But his neanderthal of a wife is also a walking contradiction.

Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story
Divulges Ann Dunham was ‘very young and very single’ at birth of U.S. president
Article: WorldNetDaily

In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.

Michelle Obama explained her husband understands the struggles of low-income families.

“He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother,” she said.

“Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister,” Michelle Obama said.

Her remarks about Dunham being “very single” when she gave birth to Barack Obama were also quoted last year on a blog posted at MSNBC.com. The remarks, however, contradicted previous claims President Obama made about the circumstances of his birth.

Later in her roundtable comments, Michelle Obama stated her candidness might get her into trouble:

“So in my famous Michelle Obama honesty that sometimes gets me in trouble, I have to say that when Barack approached me, when he was seriously considering this run for president, I said, ‘No way. Absolutely not. Please don’t.’“

Yeah right, MicHELLe. You were about to kick that faggot to the CURB until you found out he was going to be in a position of power. Don’t lie. We can see right through you. You’re all about the status. The taxpayer funded dinner dates, trips overseas, family vacations, and grotesquely hideous outfits by designers who clearly have NO idea what they’re doing. Sorry, the article continues:

According to Hawaiian documentation, Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr.

Dunham, a white American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., was 18 years old at Obama’s birth. Obama Sr. was a foreign student from Kenya, which at the time was under British jurisdiction.

The official story claims Dunham and Obama, Sr. were married Feb. 2, 1961. The pair separated two years later and they divorced in 1964. Obama’s father returned to Kenya and saw his son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982.

In actuality, it isn’t clear Obama’s parents were married, since official records have never been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.

In his book “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage,” former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Andersen elaborates: “There were certainly no witnesses (to the alleged civil marriage ceremony) – no family members were present, and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling that they were even engaged.”

Andersen further quoted Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, a self-described friend of Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, as saying that “nobody” was invited to the wedding ceremony.

Obama himself, on page 22 of his autobiography “Dreams from My Father,” wrote of his parents’ wedding:

“In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I’ve never quite had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it’s not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard.“

Obama’s birth story is further complicated by the fact that when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii at 23 years old in September 1959, he already had been married, since age 18, to a Kenyan woman named Kezia Aoko, who was allegedly pregnant with Obama Sr.’s first child when he abandoned her in Africa in 1957.

Obama Sr. ultimately had four children with Aoko. WND staff writer Jerome Corsi concluded there is no evidence to suggest Obama Sr. was divorced from Aoko either in Kenya before he left for Hawaii or in Hawaii prior to the alleged marriage with Dunham.

On page 126 of “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama Jr. described his father’s marriage with Aoko in a quotation in which Dunham says, “And then there was a problem with your father’s first wife … he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal documentation that could show a divorce.”

Dunham apparently was suggesting bigamy was not involved in her alleged marriage since Barack Obama Sr.’s marriage to Aoko was a “village wedding” that possibly would not have been recognized as legitimate by Hawaii civil law. Barack Obama Sr. was reportedly a polygamist who had at least four wives, including Ruth Nidesand, who Obama Sr. met at Harvard and became his wife after she followed him back to Kenya.

Evidence challenges claim over birth address

In addition to questions about Dunham’s marital status, WND previously uncovered documents strongly suggesting Barack Obama Sr. and Dunham did not live at the address listed in birth announcements in two local papers – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu.

But WND has confirmed the house at that address was owned and occupied in 1961 by another longtime resident Hawaiian couple. Moreover, throughout the time he was in Hawaii, Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment at 625 11th Ave., within walking distance of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he was enrolled for studies in the fall term 1959.

Raising further questions, WND also reported Dunham was registered for college classes in Seattle only 15 days after reportedly delivering her first-born child in Honolulu, according to school records.

The Bigamist Bride: My Five Husbands (Channel 4, 22 October) was a strange affair – as, indeed, were many of those experienced by serial bigamist Emily Horne, the focus of the programme.

The tone for the documentary was set when Emily, proudly – sometimes defiantly – describing her multiple relationships to the camera, said of one partner:

“Then I realised that ten-pin bowling would always come first.”

Emily seemed genuinely to think that marriage was something to be dipped in and out of, and to see the shock of others’ reactions to be the odd thing.

Her tale, though, wasn’t as interesting as she obviously thought it was. One of the problems was in the deadpan delivery of most of the interviewees – including former partners and ‘husbands’.

They appeared to be a pragmatic bunch, getting on with their own lives. But this meant their straight-to-camera accounts were long and quite dull, devoid of exciting tales or emotion.

So the programme makers decided to spice things up by inserting black and white drawings of the characters involved engaged in the actions being related in screen.

A cross between agony columns in 1970s girls’ magazines and A-ha’s Take On Me video, the drawings were a frequent, and bizarre, intrusion into what was supposed to be a serious programme about bigamy.

And they did little to make the programme more interesting.

No wonder the narrator sounded like he was talking into a microphone whilst dressed in his pyjamas and holding a cup of Horlicks. We felt like going to sleep ourselves.

It was a disappointing part of the usually thought-provoking Cutting Edge strand – but at least it cured our insomnia.

Muslims are fundamentalists and terrorists

Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists.

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims.

In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces. Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:

1. Definition of   the word ‘fundamentalist’ A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following.   For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person  to  be  a  good  scientist,  he  should  know,  follow  and  practise  the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same One  cannot  paint  all  fundamentalists  with  the  same  brush. One  cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any  fundamentalist  will  depend  upon  the  field  or  activity  in  which  he  is  a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim funda-mentalist I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from  being  a  fundamentalist.  I  am  proud  to  be  a  fundamentalist  Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole.

Many people harbor misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam.If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’ According  to  Webster’s  dictionary  ‘fundamentalism’  was  a  movement  in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century.  It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.

It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes. According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ’strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’. Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Mus-lim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror.The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists.

Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti- social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’ Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot.

Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters. It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

7. Islam means peace Islam is derived from the word ’salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world. Thus  every  Muslim  should  be  a  fundamentalist  i.e.  he  should  follow  the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

Islam , Religion of Peace  ??

Polygamy :: Misconception about ISLAM !

Why  is  a  man  allowed  to  have  more  than  one  wife  in  Islam,  i.e.  why  is polygamy allowed in Islam.

1. Definition of Polygamy

Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygamy where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question,

why is a man allowed to have more than one wife?

2. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture in the world that says, “marry only one”. The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives. In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no  restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives.

The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate o Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

(*Interesting  Note:-  As  per  the  1975  census  of  India  Hindus  are  more polygynous than Muslims. The report of the ‘Committee of The Status of Woman in Islam’, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961 was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife.

Despite it being illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.)

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

3.   Qur’an permits limited polygamy

As I mentioned earlier, Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth that says ‘marry only one’.  The context of this phrase is the following verse from Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.” [Al-Qur'an 4:3]

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds.  Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

“Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women….” [Al-Qur'an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception.   Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do’s and Don’ts:

(i)     ‘Fard‘ i.e. compulsory or obligatory

(ii)    ‘Mustahab‘ i.e. recommended or encouraged

(iii)  ‘Mubah‘ i.e. permissible or allowed

(iv)    ‘Makruh‘ i.e. not recommended or discouraged

(v)     ‘Haraam‘ i.e. prohibited or forbidden

Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be said  that  a  Muslim  who  has  two,  three  or  four  wives  is  a  better  Muslim  as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

4. Average life span of females is more than that of males

By  nature  males  and  females  are  born  in  approximately  the  same  ratio.  A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women.  The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.

5. India  has  more  male  population  than  female  due  to  female

foeticide and infanticide India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in

which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.

6. World female population is more than male population In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

7.  Restricting  each  and  every  man  to  have  only  one  wife  is  not practical Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty  million  females  in  U.S.A  who  would  not  be  able  to  get  husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays).

There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband. Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only  two  options  remaining  for  her  are  that  she  either  marries  a  man  who already has a wife or becomes ‘public property’. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first. Most women would not like to share their husband with other women. But in

Islam when the situation deems it really necessary Muslim women in due faith could bear a small personal loss to prevent a greater loss of letting other Muslim sisters becoming ‘public properties’.

8. Marring a married man preferable to becoming   ‘public property’ In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected

life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honorable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry  a  married  man  or  to  become  ‘public  property’.   Islam  prefers  giving women the honorable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygamy, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.

Melanie Griffith  bravely faces up to her demon

Melanie Griffith, 52 year old actress is fighting to stay healthy and beat the demon of addiction by checking herself into rehab. According to reports this is Griffith’’s third stint in rehab in her battle against prescription drugs to manage her pain from a neck injury she sustained in around 2002.

Griffith must be commended for her determination and her openness about her struggles. We’re here for you pal.

Kim Kardashian

Kim Kardasian, reality star, is thinking of creating another reality show in which she is mostly behind rather than in front of the camera.  The show which is yet to be named is scheduled to be aired in 2010.

Kardashian, 28, says going behind the camera, “is the next step in my career. I’ve always wanted to get into producing. After my reality TV show is done, the next step is producing. I definitely see myself in the producing chair.”

She says her on-camera experience has prepped her well for the role of producer. “I’ve definitely seen the ins and outs of reality TV. I definitely love reality TV shows. It’s something I’m passionate about.”

Kardashian says of the possible series, which will be comprised of 30-minute episodes, “It’ll show all the ins-and-outs or PR. It’s going to be really fun. It’ll show how there’s lots of drama and crisis in the PR world.” 

Miss girl shows up after 7 years.

Jaycee Dugard who was kidnapped when she was 11 years old shows up at the Police Station in Concord a suburb of  San Francisco, an  18 year old woman and claims to be the missing girl who disappeared from her Lake Tahoe area.  Of course everyone is a bit skeptical and keeping things under rap until DNA testing is complete.  They are 99.9% sure it is her but must establish her identity.  What a blessing for the parents if it turns out to be their daughter.  These second chances do not happen often.
 

Whitney Houston Back in the Driver’s Seat

The fans are loving Whitney Houston and her latest musical offering.  The pundits are speculating that she will hit No.l 1 when the album is released. And don’t call Whitney a comeback kid – she does not like that. She said she has always been a singer and always been there so this is no comeback this is just doing what Whitney does – sing.

Marriage Spree by Indian Engineer

An Indian man thought he could get away with marrying as many women as he liked but the Indian authorities caught up with him after he married almost six times over a period of two years.  What is the benefit here? dowry?

Police in the city of Mumbai arrested and charge him with forgery and polygamy.

Tushar Waghmare, an engineer with Air India, allegedly kept all his wives in the dark about their counterparts.

He was arrested after his sixth wife went to the police when she discovered he was married to someone else.

Mr Waghmare is being kept in custody until 29 August. He says he married three times and never deceived anyone.

Serena Williams Opens Up in New Book

Tennis superstar, Serena Williams has unloaded the burden she carried since the violent death of her sister by shooting,  in a new  book entitled “On the Line“.  The book is about many things but centred on the loss of Yetunde Price, her favourite sister. Williams said she never confided in her family about the impact the loss had on her and that she was secretly undergoing therapy to deal with it.

Other important aspects of the book has to do with her own self-image and some of the parts she does not think is flattering and like most women suffers from self-esteem issues around weight and body size.

“I think every female does that. We think we look good one day, and then the next day – or the next minute – we’re insecure about something. Sometimes I look at myself in the mirror and am like, ‘I want to lose my inner thigh. I’ve got to do an hour of cardio today,’ or whatever. I try not to do it, but the insecurity comes back sometimes. I do want to look good still; I do want to be healthy.
Williams thinks her thighs are too big and her arms too muscular – too thick.”
 All I can say she is a typical woman who always finds a reason to find fault with their perfectly beautiful bodies.  (Serena William and sister, Yetunde Price (r)

Dear Tushar Waghmare,

You, sir, are an idiot.

I concede that there are some grounds for your idiocy. Trying to get away with illegal and immoral acts because somewhere, somehow, religion encouraged you to do them (and it frequently exhorts you to only too plainly, I admit) is a time-honoured tradition in just about every culture on Earth.

But that does not mean you get a  free pass. If you’re going to be a bigamist with six different women, kindly do not whine that if you were a Muslim instead of a Hindu, the Indian government would let you get away with it. For one thing, my tiny-brained little studmuffin wannabe, the Koran has procedures about this sort of thing. Do not try to tell Me that you attempted to follow them. Indeed I’m not sure you could follow them if you tried, as you do not seem very bright to Me. To wit:

Telling your wives that you are divorced, showing them faked documents to that effect, and then, once you are caught, claiming that you didn’t deceive anyone is a LIE. It is not even a logically coherent lie, so I cannot even give points for ingenuity.

I repeat, sir: you are an idiot. There is keeping an open mind on social customs – a trait which in theory I admire – and keeping such an open mind that your brain falls out of your balls – apparently its normal place in your anatomy. This is a  trait which in practise I never admire. From your pathetic attempts to weasel out of responsibility, I can only deduce that you are both brainless and ball-less.

Hoping for your sterility on evolutionary grounds,

LuciFish.

ABRAM BARLOW JEFFS, KEITH DUTSON,

LEHI BARLOW JEFFS INDICTMENTS

WARREN STEED JEFFS, LLOYD HAMMOND BARLOW, RAYMOND MERRIL JESSOP, ALLAN EUGENE KEATE, MICHEAL EMACK, MERRIL LEROY JESSOP

INDICTMENTS

Have you loved more than one person at the same time?

I suppose I should make a distinction between “in love” and “loving,” but is that necessary, really, if the net effect is the same?

When you’re involved with multiple people, you’ve got double the pleasure. Maybe. You certainly have double the trouble. And then some.

However deeply felt (and sincere) the emotions, our culture disapproves of loving more than one person at a time. Or at the very least, acting on it in the open. There’s no question it’s complicated. And there are the issues of fairness, and morality. But what about hypocrisy? ‘

What do we accept?

Serial monogamy? No problem. “A little on the side?” Likewise. Simultaneous sexual partners or love interests, particularly if you’re single? We seem to admire that in men; less so in women. But again – it’s either praised, or tolerated.

Simultaneous spouses? That’s a vocal – and legal – no.

So what do you do with feelings for more than one lover? And it’s much more than great sex? Perhaps there are visions of a future, or you’re already committed to one of the parties. Or both. Now what?

What makes us “fall” anyway?

There are limitless reasons that people bond – sexually or emotionally. There’s the ever elusive “chemistry” that ignites passion, or a foundation of friendship that builds into a full-blown relationship. There are as many tender and torrid tales as there are couples, brimming with collisions of inexplicable exchanges, signals and sparks.

Think back… it’s so good…

Do you remember your first love? Or your latest “great love?” The details that slayed you? Maybe it was the way a curl fell across his forehead, or his steady voice on the phone when you told him you lost your job. Maybe it was the way she rubbed your temples when you had a migraine. Or just a look. A single glance that did you in.

Everything seems new – oh, it’s crazy good!

How do we allow more than one person in, at a time?

If you’re committed and happy with one person, it seems impossible that another could make his or her way into your heart, right? But it happens. All the time.

Human beings are complex; our needs are not simple, and neither are our desires.

What if chance, destiny, or whatever you call it tosses more than one amazing person in your path? What if two people fill your needs in a way that is irresistibly and more fully you? And your attachment to each, genuine and passionate?

Hedging our bets

In a world where connections are easily made and more easily abandoned, we hedge our bets.

One glimpse at the online dating world and that’s clear. We string along second and third choices in case our “first choice” slips away. We juggle – people and their stories – trying to keep it all straight.

Is it really a big deal?  Why not a dizzying dalliance here and another there, and points of comparison? After all, we have friendships with both genders, and more than one at a time. Why not multiple lovers simultaneously, until one “emerges” and takes priority?

When it’s love, not sowing your wild oats

Does loving more than one person mean a life in the shadows? Is it fair? Can it be helped? Is it just a matter of passion?

I believe it is possible to love more than one adult, intimately. After all, we love more than one child at a time, don’t we? Isn’t it the same principle?

Infidelity and more

Love one person, sleep with another… it happens all the time.

Intimacy is trickier. There’s a real connection,  body and mind. Families and friends come into play; lives are intertwined.

At the far end of the spectrum, multiple committed relationships may lead to bigamy. More often than not, it’s a matter of infidelity, without venturing into legalities.

It’s the sort of thing films delight in

Remember Same Time Next Year? Lovers meet annually over the course of decades. No one’s the wiser, and no one gets hurt. For many, long-term lovers and mistresses are part of the marital landscape, though meetings are far more frequent than an occasional tryst.

Consider Two Lovers, with Joaquin Phoenix and Gwyenth Paltrow, in which we see love grow in divergent directions for the main character.

One woman is more exciting (and unreliable), while the other is “a wiser choice.” Both strike at the protagonist’s heart.

Before either of these films came 1953’s The Bigamist – perhaps one of the more compelling, and enduring depictions of loving times two.

When love won’t let go

I know men who have loved more than one woman at once. Likewise, the so-called more delicate sex.

Is there always one choice that “makes more sense” as in Two Lovers?

Some may think that continuing with dual loyalties is an issue of cowardice, or of ego and selfishness, putting one’s own needs before the feelings of the others involved. But what if it isn’t? 

I know what it is to care, deeply – even briefly – about more than one man. And I’ve watched friends agonize over picking their “permanent” partner, because bigamy isn’t a viable option. And loving two people includes not wanting to hurt either of them.

Long-term infidelity

As for long-term infidelity, it’s the (obvious) answer for many. As a lifestyle, it’s filled with drawbacks, for all parties concerned. Birthdays and holidays that can’t be shared. No way to “be there” when the one you love is ill.

And of course, the secrets that carefully separate one world from the other.

Difficult decisions

So where do we go with that? If you’re the one who loves two, or one of the two who are loved? Just leave it to time and life to sort out, or make a difficult decision? And then there’s the issue of discovery, if you’re the one who’s been kept in the dark. It’s the stuff of TV movies, but for some, reality…

..

© D A Wolf

..

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

For a change I was happy. I was single, I was making good money, I had an excellent lover, and I liked it that way. My soul mate was a charming southern boy with the cutest accent, tall, brown eyes and not much hair. Didn’t care, loved rubbing my clit all over that bald head and would do it again today if given the chance, and I may get that chance too. Damn but we shook the place when we made love, which was often and long and hard. For some strange reason he always said “I’m sorry” after he came and I could never get an answer as to why. Was he sorry he came, well hell, so was I!!  But man, I wasn’t sorry about the loving.

In case I hadn’t said yet, he was married. I have this thing I guess or maybe because there are so few single men to chose from, but really, who the heck cares? There was a reason I found married men.

We tried to keep our affair quiet from the department for a while. But everyone just seem to see something or maybe we weren’t really trying to hide it that well. I for one didn’t care if anyone knew it, our jobs weren’t really in danger and I didn’t have to worry about the other guys hitting on me.  The only person I really didn’t want to know was his wife, simply because I didn’t want to be in her place and I didn’t really want to hurt her. I kind of got some hints from others that maybe I wasn’t the first, so she wasn’t too surprised I’m sure.  At one Christmas party we had, I had gotten pecan pies for him because he loved the ones made at a certain bakery.  He put one of them in his car when I brought them in. His wife and I both, well, everyone really, got drunk on our asses and had a conversation in the bathroom where she begged me not to take him from her. I wished I had, and am glad I didn’t or couldn’t.

When he left the party, he sat down in the pecan pie that he had left on the drivers seat.

Another time, we were in a tornado,  and the part of town they lived in was shut down from everything while the part I lived in had water and electric. They came and spent two days with me and boy was that a blast. I never slept a wink either night with her in bed with me and him asleep on the couch. It should have been the other way around and if either of us had taken that chance, we may have wound up differently. But in the long run, he wasn’t perfect either. She set me up on a date with her brother once and after we went back to my apt. I had asked my lover to fix my shower head for me. The brother took off. I had a picture of me and lover boy on my tv stand that I didn’t want her to see so I went first and moved the picture before they got upstairs. He and I went in the shower so I could show him what was wrong and she stayed in the living room. She knew there was something strange about the tv stand and turned the picture over and saw me sitting on his lap. She stormed out of the apt yelling she hoped both of us rotted in hell. She told us that a few other times too.  It was a fantasy of ours she would catch us in bed together. I guess he was a chicken shit for not actually doing something but like I said, I didn’t care.

We eventually moved to another state, all 3 of us, and the affair went on and life went on. I was still not settled in my bi-polarism in that I never had quite the right meds. Prozac, man I was on that shit for a year and I don’t even remember that year. Nothing about it, a total blank. I had suicide attempts, some deep therapy, and new drugs would make me okay for a while. It seems like the changing of the seasons would set me off and I learned that sun therapy sometimes helped. But nothing really helps if you don’t keep it up.

I guess you can count him, or not, as husband no. 3 because we did go out of state and get married one year. Of course, the marriage wasn’t legal, he was already married, but that didn’t stop us. It was kind of a spur of the moment thing, but we did it. I still have the marriage license to prove it.

We made two more moves to other states and different police depts and life settled into a routine. Once a month we would get caught by his wife somewhere and I wouldn’t see him for a couple of days. I messed the sex more than I really missed him. Are they one and the same, guess so since I couldn’t have that without him. There were times I was sure he was seeing someone else, but they never lasted long. I pulled a gun on him one time and he returned that another time. We fought, we made love, we made love, we made love. God I still miss that man. We were together a total of 13 years.

Eventually, and of my own accord, I decided I needed a change. I didn’t stop loving him, I just needed a change. So I moved back home for a while. I had missed my family and didn’t see them often and just needed their support for a while. I would go to see him once a month or he would come to see me.

About six months after I’d moved back home, my mother had her stroke. I didn’t get to go as much anymore since I was taking care of her, and our visits tapered off. Eventually, I got lonely and horny.  I didn’t have a computer at the time and lived in this rinky dink little town. One day I saw an ad in the paper for some kind of call in dating service and I did just that. I dated one guy and then the second one kind of swept me off my feet.

Enter husband no 4.

Serial bigamist sets sights on hubby No 6?
SHE had just been hauled to court to face charges of bigamy – for marrying her fifth husband.
29 June 2009

SHE had just been hauled to court to face charges of bigamy – for marrying her fifth husband.

But British woman Emily Horne appears unstoppable. She has moved in with another man.

The 31-year-old former glamour model, dubbed the ’serial bigamist’ by several British newspapers, has been married five times, but only her first one 13 years ago is legal.

She has never bothered to divorce her beaus.

Her latest squeeze is glazier Wayne Harper, 30, whom she met when he visited a casualty department for treatment, reported the Daily Mail.

She returned to the home he shares with his parents and has not left.

But his mother has vowed to stop any possible wedding.

Mrs Barbara Harper, 66, said: ‘Wayne wouldn’t talk about things like marriage to me. But I would step in if they say they want to get married. No way.’

Mr Harper’s close friend was quoted saying: ‘Emily latched on to Wayne in the hospital and has never let go.

‘He was excited by the attention, while she seems to have mistakenly got the idea he was well off. He only found out about her past in the paper this week, but he’s sticking by her. He’s just happy to have a girlfriend.’

Originally from York, she first married in her home city’s register office a day after her 18th birthday in 1996 to soldier Paul Rigby, also 18. It was her only legal marriage.

But when Mr Rigby returned to York from a five-month army posting soon after they wed, Horne had disappeared.

She went on to have four more bigamous, and thus illegal, marriages to men in different places.

When she was jailed for six months for bigamy in Ipswich in 2002, she was called ‘a very predatory female’.

A psychiatric report suggested that she was suffering from manic depression.

She has a pending hearing on 27Jul for her bigamous marriage to Mr Ashley Baker, her fifth husband.

If found guilty on the latest charge, Horne faces seven years in jail.

But what did the men see in her?

Her first husband was smitten with her.

Recalling their whirlwind romance, Mr Rigby said: ‘She manipulated me. She did all the running. We were both standing there looking out the window at her place and she said, ‘Let’s get married.’ I said, ‘Why not?’

Her web of lies continued with the other men, some of whom she proposed to, while others married her out of pity after the sad stories she spun about her life.

Sob story

Mr Baker, who learnt about her bigamy on their honeymoon when she confessed, said: ‘She told me she had womb cancer and that she was really ill. I believed her – and we decided to get married.

‘It was after the ceremony that she told me she’d been to prison and took out the newspaper cuttings. She said the marriage was real in her heart – and that was all that mattered.’

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=32169.1

Ex-model jailed for bigamy, again
SOME people collect shoes. Others, like Emily Horne, collect husbands.
25 June 2009

SOME people collect shoes. Others, like Emily Horne, collect husbands.

On Monday, the 30-year-old former glamour model was hauled to a British court and charged with bigamy.

The court was told that she had been married five times but only her first marriage,13 years ago, was legal.

Now the serial bigamist faces seven years in prison after pleading guilty to her latest illegal marriage, according to reports in UK newspapers.

Here’s a list of men she married:

# Dec 1996: A day after turning 18, she married Mr Paul Rigby, a soldier in York. He was posted away and when he returned home five months later, she had left him. They split, but no divorce.

# Feb 1999: She wed bank worker Sean Cunningham, 33, in Leeds under a false name, Emily Lecont. She soon abandoned him to move in with his pal, Simon Thorpe, who proposed to her.

She did not marry Mr Thorpe.

# Dec 2000: While living with Mr Thorpe, she met Mr Chris Barratt, a website designer from South Yorkshire.

She used the name Emily Horne again. Police were alerted and she was cautioned for two offences of bigamy in Aug 2001.

That marriage ended in 2002, and she moved to Ipswich.

# March 2002: On a train journey, she met rail worker James Matthews, 34. She moved in with him, proposed to him by text message and married him four weeks later. After a week, she admitted she was still married, to three men.

Mr Matthews alerted the police after Horne walked out on him three months later – for his best friend (that relationship fizzled).

In 2004, a psychiatric report suggested she suffered from manic depression.

Then, the judge sentenced her to six months in prison and described her as ‘a very predatory female…a woman exploiting a man’.

# Sept 2007: She wed husband number five, Mr Ashley Baker, in Oldham. She only told him she was married on their honeymoon.

The case was adjourned to 27 Jul.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=31849.1

Chicago Tribune, December 4, 1915. Telling little snapshot of what life was like before the liberalization of divorce laws. I wonder what the charge might have been had there been no children in the household to “protect.”

Coincidence: last night I finished the Afghan Khaled Hosseini’s novel A Thousand Splendid Suns, about the two wives of a shoemaker in Kabul. It is terribly hard to keep reading, because the shoemaker is a violent brute. Fortunately, I must say, the oldest wife kills him when he tries to strangle the youngest.But I finished it half past one in the morning, couldn’t stop reading, wanted the women to be well. Well, the youngest ends well, the oldest is trialed and shot by the Taliban for killing her husband. She accepts her fate bravely.

This morning while working, through Twitter I saw a message of Colombia Reports. A shoemaker in Colombia also lives with his two wives. With the first one he has nine children and with the second six. They live in the same house, as the two Afghan women in Kabul do.

The guy seems quite satisfied with the situation although it is hard to feed two wives, his mother, who also lives in the house and the 15 children. The women however, although they try to be brave, are not so happy. They think they just have to accept. But one wonders why they do. Firstly: get pregnant so often. In Colombia, a woman has a choice, you can’t blame just the guy. And secondly accept the situation of bigamy which is hard for them.

The Afghan women both marry the shoemaker when they are about 14. They have lost their family and in Afghanistan as a woman alone -and so young – you have no way to go. The oldest, Mariam, is forced to marry the shoemaker. She is the illegal child of a rich man, who doesn’t want to take care of her after her mother’s death. The second one, Laila, is in love with a boy about her age, Tariq. But the shoemaker, who takes care after her after her parents’ death, contracts a guy who arrives at the house to tell the story that  Tariq is dead. Laila believes the guy, feels that she can go nowhere and marries the shoemaker.

At first the women are enemies, but because of the shoemaker’s awful treatment – they are often beaten and in an extremely cruel way – they become accomplices. After Mariam kills the shoemaker, they are both free, although Mariam has to pay with her life.

The Afghan women finally escape from the situation, the Colombian women, I don’t know what will happen. One would wish that they both find another guy, who really cares about them. But with so many children, that is not easy. It seems they just surrendered to the situation. That is hard to understand.

While browsing through the Placement Blog, I came across Coal India Limited’s Management Trainee Joining Form. It is a 26-page document with so many blanks to fill in declarations, personal details and professional details, etc. But, what surprised me is the declaration that the new employee has to sign at the time of joining:

• That I am married and have only one wife living.
• That I am married and my husband has no other wife living.

CIL MT Joining Declaration

I was wondering, how come the wife will declare that her husband has no more wives? Does that imply, that a female trainee can have more than one living husband? Moreover, does she know every thing about her husband’s life and personal relationships? Why does the employer need to ask such kind of questions?, which has more to do with the personal life than the professional one. How does disclosure of marriage help in seeking better employees?

If this is the law of the land, that your husband should have only one living wife, then how come Chief Minister(s), Central and State Minister(s) have multiple living wives? Not only that, there are enough sitting MPs and MLAs, who have multiple living wives. Even Celebrities and Film Stars too have multiple simultaneous relationships. Is it a fashion meant only for people who can afford it? Is it a necessity for power game? I am not going to write the huge list of people who have multiple (living) marriages here. This is because, I do not want to encroach some one’s private life and make that public. It is not a personal vendetta, rather an ideological battle.

There are couple of questions which came into my mind.

1. If it is considered as a part of law under IPC to have only one living wife, then what prevents the state machinery to block them from power? Is it not a double standard?
2. How can people (netas/leaders) with multiple wives decide whether their followers will have one or more wives? I mean to say, that most of these people in power wield these laws meant for aamjunta, when they themselves break these laws.

Aamjunta, what do you think?

Note: I do not advocate the thought of Bigamy or polyandry. I am still an eligible bachelor

Updated: May 14, 2009

In spite of weak attempts by P. Klotz, Jr., and and a commentator who hides behind the pseudonymn, local yokel, to undermine my article on the Gazette’s website, people who believe in polyamory, polygamy, polyandry and a number of other relationships involving more than two people are gearing up to use gay marriage laws to fight for their right to marry more than one person.

Once the definition of marriage has been changed to mean two people of the same sex, what is to stop it from being changed to include three or more from the same sex or three or more from both genders? Gay marriage proponents are clearly bigoted against such people and hypocritical in not asking for the right for these people to marry as well.

I don’t always agree with Jim Tedisco, but actually he did a pretty good job making this argument, even though the person who posted this video on YouTube complains that Tedisco was equating bisexuality with polygamy. I don’t believe he was. He was arguing that if gays have the right to marry, then a bi-sexual should have the right to marry one person from both sexes if they so desired.

Here are are just a few of the thousands of websites and blogs which advocate for polygamy and polyamory. Some, but not all, of them want the marriage laws changed and plan to try to change marriage laws using the same arguments that are now being used by proponents of same sex marriage.

Vermont Polygamy

The Plural Life

Practical Polyamory

Principle Voices

forthefamily.us

My Journey In Plural Marriage

Modern Pharisee

Jewish Polygamy

Original Post Of May 11, 2009

Here is the first paragraph from my op-ed piece in yesterday’s Gazette. I have already taken some heat for it, but I was expecting that I would.

You can read the rest of it here. Comments are closed on this post because I would prefer you left comments on the Gazette’s website.

I oppose same-sex marriage. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it. I do agree with gays, however, on one point — the current marriage laws do discriminate against them. According to one report I read, our current laws deny more than 2,000 legal benefits to homosexual couples that heterosexual married couples enjoy.

This is not a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments start from a principle geared towards a specific proposition or issue and moves logically in the direction of less likely applications of the principle. While the inherent strengths and weaknesses of slippery slope arguments may be debated, there are some arguments that form what I’ll call – clumsily, i admit – reverse slippery slopes. While the unlikelihood of slipping up a slope may seem to undermine the term, though this would be inconsequential (and perhaps would lead people to stop referring to such arguments with a term that tends to have a trivializing effect), the arguments here are stronger. These aren’t cases that could arrive decades after an initial judgement or law, depending on changes in social mores. These are rules that, considering the evidence, should have preceded the laws and judgements in question.
The alleged right of gay couples to be married might seem to many, especially adherents to the substantive due process understanding of the 14th and 5th amendments, a matter of fairness. Why should gay couples be treated in any way differently from heterosexual couples? (Ah. Would that the gay lobby could bring a lawsuit against God or Mother Nature!)
Here’s reverse slippery-slope argument 1. In about half the stated in our union, first cousins are allowed to marry. In some of those states, only first cousin couples in which one of the mates is in fertile are allowed to marry. In about half the states, marriage between first cousins is not permitted.
This can only be considered a reverse slippery-slope because this is not a hypothetical issue. Slippery slope arguments use hypothetical examples that may or may not come up in the future. The example of first cousin marriage has come up. The laws in about half the states, barring first-cousin marriage have not been overturned. I’m not sure whether any federal or other law compels these states to recognize first-cousin marriages that have been attained in the states where such marriages are legal. So far this recognition issue is certainly a big part of the marriage argument where gays are concerned, suggesting that, if cross-state recognition of first-cousin marriage is mandatory, another aspect of the issue is waiting down the road.
Arguments for first-cousin marriage aren’t somewhere in the distant hypothetical bottom of the metaphorical slope. They are not the issues and answers that should logically follow the case for allowing gays to marry. They are the answers that should have preceded this case. These are the left-behind people one sliding down the slipper slope might see if he or she turns his head to look up the slope, whether the slope is being descended slowly, quickly, or even not at all.
On what grounds could half the states in our union disallow first-cousin marriage? Arguments for procreation have been silenced (though this does beg for the government to state clearly it’s interest in marriage). Contraception or laws against fertile first-cousin marriages would take care of this, but they don’t need to. (I would argue that gays are basically celibate since they cannot have sex – in the meaning of the word before it was deformed) and therefore allowing gay marriage would be allowing celibate marriage and recognizing it’s possibility. Then why not allow first-cousins to marriage? Even the medical evidence, from the little I’ve read, about first-cousin offspring is not definitive.
Still, progeny cannot be an issue anymore. A first-cousin marriage can give as much love, care, and nurturing to an adopted child or a step-child as any gay couple could. In fact, the first-cousin couple has probably been together in some way for a longer time, if only as loving relatives, than any gay couple (presumably since childhood) and is more likely to stick to form a union that endures at least until the upbringing of the children is complete. What arguments can there be against first-cousins marrying? Before gays are given the “right” to marry, first-cousin couples in states where there marriage is not permitted should be heading to the state and federal courts with a army of A.C.L.U. lawyers at their side, and that army of lawyers should be just as passionate in their advocacy of these couples as they would be in their advocacy of gay couples.
This is reverse slippery slope. If anything, it’s the first-cousins who should have “first dibs” here. They’re the ones who have history, culture, and even the laws of half the states on their side.
Their fight should have come first – logically speaking.
Although this may seem like a similar issue, and is likely to sound sensationalist or elicit charges of hate or Santorumism, all incest laws are the second most likely points of attack, points of attack that should have preceded the arguments in support of gays marrying. Why shouldn’t any two adults be allowed to marry? Why should two unrelated men, but not two closely related men, be allowed to marry. Not only is there the government and social recognition of their relationship involved; there is also the matter of taxes and coverage on health insurance policies. A married couple, under the right circumstances, saves money on taxes. A spouse can be covered under the partner’s health insurance plan. Why shouldn’t a father and son be allowed to marry if they’ve lived together and loved each other for years. They are no less capable of producing biological offspring as any gay couple. They are in fact, as are first-cousin couples, probably more likely to supply a loving and nurturing environment in which to raise children.
If there’s a trend in courts today to pay close attention to the laws of other nations, they should consider the status of these different incestuous marriages in other cultures and under different legal systems. The first-cousin argument is strengthened here. Muslim countries recognize and Islam allows marriage between first cousins. As the number of Muslims in the U.S. increases, isn’t it likely that state laws forbidding first-cousin marriage will be challenged? Even if the right of gays to marry is never established or favored in the U.S. (but especially if it is) wouldn’t these Muslims have a strong case – especially since half the states already allow such marriages?
As for marriage between closer relations – certain to be deemed more outlandish and more of the classic slippery slope argument (though I would argue that the favorable conclusions are found in the opposite direction of the usual slippery slope argument – here perhaps belaboring the “reverse slippery slope” idea. Apart from the simple issues of fairness and application of due process – perhaps even genuine due process (procedural, not substantive) – there is the argument of history. There is far more evidence of heterosexual incest being accepted in society at various times and in various places than there is of homosexual relationships being accepted. In Ancient Egypt, brothers and sisters of royal families, and perhaps other families, frequently married. The books of Genesis and Exodus contain examples of incest or situations that would have required incest for the narrative to continue (the usual question of how Adam and Eve could have had grandchildren). There are certainly strong arguments and theories doubting God’s approval of, any lesson defending incest, or even the existence of incest in these Genesis and Exodus stories. Old Testament stories are usually subject to a wide variety of interpretation. Still, if the Old Testament, along with Islam and Ancient Egyptian history, have contributed to our culture, they would be relevant in the usual course of court arguments, a course that, much to our loss, favors any kind of reasoning that is not based in the Constitution or can appear based in the Constitution only with the most profound examples of dizzying sophistry.
A history of incest would be relevant here. Even with the story of Absalom slaying his half-brother for raping their sister need not be deemed an attack on incest. It could be an attack on rape. It could be an attack on Absalom’s petulance. (The academic cousins of our legal scholars might even argue that this was simply a matter of rivals. Absalom himself desired the woman and slew his half-brother out of jealousy or disgust with his rival for having “spoiled” the woman he loved.)
Bigamists will have very strong arguments too if any right of gays to marry is established in law, and opponents of marriage for gays (I can’t bring myself to put together the words “gay” and “marriage,” in case you haven’t noticed) have been warning that polygamists are going to make some strong cases in the upcoming years. I think the more logical step, one that should have been dealt with before the marriage of gays would be the matter of adult incest. While arguments against closer relations marrying might seem more outlandish, the logic, and the fairness issue, is there. Much more strongly though, with absolutely no reason to be ignored anymore, would be the rights of first-cousins to marry.

Just yesterday I was reading yet another passage in my Bible that described a King of Israel that had many wives. If you’ve ever read the Old Testament you’ve come across this time and time again. David, Solomon, Gideon, and Jacob all had multiple wives. In fact, when you look through the history of the Israelites it seems as though it was only the very rare man that had one wife. If these were really God’s people how could this possibly be true? Is Polygamy just something that Christians don’t think is right so they say that it is against God’s will? Was Polygamy ok with God until the New Testament? After all, you would expect to see something in the Old Testament that said something like God saying “You are a whole race of people who are committing Polygamy, now I will strike you with something”. Like he did when they did other things right?

So I began looking for verses that talked about this very subject. Scripture that could dictate a clear answer. In my study I found an amazing number of passages that could easily be clearly used to demonstrate the clarity of God’s will in this matter. But if this is supposed to be such an important doctrine I wanted to see if there were statements in scripture that were undeniably clear.

For the average Christian this whole topic isn’t much of a question. It’s something they take at face value. They believe that whether it took place in the Old Testament or not, it’s wrong now. In addition to the supporting scriptures The New Testament clearly declares polygamy as a sin. (Romans 7:3, Mark 10:11-12, 1cor 7:2, Eph 5:31, 1tim 3:2, 1tim 3:12, titus 1:6)

For the most part that is rarely ever in question. The bigger question for most people is “Was it ok in Old Testament times, and if it was ok, how could it be?”

Some of the greatest and most Godly men in Israel had several wives. Hey, take a look at Solomon! This is a guy with 700 wives! (1Kings 11:1-3) But the thing to remember is that just because a great man of God does something (don’t forget, this is the guy who God chose to build his temple) or the Bible describes him doing it, does not mean it’s the right thing to do.

When the flood was over, and everyone got out of the boat, the Bible tells of how this great man of God, Noah, planted a vineyard, made wine got drunk out of his mind and passed out naked in his tent. Is God saying it’s ok to go home, strip down and pass out bare naked on your bathroom floor? No, In fact the bible offers commands over and over again about not getting drunk (often specifically with wine). It’s just telling the story, the truth of what happened. Not telling you to follow his example.

Solomon was in a similar position. He was in a great position of favor with God. God had given him more wisdom than any man ever had in addition to great wealth and favor of men. He expanded and grew his kingdom. And he chose him as the man to build his temple. But Solomon, a man who was supposed to be a great man of God also violated the law. Deaut. 17:17 A command regarding the kings of Israel says “He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.” And 1Kings 11:1-3 Says that exact thing happened.

1 Kings 11

¹ King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. ² They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. ³ He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

It describes the history of Solomon and how he acted, but even here it tells of how he violated the law in Deut. 17:17 and it caused him to fall away from the will of God. Just because a man of God did something in the Bible, doesn’t mean it was right. We are to learn from the actions of those described in the Bible. If they lived by the Law – to learn how to be more like them, if they violated the law – to learn how to avoid those circumstances. First we must know the Law – God’s will for our lives.

There are those who would take issue with this particular scripture to say “That was a command that stood only for kings.” While that might be true, the point of the passage isn’t to say “The king should be limited and all the people should have the freedom to do whatever they want.” That of course makes no sense at all in any culture. In-fact the exact opposite is true.

While many of the people may have practiced polygamy, it was still against God’s will. So God was calling the King to live a life above reproach, and in that way be able to challenge his country to do the same. As opposed to what has the tendency to happen, and what did happen. The king rises to power and says “well, the common people have rules that they have to follow, but as the king I am above the common rules and entitled to a few extra privileges. The rules for the kings are to set the tone for the common people as well.

Leviticus 18:18 is another great verse that talks about this subject. It says “Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.” For anyone who would like to offer the argument that this verse talks about a specific situation, I can agree on one level, but I also believe that this verse is a part of establishing a basic principle. Saying “Do not take another wife because they will become rivals and this is destructive to any family environment.” This is more than a simple supposition.

It says in 1 Samuel 1:6-7 “And because the LORD had closed her womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. ⁷ This went on year after year. Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the LORD, her rival provoked her till she wept and would not eat.” You can read the whole chapter to get an even better chapter of what’s going on here, but I believe this is an example of the law laid out in Leviticus 18:18 being broken and the consequences that happened as a result. The similarity in the wording is no coincidence. I think anyone who came before God and said, “but hey, you just said I couldn’t marry them if it was two sisters, you didn’t say anything about two cousins, or two strangers!” I think the response would come with a solid smack upside the head “What’s wrong with you? Haven’t you ever been in a relationship? The point was to not create two rivals, whether they are sisters, friends, enemies, or strangers. I mean come on man, how would you like it if you were one of two husbands?”

That’s the kind of thing Jesus said all the time when he was here. He came to explain how the principles of the law actually equal the law. Things like if you’re angry at a man, you’re guilty of murder, and if you’ve looked lustfully at a woman you’re guilty of adultery.

In addition to those previous passages most of the Polygamy passages in scripture speak of intermarriage with people other than Israelites. In the case of kings it is alluded to that they would acquire women from different cultures, almost for simply for the sake of doing so. We know that the common people were constantly being scolded for such impropriety both during times of exile and national unity.

Some of the commands against intermarriage can be found in: Deuteronomy 7:3, Ezra 9:14, Ezra 10:2, and Nehemiah 13:27. Intermarriage was often a way for other cultures to bring their pagan gods into the houses of Israel and lead many people away from the worship of the one true God.

Nehemiah 13:26 Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women.

(Again, the bible telling us that one of the greatest men of God was also one of the most prolific polygamists of all time but that we should follow his Godly example and not the example of his sin. )

It’s not that polygamy could not be entirely “in-house” but I believe one of the greatest downfalls of this sin is that, by and large to the even greater down fall of intermarriage with foreign cultures who worshipped foreign Gods.

And now the big question… So why was it permitted? Who says it was? Over and over again the Bible shares accounts of God being angry with the Israelites for turning their back on God. It doesn’t always speak in specifics, simply that Israel has violated God’s Law. Frankly, that’s enough said. For more information, please see God’s law.

There is a lot more I could say on the subject. There are many more verses and passages I could cover. The Bible certainly has a wealth to say about it. The point I want to make sure everyone understands is that the Old Testament makes it very clear that Polygamy is a sin (with, of course the clear support of the New Testament). Beyond even these few passages we’ve explored here, there are many more that can be looked at to clearly understand God’s will in this area, but I will leave those to perhaps another time.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of—oops, wrong story—I’ll start over:

I’m posting this letter in its entirety, just as it was written, mailed and received more than 15 years ago, on the off-chance that the relationship at that time between me and two of my older sisters might be of interest. Fifteen years ago we were the only members left from a family comprised of two parents, one step-father and seven children (two boys and five girls). Not all at the same time, of course, because the total fluctuated with new births and deaths. Now the family has dwindled to one—I’m the last one standing—that’s not too unusual, since I was the last one to join the family. It’s a classic case of “last one out, last one up.”

San Antonio Int’l Airport
February 22, 1994

Dear schwesters,

Schwesters is German for sisters. It gets worse. You are schwesters to me, but to Alta you are schwesterschafts, or sisters-in-law. And you thought being a schwester was tough! So that’s our German lesson for today and will probably be our only German lesson, because I’ve forgotten almost everything else (except for a few of the naughty words).

President’s Day has come and gone, and I’m sure we are all the better for it. A school teacher was telling her class about George Washington, and how he was “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” A kid in the back row (probably little Johnny) hollered, “Yeah, but he married a widow.” That was funny when I was a kid. I never really figured out just why, but it was funny. We told it over and over, and it got funnier every time we told it.

It’s 7:30 in the evening and I’m at work, waiting on a flight from Mexico City. I worked 8-5 today, but stayed to work the 6:30 flight on overtime. So the 6:30 flight is now an 8:00 flight. I guess they had a maintenance problem and left Mexico City late. I sure wouldn’t have stayed if I had known it would be late. I’m having trouble keeping my eyes open and my mouth shut.

Hey, the Lotto jackpot for tomorrow is up to 40 million dollars, so maybe by the time you read this I’ll be up to my ears in money. Don’t really know what I would do with it. Can only drive one car at a time, or live in one house at a time, or wear more than one pair of pants or one pair of shoes at a time. I guess I could have more than one wife at a time, except Alta would take a very dim view of that. Speaking of wives, Oscar Wilde has been quoted as saying, “Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.” No doubt about it, that Oscar was a clever fellow with words.

A guy who recently won $7 million here in Texas was told that $7 million won’t  buy happiness. He said, “Maybe not, but it’ll make one helluva down payment.” Or as Jackie Gleason said when told that money won’t buy happiness, “Just give me the money and I’ll do my own shopping.”

February 25, 1994

Well, I’ve been gone 3 days but now I’m back, and I’ll bet you didn’t even miss me!  It’s Friday now, about 3 p.m., and I’m working the day shift. And I’m NOT up to my ears in lottery winnings. The $40 million was won by a black 36-year-old female city bus driver in Houston, Texas. Only one winner. Her first check was for $2,100,000, and she gets one just like that one every year for the next 19 years. Pretty hard to take, huh!

The lady I work with (Doris) went home with me for lunch and we stopped at a garage sale. I bought a large (14 inch wide) Fostoria punch bowl with 15 cups for $30. I asked the lady before I bought it if it had any chips, and she said no. I got to the car with it and found a chipped place on the rim, under the piece of masking tape that had the price marked on it. So I took it back, pointed out the chipped place, and she gave back my money. I wanted to tell her what Mama always said, that “You’ll go to the bad place just as quick for lying as for stealing,” but I didn’t. Maybe it was just coincidence that the tape was placed exactly over the chip. Yeah, sure it was! If you believe that, you’ll believe anything, right?

We had lunch with Alta, got back to work, and Doris had a new price list on Fostoria that came in the mail while we were at lunch. The bowl is listed for $240 and the cups are $14 each. In other words, I could have bought $450 worth of Fostoria for $30, and didn’t because of a teeny-tiny chip! So I called Alta, gave her directions to the garage sale and told her to go buy the bowl and cups, and to play ignorant and try to get them cheaper because of the chipped place. It’s probably been sold by now, but she is going by there just in case. I’ll let you know how this turns out, probably in a few minutes. Isn’t this exciting? See how bored I am? And I don’t even like Fostoria!

Told you it would just be a few minutes. Alta just called. She bought the Fostoria, but didn’t have any luck trying to jack down the price. So I now have an extensive collection of Fostoria – 16 pieces! Are either of you interested? That doesn’t look right. Is either of you interested? Still doesn’t look right. Anyway, if either of you is/are interested, I’ll make you a great deal – just $300 for all 16 pieces. You’ll get a 33 percent discount of the estimated value and I’ll make a profit of 900 percent—such a deal! Just don’t look under that piece of masking tape!

I’m kidding, of course. I’ll let either of you have the set for $250. And if that’s too much, I’ll give it to either of you, but you’ll have to pick it up in person at our house. And if you both show up, I, with the wisdom of King Solomon, will divide the 16  pieces equally – one half of the bowl for each of you, and seven and one-half cups for each of you. That way you’ll have to get together when you want to party. You can stick the bowl and one cup back together, then split them up again afterward.

February 26, 1994

Looks like I’ll never finish this one. Just to bring you up to date on the Fostoria punch bowl—I had a time finding the chipped place on the rim when I got home. Seems like the “lady” sanded down the rough spot after I left, and told Alta it didn’t have any chipped places. I guess I’m going to have to add garage sales people to my list of less than trustworthy persons. They rank right up there with used-car salesmen, insurance agents and realtors.

The Winter Olympics are over, and I’m sure you’re as happy as I am. I’ve had enough of figure skaters to last me forever. Did you hear about the commercial Tonya Harding has with a baton company? “Who says nothing beats a great pair of L’Eggs?”

All the medal winners in figure skating are coming to the Alamodome in San Antonio in June. Alta wants to get tickets, but she’ll have to get someone else to go with her. Too many people, and too much hassle getting into town and back out again. They built the Alamodome right in the middle of downtown San Antonio where parking was already at a premium. People use Park and Ride areas, then take a city bus to the Dome. And they wait sometimes for two hours and more for transportation after the game is over. Not me. No way. I’ll stay home and watch it on television.

Did I mention that I got a scanner for my computer? Well, I did, about two weeks ago. I now have the capability to scan in just about anything, change it in just about any way I want, then print it out. Maybe I’ll add a few photos to this letter— a picture of the house perhaps, so you’ll be able to tell the taxi driver where to stop when you come to visit. Lauren just had some really nice school pictures made so I’ll try a shot of her also, and maybe one of Landen.

The scanner is a lot of fun. I put in a recent snapshot of some friends ofours, a couple we knew in Donna, and spruced them up a little—took all the lines from the lady’s face and neck, touched up her hairdo a bit, de-wrinkled him and took the light reflections out of his glasses, straightened his eyebrows and gave him a full head of hair (he is nearly bald). Boy, they look great! Yep, I’m having fun with the scanner, but I’m not making any money with it, naturally.

It’s about 3 p.m., and I’m at work. Nothing to do, as usual. We have three flights from 9 to 11, 1 at 3 p.m., then nothing else until 6:30 p.m. Saturdays are nothing days, because we do no administrative functions, just work international arrivals, and since they drop down to almost nothing on Saturday, our biggest problem is staying awake. I guess I’ll stay and work the 6:30 flight—not because I want to and not necessarily because I’m needed—it’s mostly because I get paid double-time for the overtime and it counts on retirement, so I’m not turning any of it down.

Did I mention I bought a barbecue grill? Did. Didn’t want to but I did. The results are not worth the effort of getting ready and cooking and cleaning afterward. But I got out-voted on the matter. Alta wanted me to get one, so I did. I feel a bit better about it because I discovered a great way to clean the grill. No muss, no fuss. We grilled two nights ago and I put the cooking grate between newspapers, hosed them down and left the grate in the yard overnight. My dog Mikki got the paper off and you wouldn’t believe how clean she left that grate—it was ready for the next cookout.

What is it they say about necessity being the mother of invention? I have accidently invented a no-cost hands-off way to clean barbecue grill grates. Well, there would be some initial cost to my system if a person didn’t already have a dog, because they’d have to go out and buy one – unless they could borrow one from a neighbor. Come to think of it, that might well be an ideal entrepreneurial enterprise, renting out dogs overnight to serve as barbecue grate cleaners, with special rates for a full weekend. I know there are some companies which have rental guard dogs, so maybe the guard dogs could be utilized for my system and do double duty for the renter.

Hey, don’t laugh! Just look how much money the hula-hoop and the slinky and the pet rock made for the people who invented them. And I saw on television that some people in a small town near San Antonio have begun selling manure—no, not artificial manure but real manure, bono fide manure, as in horse-apples and cow-pies (dried, of course) sculpted in the shapes of animals. They give them such names as turdles (get it?), doo-doo birds (get it?), barnyard bagels (get it?), cow-pie pigeons and other shapes and names I don’t remember.

The odiferous objects d’art are intended to be placed in flower and vegetable gardens to enrich the soil as they slowly dissolve in the rain and sun and wind. I know – you’re wondering who did the sculpting, and how. So am I, but I don’t want to know bad enough to call the station and ask. Anyway, I believe if people will go for manure in the shape of animals, my COMBINATION BARBECUE  CLEANER AND BURGLAR  CHASER should be a winner.

Guess I better wind this thing down. I’ll take it home, add some photos on Sunday and mail it on Monday.

Lots of love, from all of us and ours to all of you and yours.

 10:52 pm

I Squandered Your Money in the Name of the Lord- Geezus.  Nowadays you just can’t trust anyone with your money. That no good sonofabitch Bernie Madoff took his friends for millions and they can’t do any thing about it except watch him get pillaged in a prison cell.  The crooks at AIG wrote rubber policies all over town, now they’re begging for goverment cheese.  And, the greed mongers at the big three aren’t much better as the American auto industry is about to nose-dive into bankruptcy, and the stock holders are stuck on a sinking ship with no life boats in sight.  With no light at the end of the financial tunnel, there’s always faith and prayer, but that might not work either, at least not at this church.

 A former bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints allegedly operated his own private Ponzi right out of his papal palace over the past 15 years, and he hit his flock for millions of dollars, in the name of the Lord of course. A lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Denver by the SEC alleges Bishop Shawn Merriman, an unlicensed broker, swindled more than $20 million to support a lavish lifestyle.  Authorities say Merriman had several classic cars including a priceless Aston Martin, 1932 and 1936 Auburns and a 1932 Ford Highboy.  Also seized were  artwork that included Rembrandts and other Old Masters, other cars, artwork, a lavish home in Aurora and two properties in Idaho.  “People just want to believe, and in some cases, even when the scam is exposed, they don’t want to talk to us because they believe the guy instead.  The guys who do these things are very smooth, very convincing, but not this one.  We busted his ass big time and all of the prayers in Mormonville can’t help him”  (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_re_us/ponzi_scheme_seizure).

Merriman, a former stock broker, allegedly began an investment fund in 1995 that employed an aggressive strategy, but he quickly lost all of his start-up capital.  He started other shady funds to hide his failures and cover withdrawal requests.  Merriman showed investors a single-page document and promised returns of 7 to 20 percent, according to court documents.  He also allegedly walked on water, claims to have weekly conferences with the ghost of Joseph Smith, and he boasts a harum of 17 wives that all put out.  With those kinds of miracles working for him, he should have been promoted to Pope. 

Clinical Approach (or formal introduction)

Its not that frequently one gets to see a play by a Padmasharee Playwright & Director, in a premier show, by invitation, in a 5 star hotel, on a Sunday evening, with wife, with cocktail dinner, free. And if that “one” is I, & the play is an absolutely different experience altogether, MS gets a new topic mouthpadded by a well-wisher, as she claimed her requests get accepted faster. After 48 hours I see chintu25 was right.

This is a review of the Play called “One into Two” directed/ acted by Padmashree Amir Razaa Hussain & Virat Hussain.

Genre: Comedy

Duration: 90 minutes, 2 Acts

Story background- London, present time

Original story by- Peter Season

Story

John Smith is a London cabbie who works in two shifts. But he is not a normal taxi driver. He maintains two wives at two different homes. The first wife is Mary with whom he lives in Wimbledon. His second apartment is in at Statham where he stays with his second wife Barbara.  Interestingly, he successfully manages to live in two homes with two wives for quite sometime, three years to be precise! He actually does not need to drive a cab to earn his livelihood. He mostly uses he cab to drive from Statham to Wimbledon & vice versa to switch between late night & early morning shifts. The pocket money he gets from his working wives & money earned from few odd trips in his cab is good enough for him to manage his sundry expenses. After spending the Sunday night with Mary at Wimbledon he drives to Statham, which is quite nearby. After sleeping the day over in Statham & spending the evening, his “Monday night shift” for Wimbledon starts. He maintained a pocket diary with precise timing for each day of the week with different shifts for different days for his two wives (Garam Masala anyone?). He used abbreviations like MMWM- Monday morning with Mary & ACDB- A cuddly Wednesday with Barbara etc & followed them meticulously.

Things were just fine till the day John met an accident & were hospitalized for a night. Some goons hired his cab & later an old lady, whom hit John on his forehead with her bag (mistaking him as one of the goons). The problem starts when he was escorted by a Police sergeant (lets call him S1) to his Wimbledon house.

The show starts with his wives making calls to Wimbledon & Statham police stations respectively & reporting a missing complaint for their husbands- John Smith who were missing since late evening till morning 9 AM. Both Mary & Barbara was seriously worried knowing their husband being a man of extreme discipline & punctuality.

The problem gets complicated further when another S1ergeant intimates him that the address of John Smith in the hospital is registered as Satham & not as Wimbledon. The story gets thicker by involving his Jolly good bachelor neighbour Stanley Gardener, who while trying to be a well-wisher gets entangled in the alibi attempts of John.  Meanwhile another Sergeant (S2) appears from Statham police station to check about the hospitalized Statham John Smith whose address is reported as Wimbledon in the police station.

Extreme confusion prevails when a local evening daily publishes a front-page story with the mug-shot of John Smith. John actually shreds a newspaper & eats it to cover it up. Utter insanity leads to absolute pandemonium, resulting a laughter marathon.

Naturally, to defend his secrecy bigamist John starts lying. However, he takes Stanley the bachelor into his confidence. One lie after another by John & Stanley & the whole mess spread from Wimbledon to Statham. Here are few examples what they lies to Mary, Barbara, S1 & S2 at different situations-

1.       Stanley Gardener is a farmer who provided shelter to John after the mishap.

2.       The farmer has problems like bent cucumbers, Bulls attacking the cows etc.

3.       When John said, “bag” she meant “an old lady”.

4.       There is actually two John Smiths, one is the passenger & another is the cabbie.

5.       Stanley is actually the other John smith, husband of Mary.

6.       Stanley is the son of Barbara & John who is in school.

7.       Mary is actually Sister Mary, a nun – depressed because of lack of sex in her life.

8.       Barbara is actually a boy who is a cross dresser, loves to act like female.

9.       Barbara is the maid of the house who is fussy & somewhat insane.

10.   John is actually a gay & uses his apartment at Statham with Stanley for such purpose.

11.   Both of Barbara’s parent’s dies in a mountaineering trip, though they are both paralytic & are on wheel chairs.

During the play some hilarious metaphor’s emerged too, few examples

To enhance married life couples should have daylong sex, once in a while. S2 suggested this & revealed that he has a nickname “pussy” for those days.

The transgendered neighbour of Barbara thought there’s an orgy being planned seeing two gays, one cross dresser & one sex-starved nun.

Character Performances

Stanley Gardener – Amir Raza Hussain: He is just awesome. He is spontaneous, hilarious & just pulled the entire play as an anchor with Virat. I have not experienced any of his earlier works one of the most famous one is based on Hindu mythology. Clearly, he is a man of immense talent on & off stage. He co-directed the show with Virat while playing one of the most important roles. His timing, delivery, accent & superbly placed hilarious innuendos brought the Mickey out of the audience. Clearly he creates “good theatre”.

John Smith- Virat Husaain: How does a bigamist look? Shaken, stirred, extremely unconfident & lier. The problem with lying is one has to remember whom he has lied & when. Virat has a heavy physique & contradictorily meek character personality

The names were announced after the play & I could not remember all then names.

Barbara- I found her to be extremely natural as a worried innocent wife.

Mary-

S1- He was the strictest character & his last scenes with pussycop at Statham was

S2- This is the guy who was in a short role in Lage Raho Munnabhai, remember the baldish guy whom Munnabhai hanged upside down outside his office balcony? He is absolute pleasure as Pussy.

The gay neighbour- He is the “gay” relief in the otherwise unhappy incidents in Barbara’s life. I was almost convinced that he is actually a transgendered species.

Special mentions

The set was a simple living with one sofa and couple of tables, chairs and two telephones. The living room was divided into two represent both the houses. The most noticeable part was when parallel incidents were enacted in both the living rooms, especially the phone conversations. The synchronizations were superb. It was as good as watching a split screen movie.

This play is not a slapstick comedy, rather a tongue in cheek with numerous insinuations to enjoy and laugh out loud.

For those who are not into bigamy this is a must. For those into bigamy can remember this quote ” Bigamy comes with a cruel punishmen; two mother in laws”.

PS: The play is not commercially released yet.  I happened to be an invitee of the show at The Taj Lands End on Sunday 28 Oct 2007 by Unitech (I must have done some subliminal good deed for them sometime), who was sponsor of the show & the dinner.

To read the news article  about Vermont legalizing gay marriage click http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/07/vermont-gov-douglas-vetoes-gay-marriage/

     Yesterday as I listened to the news that the governor of Vermont vetoed a bill that would allow for “gay marriage”, I was impressed by his willingness to stand against a swelling tide of both political fervor and public acceptance.  Even so, reality is that in our society and culture, no boundaries can remain solid, especially when for centuries the boundary has fallen within the moral frame of traditional Christianity.

       The fact that Vermont has now okayed gay marriage should not surprise American Christians. Instead it should make us think, what boundary will be broken down next? Already polygymists in Utah are beginning to fight with the same logic of ”the right to marriage their way” used by the homosexuals for the legalization of their position. Perhaps we may find someone arguing in not too long for the “right to beastility” or the “right to consensual relations with a minor”. Where does this insanity end? It seems that the path of rights ends where the fight began. If every sexual orientation has a “right to be married” then no longer can  heterosexual couples claim to enjoy the right a favored, unique, and blessed union, the foundation of a stable society. The meaning and importance of the word marriage is destroyed as no longer can it be the union of a man and a woman. The word marriage now has become nothing more than the goverment recognized sexual relationship between two individuals. No longer is it about the union created out of love between a husband and a wife who in stunning ways complement and harmonize so as to form a more perfect whole. The physical act of sexual intimacy is the visible outworking of God’s joining the masculine identity with the feminine identiy in a deeper inner unity. Furthrmore the legalization of “gay marriage” denegrates the ability of people to have a brotherly love without a sexual dimension. Since two people of the same sex cannot  be friends without having sex, the same can be said of a  a group of friends, or even for people with other sexual behaviors. More than anything else if this is barrier that should be broken the argument follows that a barrier against any sexual persuasion should be broken. Celebrations may be taking place across the nation, but what should the Christian response be? I maintain as always that government should not be our response. Christians have to be serious about loving the sinners involved in these decisions while being just as serious about hating their sins. What are your thoughts?