Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When was polygamy outlawed when it was was allowable in the bible?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.
It´s only relevant when they have some sort of agreement that it requires consent, of course.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?
Not if it´s an "open" marriage, obviously.Does a marriage entail husband and wife agreeing to be monogamous?
That depends entirely on the details of their agreements.If no, extramarital sex is not a breach of the agreement, consent or no.
I see your point: If there is a general agreement between the two that activities with other partners are none of the business of the partner and that no consent is required, there is not dishonesty in being silent about them, and consent is not required.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.
Well, it´s what your question was about: "Why does consent matter?". If you want to retract it for being off-topic, ok.I certainly do, but that's not what this thread is about.
I wouldn't say that it's wrong. Not objectively, at least. Culturally, it's pretty wrong.OK. Maybe I shouldn't use the word sin. I should ask, why is it wrong?
And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way.
Any attempt to justify an open marriage is just an example of the low level of morality in the world today.
I understand that - but "It´s hard for me" doesn´t a moral argument make. Not even by Christian criteria.I must say that I would have a hard time agreeing for my wife to have sex with other men.
Because true love is/should be inherently possessive/jealous?And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way.
Or a high level of a different morality than the one you adhere to.Any attempt to justify an open marriage is just an example of the low level of morality in the world today.
Why would two people get married when they don't want to be married to each other?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?
If they had any respect for children they'd at least be sterilized so they can't destroy innocent lives with their behavior.
Obviously, they do want to be married to each other.Why would two people get married when they don't want to be married to each other?
Except that´s not the scenario in the OP, and not the idea of an open marriage, typically.If they want to sleep around they can just live together and sleep around at will. In a time when there are STD's that kill people they're playing with their lives just to get off with as many people as they can.
"Destroy innocent lives"? Now you just got carried away, eh?If they had any respect for children they'd at least be sterilized so they can't destroy innocent lives with their behavior.
No, it isn´t.Open marriage is a contradiction in terms.
Eh, but on what grounds? Saying that someone "should" want something isn't an argument, especially since the prompt was to make this argument without the help of religious logic.I must say that I would have a hard time agreeing for my wife to have sex with other men. And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way.
Eh, but on what grounds? Saying that someone "should" want something isn't an argument, especially since the prompt was to make this argument without the help of religious logic.
If a person has any character at all they will consider their marriage vows (yes VOWS) they made to their spouse as their promise of faithfulness to them and not as some sort of casual rhetoric made to fill a place in the marriage ceremony.
If somebody can tell me in one breath how much they love their spouse and then in another breath say that it's alright with them if their spouse has sex with someone else then I'll have to assume that one of their statements is a lie. Morality isn't dead and it isn't out of style--try it sometime.
I'm asking why you think there's a "should" here.What do you mean by "on what grounds?"
This thread is about open marriage.People divorce each other every day on grounds of adultery. That's not religious logic, that's a blatant disregard for the marital relationship.
The one you swore an oath to that they would be your one and only (forsaking all others) till death do you part.
Do you realize that marriage vows differ from country to country? In my language, there is no such expression of "forsaking others". Marriage vows are also not universal. At least in Finland, spouses are free to write their own vows if they want to, they don't have to use the standard ones. So, making a marriage vow which states that I promise that I'll let my wife have alot of boyfriends, would be as valid as the standard one.
Also, if we leave the mythical finality aspect out of the vow, and call it a promise (the stuff said when getting married is called "promise" in my language, not vow) there is really no point to assume that you're somehow ultimately tied to your promise if the person I made the promise to, tells me it's not against her will that we can do things differently than previously agreed.
To creatively quote someone famous: The vows are made for human, not human for the vows
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?