence of Family" thread.

I hope I've not just jinxed it.
I know...I'm surprised actually. I think they're more worred about them there homo-sex-U-als.

I know...I'm surprised actually. I think they're more worred about them there homo-sex-U-als.

Homosexuals? Where?

Oh wait, I am one. :confused:

Hmm...no blush icon.

Homosexuals? Where?

Oh wait, I am one. :confused:

Hmm...no blush icon.
I did see something suggested in the "defense of family" thread though, and it was basically this, "The polygamists are using the GLBT community as a smokescreen to push their own agenda".

Hehehe! Dance my little homosexual puppet, dance! :eek:

I did see something suggested in the "defense of family" thread though, and it was basically this, "The polygamists are using the GLBT community as a smokescreen to push their own agenda".

Hehehe! Dance my little homosexual puppet, dance! :eek:

What dance do you dethire, mithtreth? *lopsided grin*

What dance do you dethire, mithtreth? *lopsided grin*
The dance of "Go forth and get homosexual marriages legitimised so us polygamists can sneak in the back door (no pun intended!)." It's a kind of tango. :D

The dance of "Go forth and get homosexual marriages legitimised so us polygamists can sneak in the back door (no pun intended!)." It's a kind of tango. :D

Cool. I'm good at the tango. Hubby gets upset with me because I make him dance it at parties.

get a copy of "last tango in Paris"

Never heard of that one.

Ahhhh...I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!

Semantics are important, otherwise we won't know what words mean. You're welcome.

Naturally, I gotta support polygamy, what with my national animal and all.

bump

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9***King James 1611.***
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

5th PAGE.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

Holy cocksucking Christ, four years. That's impressive.

Holy cocksucking Christ, four years. That's impressive.

And the assumption that all in the west are irrationalists is rather delicious as well...

Still fours years...can't argue with that...

Impressive gravedig.

Who can retrieve the first Jolt posting? :)

With the old locks still in place I think http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=274583 is about as old as you'll get.

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9***King James 1611.***
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

5th PAGE.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
gravedig much?

gravedig much?

You know, that spam gets fucking hilarious about 3/4 of the way through.