Modern Marriage

[soulsearcher]

Looking for opinions on open marriages in a christian walk. Input desparatly needed.
THank you

 

[seebs]

I'd say it's between you and God. I personally think they're probably a bad idea, but... I'm not gonna spend a lot of time and effort condemning people.

The big problem I see is that any non-lifetime sexual relationship seems contrary to our understanding of the nature and purpose of marriage. I don't see a problem with polygamy, but I am skeptical about open marriages.

I suggest prayer, consideration, and patience. Don't rush into anything.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

I personally think they're probably a bad idea, but... I'm not gonna spend a lot of time and effort condemning people.

The big problem I see is that any non-lifetime sexual relationship seems contrary to our understanding of the nature and purpose of marriage.

I would agree with the above. It seems contrary to the sanctity of a marital covenant.

If I were to try and rationalize open marriage, I dont think I could do so without completely selfish reasoning. I cannot rationalize the purpose.

 

[seebs]

I do know some people who have open relationships of various sorts, and appear to be having basically the same experiences of marriage as everyone else does. The ones I've talked to say that it "requires a lot of trust", and perhaps it does; I think there's a little propaganda there, trying to make it look like everyone else is just untrusting. Dunno.

But, ultimately... I don't think you get to boff someone just a few times and walk away. If you don't want a lifetime relationship, don't start boffing. MHO.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

The ones I've talked to say that it "requires a lot of trust", and perhaps it does;

seebs, I know you are not defending the above comment.

Call me naive, but does marriage not by its very nature demand trust? You entrust another human with your future experiences, growth and love when you make that commitment. I am not really understanding how that ... imparts nobility to the practice ... if that is even the intention of raising the point.

Completely personal opinion on my part. I suppose my point is: is not nurturing one relationship, with your spouse, challenge enough to prove such things as trust?

 

[an7222]

Marriage must be seen as a contract that two or more people do to constitute a new family. So, there's not only one form of marriage, but as many forms as you want, depending upon your immagination. If the individuals involved in this pact decided that there would be no cheating, then cheating will break the rules. And so on. Marriage should not always be seen as the same thing for everybody. The only thing in common between them is the purpose, that is to constitute a new family.

 

[seebs]

Call me naive, but does marriage not by its very nature demand trust? You entrust another human with your future experiences, growth and love when you make that commitment. I am not really understanding how that ... imparts nobility to the practice ... if that is even the intention of raising the point.

Completely personal opinion on my part. I suppose my point is: is not nurturing one relationship, with your spouse, challenge enough to prove such things as trust?

Sure, but consider; I know a woman whose husband doesn't want her to TALK to other men. I think he's clearly showing a lack of trust. What is it that lets me say "not allowing X shows lack of trust" but "not allowing Y is perfectly reasonable"?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Open marriage is not a good idea for Christians is not a good idea. It's not a good idea for non-Christians, either; if you don't want to commit wholly to a person why get married at all?

Open marriage definintely falls under the category of adultery even if it is consentual and all parties involved are fully informed.

 

[Gwynne]

Open marriage is not a good idea for Christians is not a good idea. It's not a good idea for non-Christians, either; if you don't want to commit wholly to a person why get married at all?

Open marriage definintely falls under the category of adultery even if it is consentual and all parties involved are fully informed.

Open marriage can take even more of a commitment then a fully monogamous marriage.

Trust is a HUGE factor. There is the trust that the person is being honest about other partners, trust that they are being careful with those other partners, trust that they will stay with you and not leave for those other partners.

It's not an easy lifestyle, to say the least. As to whether or not it's compatible with Christianity or not? That has to be between you and God. The Holy Spirit WILL let you know what is and isn't ok.

I know of at least two Christian couples who had open marriages. In one of the couples, the woman decided that she could no longer in good conscience continue the open/polygamous lifestyle. Her husband, while reluctant, agreed. Their marriage is still going. The other couple, after much prayer, have decided to continue with their lifestyle. Their relationships are long-term, not just random one-night stands. All people involved are aware of the situation, and they are still faithful Christians, they attend church, volunteering very often and are the kindest, most caring people I've met.

While many people may not agree with the lifestyle, it is not our position or place to judge them.

 

[seebs]

Open marriage is not a good idea for Christians is not a good idea. It's not a good idea for non-Christians, either; if you don't want to commit wholly to a person why get married at all?

I agree with the argument, but... I am not sure that an open marriage necessarily reflects failing to commit wholly. Different people appear to draw those boundaries in different places. I don't know which lines are the "right" lines. I know lots of people who would be comfortable with kinds of behaviors that I wouldn't, or who would be uncomfortable with behaviors I would be comfortable with.

For me, trying to assert "authority" over my wife would be a violation of my commitments to her; trying to change those commitments would be a violation of her trust in me as an equal partner in life. Other people may live other lives, and I will not condemn them -- but I can't do that without betraying my wife. On the other hand, there are things I can do (say, at conventions, share a bed with other women) that other wives might object to. We draw our boundaries differently, but as long as we do it in love, I'm not too worried.

 

[Johnnz]

Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant relationship created By God. An open marriage is just another name for adultery.

The only boundaries that are ultimately important are those that God has set. All else is of an order that will one day be discarded and replaced by a new one. We begin to either build into that new order here on earth, or we build for this life only. Our choice.

John
NZ

 

[an7222]

Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant relationship created By God. An open marriage is just another name for adultery.

The only boundaries that are ultimately important are those that God has set. All else is of an order that will one day be discarded and replaced by a new one. We begin to either build into that new order here on earth, or we build for this life only. Our choice.

John
NZ

But there are those that do not even believe God and they are married. They've made a contract, a pact to constitute a new family. And they make their own rules, the ones that will suite better for them. Nobody can know more than the individuals involved in a marriage what is better or worse for them. Just them themselves will know it.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

What is it that lets me say "not allowing X shows lack of trust" but "not allowing Y is perfectly reasonable"?

If "X" represents casual conversation and "Y" represents intimate sexual activities, then for myself, there is a justifiable difference.

Cultivating a successful marriage seems challenge enough, why burden the relationship with activities that 'require additional trust'? I do not mean to judge what others do, but if I am expected to admire such a trusting relationship ... that is simply not happening. My admiration is given to those who maintain better self control, and more especially to those so devoted to their spouse they would shudder to consider being with anyone else intimately.

In regards to the noble husband who reluctantly yeilded to the needs of his wife. That is bologna. He should be eager to do whatever he can to make her comfortable and at home in their relationship. That is what makes relationships enjoyable: selflessness, a desire to serve, a desire to please.

If a couple wants to pursue that lifestyle, both parties are completely comfortable with the decision, I have no place to judge. I have a hard time believing the Spirit of God would lead a person to do so, because I believe the motivations are selfish, but again, I cannot judge what another person feels is right. However, if one party is not comfortable at any time, or in any regard, I believe their partner is being abusive. If the uncomfortable party does not feel secure enough to express their discomfort, again, there is an abusive tendancy occurring.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

she could no longer in good conscience continue the open/polygamous lifestyle.

I think the word polyamorous/polyamory better describes the practice in question.

 

[Fuzzy]

Looking for opinions on open marriages in a christian walk. Input desparatly needed.
THank you

Just a suggestion, and then some (possible) assistance.

Maybe you should define what you're meaning by open marriage. At the very
least you're probably talking about non-monogamy. Are you speaking of
one or both of you merely having casual sex with people outside the marriage,
"dating" style relationships outside the marriage, or a polyamorous arrangement
that might entail equal quality to all aspects of the realtionships, except
one connection is the "legal" marriage, with civic licensing and religious
recognition? These qualitative differences might influence the answers you get.

Now, all that being said, and since I can't tell you anything from a Christian
perspective, I respectfully submit the following URL:

http://www.libchrist.com/

I give it for information purposes and have no feelings either way
on the subject, much like the Amazon search engine or a card catalog at
the library.

It is a Phoenix AZ based group promoting swinging and polyamory as viable
within the Christian faith.

 

[Gwynne]

I think the word polyamorous/polyamory better describes the practice in question.

Yes, that's true But the poly lifestyle and the open marriage lifestyle have similar challenges and benefits.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Very keen insights in the responses.

I for one, do not regard this type of arrangement as adulterous. It doesn't exactly fit the Biblical definition. How then do we justify the OT saints that had sex outside of their marriage with concubines without a word of censure? Biblically, adultery is violation of a covenant comittment(vow), or theft of another man's property (wife). If a vow of sexual exclusivity is made than it must be kept unless it is mutually agreed that both parties no longer desire to hold each other accountable in that manner.

Cultivating a successful marriage seems challenge enough, why burden the relationship with activities that 'require additional trust'? I do not mean to judge what others do, but if I am expected to admire such a trusting relationship ... that is simply not happening.

Aren't the challenges we face together as husband and wife, the very things that make us stronger? Doesn't the trust factor give us depth? Isn't it the same in our reationship to the Lord? Sometimes when we face the difficult things in life (things we desire to do or things we must do) additional trust is required and that gives our relationship with the Lord depth.

I know couples involved in this lifestyle and they have commented on how much their relationship has grown. Trust and communication are imperative. I would imagine the "intent" or "motive" of why to do something like this is of primary concern. I wouldn't rush into something like this hoping that it will "fix" a failing marriage, it will just compound underlying problems. But for those couples that equally desire to "explore" and it brings no harm to another, then I see no reason why the couple would not be allowed to persue it. It might be something that is not appealing to most and maybe even appaulling to some, but Biblically it doesn't appear to be wrong. Like anything we do, there are associated risk. The health issue would also be of primary concern. Again, is it worth the risk?

Eph. 3:20

 

[Buzz Dixon]

It's pretty clear God's intent was for one man to mate with one woman and stay mated.

For various reasons -- all of them having to do with the hardness of the human heart -- He permitted divorce, polygamy, and concubinage. These were not things He ordained but things He allowed.

A concubine was not merely a slave or a prostitute; she held certain legal and property rights, though not the same rights as a wife.

Polygamy and concubinage was virtually non-existant among the Jews by the time of the latter part of the Old Testament and Christ's era. Paul allowed Christian converts who were already in polygamous relationships to stay married, but forbade Christians from taking additional wives. He also banned polygamists or divorced people from serving in positions of authority in the church.

 

[Johnnz]

But there are those that do not even believe God and they are married. They've made a contract, a pact to constitute a new family. And they make their own rules, the ones that will suite better for them. Nobody can know more than the individuals involved in a marriage what is better or worse for them. Just them themselves will know it.

Yes, you can not believe in God and get married. You can eat, laugh, have sex and so on without knowing God as well. The issue here is whether or not God exists, and what His he requires of us. We can enjoy His creation without believing in Him, but that bypasses and eternal significance of what we do while we are here on earth.

John
NZ

 

[seebs]

If "X" represents casual conversation and "Y" represents intimate sexual activities, then for myself, there is a justifiable difference.

I'm sure there is. There are lots of things which are different; the question is, on which of them can I reasonably draw the line?

Cultivating a successful marriage seems challenge enough, why burden the relationship with activities that 'require additional trust'?

Well, indeed. But for the man who feels he cannot trust his wife to talk to other men casually, should we simply say that the "talking to other people" lifestyle or activities are ones that "require additional trust"? I think that, at some point, it is reasonable to say "this is too little trust for a marriage".

My admiration is given to those who maintain better self control, and more especially to those so devoted to their spouse they would shudder to consider being with anyone else intimately.

I tend to a similar emotional response, myself.

In regards to the noble husband who reluctantly yeilded to the needs of his wife. That is bologna. He should be eager to do whatever he can to make her comfortable and at home in their relationship. That is what makes relationships enjoyable: selflessness, a desire to serve, a desire to please.

Well, yes.

But what if you turn it around, and her "need" is to sleep with other men? Do we still expect this "selflessness" from him?

When two people disagree, how do we decide which one "should" selflessly and eagerly conform to the other?

If a couple wants to pursue that lifestyle, both parties are completely comfortable with the decision, I have no place to judge. I have a hard time believing the Spirit of God would lead a person to do so, because I believe the motivations are selfish, but again, I cannot judge what another person feels is right. However, if one party is not comfortable at any time, or in any regard, I believe their partner is being abusive. If the uncomfortable party does not feel secure enough to express their discomfort, again, there is an abusive tendancy occurring.

I strongly agree with this part. I have found no moral basis for condemning polygamy, but I think it is almost always impractical, and that many attempts to promote it are rooted in dangerously unbalanced views of the mutual duties and obligations of spouses.