Remember that lt is now officially in an alternate history. The rules have changed. So nothing is null.
When you write your script, are you going to keep using this absurd "lt" version of "it"? I hope not, in which case you may as well start breaking yourself of the habit now, right? I'm not sure what you read or why you've decided to give it more credence than every other source in the modern world, but... "it". That's how the word is currently spelled. In terms of alternate history - be careful with this. Effective alternate history stories, at least in my experience with them, tend to have one or two changes from real history and then explore the ripples out from those changes. It requires a lot of thought and research and planning. I really don't think it's going to work to just write our usual history and then hand-wave whenever something doesn't fit and say "alternate history, I can do what I want!". If you're changing things from our world, find a way to explain why things are different, and to consider whether the changes make sense. Like, you have a world where it's acceptable for a man to have two wives, one of whom is his daughter. Why has this become acceptable? How will that influence other aspects of the society?
Here's the bottom line. I gave the answer that they wouldn't honour it as it was under duress, most of us have, given this same answer. But you say they would honour it because the bible doesn't expressly forbid it and forbids divorce and doesn't allow for free will on this matter. Well the second you say all of that, I can no longer relate to these people, so how am I supposed to answer how they would react if I can't relate to them at all?
Also, because I haven't seen it come up, divorce in no way is forbidden in Judeo-Christian scriptures Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament G-d specifically says (through Moses) a man can write his wife a certificate of divorce if he finds any uncleanness in her. Christian scriptures/New Testament has Jesus frown on it, by saying that it is permitted because of the hardness within men's hearts but G-d's ultimate intention is for man & wife not to separate. (Hint hint—Jesus actually says himself it's permitted despite his following up with why we shouldn't even with the allowance.) Paul's epistles/letters also address the subject of divorce—among believers or believers with unbelievers. While a man & woman could potentially divorce, if either remarries (while the other is alive I believe) it is adultery (and I believe the man is at fault for making an adulteress of his wife). If a believer is married to an unbeliever, the Christian must not initiate divorce but must be a loving, caring spouse. However, if the unbeliever wishes to divorce the Christian, than the Christian is free and can remarry, conscience clear & free. To be honest, with so many scriptures on the circumstances & consequences of various divorces, I don't know why people seem to think it's an ultimate taboo in the Bible—because there are plenty of worse things. It's not something to congratulate anyone on, but it's not "burn in the lake of fire for all eternity" level. Incest was strictly & undeniably taboo, in both sets of scriptures. As for the lack of direct prohibition from father's lying with their daughters, there was also no direct prohibition against father's lying with their sons or vice versa. I don't think anyone misunderstood that that was forbidden, nor that it would have consequences (if not from the people/courts, ultimately from G-d). I think there was at the very least an understanding that that was inherently taboo—the only reason they specifically called out son's sleeping with mother's is there was a cultural practice where when son's usurped their father's authority or took their father's place, they in fact took or laid with their father's wives/concubines. It was something of a power move, or public declaration. I think that is the only reason it was specifically addressed while father/daughter, father/son, and mother/daughter were not. Because those were not cultural norms of the surrounding areas—simply rare, disgusting individual cases. I think it was still common sense that the immediate, nuclear family unit was off limits. If I recall Leviticus 18 and 20 rightly, I believe it is expressly stated at the start that this list of prohibitions was because these were active practices of the cultures/people's Israel was going to live among (they were not yet in the "Promised Land" when these were given) and that the children of Israel were not to engage in any of these foreign people's practices (see how well that goes do them). Forgive me for lack of specific books, chapters, verses—I'm doing this all from memory based on earlier education in several religious private schools. But I think contextually it can be easily seen that based on how the two are treated within scriptures (various allowances or circumstances of divorce contrasted with the ultimate forbidding of incest by death in Jewish scriptures & casting out of church community and giving over to the devil by Christian scriptures in 2 Corinthians—man sleeping with father's wife), I think it's fairly clear that incest is taboo while divorce is simply not a desirable solution/outcome. So echoing everyone in this thread: Incest is the bigger bad. The marriage is not legitimate or binding on any level. Religious zealots would rather die or at least recognize that incest far outweighs divorce, even though divorce isn't necessary because the marriage is by all accounts invalid. You can write whatever you'd like—we don't get to dictate your story. But notice the commonality of public outcry and indignant disbelief of the majority. No one buys it. No one condones it. No one sympathizes. No one thinks it reasonable or rational on any level. But write what you will. It's your story to tell. Just don't be surprised or offended if you receive more of the same responses.
BayView: Yes. Like I said, I've done so for almost all of my life & only three people noticed. My own English teachers never did, so I doubt anyone else would. It's a uniqueness that tells people who is writing the sentence. Plus, |t's a script... nobody is going to read |t. I agree, I can't just change things for convenience, I need a consistent world. He technically doesn't have two wives, because his wife is dead, but he doesn't know that. Maybe I could change that, but I'm not sure how I could. Phil Mitchell: The Bible doesn't forbid divorce, but zealots tend to think |t does. I'm thinking of talking to an expert on the 1800's, someone who could give me a definitive answer on whether or not they would honor the marriage. NoGoodNobu: You put a lot of work into this response. Again, the Bible does not forbid divorce, but zealots often think |t does. The proof being my family. I'm going to find an expert on the 1800's & see what their professional opinion is, because of the sheer amount of naysayers. I have to consider the possibility that I am mistaken.
This is kind of self-contradictory - if only three people have even noticed that you're misspelling the word, then how does it tell people who's writing the sentence? They're not noticing it, are they? But, fair enough, if you're producing your own script, I guess no one will read it. So then you just have to decide whether you want to keep misspelling a word for unclear reasons, or whether you want to break yourself of the habit. I know which option I'd choose, myself...
It is kind of self-contradictory, but that's how I feel. Thought processes are often self-contradictory. At least mine are, anyway.
Those zealots that think that the Bible forbids divorce--are they totally, totally fine with fathers marrying daughters?
No, but they're not totally fine with death of family members either. And again, they have no idea what kind of death. It could be slow & painful. The death was never specified.
