Modern Marriage

[seebs]

I do believe that they work together best when they are focused upon one individual, though. I personally don't feel that I can be at my best with the one that I truly love (and it would be hard, really, to love two or more people, in a romantic sense, 'equally') without focusing that energy solely upon her rather than dividing my energies or devotion amongst many. At the very least, it doesn't seem fair or respectful to her.

Hmm. It's an interesting question.

I think that, if we have a polygynous relationship where all the women get partial shares of the husband, and that's it, this is a very valid and serious criticism; enough for me to reject such systems as probably inherently unjust.

But... To take the example of when my wife's first husband and I were both romantically involved with her, we didn't just get half-shares of her; we also got involvement with each other. We were straight, so this wasn't a source of sex... But even in my early 20s, I didn't want to have sex ALL the time. The net result was that, while I gave up some of my wife's time, I got some of someone else's time, and that worked for me.

Neither will I condemn or judge. I will not participate, though, and honestly believe that many, if not most people in these scenarios are facing internal intimacy issuues that they may not even be aware of. I state that as someone who has been exposed to another with such issues.

Quite possible.

I think it's quite likely that many people are, in some way, unwell or damaged, and cannot participate fully in the healthiest possible romantic life. But... It may be beyond our power to heal them. In which case, I am inclined to allow them the life they can best adapt to, even if it's not the one I would personally choose, or would think the best in the abstract.

I'm not sure if I can fully understand you on this. It seems as if you are describing a scenario where there is confusion on where one partner's feelings lie, and so one or both partners have had to compromise in order to stay together (while introducing a third partner) rather than scuttle the relationship in its present form. This sounds like an odd type of surrender for at least one of the participants.

Not necessarily confusion. Roll the clock back to my early relationship with my wife. There was no confusion about her feelings; she loved both of us.

To be fair, this may sometimes imply a compromise. But my wife and I have been making compromises for about ten years now, and we're pretty happy with that. It seems necessary. Single people make compromises too; the world is not always exactly what you'd first pick.

But, in some cases, all of the people involved may feel that their lives are richer for the change, in which case, I don't see a victim, so I don't have grounds for complaint.

I don't believe that this is the reasoning on the surface. But, the physiological need for touch, intimacy, sex - or whatever other form - is a powerful force, and can subtly influence us in ways that we do not quite understand. We are not its master - not truly.

True.

This need is one of the major forces compelling us to join with another in the first place. For some, the ability to have that need met cannot be met by their partner, or so it seems - leaving them with the prospect of having to commit to some sort of compromise, be it leaving the relationship (not likely, given the individual in questions need for companionship), working with their partner in hopes to bring them more 'in line' with their own needs, or pursuing additional sources of the needed intimacy.

Once again, this starts with the assumption that the goal is "more intimacy". My wife and her first husband did not go out seeking a way to add someone to their relationship; rather, they found that another person was already in some way part of their lives.

I cannot rationalize seeking to fulfill that questionable need at the expense of denying my partner what rightfully would belong to her - companionship and love, undivided by another. It would just seem contrary to the true nature of love, and my love for her makes the idea impossible to consider, and quite literally, undesireable.

Understood. But, from my own experience, love shared is not lessened. If it were, people wouldn't have additional children, for fear of diluting their love.

However, I think this depends, crucially, on the relationship between all the parties. A man with two wives who barely know each other is probably doing exactly what you describe, I would think; I don't see a way for it to be beneficial for them. But if the two women are close friends, they may find that they'd rather share him than do anything else.

Again, that may seem judgmental, but it is simply my own opinion. I just honestly don't understand the rationalization given for the other side of the argument (or haven't seen much rationalization yet).

Well, to make a long story short: If you love two people, and they love each other, there is no obvious reason to "choose one of them and not the other" unless you have jealousy problems. Not all people do, especially if they are very close. I was jealous of my wife's first husband less often than I'm jealous of, say, her work, or her regular friends; in short, the only problem I ever had is that I'm sometimes unreasonably greedy about time. And it is clearly, I think, a problem with me, not a problem with her.

 

[CSMR]

If you enter into an open marriage, you only fool yourself that you have no obligations. You are in fact bound before God by everything that a marriage entails, since by coming together you have entered into a marriage in the eyes of God. That's my input.

 

[seebs]

If you enter into an open marriage, you only fool yourself that you have no obligations. You are in fact bound before God by everything that a marriage entails, since by coming together you have entered into a marriage in the eyes of God. That's my input.

Well, that's actually a really interesting question. If I enter into a marriage with no intention of complying with the "real" rules, am I actually not married at all, or am I merely doing a bad job of it?

 

[aeroz19]

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

What's the point of marriage then?

 

[seebs]

What's the point of marriage then?

To have someone to care for you when you're older? Someone you can always talk to? There's lots of point to marriage that doesn't depend on sexual exclusivity.

 

[aeroz19]

To have someone to care for you when you're older? Someone you can always talk to? There's lots of point to marriage that doesn't depend on sexual exclusivity.

Well, for me, marriage will always mean sexual exclusivity.

 

[CSMR]

Well, that's actually a really interesting question. If I enter into a marriage with no intention of complying with the "real" rules, am I actually not married at all, or am I merely doing a bad job of it?

The question comes up in the pre-marital discussions that appear from time to time. My answer is based on the end of Levitcus 22, when the act of union creates marital obligation; and on Jesus taking "what God has joined" and "two becoming one flesh" in one breath.
That's not to say that the marriage ceremony is not important, but IMO it doesn't create anything, but is instead an acknowledgement of something that is there anyway.
The positions give rise to the same conclusions about what course of action should be taken, but this position gives a slightly more coherent view of what constitutes a marriage: what marriage ceremony is good enough? Is an atheistic ceremony a marriage, or a declaration of commitment, or on the other hand do you have to know the ins and outs of everything that everything that is required in order to make the proper marriage commitment?

(Looking up the Deuteronomy verse, I find that the NIV translates "take hold" as "rape". But as with much of the NIV, I don't think this is right.)

 

[seebs]

I actually tend to lean towards this understanding. One of my objections to the practice of "annullments" is that I think it is nearly always an error to claim based on a technicality that a marriage was somehow "invalid". If you meant to be married, you were, even if you didn't know what you were getting into, even if you did it wrong.

There are probably a good dozen reasons you could come up with for which my marriage is "invalid". But you know what? Even if I wanted out, those would just be excuses. Rationalizations. Attempts to justify breaking my vows. I made promises, I meant them when I made them, and they are binding.

Conveniently for me, I am also deleriously happy.

 

[Gwynne]

I actually tend to lean towards this understanding. One of my objections to the practice of "annullments" is that I think it is nearly always an error to claim based on a technicality that a marriage was somehow "invalid". If you meant to be married, you were, even if you didn't know what you were getting into, even if you did it wrong.

There are probably a good dozen reasons you could come up with for which my marriage is "invalid". But you know what? Even if I wanted out, those would just be excuses. Rationalizations. Attempts to justify breaking my vows. I made promises, I meant them when I made them, and they are binding.

Conveniently for me, I am also deleriously happy.

My marriage is one that would be considered invalid based on the arrangements and understandings my husband and I had going into it. But we're still married and happier than ever.

 

[soulsearcher]

THanks for everyones input. Now what about this..My wife wants to be free to have sex with other men. I am monogomous but she has never been until we met. Now she wants to be free once again to "play". It makes her very happy to say the least. But I have no doubt whatsoever of her love for me. Please I would love to here christian input. thanks

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Soulsearcher, if you can love her and forgive her, that's nobody's business but yours. In the abstract, it's not a path I would recommend (i.e., the "playing" outside of marriage).

 

[seebs]

Well, I guess the question is how comfortable you'd be with it, and what vows you have. Would you be happy with this? Would you be allowed to have sex with other women? Would you even want to?

My personal advice is to avoid "open relationships". I don't see any basis for condemning polygamy, but I see a lot of good arguments against casual sex.

 

[CSMR]

Well obviously from a Christian point of view that would be a grave sin on her part. If she does that you are no longer bound by marriage and are free either to be faithful while she is unfaithful or to divorce. Divorce may be an act of love, either as a threat, keeping her from this sin, or carried out, demonstrating the law of God and the bounds of marriage; on the other hand keeping with her may also be an act of love, showing mercy. Who knows which will be more likely to lead her to God? That makes it difficult to separate the moral question from one's desires. Acting out of love with the aim of keeping and even saving your wife from sin may be the last thing on your mind - but that's what one is supposed to do. I have to disagree with seebs that comfort is the only question - the will of God regarding sexual morality and regarding love of others isn't to be ignored.
I have no experience, mind! There is a forum on Christian Forums for married people who may be able to help you better than this one.
What I would make sure of is that you make clear the Christian position to her rearding marriage, adultery, and the requirements of God - even the relation of marriage to the marriage of Christ and the church if that is how you think about things. Whatever route you take, it is important that you try to express not only your feelings but try to convey to her the Christian truth that she needs.