The Definition of Monagamy -- a poll (r1)

[Thekla]

in discussion/s with gay friends, it seems that the notion of monogamy is more fluid in the gay community: where within the long-term marriage/relationship there is not the expectation of (exclusive) sexual fidelity between the committed partners.

 

[MercyBurst]

Monogamy by my defenition is having only one sexual partner at any one time who at the start of the relationship you have every intention of staying with for the rest of your life.

In the example I provided in the OP, the relationship only lasted 3 years and both ex-partners sought new partners. This relationship was considered monogamous by many people.

Of course things dont always work out in relationships, you ma split up, get divorced if you marry and end up in another monogamous relationship later in your life.

After having several break-ups is it realistic to expect the next partnership to last a lifetime? With the chance the next relationship will break-up at nearly 100%, would you still call it monogamous? Why or why not?

 

[MercyBurst]

in discussion/s with gay friends, it seems that the notion of monogamy is more fluid in the gay community: where within the long-term marriage/relationship there is not the expectation of (exclusive) sexual fidelity between the committed partners.

Thanks for that contribution, Thekla. SB 427, footnotes 34 and 35 agree with this conclusion.

 

[Vene]

The name, kiwi... the name...

By that logic Jesus was Spanish. And Islam had a huge influence on Spain, so *gasp* Jesus was a Muslim!

And you never answered my original question; would you consider their relationship to be monogamous if instead of a same sex couple it was a hetero couple?

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for that contribution, Thekla. SB 427, footnotes 34 and 35 agree with this conclusion.

Hi, MercyBurst -

although perhaps OT for this thread; my experience, the bill you reference, and discussions in this subforum leave me with the impression that there is an effort to redefine the definition of monogamy away from the traditional Christian definition and then reintroduce this altered definition into the legal (and Church) definition of the same.

 

[MercyBurst]

And you never answered my original question; would you consider their relationship to be monogamous if instead of a same sex couple it was a hetero couple?

The Bible definition says it's fornication in either case, even as Jesus said: " He that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery."

 

[HaloHope]

In the example I provided in the OP, the relationship only lasted 3 years and both ex-partners sought new partners. This relationship was considered monogamous by many people.

Id consider it monogamous as long as the original intent was to stay together permenantly, regardless of what happened later. This applies to both homo and hetro.

After having several break-ups is it realistic to expect the next partnership to last a lifetime? With the chance the next relationship will break-up at nearly 100%, would you still call it monogamous? Why or why not?

Even if you have several break-ups you can still find the person your meant to spend your life with. When I was a kid, my mother went through about four relationships and I consider each of those monogamous as I believe each time her intention was to stay with the person. The final one has now lasted a good 10 years and is still going very strong. Having relationships fail has no bearing on whether future ones will imho.

 

[MercyBurst]

Hi, MercyBurst -

although perhaps OT for this thread; my experience, the bill you reference, and discussions in this subforum leave me with the impression that there is an effort to redefine the definition of monogamy away from the traditional Christian definition and then reintroduce this altered definition into the legal (and Church) definition of the same.

OK, good to know that, and who is legally redefining the definition of monogamy so it fits gay marriage?

 

[Vene]

The Bible definition says it's fornication in either case, even as Jesus said: " He that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery."

Who said they were married?

 

[MercyBurst]

Id consider it monogamous as long as the original intent was to stay together permenantly, regardless of what happened later. This applies to both homo and hetro.

Even if you have several break-ups you can still find the person your meant to spend your life with. When I was a kid, my mother went through about four relationships and I consider each of those monogamous as I believe each time her intention was to stay with the person. The final one has now lasted a good 10 years and is still going very strong. Having relationships fail has no bearing on whether future ones will imho.

OK so what if two people are together just because they want to be together and neither is thinking in terms of a lifetime relationship, though perhaps they do indeed spend a lifetime together. Would this be monogamous?

 

[MercyBurst]

Who said they were married?

I was holding the straight couple to a higher moral standard than the gay couple, yet the straight couple still committed fornication. If they weren't married then it's fornication by definition, regardless of gender orientation -- there is no difference.

 

[HaloHope]

OK so what if two people are together just because they want to be together and neither is thinking in terms of a lifetime relationship, though perhaps they do indeed spend a lifetime together. Would this be monogamous?

Hmm difficult one, (and a pretty lengthy hypothetical) if it ends up in a lifetime relationship... yes I suppose in the long run it was monogamous, but Id have a hard time calling it monogamous if I actively new that they didnt intend to stick with each other.

Difficult one to call *shrugs*

 

[CaDan]

OK, good to know that, and who is legally redefining the definition of monogamy so it fits gay marriage?

No one that I know of.

 

[Thekla]

OK, good to know that, and who is legally redefining the definition of monogamy so it fits gay marriage?

if I understand your question, I don't know that I have an adequate background to answer. And we seem to be at "midstep" in the process. I can say that the relaxation of the definition followed a societal relaxation of social mores -- when this occurs within Christianity it is typically referred to as relativism or secularization.

 

[Joykins]

The Bible definition says it's fornication in either case, even as Jesus said: " He that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery."

I have yet to see proof that monogamy and {fornication, adultery} are mutually exclusive as concepts.

 

[MercyBurst]

I have yet to see proof that monogamy and {fornication, adultery} are mutually exclusive as concepts.

The word "monogamy" isn't in the Bible, but it works kind of like faith. For example, God expects His believers to be faithful to Him. Does that mean we can have more than one God? I don't think so... Anything else would be adultery to our faith. We don't swap out Gods every three to five years either. Likewise husbands are supposed to be faithful to their wives and vice versa, not swapping them out for something better.

 

[Joykins]

The word "monogamy" isn't in the Bible, but it works kind of like faith. For example, God expects His believers to be faithful to Him. Does that mean we can have more than one God? I don't think so... Anything else would be adultery to our faith. We don't swap out Gods every three to five years either. Likewise husbands are supposed to be faithful to their wives and vice versa, not swapping them out for something better.

In the OT God let a lot of men take multiple wives (not monogamy: polygamy rather) without it being considered adulterous.

 

[MercyBurst]

In the OT God let a lot of men take multiple wives (not monogamy: polygamy rather) without it being considered adulterous.

I'm sorry, but it was adultery, and it produced the wrong kind of fruit. Take Abraham for example. He had multiple wives and concubines and look at the fruit it created: Ishmael (the arab nations) and Issac (the Jews and Edomites) are still fighting even today. This was not the Lord's will. Abraham fornicated with Hagar (the Egyptian woman) because Sara (Abraham's wife) doubted God's promise that Sara would bear the blood-line to the Messiah.

 

[Joykins]

I'm sorry, but it was adultery, and it produced the wrong kind of fruit. Take Abraham for example. He had multiple wives and concubines and look at the fruit it created: Ishmael (the arab nations) and Issac (the Jews and Edomites) are still fighting even today. This was not the Lord's will. Abraham fornicated with Hagar (the Egyptian woman) because Sara (Abraham's wife) doubted God's promise that Sara would bear the blood-line to the Messiah.

The Bible does not call this adultery. Adultery was called when David took another man's wife, but not when he took single women or widows or even the wife's handmaid. Same with Abraham, Jacob, etc.

 

[kiwimac]

The name, kiwi... the name...

My real name is Raymond, I am neither German nor French, neither Lutheran nor Catholic. So explain your reasoning to me again?