Plain Facts for Old and Young

Polyandry.—Perhaps we should add a word or two respecting this custom, which seems to be a still greater outrage against nature than that of polygamy, being the possession of a plurality of husbands by one woman. This practice is in vogue in several countries at the present time, being very common in Thibet, where it is not an unusual thing for a woman in marrying the eldest of a family of brothers to include in the contract all of the other brothers as well. Polyandry was also common among the ancient Medes. Indeed, the Medes practiced both polygamy and polyandry. A man was not considered respectable unless he had at least seven wives; neither were women considered worthy of general esteem unless they had as many as five husbands. In that country, the fact that a woman was already married was in no degree a barrier to subsequent marriages, even while the husband was living, and without the trouble of a divorce. Those who maintain the propriety of polygamy would do well to consider the historic facts respecting the opposite practice. There appear to be as good grounds for believing one to have a basis in the human constitution as the other.

Divorce.—Another of the crying evils of the day, and one which menaces in a most alarming manner the most sacred interests of society, is the facility with which divorces may be obtained. In some States the laws regulating divorce are so notoriously loose that scores and even hundreds of people visit the States referred to every year with no other object than to obtain a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. The effect of this looseness in the laws is to encourage hasty, inconsiderate marriages, and to make escape from an uncongenial partner so easy that the obligation to cultivate forbearance and to acquire mutual adaptation which may not at first exist, is wholly overlooked.

The Bible rule for divorce, laid down by the Great Teacher, is little regarded in these degenerate days. He made adultery the only legitimate cause for divorce; yet we now see married people breaking asunder their solemn marriage ties on the occurrence of the most trivial difficulties. If a couple become tired of each other and desire a change, all they have to do is to forward the fee to a New York or Chicago lawyer, and they will receive back in a short time the legal papers duly signed, granting them the desired annulment of their vows.

Although countenanced by human laws, there can be no doubt that this shameless trifling with a divine institution is regarded by High Heaven as the vilest abomination. In no direction is there greater need of reformatory legislation than in this. The marriage contract should be recognized in our laws as one which cannot be made and broken so lightly as it now is. It should be annulled only for the most serious offenses. The contrary course now pursued so frequently is most detrimental to morals. Our divorce laws virtually offer a premium for unchastity.

The animus of these advertisements is fraud. The parties so engaged are the vilest scoundrels; and that they are allowed to continue to ply their nefarious vocation is a foul blot upon the enlightened civilization of a so-called Christian country. A publisher who will insert such a notice in his journal, would advertise a brothel if he dared. While there is so much interest in the suppression of obscene literature, we would suggest that the proper authorities should direct their attention to the suppression of unlawful divorces, and the proper punishment of the villains engaged in forwarding this nefarious business.

Who May not Marry.—Many writers devote much space in laying down rules which are to be implicitly followed by those seeking life partners. We have attempted nothing of the sort, both from its impracticability, and from the fact that such rules are never followed; and if the attempt should be made to follow the prescribed rules, we are not sure that more good than harm would be the result. Hence, we shall content ourselves with calling attention to a few facts of great importance respecting the conditions which imperatively forbid marriage, and which cannot be violated without the certain entailment of great suffering.

Many people wonder why it is that diseases are so much more numerous and varied in modern times than in the earlier ages of the race. There has been an evident increase within a few centuries. While there are, undoubtedly, numerous influencing causes, one which cannot be overlooked is the hereditary transmission of disease, which preserves those disorders which already exist, and adds new ones which originate from new exciting causes. By this means, the human race is undoubtedly being weakened, human life shortened, and diseases multiplied. Compare the average age of human beings of the present day, less than forty years, with the longevity of the early members of the race, who lived more than as many score of years. Some mighty deteriorating influence has been at work; and we hazard nothing in the assertion that the marriage of diseased persons and kindred violations of the laws of human hygiene have been not unimportant factors in producing this most appalling diminution in the length of human life.

Among the diseases which are most certain to be transmitted are pulmonary tuberculosis, or consumption, syphilis, cancer, leprosy, epilepsy, and some other nervous disorders, some forms of skin disease, and insanity. The list might be extended; but these are the more common. Persons suffering with these disorders have no right to marry, for at least four reasons:—

(1) It is a sin against the offspring of such unions, who have a right to be born well, but are forced to come into the world with weakly constitutions, diseased frames, and the certainty of premature death. The children of consumptive and syphilitic parents rarely survive infancy. If they do, it is only to suffer later on, as they surely will, and, perhaps, to communicate the same destructive diseases to other human beings; but these diseases rarely extend beyond the third generation, the line becoming extinct. The most heart-rending spectacles we have ever met have been the children of parents suffering with the diseases mentioned. Their appearance is characteristic; no physician of experience can fail to detect the sins of a profligate parent in a syphilitic child. Every feature indicates the presence of a blighting curse.

There are those who assert that a man who has suffered with disease of the character last mentioned may marry after the lapse of two or three years from the disappearance of the active symptoms of the malady. Such assertions we consider as most dangerous and pernicious. The individuals who make them are well acquainted with the fact that of all diseases this is the most difficult to eradicate when once the system has become thoroughly infected by it. Not only three years but thirty years may elapse after active symptoms disappear, yet the disease may break out again in a new and still more serious and complicated form. It may even lie entirely dormant or latent in the system of the parent during his lifetime, but break out in all its terrible destructiveness in his children. A man or woman who has once suffered with this fell disease is contaminated for life; and it is a crime for such an one to entail upon innocent, unoffending human beings such a terrible legacy. Such a person has no right to marry; or if married, has no right to perpetuate the results of his sins in offspring. It is never safe to say to a man who has once been infected that he is cured. If a cure ever takes place, it is exceedingly rare.

(2) It is a crime against the race. One of the primary objects of marriage is reproduction. As members of the human race, it is the duty of parents to produce a high type of human beings, at least to do all in their power to produce healthy offspring. If they cannot do this, and are aware of the fact, they are guilty of abuse of the reproductive function in bringing sickly offspring into the world to suffer.

(3) It is injurious to the contracting parties themselves. If a person has a communicable disease, as syphilis, leprosy, and some bad forms of skin disease, the disease will certainly be communicated to the wife or husband, and so a double amount of suffering will be entailed. The dread disease, consumption, rightly called the scourge of civilization, is now well known to be communicable. A few years ago we were consulted by an old gentleman, a native of Canada, who was suffering with pulmonary disease. We inquired respecting the history of the malady. Said he, "Doctor, it may seem strange, but I believe I inherited consumption from my wife, who died of consumption a few years ago." Excepting the wrong use of the term inherit, we were not prepared to dispute the old gentleman's ideas respecting the origin of his disease. Living in close association for years with his wife, who was slowly dying with disease of the lungs, it was quite possible for him to have received the disease from her. So many cases of this kind have been reported that it is now generally believed by medical men that consumption is communicable from one person to another by the reception into the system of the well person of the exhalations from the lungs of the person affected.

Another point worthy of mention here is the well-known fact that the intimate association of married people modifies even the physical form of both. Almost every one has noticed how much alike in appearance married people who have lived many years together come to be. This physical change undoubtedly extends further than to the features only. The whole constitution is modified.

A remarkable illustration of this fact is found in the frequent observation that the children of a woman by a second husband often resemble in appearance the first husband much more than their own father. It has been observed that the children of negro women, even by husbands of pure negro blood, are much lighter in color than usual if she has had a child by a white man previously.

The same fact is observed in lower animals. In England, some years ago, a cross was effected between a male zebra and several young mares. Not only the hybrid colts resulting from this union, but all the colts afterward foaled by the same mares, from other horses, were striped like the zebra.

No person suffering with a contagious or infectious disease has any right to communicate the same to another. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every person so affected to do all in his power for the protection of others from the same cause of suffering.

Every physician knows only too well the powerful influence of hereditary causes in determining the length of human life. Persons, one or both of whose parents have died of consumption, are very likely to die of the same disease, and frequently at about the same age. The children of such parents are commonly feeble and puny, and die early if they survive infancy. When both parents possess the consumptive tendency, the chance for life in the offspring is very poor indeed. The same may be said of those suffering with cancer, epilepsy, insanity, etc. Persons with a strong tendency to any one of the diseases mentioned should in no case marry. If there is but a slight morbid tendency, marriage may be admissible, but only with a partner possessing robust health.

Writers have devoted a good deal of attention to this subject, and we have been shown statistics, reports of imbecile asylums, etc., for the purpose of proving that the marriage of cousins results in the production of idiots, and other defectives; but the results of more careful examinations of the subject invalidate the views heretofore held, and it must be acknowledged that when both parties are healthy there is no more liability of mental incompetency in the children of cousins, than in the offspring of persons more remotely related. It must be added, however, that there are other reasons why the marriage of cousins is not to be generally recommended. Besides the fact that the feeling existing between cousins is often only that which is felt by brothers and sisters for each other, there is the still more important fact that on account of the blood relation, unions of this kind are more apt than others to bring together persons having similar morbid tendencies.

The reason for this rule is obvious. Persons suffering with serious congenital defects, as natural blindness, deafness, deformity of the limbs, or defective development of any part, will be more or less likely to transmit the same deformities or deficiencies to their children. There are, of course, cases of natural blindness, as well as of disability in other respects, to which this rule does not apply, the natural process of development not being seriously defective. It has even been observed that there is a slight tendency to the reproduction in the offspring, of deformity which has been artificially produced in the parents, and has existed for a long time.

It has been satisfactorily shown by thorough and scientific investigation that criminals often receive their evil proclivities from their parents. What are known as the criminal classes, which are responsible for the greater part of the crime committed, are constantly and greatly on the increase. There is no doubt but that inheritance is largely responsible for the continued increase of crime and criminals. A drunkard begets in his child a thirst for liquor, which is augmented by the mother's use of ale or lager during gestation and nursing, and the child enters the world with a natural taste for intoxicants. A thief transmits to his offspring a secretive, dishonest, sneaking disposition; and the child comes into the world ticketed for the State prison by the nearest route. So with other evil tendencies. By legislation or by some other means, measures should be speedily adopted for the prevention of this rapid increase of criminals, if there is any feasible plan which can be adopted. We offer no suggestion on this point, but it is one well worthy of the consideration of philanthropic statesmen.

While good taste would suggest the propriety of this rule, there are important physiological reasons for its observance. While the lack of physical adaptitude may be the occasion of much suffering and unhappiness in such unions, especially on the part of the wife, being even productive of most serious local disease, and sometimes of sterility, it is in childbirth that the greatest risk and suffering is incurred. More might be said on this point, but this is sufficient for those who are willing to profit by a useful hint.

The reasons for this have already been given at length, and we will not repeat. In general, the husband should be older than the wife, from two to five years. The husband may often be ten or twelve years the senior of the wife; but when more than that, the union is not likely to be a profitable or happy one, if it is not absolutely productive of suffering and unhappiness. The ancient Greeks required that the husband should be twenty years older than the wife; but this custom was no more reasonable than that of another nation which required that only old and young should marry, so that the sobriety of the old might restrain the frivolity of the young.

Persons who are so unlike in temperament and tastes as to have no mutual enjoyments, no congeniality of feeling, will be incompatible as husband and wife, and the union of such persons will be anything but felicitous. No definite rule can be laid down; but those seeking a companion for life would do well to bear this caution in mind, at the same time remembering that too great similarity of character, especially when there are prominent defects, is equally undesirable.

While there is no moral precept directly involved in marriage between widely different nations, as between whites and blacks or Indians, experience shows that such marriages are not only not conducive to happiness, but are detrimental to the offspring. It has been proven beyond room for question that mulattoes are not so long-lived as either blacks or whites.

Both moral and social obligations—if the two obligations may exist independently—forbid marriage to a young man who is scarcely able to provide for himself, much less to support a wife and a family. The theory advocated by some that two can live almost as cheaply as one, so that a saving will be made by a union of two in marriage, is a most fallacious one. There may be occasional exceptions, but in general, young people who marry with this idea in their heads find that they have reasoned not wisely. It will not be disputed that a married couple may live upon what is often spent foolishly by a young man; but a young man can be economical if he will; and if he does not learn economy before marriage, it is likely that he never will learn it.

The marriage of paupers, to beget pauper children and foist them upon the community for support, is an outrage against society. We believe it is not improper to speak out plainly upon this subject, and in no uncertain tone, notwithstanding the popular prejudice which cries, "Hush, be quiet; don't interfere with individual rights, don't disturb the peace of society," whenever anything is said which has a bearing on a regard for propriety in matters relating to one of the most ancient, the most sacred, and the most abused of all divinely appointed human institutions. We have never been able to account for this strange averseness to the consideration of this phase of the matrimonial question, and the determined effort often made to ignore it whenever it is broached. We purpose to speak out, notwithstanding the feeling referred to, since we believe this to be a crying evil; and we have no fears but that we shall have the hearty indorsement of every individual who can so far lay aside his prejudices as to allow his native common sense a fair chance to influence his judgment.