"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Time Magazine Comes Out in Favor of Polyandry

Time magazine, after seeking to destroy the institution of marriage entirely, now endorses "Polyandry." Initially I thought that polyandry meant doing laundry for many people, in which case I'm very much against it. But then I learned that it's actually a woman marrying multiple men. And it turns out I'm actually against that too.

"It Makes Economic Sense for a Woman to Have More Than One Husband," the headline clearly states. They say that by having many men it provides more incomes and "combats child poverty."

You know, because men throughout history have always been fairly reasonable about sharing women. No possibility of violence there, right?

Hey, remember when all those traditional marriage supporters warned that the next step in marriage was polygamy and everyone pointed and laughed? Yeah.

Hey, who are you to tell people who they can love?

*subhead*Love.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

6 comments:

djk2450 said...

...and things get worse by the day.

djk2450 said...

...and things get worse by the day.

August said...

The next step isn't polygamy, nor is it the Time lunacy either. You are not cynical enough. Lawyers need money. More partners means less money for the lawyers. No, they'll let you marry your dog before they allow poly-anything.

Donna M said...

"lateral thinking" Ask "why" these issues are "always" raised?

It is not about "up ping" the anti on existing laws, as in this case in the eyes of those that must see it a course of some "kind" of progressive evolution. But rather as, marriage being necessary at "all". Why need any permission or, supposed moral or immoral, authority to do anything at all? Just do it?

Well I'll tell you why.

Because its not relevent if they really believed in what the say.
It is the backdoor verification that the authority of institutional marriage as being sacred, relevant and valuable.
Look at all the mockery and perversions of this covenant.
Probably why it was never outlawed. That would really mess with Catholics.

Unfortunately this kind of nonsense messes with God and creation, which makes it worse.

FYI alert,
This is not just another drought. Critical drought condition in California is a direct result of the lunacy here. Pray for us. The idiots in charge are dug in and won't acknowledge their errors. Many are going to suffer because they are not preparing to acquire or access water for us.
They are not communicating info because they don't want panic and water hoarding. This is a major disaster. The water they have is being hoarded for government use not for us.

Lynda said...

If one stops believing in the truth, one starts believing in anything.

Gil Favour said...

‘Time’ magazine, January 17th 2014
‘It Makes Economic Sense for a Woman to Have More Than One Husband’
by Judith Warner

Barbara Ehrenreich: “When you say to women, to get out of poverty you should get married, my question to them is how many men (do) you have to marry. Marrying a $10 an hour man gets you nowhere, so you’d really have to marry three or four.”

The above statement makes no sense. What Barbara Ehrenreich is describing is a matriarchal society. There is no “marry three or four”, or indeed “marriage” or “husband” or “wife” or “polyandry” or “polygamy” in a matriarchal society. All matriarchal society is concerned about is who is the mother of a child. The father of the child is almost always the brother of the mother, unless the brother is too young, in which case the father will be some other close blood relative. The inseminator or inseminators of the mother will be always be from another clan. In a matriarchal society, the father of a child can never be the inseminator or one of the inseminators of the mother.

Matriarchal societies have been limited to savage societies.

All civilizations are polygamy civilizations, except for only one. Western Civilization, Minoan Civilization, Mycenaean Civilization, Hellenic Civilization, Christian Civilization, Protestant Civilization, Enlightened Civilization, and North America Civilization, forbids polygamy under any circumstances whatsoever, and limits every man to only one living wife.

In a patriarchal society not only must the mother of the child be known, but the inseminator of the mother must be known too. Western Civilization was established by marriage which combined the role of the inseminator and the father into one man.

As we can see from ‘The Iliad’ and ‘The Odyssey’ of several thousand years ago, and other classical writings, it is true that Western Civilization was not only unique among civilizations in strictly forbidding any man from having more than one living wife, but also unique in allowing a woman to have up to two living husbands.

But the marrying of two husbands was largely limited to women from the highest income classes, not women from the lowest income classes, as Barbara Ehrenreich proposes. And Barbara Ehrenreich becomes completely lost when she proposes that a woman, high income or not, be allowed “to marry three or four” so-called “husbands”. Western Civilization has never allowed that, and indeed it is physically impossible for a woman “to marry three or four” so-called “husbands”.

The purpose of Western Civilization marriage is for the husband or co-husband to share his “bed” and share his “board” with his one and only living wife, and to clothe and feed any children that are his, and for the wife to deliver to her husband a healthy son, and to deliver to her co-husband a healthy son.

It therefore follows that if a wife delivers to her husband a healthy son, she has completely fulfilled her marriage contract, and therefore has the right to take a co-husband in marriage. The woman’s marriage with her co-husband cuts off her husband from having another son, although the husband has all the daughters from both his marriage and the co-husband’s marriage. But after the woman marries her co-husband, any further sons belong solely to the co-husband. Indeed the co-husband can only have sons, as all daughters belong to the husband.

Remember, the sole purpose of a woman marrying a husband is to deliver to the husband a healthy son, and if she does so, she can decide to marry a co-husband with the same sole purpose of delivering to the co-husband a healthy son.

Post a Comment