-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
A few I can think of off hand.
1. Unfair inheritance rights
2. Increased likelihood of unintentional incestuous relationships in future generations.
3. Increased difficulty in preventing adultery
4. Demeaning to the concept of full commitment
5. Reduces any need for love in a relationship
6. Reduces marriage to only a physical act.
1. Unfair inheritance rights
2. Increased likelihood of unintentional incestuous relationships in future generations.
3. Increased difficulty in preventing adultery
4. Demeaning to the concept of full commitment
5. Reduces any need for love in a relationship
6. Reduces marriage to only a physical act.
None of your half dozen reasons seem to me to be necessary or intrinsic consequences of an open relationship or marriage. Also, they could easily be incidental characteristics of a monogamous relationship or marriage.
Can you show how your half doze objections would necessarily result from an open relationship or marriage? And can you also show how they could not be incidental characteristics of a monogamous relationship or marriage?
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
They would not necessarily occur, but would have an increased probability.
1. Unfair inheritance rights
Paternity could become quite difficult to keep track of. It is possible a wealthy man could dieand his realchildren would not be the legal heirs tohisinheritance.
2. Increased likelihood of unintentional incestuous relationships in future generations
As multple partners increase the greater becomesthe risk that half siblings will meet and have relationships..
3. Increased difficulty in preventing adultery
essentially It seems to remove any identification of adultry
4. Demeaning to the concept of full commitment
5. Reduces any need for love in a relationship
Don't need to love girl A who is a good bed mate when I can love girl B who is a dead fish
6. Reduces marriage to only a physical act.
Why bother getting married unless it is only for sexual relations
Charity
Let's go racing boys !
I have reasonable grounds to oppose marriage period, end of story....
By the way "Hello Phil" hope your doing well
Oneatatime
Huh?
Not that I can think of. The personal relationships of adults are their own business. I don't doubt that open relationships have their own set of unique problems but closed relationships aren't free from problems either.
A simply DNA test can solve that no problem
Um no not at all. Considering the high divorce and remarriage rate half or step sibblings are already very common. I have two step brothers.
Depends how you define adultery. If like me you see it as the act of lying and cheating on your partner then no it would not.
Again nope sorry.
You seem to think that open relationship just means sleeping around. It is possible to be in love with more than one person you know?
I don't see the point you are trying to make here at all?
So got anything with a bit more substance?
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
As a Muslim who sees the validity of polygamy. It is a bit difficult for me to come up with a substantial moral reason to outlaw Open Marriages. but, thought I would take a shot at it.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
None that I can think of concerning consenting adults.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Nah, it's a waste of time anyway, as they'll end up failing on their own just fine.
Karl R
Active Member
On a moral/ethical level, there are a number of reasons that I'm not in favor of open relationships and marriages. For those reasons, I wouldn't personally enter into that kind of relationship, and I would recommend against it to others.
On a societal level, I think open marriages (particularly polyamory) would open a host of legal problems. These mostly involve divorce, child custody and child support.
On a moral/ethical level:
While open relationships are supposed to be equal in theory (the same rules apply to all partners), they almost always seem to be unequal in practice.
Real life example #1
Partner A is allowed to have sex outside the relationship. Partner B is not allowed to have sex outside the relationship.
Real life example #2
Both partners are allowed to have sex outside the relationship. Partner A has an easier time finding outside sex partners. Partner B gets jealous any time Partner A exercises this right. Partner A doesn't get jealous of Partner B.
Real life example #3
Both partners are allowed to have sex outside the relationship. Partner A isn't comfortable having sex outside the marriage. Therefore, Partner B is the only one who exercises this right.
Real life example #4
Partner A wanted an open relationship. Partner B didn't want one, but agreed to keep from losing Partner A. Partner B is unhappy with the situation.
Real life example #5
Partner A wanted an open relationship, and Partner B reluctantly agreed. After trying it, Partner B liked this lifestyle, but Partner A did not. Partner A would like to go back to a normal relationship, but Partner B doesn't want to. (And Partner A doesn't have much traction ... as the one who originally suggested the arrangement.)
Real life example #6
Couple A and B started a relationship with Couple C and D. So some of the time, A and D would have sex while B and C did the same. Then Partner D broke up with Partner C. Now Partner B effectively has a primary partner (A) and a secondary partner (C). Partner C hasn't been able to find another partner who would find the original arrangement acceptable.
____________________________
In two of these situations, I had the opportunity to hear both Partner A and Partner B independently describe the relationship. You get a very different picture talking to each partner. One partner described the situation as being equal. The other one did not.
These people are consenting adults, so I believe they have the right to enter into this type of relationship if they choose. But personal experience suggests this is an unwise choice for most of the people who enter into them.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Considering that over half of all relationships have at least one cheating partner, I think relationships could benefit if open relationships were more the norm. Especially in romantic relationships and marriages that aren't sexually compatible.
I do think these scenarios you've described are all worthy of consideration and are reasonable additions to the argument against open relationships. And it is an argument I've had more than 20 times in my life (maybe as much as 100 times).
In rebuttal, I would just note that these are logistical issues that don't necessarily play into ethics. I'm not saying they wouldn't have any impact on persons involved and their own moral compasses. But if commitment and devotion is there for 'primary' persons, then these scenarios could be discussed, and worked through in way that is akin to how monogamous couples work through things before say any talk of engagement is made. IOW, people get to test how ready the person is for likely idiosyncrasies that may occur.
I do think very similar logistical issues come up with monogamy, but there is more or less assumptions at work where people for most part don't want to discuss things, thinking either it will get them in trouble, or is just 'basic common sense.' I can think of many, but one that comes to mind is: Partner A works outside of the house and Partner B works at home. Partner A has been invited by attractive co-worker (unaware of Partner A's status) for a lunch during work hours. What does Partner A do? Accept, decline, discuss with Partner B first? And this is example I think many would say is in vein of "common sense" and doesn't need to be discussed, so it doesn't. But because there is various opinions on what Partner A ought to do in that situation, it can be grounds for 'let's just end this relationship, since apparently you don't take Partner B's feelings into account and only think of what Partner A is comfortable with.' Obviously, if all this is discussed between Partner A and B, it stands better chance of working out, with less worry. But if Partner B says up front, "yes, go to lunch with co-workers, that's perfectly fine with me." But then turns out to be very jealous / suspicious of Partner A's relationships with co-workers, then just like open relationship scenarios, it will seemingly not matter how much this is discussed (in theory) up front. While, it will matter if the scenarios are tested with real life experience, over time, such that devotion can be demonstrated and received.
In my understanding, open relationship is just better to have as 'guiding rationale' for desire to be in relationship with anyone. And the more open the better. But this doesn't mean (and for sure doesn't have to mean) that either partner will act on perceived freedom(s). I really think that is key to understanding how open relationships can (and do) work. For reality is, everyone I've met or story I've heard of, is in some form of open relation. There are exceptions to this, but only for isolated period of times and essentially amounts to one partner being in a physical prison that is controlled by other partner. Since that is extreme and rare, I generally don't even mention it, as it is clearly outside of all normal relations in all societies I'm aware of.
So, open relationships are what we're all engaged in, and actually desire (to some degree), but obviously many draw lines around sexual relations. I'm not sure I see this ever changing, regardless of how open humanity becomes with either sexuality or devoted relationships.
The only other thing I would add from my understanding is that open relationship philosophy does allow for, may even encourage, monogamy for those who desire that. While monogamy attempts, all it can, to exclude all considerations for open relationships, perceiving it as a threat to the very foundation of the bond that is shared. To not see that (monogamous dictate) for what it is, I think is unreasonable, and plausibly, unethical.
IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
Christianity is a good reason to oppose them.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Unless you have something more, no it isn't.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
children would grow up thinking that commitment and loyalty is unnecessary. That could adversely affect their relationships in the future...and if they have children of their own, their lack of commitment to the other parent may cause them to abandon their own children.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Not unnecessary... just different ideas of what it means.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Oh, wait... are you talking about poly unions, or more "free love" arrangements? I had assumed the former.....
