Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But under certain contexts, adultery can gravely hurt the fidelity of a married couple, as well (enter John Edwards and Arnold, as just 2 of many prime examples).
Absolutely, but for any action to be "adultery" it must be something that violates the rules of the relationship. I don't consider my wife to be committing adultery when she has sex with others within the bounds of our rules. If others do, that's their problem, for on this issue, only my opinion matters. And vice versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
but even then...doesn't that still make a virtual joke, out of the whole notion of marriage? I mean if you're gonna have a string of serial random encounters like that, then why be married at all then? Don't the marriage vows, mean anything at all? "To love, honor, and cherish"?
That argument presupposes that the only reason to get married is to have a sex license. It is easy to love, honor, and cherish while not limiting sexual contact to but a single person.
Honestly, I think that modern birth control was a tragic, epic-level mistake. But once the genie was let out of that bottle, there's obviously no putting it back in. What's done is done.
Really?? Why in the world would you say that? You'd prefer a world where casual sexual encounters have life long consequences? Why??
Would you also prefer a world where antibiotics did not exist?
As far as I am aware, sheepskin c*nd*ms were available as far back as B.C. Roman times -- significantly less effective in preventing pregnancy, as as they were obviously more porous, but contraception nonetheless. But has anyone stopped to consider, what is the human cost of modern forms of birth control? If modern birth control had never existed, I would speculate that there would be much less divorce, ppl would still marry younger instead of much older, there would be much less pre-marital sex (not 0%, but still much less), and the entertainment industry would probably not be pushing what amounts to R- and X-rated, soft-core pornography that they conveniently call "artistic movies", down our throats. Society and relationships overall would be much tamer...ppl much less likely to stray, for purely physical reasons. Ergo, less broken marriages. Society...teenagers...even husbands and wives, would probably be much more "innocent", overall. Probably no S*xual Revolution would have ever occurred, either.
Honestly, I think that modern birth control was a tragic, epic-level mistake. But once the genie was let out of that bottle, there's obviously no putting it back in. What's done is done.
Interesting...how so?
I agree with you fully, on the above. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, in whatever form that may be. All forms are equally wrong.
You make it seem like people didn't marry younger, simply because the were married off when they hit puberty. It is still tradition in some less developed countries. Maybe you missed some history regarding the good ol' Roman days, when some women would get pregnant, and then have sex with all the other ones. Maybe You may have relished sending women to a different village during their periods in biblical times, but that would be pretty inconvenient in modern times. Even real men who used to wear shining suits of armor and hire the services of a chastity belt maker lends less credibility to some claims virtue and the historical record. Consider that Courts of Love dealt with adultery, not monogamy. I am not sure where you are getting your propaganda and rhetoric from; since, what you claim never really existed, even during the times of the Pilgrims coming to America, with concept of "bundling". I am not sure that marriage (other than common law forms) was really practiced, until modern times, by persons without enough wealth to want a long term, legally binding social contract at their disposal. Prohibition is another example that doesn't really fit in with the idealized version of history that some claim.
Voluntary social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade usually are not usually considered to be engaged in from the perspective of a covenant of bad faith and unfair dealing, all things being equal.
Really?? Why in the world would you say that? You'd prefer a world where casual sexual encounters have life long consequences? Why??
To be fully honest, I am torn between conflicting "moral/ethical justice", and "mercy". Do I believe that pre-marital intimacy is morally unethical? Yes. Do I seek to impose my own arbitrary morality on others (and even with the fact that Hollywood does so, every day, the other way around)? No. Do I believe that parents having out-of-wedlock children is wrong? Yes. But do I believe that children born out-of-wedlock should be unfairly punished, for their parents' moral lapses, or looked down on? Absolutely not! That's why I say...I am torn
I just wish a lot times, in a way, that the bond and sacrament of marriage, would actually "mean" something important again. Instead of being trivialized as it is today in contemporary society, to the point where it is virtually meaningless.
Quote:
Would you also prefer a world where antibiotics did not exist?
Not at all -- for me to wish so would be fully inhumane, and cruel beyond measure.
I am certainly not equating social injustice or the past evils of history as good or beneficial.
I just wish for the days when ppl...both women and men...were more innocent When a sweetheart couple, could actually still get married relatively young, and not be artificially impeded by mass societal pressure to wait until they're over 30 already. When a first or other early love, was much more likely to turn into a permanent love, and a husband or wife. When a husband and wife, were much more likely to be virginal, on their wedding night, and having saved that special loving gift, solely for each other.
Society simply no longer makes it easy for young ppl to get married, anymore. Hollywood shoves what's essentially porn down our throats like it's candy, dehumanizing women horribly. Divorces for trivial reasons are so commonplace that it's completely ridiculous.
Am I saying the old days were perfect? Not at all. In some ways they were much worse. But the converse is also true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
You make it seem like people didn't marry younger, simply because the were married off when they hit puberty. It is still tradition in some less developed countries. Maybe you missed some history regarding the good ol' Roman days, when some women would get pregnant, and then have sex with all the other ones. Maybe You may have relished sending women to a different village during their periods in biblical times, but that would be pretty inconvenient in modern times. Even real men who used to wear shining suits of armor and hire the services of a chastity belt maker lends less credibility to some claims virtue and the historical record. Consider that Courts of Love dealt with adultery, not monogamy. I am not sure where you are getting your propaganda and rhetoric from; since, what you claim never really existed, even during the times of the Pilgrims coming to America, with concept of "bundling". I am not sure that marriage (other than common law forms) was really practiced, until modern times, by persons without enough wealth to want a long term, legally binding social contract at their disposal. Prohibition is another example that doesn't really fit in with the idealized version of history that some claim.
Voluntary social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade usually are not usually considered to be engaged in from the perspective of a covenant of bad faith and unfair dealing, all things being equal.
Really?? Why in the world would you say that? You'd prefer a world where casual sexual encounters have life long consequences? Why??
Would you also prefer a world where antibiotics did not exist?
That's a bad analogy.
Casual sex encounters are a moral evil, whether there are life-long consequences or not. They cheapen what is a divinely-instituted act. Having methods of reducing those consequences seems to encourage the acts, since some people who are not dissuaded from them because they are morally wrong ARE dissuaded from them by the consequences.
Diseases requiring treatment by antibiotics are not a moral evil, and antibiotics do not persuade people to engage in moral evils.
Better a world in which 1% engaged in casual sex with awful consequences than where 50% engaged in it with few consequences.
I just wish for the days when ppl...both women and men...were more innocent When a sweetheart couple, could actually still get married relatively young, and not be artificially impeded by mass societal pressure to wait until they're over 30 already. When a first or other early love, was much more likely to turn into a permanent love, and a husband or wife. When a husband and wife, were much more likely to be virginal, on their wedding night, and having saved that special loving gift, solely for each other.
Am I saying the old days were perfect? Not at all. In some ways they were much worse. But the converse is also true.
I'm not sure to what era you're referring when you speak of the "old days" but it also bears keeping in mind that in the days of the Roman Empire (which you mentioned earlier) the life expectancy was 35 years!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean if you're gonna have a string of serial random encounters like that, then why be married at all then? Don't the marriage vows, mean anything at all? "To love, honor, and cherish"? 
me to!!!! Thats what prompted the thread lol
