Do you feel oppressed because the government does not currently recognize your polygamous or polyandrous marriage?
Apparently, there are some people out there who do because they show up to make their feelings known whenever and wherever there is a discussion of the same-sex marriage* issue. The pro-polygamy/polyandry folks maintain that, since marriage is a civil right that is applicable to gay and lesbian couples, it should also be applicable to polygamists and polyandrists.
Polygamy.com is just one of many organizations working toward the promotion and eventual legal recognition of plural marriage. I think their cause is a valid one and I support their efforts to expand and modernize marriage and family because I believe that those institutions must be updated to include broader options so that they do not become obsolete in this contemporary society in which women and children are no longer considered property. However, simple arithmetic makes the goals of the plural marriage movement separate from those of the marriage equality movement.
The recognition of same-sex marriages only requires that the current marriage laws be made gender neutral. Many of the marriage laws have already become gender neutral as a result of progress toward womens' empowerment, so making civil marriage a gender neutral affair between two people it is not that great a legal leap.
It is quite understandable that polygamists and polyandrists see the recognition of same-sex marriage as being a justification for their cause, but the marriage laws were designed to stipulate obligations and responsibilities and to confer benefits and protections for only two people. Many provisions and revisions would have to be made before our marriage laws will be able to adequately and fairly accommodate marriages between more than two people, regardless of the genders/orientations of the group.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Frankly, I have no desire to have more than one wife. One is enough for any sane man to deal with.
But despite that I can think of no legal, moral or ethical justification for prohibiting multiple marriages of whatever sort. Marriage is a contractual arrangement entered into by adults. You can form a limited partnership for a business with 2 or 200 people involved, so why not a marriage?
Dave
2 - Victor Plenty
I hear ya, Dave. In fact I've often thought Seinfeld had the right idea in that episode when Jerry and George combined their efforts, and for the first time were finally able to keep up with the time and labor demands of a relationship with one woman.
Polyandry makes a lot more sense than polygamy in today's world.
It could particularly be a good idea in China, where the government's one-child policy, combined with a cultural preference for sons, seems likely to produce a situation where men vastly outnumber women.
3 - polyman
POLYGAMY IS NATURAL AND NORMAL.
HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE NOT.
4 - Margaret Romao Toigo
There's already a shortage of women in China and the Chinese government is trying to do something about it.
5 - Bennett
This is well done, Margaret, as always. I caught some of the circus on the other thread and think your overall response via this post is brilliant.
Keep up the great work!
6 - Bill B
I'm curious to see whether or not the woodwork floodgates will open with those against gay marriage also coming down against plural marriages. You'd think so wouldn't you?
Maybe not.
I don't have a problem with it except you'd probably need nametags on the toothbrushes.
As pointed out it does pose some interesting questions though none that couldn't be hashed out.
I'm all for people pursuing their happiness as they see fit. Many opposed will point to negative data about such arrangements but I'd bet they'd likely be the result of problems with the PEOPLE involved rather than the structure of the families.
7 - Keep the Facts Straight
A couple corrections need to be made here.
First, polygamy is either polygyny or polyandry. The author's differentiation is only between those two subsets of polygamy. It is not very accurate to say "polygamy and polyandry" - it is either polygamy alone or it is the two subsets.
Second, as anyone who can quickly see, not only is the "Polygamy.com" site NOT an "organization" and is not doing anything at all, the site is nothing more than an old site that has not been updated in years and years.
Except in rare cases, most polygamists are only looking for de-criminalization with marriage as a civil right just because government has no real constitutional authority to define marriage one way or another. Government has no constitutional authority to define marriage at all, whether for one man one woman marriage, for "same sex marriage" or for polygamy. The government that is allowed to define marriage as one man one woman is just as much authorized to later define it as "same sex marriage" or anything else. It is ironic how the party of limited government (Republicans) turns into the party of big government (Democrats) on the marriage issue, and they do not see that obvious fact.
For real details of what real pro-polygamists are doing in real time currently, see these sites:
Pro-Polygamy.com
A media site of op-eds and press releases that has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal
TruthBearer.org
An actual organization of activists that
has been reported on Pat Roberton's 700 Club and other media outlets
Those 2 sites also include links pages to more activist sites.
8 - Winston Jen
OK, Polyman, how do you account for all the homosexuality occuring naturally amongst other animals in nature?
9 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Keep the Facts Straight, thank you for the clarifying the terminology and for contributing your perspective of the issue.
I visited both Pro-Polygamy.com and TruthBearer.org, but I was looking for something more secular and diverse. The literature over at Polygamy.com includes the Christian perspective as well as many others.
The purpose of the article, however, is to point out that the fight for the recognition of same-sex marriage is not the same as the one for the recognition of plural or group marriage because the marriage laws are designed for pairs and would be unworkable for groups of three or more.
10 - copperpenny1954
Mentioning books, try "Under The Banner Of Heaven". Websites, go to Tapestry.com
11 - Principle Voices
Great post! We at It is true that the same sex marriage issue is about gender neutrality. The similarities between the same-sex marriage issue and polygamous relationships is that both have been considered "criminal" (albeit in varying degrees from state to state), at least until Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized private, adult sexual conduct. That recognition of privacy with regard to adult sexual conduct should be applied to polygamous relationships as well, in that consenting adult, committed relationships that are polygamous in nature should not be criminal. Whether or not they should be formalized with legal recognition is a separate issue.
The authors of Voices in Harmony can be found at www.principlevoices.org, which is an organization that disseminates educational materials and information to the public, the state, and to the polygamous communities, and advocates for the empowerment of plural families to have a voice in policy-making and social activism.
12 - Lono
my wife and practive polyandry. She handles most of it, really. I pitch in with towels and socks and stuff though.
13 - Jewels
Polyandry, I seriously have considered the incredible benefits. Have the individuals in question in-line. One already snagged. Yep.
14 - Modern Polygamy
Multiple husbands can get more complicated than multiple wives. "Not tonight honey I have a headache." x5 "Who is your daddy?" Although having multiple incomes would be nice. However, if you are christian the Bible clearly puts the husband at the head of the household. That is not to say that the wives don't have a crucial role in the relationship. To think of them as servants is just wrong.
15 - Bob A. Booey
Marriage is a sham, an archaic legal construct that artificially defines relationships. The only reason to do it is if you want to have kids.
I don't see why people would want to marry one person, much less multiple people.
The only reason to marry more than one person might be if your spouse was infertile, but polygamy sounds weird. Most psychologist types seem to think it's hard enough to have one successful relationship or marriage, much less several. People get jealous, which is why you shouldn't have threesomes either by the way (not that anyone reading this will ever have to worry).
And I hope my girlfriend never reads this and asks me "Who the hell is Bob A. Booey?"
That is all.
16 - Investigating Life
Apparently, the author did not read the Pro-Polygamy.com site, despite comments to the contrary. It is a general, secular site that goes to the mass secular media.
The "different" views of other religions on Polygamy.com is little more than oudated copied stuff that does not reflect other views at all. It is only a site thrown up quickly years ago and does not reflect all polygamous views or "diversity" as the author here wants to imply.
If a legitimate author is going to present the issue, they should present legitimate sites. There is no credibility for an author to simply type "polygamy.com" in a browser and then saying, "There! I have my resource because I found a site by that one simple word."
17 - Investigating Life
For those needing real homework:
Mormon
MormonPolygamy.com
PrincipleVoices.org
18 - Investigating Life
Christian
TruthBearer.org
ChristianPolygamy.INFO
19 - Investigating Life
Secular
Pro-Polygamy.com
2Wives.com
20 - lgil
I need real practical information. I am considering secular plural marriage and want to investigate the day to day challenges of this kind of situation. I want to know how most marriages work out the sexual intimacy issues on a daily basis. How do they work out jealousy issues? What are sleeping arrangements etc....
21 - Dave Nalle
You might want to look to the Moslem scholarship on the subject since many Moslem countries allow polygamy with up to four wives. I believe studies have been done on the family dynamics of these relationships.
Dave
22 - Anthony Grande
Legalize polygamy AND elect Rommey as president then move our capital to Salt Lake City as long as we overturn Roe v. Wade and give states the RIGHT TO CHOOSE abortion for themeselves.
23 - lesia
All of it is just another excuse for a useless man to have more than one wife.
When it comes to women doing the same, they suddenly all get holy and it becomes a abomination.
How one set of people think they can pick who you want to be with is arrogant beyond belief.
But this is what religious nuts can excuse anything as long as you do what they say not as they do.
24 - ferrit
Marriage is a legal contract between a male and female . 2 people how can the law make it work for more that 2 people .i think thiers no reason to have that kind of marrige legal. society has unuogh promblems with sexual deases why would we want to go out of our way to condone sleeping around . a man have sex with 5 people is the same as not being married or bieng married and sleeping with more than one woman. regardless of religion its imoral and cant be in the best interest of children . soceity has unuogh pormblems with dysfuntional homes raising children , why would we say yeah go ahead take on more than one wife and have tons of kids to pay child support for . children need a loving mother and father to raise them not 5 moms and one dad they have to share with ten kids .the man would have to share his time equaly to 15 people. were not wolves we dont live in packs . its a nature defense to not want your mate sleeping with anouter person thats nature . cant defy that . a man that has multiply wifes woulnt want one of thier wifes sleeping with anouther man right . and in america we are suppose to be free so then wowman would have to be able to marry more than one husband . this isnt africa were aids runs ramped . were they have more than one wife and those wifes give birth to babies with aids . this modern world i thuoght we were passed these barbaric practices here in america why do we want to bring old school back. not for the good of society that for sure. but for people that are gay being gay is normal and if both person our mutaly gay then its ahealthy arrangment between 2 gay people. and the law it made for pairs perfect let them be married .if a man wants to sleep around be a woman user fine but dont legalize it and help these cults grow that brain wash woman . i would never share my man with anyone i am worth more than that. and i dont want some elses ..... juice if ya know what i mean on me thats just disguisting sharing like that. give a man a blow xxx after hes been in someone else . then be responsible for some elses kids and share your wealth with his other wifes ? and kids . a man would have to be very rich to offord all that and why would anyone want to share that with other people ? and other peoples kids . and have to conform to what other woman want and husband may as well get nockted up sue said man for child support than get a couples of room mates and live with em with your kids . that about the same thing , livng a hard life single but ya have a couple of room mates helping you and no attention from a man . same difference. woman need lots of love and attention .how much love does a man need ? if a man had 5 wifes and lets say to be sexualy healthy you need to do the nasty 3 times a week . so to satisfy all 5 woman then he would have to due this 15 times a weeks . not too mention i need help with our son says wife number one, i need help with our doughter says wife number 2. you never have sex with me says wife 3. you never cuddle with me says wife number 4. how does he attend to all this and work and spend time with all the kids ? its hard unuogh to give attention to one wife and one kid . wel the wifes due it all iam assuming while the guy.... who does the husband love more does he love them all equal who does he enjoy more ? why would you want to cuddle with 5 differnt woman . a man wants sex love companionship all the same with each woman i doubt it ita all sex and woman waiting on him and hand and foot and woman raisng all the kids . if the poeple in the sistuation loose thier jobs , and lets say only one person has a job then a big faimly to support . encourging men to make tons of kids he cant support . the court system has unuogh problems lol. just is crazy woman have rights now a days . its the brain washed ones that believe in this . barbaric ways .
25 - peachperry
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 living 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 fornicator and fornicatress 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.
(A common prostitute is a woman who commonly offers her body for acts of lewdness for payment. An act of lewdness can never be an act of carnal copulation, as it is blasphemy to state that the Angel Gabriel and Mary committed a lewd act. The common law of england states that it is impossible for any woman to be a prostitute under any circumstances, but that a woman may continue on to be a common prostitute.).
A fornicator/fornicatress and adulterer/adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress 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.
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. 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 future payment of a kid from his flock, and therefore gave as his pledge, 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.
That was because if Tamar was made with child by the second son, and if such child was a baby son born of Tamar, then under the law of the Hebrews that baby son born of Tamar was the first born baby son of the dead first son, and not any baby son of the second son, despite Tamar having conceived that baby son with the second son. This meant that if a dead man had no son, but still had a widow and a brother, then the widow and the brother should ignore consanguinity, and if the brother was already in wedlock, bigamy, in order to give the dead man a first born son.
(The ancient Hebrews were a people of eastern civilization who accordingly rejected the concept of demos, and therefore practiced bigamy by the males. The ancient Greeks were a people of western civilization who accordingly accepted the concept of demos, and therefore practiced either monandry or diandry by the females.).
Upon the death of his second son, Judah had ordered his daughter-in-law Tamar not to marry again, because Judah promised Tamar that she would marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his promise 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, although it was against the law to put a woman to death for harlotry. Tamar came and 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 promise and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar would 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 and the midwife tied a red thread around the son’s hand which first appeared out of the womb. But then the hand was withdrawn into the womb and the second son, Pharez, without the red thread was born first, and the first son, Zarah, with the red thread was born second.
Ruth 4:18-22 King James 1611.
King David of Israel and Judah was descended from Pharez, and the red hand flag of the Ulstans and Scots shows the Red Hand of Zarah. The red hand is often shown on a white six pointed star, but it is not clear whether this star is a Star of Pharez (Star of David) or just a Star of Ulster.
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 who have daughters or sons, as the children must provide for their mother.
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 in marriage, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader in marriage. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:15&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.
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.
1 Corinthians 9:5 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. But do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was never in wedlock with any woman, despite all Jesus’ Twelve Disciples being or having been in wedlock with a 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.
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.
Not only did spartan women routinely have two husbands at the same time, but Sparta herself always had two kings at the same time, as Sparta had two separate royal families. This dual monarchy (there are no other words to describe it) came from the Agiad Royal Family and the Eurypontid Royal Family.
Although some greek city-states had matrilineal descent, Sparta had patrilineal descent like most greek city-states. Accordingly a Spartan woman practicing monandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her daughters and to her sons from her living sole husband at nine months previously. A Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her old daughters from her living old husband at nine months perviously, give patrilineal descent at birth to her old sons from her living old husband at nine months previously, and give patrilineal descent at birth to her new daughters from her old husband at nine months previously. But a Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her new sons from her living new husband at nine months previously.
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 POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS TRIGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS BIGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MAHOMETRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUTILATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS INFIBULATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS EVIRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUSICOS
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS PRIESTCRAFTRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MARIOLATRY
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 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.
4th. 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.
5th. 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.
6th. 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.
7th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
8th. 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.
9th. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a person’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
11th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
12th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
13th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.
14th. 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.
15th. 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.
16th. 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.
17th. If any child, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his 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 so offending shall be put to death.
18th. If any stubborn and rebellious son, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son 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 so offending shall be put to death.
19th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.
20th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.