"Key Parties"; Do They Still Exist and Have You Ever Been to One??? (marriages, loving)
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.
That's adultery, plain and simple, and even if all parties consent, gravely wrong. You can end up in hell for eternity for that if not repented.
Why is it "wrong" if all parties consent and it does not involve a Cardinal sin?
In my opinion, it should only be "wrong" if done for any of the negative emotions or traits enumerated as Cardinal sins; especially in modern times.
Otherwise, voluntary social transactions (which may improve the standard of living of the "market" participants involved) should not be considered sins or even bad in most cases. Bad intent should be more of a criteria than simple and voluntary social transactions established with the full faith and credit of any covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
This would recognize that Iron Age morals are best left to the Iron Age and not the Information Age; in order to not "arrest" the development of modern Man in modern times which may preclude the pursuit and acquisition of more perfect knowledge which may better ensure the greater glory of our immortal souls.
This would recognize that Iron Age morals are best left to the Iron Age and not the Information Age; in order to not "arrest" the development of modern Man in modern times which may preclude the pursuit and acquisition of more perfect knowledge which may better ensure the greater glory of our immortal souls.
I have nothing to say about this. I just liked it so much I wanted to repeat it!
I'm a lil confused here...aren't "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife", by very definition, cardinal / mortal sins? Right up along there with "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
Why is it "wrong" if all parties consent and it does not involve a Cardinal sin?
In my opinion, it should only be "wrong" if done for any of the negative emotions or traits enumerated as Cardinal sins; especially in modern times.
Otherwise, voluntary social transactions (which may improve the standard of living of the "market" participants involved) should not be considered sins or even bad in most cases. Bad intent should be more of a criteria than simple and voluntary social transactions established with the full faith and credit of any covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
This would recognize that Iron Age morals are best left to the Iron Age and not the Information Age; in order to not "arrest" the development of modern Man in modern times which may preclude the pursuit and acquisition of more perfect knowledge which may better ensure the greater glory of our immortal souls.
I'm a lil confused here...aren't "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife", by very definition, cardinal / mortal sins? Right up along there with "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal"?
Only if one actually believes god met Moses up on a hill (with no witnesses, btw) and actually gave him stone tablets with those ditties engraved therein. I find that story lacks credibility. If a couple is voluntarily non-monogamous, nobody is committing adultery, and no coveting need occur. As for killing and stealing, don't those have a victim?
Only if one actually believes god met Moses up on a hill (with no witnesses, btw) and actually gave him stone tablets with those ditties engraved therein. I find that story lacks credibility. If a couple is voluntarily non-monogamous, nobody is committing adultery, and no coveting need occur. As for killing and stealing, don't those have a victim?
and that right there is why i believe that pretty much every person in this kind of life is not religious. i dont know of any Christian couple in an open relationship.
To answer your question about why the behavior of others concerns me, it is b/c they will ultimately (either consciously or unconsciously) try to influence others. Society "pushes" certain values on ppl. Also just for example, you may want to engage in casual physical intimacy, but then again, if you're a father, somehow I highly doubt you would want your sixteen year-old daughter (if you hypothetically had one), to be engaging in that kind of intimate behavior?
I would object less if safe sex practices were employed.
For those of you who may not know, a "key party" is when a group of several married couples get together and have a party, and at the end of the night, the husbands all place their keys into a large box or somthing similar. The wives then pick a set of keys out of the box and whoevers keys they have is the man that they will go home with on that particular night. I beleive these "parties" were mostly popular in the 60's and 70's.
Do these types of things still happen today? Have you ever been to one?
{ the poll is totaly anonymous }
How revolting.
Most of the people/couples I know are *not* even remotely attractive to me. It would be like trying to enjoy sex with Rodney Dangerfield or Woody Allen.
And FYI I was 18 years old in 1973 and I never heard of them until now.
I'm a lil confused here...aren't "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife", by very definition, cardinal / mortal sins? Right up along there with "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal"?
It was more important, back in the good ol' days because contraception did not exist. There is usually a reason behind most morals other than simply because we have always done it that way. I have noticed that foot washing is no longer practiced as a moral regarding forms of humility.
Would those injunctions exist (regarding fornication and adultery) if women could "choose" when they could get pregnant and there had been no communicable diseases?
In my opinion, having an "open" marriage with others of like mind is "coveting" thy neighbors wife; but simply sharing quality time with friends.
I noticed you didn't mention false witness bearing. In my opinion, that is the most important injunction simply because it can lead to the abomination of hypocrisy and the election of hypocrites to rule over us. If that doesn't really matter, then why should the rest in modern times.
Only if one actually believes god met Moses up on a hill (with no witnesses, btw) and actually gave him stone tablets with those ditties engraved therein. I find that story lacks credibility. If a couple is voluntarily non-monogamous, nobody is committing adultery, and no coveting need occur. As for killing and stealing, don't those have a victim?
True...there is a difference, between the law per se and ethical, religious-based morality 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). I know that there's a "difference", if everybody involved and both married partners participating are consensual, 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"?
It was more important, back in the good ol' days because contraception did not exist. There is usually a reason behind most morals other than simply because we have always done it that way. I have noticed that foot washing is no longer practiced as a moral regarding forms of humility.
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 s*x (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.
Quote:
Would those injunctions exist (regarding fornication and adultery) if women could "choose" when they could get pregnant and there had been no communicable diseases?
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.
Quote:
In my opinion, having an "open" marriage with others of like mind is "coveting" thy neighbors wife; but simply sharing quality time with friends.
Interesting...how so?
Quote:
I noticed you didn't mention false witness bearing. In my opinion, that is the most important injunction simply because it can lead to the abomination of hypocrisy and the election of hypocrites to rule over us. If that doesn't really matter, then why should the rest in modern times.
I agree with you fully, on the above. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, in whatever form that may be. All forms are equally wrong.
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 06-17-2011 at 09:30 PM..
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.
Right up along there with "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal"?
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). I know that there's a "difference", if everybody involved and both married partners participating are consensual, but even then...doesn't that still make a virtual joke, out of the whole notion of marriage? 
