Your views on MARRIAGE

[MTL]

---

I don't really care if people want to get married, but I object when married couples get deferential treatment or perks that I, as a single woman, do not.

I love the idea of having one wonderful monogamous partner for the rest of my life,
but ideally I'd want him to keep his own house and his own money and independence.

Maybe we could buy houses next door to each other, but that's about as close as I'd like to get.

The only marriage I've ever personally observed that I actually admired
was between a STRAIGHT WOMAN and a GAY MAN,
who grew up together and were best friends.

They bought a house together, shared living expenses, and all of life's burdens...they remained best friends;
they both put the family and each other FIRST, and their sex lives, second.


They had two children by in-vitro fertilization
which they both loved and raised together, like any parents.

They both worked, came home and had dinner as a family, talked about their day, and also did regular family things and had family vacations.

But, she had her own boyfriends, outside of the house
and so did he.

They didn't deceive the kids about their respective orientations;
but (like most parents) they also didn't include the children in any in-depth discussions about their personal sex lives, either.

The main thing was, the kids knew that both their parents loved them, and each other,
and had a very stable, respectful, loving family life,

and they both made it very clear to their sexual partners that they were already married,
and were not going to be available for marriage to anyone else, down the road;

and the boyfriends outside of the house were also guys who also didn't want to get married,
so everyone was happy.



It was the most fulfilled, happy marriage I've ever seen.

---

I love that!  It's so sweet!

Yes I was very impressed with their arrangement.  It was so stable and so functional.

[Catholic_Lady]

You can't tell me what is unforgiveable for me and what not as this is rather subjective.

What ego?

The one that's telling you that someone saying your opinions don't matter is unforgiveable. And the same one you've been displaying most of your time here. Like calling people bitches over nothing.

I'm serious. That's not a good sign.

For the record, just so I am not misrepresented here, I never said his opinions don't matter and have no idea where that accusation even came from.

[Minimalist]

The following Bible Verses are relevant and reflect my opinion of marriage:

Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."

Ephesians 5:33 "Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

Matthew 19:4-9 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

You've obviously confused us for people who give a flying fuck about your bible, Chad.  Have you been gone so long that you forgot the basics?

[Pyrrho]

The causation is indirect. Polygamy itself doesn't increase the chances of std, but the fact that you're more likely to be exposed to a cheating spouse does.

Which is why I don't think its a good argument against polygamy being legal, what we are really talking about is promiscuous behavior being the problem.

And do you want to make promiscuity illegal?

Also, the original comment I made about STDs was NOT as an argument against polygamy.  It was a minor point about a mistake in someone else's post.  You have made it into a major digression.

For my argument against polygamy, see:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34534-po...#pid986067

Just a quick heads up:  the argument is not a moral argument against polygamy, but a pragmatic one.  If you can work out all the details satisfactorily (as indicated in that post), then I will be happy to change my mind.  But right now, no one has come up with anything reasonable to make it work in the real world.  It would be very complicated (given that divorce is legal), and so the details need to be worked out before we start issuing marriage licenses for threesomes and foursomes and etc.

In ancient times, when women were essentially property, that "worked" in a way.  But that involves regarding women as property, and for my part, I am unwilling to do that for the sake of people wanting to have more than one spouse.  Indeed, I do not have sufficient vocabulary of obscenities to properly express my feelings for anyone who would want that.

[Mr.wizard]

Which is why I don't think its a good argument against polygamy being legal, what we are really talking about is promiscuous behavior being the problem.

And do you want to make promiscuity illegal?

Also, the original comment I made about STDs was NOT as an argument against polygamy.  It was a minor point about a mistake in someone else's post.  You have made it into a major digression.

For my argument against polygamy, see:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34534-po...#pid986067

Just a quick heads up:  the argument is not a moral argument against polygamy, but a pragmatic one.  If you can work out all the details satisfactorily (as indicated in that post), then I will be happy to change my mind.  But right now, no one has come up with anything reasonable to make it work in the real world.  It would be very complicated (given that divorce is legal), and so the details need to be worked out before we start issuing marriage licenses for threesomes and foursomes and etc.

In ancient times, when women were essentially property, that "worked" in a way.  But that involves regarding women as property, and for my part, I am unwilling to do that for the sake of people wanting to have more than one spouse.  Indeed, I do not have sufficient vocabulary of obscenities to properly express my feelings for anyone who would want that.

No my point is making promiscuity illegal would be ridiculous. So using that as an argument against polygamy would be ridiculous.

I didn't make a major deal out of it, catholic lady she thought it was a good reason to keep polygamy illegal and I said I didn't understand why it would apply to polygamy exclusively.

I didn't even have an exchange with you about polygamy being legal or not, at least I don't think, I only asked you a simple question of why one person cheating in a polygamous marriage was different than one person cheating I a monogamous marriage.

[Vincent]

My default answer is 'no'. I feel like it would greatly complicate the marriage/family dynamic in negative ways (i.e. partners getting jealous of each other; trying to conceive/raise kids with three/four/more parents; not even being certain of which two partners are the biological mother and father; changing tax forms). But if a time comes when research on multiple-partner marriages proves that such a union could produce just as many happy and prosperous people, and on top of that, if a large enough portion of the population stand and fight for the right to marry two or three individuals, then my view would change. I'd probably be willing to accept it in that case. But as to whether or not that time will ever come, I am doubtful. I try to keep an open yet reasonable mind.

[robvalue]

Why does one cheating spouse out of ten put you at more of a risk then one cheating spouse out of one?

In 10 spouses, odds are higher that one of them will cheat you than with just one spouse.
If 10% of all people cheat, then, if you have 10 spouses, one of them is 100% likely to cheat, statistically speaking.
But if you only have 1 spouse, you have a 10% chance of having a cheating spouse.

The point being made here is valid, but I'd like to address the mathematics

In the above scenario, if we say that someone has a 10% chance of cheating at some point in their life:

The probability that at least one of them cheats at some point = 1 - The probability than none of them ever cheat

[They are exclusive and exhaustive events and so cover all possibilities with no overlap]

This probability, assuming all the people act independently is then:

1 - (90%)^10 = 1 - 0.3486784401... = 0.65 [To two decimal places. We need 10 non-cheaters in a row so we multiple their probability]

So the probability that at least one of the group cheats at some point in their life is slightly under two thirds.

What could instead be said is that the average number of people from the 10 who will cheat at some point in their life will be 1. This is probably what was meant in the first place to be fair

[Thumpalumpacus]

What you think is not really relevant if you don't present an objectively valid reason for it.

What's your fucking problem, idiot?

Pretty sure his problem is that you haven't supported your point with objective reasoning. At least, that's what he wrote, in pretty clear English.

[Excited Penguin]

What's your fucking problem, idiot?

Pretty sure his problem is that you haven't supported your point with objective reasoning.  At least, that's what he wrote, in pretty clear English.

Ok, then, my problem is you haven't supported your point with objective reasoning, so I will just ignore you.

We can all play that game if we're morons with something up our asses.

[Whateverist]

Your views on MARRIAGE?

I scarcely know what to say.  I haven't even been your FB friend for a week.  Don't forget, we're both already married.  I'm definitely going to need some time.