Why is polygamy, bigamy, polyamory, etc. immoral?

[Mr. Ripley]

It's not about the shape of the relationship, but the content of the obligations. Married people owe each other their entire beings. It is impossible to give everything of yourself to two different people.

Multiple personality disorder?

 

[SithDoughnut]

It's not about the shape of the relationship, but the content of the obligations. Married people owe each other their entire beings. It is impossible to give everything of yourself to two different people.

Why? It's not as if you are physically giving yourself.

 

[citizenthom]

Why? It's not as if you are physically giving yourself.

Yes, you are: that's the most obvious implication of 'one flesh.'

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yes, you are: that's the most obvious implication of 'one flesh.'

Yes, but it's a metaphorical giving. You don't forfeit all your rights and become property - the fact that divorce exists shows you remain an individual person with individual rights. The thing about giving metaphorically is that you can do it to more than one person.

What's wrong with sharing anyways? If everyone is happy with it (and in the case of polygamy, that should be a requirement) why can't you have a contract between three people? Then you're giving yourself away completely, but to two people. It's the act of giving yourself that it the important bit, it doesn't matter how many people you're giving yourself to. Three people as 'one flesh'.

 

[citizenthom]

Yes, but it's a metaphorical giving.

It is also a literal giving. Once you are married, you owe your body to your spouse, and exclusively to your spouse.

 

[Skaloop]

It is also a literal giving. Once you are married, you owe your body to your spouse, and exclusively to your spouse.

What exactly do you mean by "owe your body"? Because I'm married, but my body remains my own. Other people have access to my body for a variety of reasons and uses, so it is not hers exclusively.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

What exactly do you mean by "owe your body"? Because I'm married, but my body remains my own. Other people have access to my body for a variety of reasons and uses, so it is not hers exclusively.

Agreed.

 

[citizenthom]

What exactly do you mean by "owe your body"?

Your flesh is your wife's flesh, and vice-versa. When you do something that harms your body, it harms your spouse. When you decide what to do with your body, your decision should also take into account how that will affect your spouse, because she also has to live with the potential consequences. And, in case this wasn't obvious, you're under a mutual obligation to give sexual pleasure whenever the other needs it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Your flesh is your wife's flesh, and vice-versa. When you do something that harms your body, it harms your spouse. When you decide what to do with your body, your decision should also take into account how that will affect your spouse, because she also has to live with the potential consequences. And, in case this wasn't obvious, you're under a mutual obligation to give sexual pleasure whenever the other needs it.

I have never ever seen a marriage that works like this. Especially the last sentence. Nobody should be obliged to have sex with someone else.

 

[citizenthom]

I have never ever seen a marriage that works like this. Especially the last sentence. Nobody should be obliged to have sex with someone else.

If you're not willing to fulfill someone sexually, then you should not make a promise to them that entails not having sex with anyone else. Similarly, and relevant to this thread, if you cannot be sexually fulfilled by a single person, you should not promise to have sex with only them: that's lying to them.

Every successful marriage I've seen has featured mutual sexual obligation--and yes, that does include having sex sometimes because the other person is in need. Most marriages' problems either start with refusal in that area, or get worse when other problems do leak into the bedroom.

 

[Belk]

If you're not willing to fulfill someone sexually, then you should not make a promise to them that entails not having sex with anyone else. Similarly, and relevant to this thread, if you cannot be sexually fulfilled by a single person, you should not promise to have sex with only them: that's lying to them.

Every successful marriage I've seen has featured mutual sexual obligation--and yes, that does include having sex sometimes because the other person is in need. Most marriages' problems either start with refusal in that area, or get worse when other problems do leak into the bedroom.

How long have you been married? Cause I have to agree with the others that I am not familiar with this definition of marriage you have.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I want to know what happens once you're married to a man or woman and they lose their sex drive (for medical or other reasons). Are they forced to lie with you or are you automatically allowed to divorce them? I think a marriage that relies that heavily on sex is not worthy of being called a marriage at all.

I have suffered for just "going along" with it in the past..its not something I would reccommend to anyone.

 

[Skaloop]

Your flesh is your wife's flesh, and vice-versa. When you do something that harms your body, it harms your spouse. When you decide what to do with your body, your decision should also take into account how that will affect your spouse, because she also has to live with the potential consequences. And, in case this wasn't obvious, you're under a mutual obligation to give sexual pleasure whenever the other needs it.

Are you married? You seem to have a rather strange view of what marriage entails. If you aren't, be sure to make your opinions on the matter known to any woman you are courting. Wouldn't want you marrying someone with crazy ideas about the autonomy of her own body.

No doubt that sex is an important part of marriage, but an obligation, not at all.

And no doubt that I take my wife's opinions into consideration when I make decisions, but it's still wholly my body.

 

[Skaloop]

If you're not willing to fulfill someone sexually, then you should not make a promise to them that entails not having sex with anyone else. Similarly, and relevant to this thread, if you cannot be sexually fulfilled by a single person, you should not promise to have sex with only them: that's lying to them.

Fulfilling someone sexually and being under an obligation to have sex with them whenever they want are not the same thing.

Every

successful marriage I've seen has featured mutual sexual obligation--and yes, that does include having sex sometimes because the other person is in need. Most marriages' problems either start with refusal in that area, or get worse when other problems do leak into the bedroom.

A spouse can choose to have sex when they don't really want to, and I have no problem with that, but they are under no obligation to do so.

 

[citizenthom]

To answer the veiled flames here, I'm getting married in 3 months, and the view of marriage I'm describing here is very clear in a.) the Bible's commands to married couples, and b.) every single piece of advice (including premarital counseling) we've gotten from successful married couple--both Christian and non-Christian. My future wife wholeheartedly agrees with my view on the subject, especially because we have both seen several marriages fail because of an improper view of both the importance of sex within marriage and the emotional consequences of denying one's spouse. It's a view based on both Scripture and the hard data.

I think, though, that you've all gotten at the underlying divide in this thread. If you think of sex as just an activity, of course you don't care with whom you have it or how many people. If you think of sex as God intended it--as the single most intimate thing two people can do together, where you give yourself to someone fully and freely--then polyamory clearly isn't a healthy lifestyle.

 

[Skaloop]

To answer the veiled flames here, I'm getting married in 3 months, and the view of marriage I'm describing here is very clear in a.) the Bible's commands to married couples,

Which is fine for you as a Christian, but don't think for a second it is a blanket requirement.

and b.) every single piece of advice (including premarital counseling) we've gotten from successful married couple--both Christian and non-Christian.

Every couple you've asked has said that if you want sex one night but your wife doesn't then she has to have sex with you anyway? Sorry, but I don't believe that. They may have stressed the importance of sex and need to be accomodating of your spouse's desires, but I sincerely doubt they ALL said there is an obligation for sex from either party.

My future wife wholeheartedly agrees with my view on the subject, especially because we have both seen several marriages fail because of an improper view of both the importance of sex within marriage and the emotional consequences of denying one's spouse. It's a view based on both Scripture and the hard data.

Well, that's good for the two of you. But again, don't think that it must necessarily apply to all married couples.

I think, though, that you've all gotten at the underlying divide in this thread. If you think of sex as just an activity, of course you don't care with whom you have it or how many people. If you think of sex as God intended it--as the single most intimate thing two people can do together, where you give yourself to someone fully and freely--then polyamory clearly isn't a healthy lifestyle.

I don't think of it as either. It is an activity, but not "just" an activity, and activity that I will only perform with my wife (a promise that was made before we were married, and was not part of our marriage vows. We are just both staunch believers in monogamy for ourselves). But we are not opposed to polyamory, and know several couples who practice it who have been married longer than we have. But we also don't think it is the single most intimate thing two people can do (since it can be done with next to no intimacy at all) and certainly don't think it is God intended.

Also, you mention giivng yourself to someone fully and "freely"; the "freely" part goes against the obligation part you've mentioned before.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I think, though, that you've all gotten at the underlying divide in this thread. If you think of sex as just an activity, of course you don't care with whom you have it or how many people. If you think of sex as God intended it--as the single most intimate thing two people can do together, where you give yourself to someone fully and freely--then polyamory clearly isn't a healthy lifestyle.

I disagree. I have been in a monogamous relationship for four years as of July 29th and I do view sex as just an activity. But it is also something I would only do with my partner. Why? Out of respect to him, health & hygiene, safety, etc. I care who I do it with because a) I'm uncomfortable doing it with just anyone (been there, done that not my cup o' tea) and b) I care about my health, hygiene, and safety and c) having sex with only my partner is part of a packaged deal.

Is it the single most intimate thing two people can do together? Maybe, but I find the emotional intimacy so much more important than physical intimacy.

 

[citizenthom]

Whenever someone makes the claim that they can have sex with no emotion at all, I never know whether to laugh at them (because they are transparent liars), cry for them (because they are so damaged and repressed that they can't even acknowledge intimate emotions), or run from them (because they are sociopathic).

Every couple you've asked has said that if you want sex one night but your wife doesn't then she has to have sex with you anyway?

To be more accurate: they all said that there would be nights when one of us wanted sex and the other did not, and that the former should give the latter unless there was a legitimate reason not to (and "not turned on yet" is not a legitimate reason).

 

[citizenthom]

I disagree. I have been in a monogamous relationship for four years as of July 29th and I do view sex as just an activity.

I am sorry. I hope that you one day find your way out of that quagmire, as I did.

Is it the single most intimate thing two people can do together? Maybe, but I find the emotional intimacy so much more important than physical intimacy.

The two are not separable, but you're right not to downplay the emotional side, as some people do.

 

[Skaloop]

Whenever someone makes the claim that they can have sex with no emotion at all,

Who here has made that claim?

To be more accurate: they all said that there would be nights when one of us wanted sex and the other did not, and that the former should give the latter unless there was a legitimate reason not to (and "not turned on yet" is not a legitimate reason).

Then it all depends on what constitutes a legitimate reason. For me, her not wanting to have sex is legitimate enough. "Not turned on yet" may not be for you, but what about "Not turned on at all" or "Not turned on, and any attempts to turn me on will make me even less turned on"?

What's a legitimate reason for you? What if she sincerely has a headache? What if she just says she has a headache? What if she has to get up early the next morning? What if she is nervous about an upcoming event? What if she's stressed about work? What if her thoughts are with a sick friend? What if she is menstruating? What if she is annoyed with you for something? What if she's expecting an important phone call?

Until you can delineate what is or is not a legitimate reason, it is hard to carry on with this vein, since we will obviously have different ideas of legitimacy.

Since marriage is about mutual respect and consideration, why should one spouse's desire to have sex trump the other spouse's desire to not have sex? There's not exactly room for compromise on the two positions, so why does the former desire carry more weight than the latter?