An Open Marriage

[IAMANOBODY2015]

Can you tell me why an open marriage is sin not using religious reasons? Two married couple who love each other and have no problem seeing other people: there's no jealousy, no animosity, no hatred, they just let each other be free. And they always use protection and gets tested.

I remember when I use to look at porn, there was a married guy on there; and I saw his interview with his wife and kids, and they were OK with what he did. In fact, she loved what he did. How is this wrong, not using religious reasons?

 

[Hikarifuru]

Can you tell me why an open marriage is sin not using religious reasons? Two married couple who love each other and have no problem seeing other people: there's no jealousy, no animosity, no hatred, they just let each other be free. And they always use protection and gets tested.

I remember when I use to look at porn, there was a married guy on there; and I saw his interview with his wife and kids, and they were OK with what he did. In fact, she loved what he did. How is this wrong, not using religious reasons?

Well you'd be hard pressed to talk about "sin" coherently outside of religious concepts, sin is itself a religious concept.

Some people say that promiscuity leads to less stable marriages, people who embrace multiple non-committed partners have a higher chance of not being a lasting marriage later in life. Some people say that is dangerous to our society because it leads to fewer stable traditional homes and families.

I don't agree but that's the only non-religious example I could think of.

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

Well you'd be hard pressed to talk about "sin" coherently outside of religious concepts, sin is itself a religious concept.

Some people say that promiscuity leads to less stable marriages, people who embrace multiple non-committed partners have a higher chance of not being a lasting marriage later in life. Some people say that is dangerous to our society because it leads to fewer stable traditional homes and families.

I don't agree but that's the only non-religious example I could think of.

So sin is only a religious concept?

Well you'd be hard pressed to talk about "sin" coherently outside of religious concepts, sin is itself a religious concept.

Some people say that promiscuity leads to less stable marriages, people who embrace multiple non-committed partners have a higher chance of not being a lasting marriage later in life. Some people say that is dangerous to our society because it leads to fewer stable traditional homes and families.

I don't agree but that's the only non-religious example I could think of.

OK. Maybe I shouldn't use the word sin. I should ask, why is it wrong?

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

So sin is only a religious concept?

OK. Maybe I shouldn't use the word sin. I should ask, why is it wrong.

I did not mean to multi-quote. I don't know how I accidentally did that.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I dont think its wrong

 

[Desk trauma]

So sin is only a religious concept?

Yes.

 

[ranyhyn]

My original thought was that it is not possible to discuss something as a "sin" outside the idea of religion. But according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary sin is defined as:

a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
c : an often serious shortcoming

So I guess the question would now become ... is an open marriage the violation of a moral law, is it something that is reprehensible, or is it some kind of serious shortcoming?

I personally think it's wrong because of the potential pitfalls involved. You state that there is no jealousy, animosity, or hatred. Is your statement based on real, or personal experience, or is it a speculation? I would venture to say that only a very small percentage of relationships exist under "ideal" circumstances. There are too many variables in play. A couple may enter thinking that they want an open marriage. And in the beginning there truly could be no jealousy, animosity, etc. But I think over time those things do become issues - except for a very small percentage I'd say.

The use of protection is only so good. It only takes one time for someone to forget, for a "malfunction" of equipment, etc. A partner may not be jealous or concerned, but what happens when the husband/wife contracts an STD, or even HIV? I'm willing to bet things won't be so hunky dory.

Another thing to consider would be what you feel is the purpose of marriage. Unfortunately, I can't answer that question without a religious lens. I personally believe that marriage is between one man, one woman, for life.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

God’s original intention for humankind was a monogamous relationship of equals between one man and one woman, as depicted in the Old Testament creation stories (Gen. 1:27, for example, in which Adam and Eve are both ‘made in God’s image’ clearly implying that God regarded exploitation of one by the other as part of the fallen world and not integral to the order of creation).

As time progressed, the marriage of more than one woman to a single man (e.g. polygamy) arose. But there never existed an express biblical permission for such a deviation from the ordinance of God made at the institution of marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:21–24). The law of Moses censured those who violate God’s prescription of monogamous marriage as does Christianity which forbids polygamists from becoming church elders.

Without taking each biblical incidence one at a time, which would take a long time, the bottom line is that monogamy was the old testament and is the new testament ideal; however, ancient polygamy (marriage between one man and more than one woman) was regulated rather than condemned.

But as you are interested in exploring marriage from a purely secular non-religious perspective, let me start you off with this excellent lecture in which Dr. Ryan T Anderson teaches on marriage from that perspective:

 

[BeStill&Know]

Off the subject: Spiritually speaking, marriage is symbolic of the Personal Love and devoted intimate relation of the Lord to each one of us, and us to Him. Idolatry/Adultery is one and the same.

 

[quatona]

Can you tell me why an open marriage is sin not using religious reasons? Two married couple who love each other and have no problem seeing other people: there's no jealousy, no animosity, no hatred, they just let each other be free. And they always use protection and gets tested.

I remember when I use to look at porn, there was a married guy on there; and I saw his interview with his wife and kids, and they were OK with what he did. In fact, she loved what he did. How is this wrong, not using religious reasons?

I don´t know a non-religious reason to call open marriage and/or polyamory wrong.

 

[Desk trauma]

I don´t know a non-religious reason to call open marriage and/or polyamory wrong.

If there is not informed consent from all parties.

 

[dayhiker]

I would say as long as the spouses are OK with an open marriage then there is not problem with it.

As Paul said love doesn't hurt your neighbor or spouse in this case.

 

[quatona]

If there is not informed consent from all parties.

Lack of consent is always an issue - even if you help a person cross the street.

 

[Desk trauma]

Lack of consent is always an issue - even if you help a person cross the street.

I agree I was bringing it up because it's a valid non-religion based objection to polygamy or open marriages. If anything polygamy as it exists most of the time is nothing but non consensual on the part of the women. That's not an objection against the idea only the practice as it is found in the Islamic or Fundamentalist Mormon examples.

 

[quatona]

I agree I was bringing it up because it's a valid non-religion based objection to polygamy or open marriages.

And yet I am wondering why it is brought up selectively. I mean, it would be a valid non-religious objection against monogamy as well.
It´s not a valid reason against open marriage or anything - it´s a valid reason against non-consensual interactions.

If anything polygamy as it exists most of the time is nothing but non consensual on the part of the women. That's not an objection against the idea only the practice as it is found in the Islamic or Fundamentalist Mormon examples.

If I read the OP correctly, it is not about polygamy, and even less about this particular phenomenon. It was about consensual open relationships.

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

My original thought was that it is not possible to discuss something as a "sin" outside the idea of religion. But according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary sin is defined as:

a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
c : an often serious shortcoming

So I guess the question would now become ... is an open marriage the violation of a moral law, is it something that is reprehensible, or is it some kind of serious shortcoming?

I personally think it's wrong because of the potential pitfalls involved. You state that there is no jealousy, animosity, or hatred. Is your statement based on real, or personal experience, or is it a speculation? I would venture to say that only a very small percentage of relationships exist under "ideal" circumstances. There are too many variables in play. A couple may enter thinking that they want an open marriage. And in the beginning there truly could be no jealousy, animosity, etc. But I think over time those things do become issues - except for a very small percentage I'd say.

The use of protection is only so good. It only takes one time for someone to forget, for a "malfunction" of equipment, etc. A partner may not be jealous or concerned, but what happens when the husband/wife contracts an STD, or even HIV? I'm willing to bet things won't be so hunky dory.

Another thing to consider would be what you feel is the purpose of marriage. Unfortunately, I can't answer that question without a religious lens. I personally believe that marriage is between one man, one woman, for life.

It's speculation. I have heard of it. And I agree with you about what marriage is. Thank you for your answer.

I was just curious what other people thought.

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

Yes.

Thanks

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

God’s original intention for humankind was a monogamous relationship of equals between one man and one woman, as depicted in the Old Testament creation stories (Gen. 1:27, for example, in which Adam and Eve are both ‘made in God’s image’ clearly implying that God regarded exploitation of one by the other as part of the fallen world and not integral to the order of creation).

As time progressed, the marriage of more than one woman to a single man (e.g. polygamy) arose. But there never existed an express biblical permission for such a deviation from the ordinance of God made at the institution of marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:21–24). The law of Moses censured those who violate God’s prescription of monogamous marriage as does Christianity which forbids polygamists from becoming church elders.

Without taking each biblical incidence one at a time, which would take a long time, the bottom line is that monogamy was the old testament and is the new testament ideal; however, ancient polygamy (marriage between one man and more than one woman) was regulated rather than condemned.

But as you are interested in exploring marriage from a purely secular non-religious perspective, let me start you off with this excellent lecture in which Dr. Ryan T Anderson teaches on marriage from that perspective:

Thank you

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

I would say as long as the spouses are OK with an open marriage then there is not problem with it.

As Paul said love doesn't hurt your neighbor or spouse in this case.

And yet I am wondering why it is brought up selectively. I mean, it would be a valid non-religious objection against monogamy as well.
It´s not a valid reason against open marriage or anything - it´s a valid reason against non-consensual interactions.

If I read the OP correctly, it is not about polygamy, and even less about this particular phenomenon. It was about consensual open relationships.

Yes it is

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

I dont think its wrong

Thank you for your reply.