Both genders have equal connections to polyamory. The way women are defined in the bible is time and again akin to property. Dowries are compensation to a father for the loss of an able-bodied person, but it never suggests a dowry being paid to the groom's family. Traditional Christianity has a woman take the man's name after marriage as a sign that she is now of his vlan and his property. I never said the bible mentioned Porsches, just that women are time and again given monetary values and treated as objects with no aspirations or personality. Leviticus 27 is a great example of the varying worth of males and females according to the Bible's tithing system, and very clearly spells out in what ways a man can go about making religious offerings on behalf of his family, but I find no reference for females, any statement supporting an instance where a female can or should take the role of head-of-house, and all-in-all the Bible shows a lot of the groundwork that was used to build Sharia law in the Abrahamic faith currently treated like a redheaded stepchild--Islam.

None of the bible was written by Jesus. If it were, we wouldn't have contradicting stories about his birth from Luke and Matthew to the point where there's scholarly debate about it. Whether Jesus meant for women to be treated as subhuman or not, there is strong and clear precedence of that particular verse being used to that purpose for centuries.

I may have transposed the numbers, but my argument that "Matthew [...] does spell out one form of adultery" stands strong. People can decide the morality of divorce for themselves, just as I have made my own interpretations about the scriptures I've cited. I will not argue the semantics of "what they really meant," because neither of us bears the original texts nor an intimate understanding of the language in which it was written, and requesting me to cite parables featuring my juxtapositions is remniscent of a straw-man fallacy. I am attempting to cite scriptures that display the views of the time, and how much misinterpretation there is to be had, particularly with what qualifies as a "righteous marriage," and have my own personal dialogue that goes with it. Consider the dialogue a design flaw if you wish to argue points regarding my interpretations of scripture, as my private input is my opinion and unable to be declared false without ample proof that I do not feel/think such a way.

I then wrapped it up with a caveat which you agreed to and somehow dismissed--we both acknowledge than many Christians do not follow the example of Christ, where we then diverged. I went on to speak of, "and a lot of the common folk follow the scripture that teaches Christians that it's better to worship humbly," which would be the "quiet majority" you hinted at while suggesting that the loud, obnoxious ones are less devout. IME, the loud, obnoxious, and false Christians are politicians or business-people who make their living off the labor of the weaker class.