An Open Marriage

[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.

Thanks for your response.

Some people may still say they are hurting themselves.

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

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

Yeah, I don't know if there is one.

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

If there is not informed consent from all parties.

Yes, but I mean if all parties consent.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, but I mean if all parties consent.

Why would it matter whether all parties consent?

 

[Shard]

Why would it matter whether all parties consent?

Because otherwise it's not an open marriage its just cheating. Which makes them a scumbag? I mean this isn't even that hard of a question. Outside of religion there really is no reason not to have an open marriage if thats what you and your spouse agree to.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Can you tell me why an open marriage is sin not using religious reasons?

Good question ... for which you've already gotten some good answers. I would add that the main purpose of marriage has always been the family and raising of children for future generations. Both traditional marriage and polygamous marriages have offered stable home environments. Loose sexual arrangements, not so much.

Many things can and do go wrong in marriage because of lack of commitment between partners. Open equates with a lack of commitment. Whether or not one considers it a sin, it is a problem.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Because otherwise it's not an open marriage its just cheating.

A distinction without a difference?

I mean this isn't even that hard of a question.

So answer it.

Outside of religion there really is no reason not to have an open marriage if thats what you and your spouse agree to.

Why does it matter whether the spouse agrees?

 

[buzuxi02]

Obviously outside a religious/moral reason where contraception and protection is always used, no jealousy among the parties, consent of all involved etc, then there is no objection.
On the other hand, whats not being answered is WHY and how did moral objections arise millenia ago?

The reasons are simple, the above example is a rare best case scenario. For starters more men will be trying to get with the wife, than the husband can attain women. So jealousy will happen, just look at that Ashley Madison website that was hacked it was like 80% men. On the other hand swinging women may say they are not jealous yet in these lifestyles when their husbands secretly start having flings with a woman they already collectively had flings with, is considered cheating and the wife will go bananas! This psycological phenomenon is quite common among the wives of this lifestyle.

In small towns and villages this lifestyle will cause strife as (mostly) the women will be at each other's throats. Imagine a village of 100 people. Many of them are swingers, a wife not into the lifestyle sees their adonis husband flirting with a swinging neighbor wife. Can you imagine the line of questioning? Any of you ever hear or see 2 women argue over a man? Not pretty. Same scenario with men can get violent.

Then their is the relationship between parents and children. What if your son and daughter goes into this lifestyle, but you dont approve, what if they drop off the grandkids to you because they have an orgy scheduled they need to attend?

To see how difficult it is to sustain such a lifestyle read about the Oneida community of the 1800's in NY. Basically it was a "free love" sect, economically prosperous as makers of silverware. After a few generations the younger generation rose up and got rid of the 'customs' of their community. They prefered monogamy.

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

Why would it matter whether all parties consent?

If both parties don't agree, then it is not an open marriage. It's just cheating. I know why cheating would be wrong. It hurts another person. But if both of them agree, how is it harming them? That was my original question. But I know the answer to this now.

Well, I think I know the answer to this. I could be way off base.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If both parties don't agree, then it is not an open marriage. It's just cheating.

What's the difference?

I know why cheating would be wrong. It hurts another person. But if both of them agree, how is it harming them? That was my original question.

The premise of your reasoning is that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by whether or not it "hurts" anyone. It also seems that "hurt" is nebulously defined, that it can include giving offense. Is anything that offends someone else ipso facto wrong? Just because your spouse doesn't want you to do something does that necesarily make it wrong? What if your spouse is "hurt" by your insistence on keeping the relationship monogamous? Before you suggest divorce in such a situation, let me remind you that divorce also "hurts another person".

That's a very weak case against adultery.

 

[quatona]

A distinction without a difference?

The difference has already been spelt out:
It´s the difference betweeen consent and non-consent.
It´s the difference between keeping agreements and breaching them.
It`s the difference between being honest and dishonest.

Maybe these differences have no significance in your personal ethics, but they are differences nonetheless.

Why does it matter whether the spouse agrees?

Is that basically the same question as "Why does it matter whether someone agrees to whatever (having his things taken, having sex, being married....)?". I.e. does consent really not play a part in your ethics?
Or is it an argument from the position: "If one particular moral stance I hold is questioned, I am going to immediately argue for nihilism and anarchy altogether?"

Do you not acknowledge that there is a significant ethical difference between e.g. forced marriage and consensual marriage? Do you not acknowledge that there is a difference between forced sex and consensual sex? Do you not agree that there is a difference between giving something as a gift and it being stolen from you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good question ... for which you've already gotten some good answers. I would add that the main purpose of marriage has always been the family and raising of children for future generations. Both traditional marriage and polygamous marriages have offered stable home environments. Loose sexual arrangements, not so much.

Plenty of children are raised in stable homes where the parents aren't married at all.
While plenty of children are also raised in unstable, unhappy homes where the parents ARE married.

Marriage is just a piece of paper and irrelevant to how people interact with eachother.

Many things can and do go wrong in marriage because of lack of commitment between partners.

Replace "marriage" with "relationship" and I'll agree.

Open equates with a lack of commitment.

I completely disagree with that.
Personally, I couldn't engage in such a relationship. But that's me. I can't speak for others. I actually know a couple that is in such an open relationship. They have children and have been together for many years and are very happy and take good care of their children and eachother. They also go to swing clubs. For them, having sex is very much like a hobby. Like I play the drums.

There really is no lack of commitment between them.
Commitment and intimmacy is much more then just sex. What really matters is mutual respect and consent. If both are fine with it (REALLY fine with it, and not just saying so...), what is the problem?

Whether or not one considers it a sin, it is a problem.

Clearly, it's not always a problem.
Most members of swing clubs are happily married couples.

 

[Shard]

A distinction without a difference?



So answer it.



Why does it matter whether the spouse agrees?

Well since she specifically asked for non-religious reasons...there aren't any. And because spouses agreeing is part of an open marriage. Its not just hey I wanna nail that blonde over there, so I will and then just say 'it's k open marriage'. No and open marriage is two consenting adults who choose to add variety to their life.

I tried making sense to you, but then I saw your posts farther down. Youre either a troll or just incapable of understanding something this simple.

 

[tulipbee]

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 sort of think marriage is for raising children. Two becomes one flesh means kids. Least they ought to raise the kid a little while. Why start married when kids goes up? What's wrong with man producing more kids with other women? I think marriage is more for having kids. That's why gay marriage is totally useless

 

[Papias]

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.

Um, that isn't supported by scripture. First of all, with the fall happening right at the start, we really have nothing to compare on the "pre fall side". It seems quite possible that polygamy was fine then too - we can't know if it was OK for Adam to take more wives because there literally were no other women on earth in the story. If there were, there is nothing in the story to say that he couldn't also have them as wives too.

As it is, it seems kinda silly to say "as time progressed", since polygamy appears about as early as there are multiple women - in the same chapter that Adam and Eve have their first child, right after the fall.

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).

Both parts of your statement are false. First, God never "made an ordinance". The text there only says that they "are one flesh", which could apply in either case.

Secondly, God did "give express biblical permission" for polygamy. This comes in 1Kings 15:5, where it says that "David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." David, as you probably know, had over a dozen wives. Not only does this shown that the scripture says that polygamy is completely acceptable to God, but it's also striking that a monogamous marriage is never given as explicit approval as polygamy is here.

The law of Moses censured those who violate God’s prescription of monogamous marriage

Where?

Christianity which forbids polygamists from becoming church elders.

Sure. Church elders are not to take multiple wives, just as they are not to be exceedingly rich, or so on. That was a perfect place to say that "church elders, just like anyone else, are not to have mulitple wives." But it doesn't say that. The very fact that it makes an exception to mention this for church elders shows that it is fine for everyone else in scripture.

....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.

This doesn't appear to be the case. Polygamy appears to be just as much a scriptural ideal as monogamy, perhaps more so, as it is the only system given God's explicit approval.

While I don't personally approve of polygamy, I have to be honest about what the scriptures say.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[NightHawkeye]

Plenty of children are raised in stable homes where the parents aren't married at all.
While plenty of children are also raised in unstable, unhappy homes where the parents ARE married.

On an individual basis, there are indeed a few who defy the statistics.

Nevertheless, on a statistical basis the results are overwhelmingly clear. Couples are much better prepared to raise children. The reasons are understandable enough. Generally, one partner takes the lead in providing for the family. That leaves the other more freedom to care for and raise their progeny.

Marriage is just a piece of paper and irrelevant to how people interact with eachother.

You seem to be making my point about commitment. I absolutely agree with you here. Marriage is just a piece of paper unless the partners are committed to each other and to the family.

Replace "marriage" with "relationship" and I'll agree.

Perhaps we have only a little disagreement here. As a side note, I suspect that getting government out of the marriage business would be a good thing.

I completely disagree with that.

LOL, I'm not sure how disagreement is even possible. "Open", by its very definition, conveys a lack of commitment. "Open" ensures that when the going gets tough one has other options readily available with which to bail out of the relationship.

Theoretically, sure, one can argue that it's possible to maintain commitment in the face of obstacles. Realistically and statistically, the odds are very much against it.

Personally, I couldn't engage in such a relationship. But that's me.

I can't speak for others. I actually know a couple that is in such an open relationship. They have children and have been together for many years and are very happy and take good care of their children and eachother. They also go to swing clubs. For them, having sex is very much like a hobby. Like I play the drums.

OK.

There really is no lack of commitment between them.
Commitment and intimmacy is much more then just sex. What really matters is mutual respect and consent. If both are fine with it (REALLY fine with it, and not just saying so...), what is the problem?

Pregnancy, uncertainty about which kids were fathered by whom, disease, jealously.

How many reasons does it take to expose a bad idea?

Clearly, it's not always a problem.

Statistically, it seems to be a problem.

Most members of swing clubs are happily married couples.

Call me skeptical.

 

[Albion]

Sin is a religious concept. The other dictionary definitions are merely references to what the word has been used for in casual conversation or journalistic flourishes.

Being that it has no real meaning outside of a religious perspective, I'd agree that there is nothing wrong if both parties agree. On the other hand, that's only true in theory. Such behavior seems usually to lead to emotional injury to one or both of the parties involved, and that would make it "wrong."

 

[buzuxi02]

I sort of think marriage is for raising children. Two becomes one flesh means kids. Least they ought to raise the kid a little while. Why start married when kids goes up? What's wrong with man producing more kids with other women? I think marriage is more for having kids. That's why gay marriage is totally useless

You are correct as the very word Matrimony means motherhood. The problem with man producing more kids with multiple women is obvious.
Just go where polygamy is rampant and see the the 20 kids living in squalor. Why do you think only a few rich shieks and prince have multiple wives in Islamic countries? Because the common man in Cairo walking the streets cant even afford one wife. So a man with many wives wont be able to afford the child support nor the alimony.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

And because spouses agreeing is part of an open marriage. Its not just hey I wanna nail that blonde over there, so I will and then just say 'it's k open marriage'. No and open marriage is two consenting adults who choose to add variety to their life.

That still leaves the question, why? Why does an open marriage require the consent of the spouses? If it's ok to "nail that blonde over there" with my wife's permission, what would be wrong with doing it without her permission. How is it even any of her business? All I've gotten is a vague response about how it would "hurt" her.

I tried making sense to you, but then I saw your posts farther down. Youre either a troll or just incapable of understanding something this simple.

Since you seem to have trouble explaining it, maybe it's not as simple as you think.

The difference has already been spelt out:
It´s the difference betweeen consent and non-consent.

We're talking about the consent of the spouse that isn't party to the sexual act though. The question is how is that relevant?

It´s the difference between keeping agreements and breaching them.

Does a marriage entail husband and wife agreeing to be monogamous? If yes, then extramarital sex is a breach of the agreement, consent or no. If no, extramarital sex is not a breach of the agreement, consent or no.

It`s the difference between being honest and dishonest.

The difference between being honest and being dishonest in this instance is not whether you have your spouse's consent, but whether you conceal the affair. Dishonest is telling your wife you have to work late. Honest would be telling your wife that yes, you're banging your secretary, and she had better just get used to it. I think the idea that moral failings are somehow excused simply by being open and honest about them is nonsense, which is one of the reasons why I think hypocrisy is underrated, but I digress.

Is that basically the same question as "Why does it matter whether someone agrees to whatever (having his things taken, having sex, being married....)?".

Not at all. What "someone" and "whatever" happens to makes all the difference.

I.e. does consent really not play a part in your ethics?

Depends on the specific situation.

Or is it an argument from the position: "If one particular moral stance I hold is questioned, I am going to immediately argue for nihilism and anarchy altogether?"

I'm not arguing for nihilism and anarchy. First, because I'm arguing specifically about the question of fidelity in marriage. Second, because in this case saying "consent is irrelevant" doesn't mean that "adultery is OK". It means "if adultery without your spouse's permission is wrong, then it is just as wrong with your spouses permission, for the exact same reasons".

Do you not acknowledge that there is a significant ethical difference between e.g. forced marriage and consensual marriage? Do you not acknowledge that there is a difference between forced sex and consensual sex? Do you not agree that there is a difference between giving something as a gift and it being stolen from you?

I certainly do, but that's not what this thread is about.

 

[buzuxi02]

The problem with "nailin that blonde" over there is the very reason why open marriages dont work. Most husbands dont realize that they are not as desired as they think. On the other hand your wife will be "nailing" quite a bit. Even if the swinging life starts off good wait a few years. Wait till she gets pregnant and you still want to nail the blonde or wait till you gain 30 pounds while your wife still looks good because she does zumba at the gym.