Chastity or Promiscuity? Which is best and why?

[Polymath257]

That' does not answer the question.
You said...
Marriage is an agreement between people, a type of commitment to support each other emotionally, to plan the future together, and to share life's moments. In addition, you can let the government know and get an actual license that says you are married.
In addition is what you are mentioning that you said, but I asked you about your description of what marriage is. So @Earthtank is right then... you made it up?

No, I use the current definition: I am married because I have a signed marriage license. That is what it *means* to be married.

Now, what it means to be *committed* is another story. And my wife and are *are* committed to each other (as she is to her other partner). But we are not *exclusive* with each other. There is a huge difference.

Ultimately, to be married is to have societal approval of the romantic relationship you have with someone else.

 

[Earthtank]

Once again, you may not like the form of my marriage, but to deny it *is* a marriage seems to be unreasonable and disrespectful.

I won't argue with you as i am sure we have both stated our points and are firm our stances however, just because i disagree with your definition of marriage (as you do mine) does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean its "unreasonable and disrespectful". Do you think you are being "unreasonable and disrespectful" to my stance on marriage? We can respectfully disagree with trying to brand the other person as "unreasonable and disrespectful". I wish you a good day and hope to catch you on another thread some other time.

I am done and have stated my point and views (as you can see) so maybe @nPeace can take over

 

[Earthtank]

Ultimately, to be married is to have societal approval of the romantic relationship you have with someone else.

Sorry lol i know i said i was done but, i need to ask, What? What does society's approval have anything to do with a marriage? You are married to your partner based off their approval, or are you married to society for society's approval? OK let's put this to the test, I and my entire family do NOT approve of your marriage, the entire society of conservative Christians, Jews and Hindus, do not approve of your marriage. Does that mean you are no longer married? I am sure there are literally millions in any society that will not approve of you personal version of marriage, will you now renounce your marriage?

 

[nPeace]

No, I use the current definition: I am married because I have a signed marriage license. That is what it *means* to be married.

Now, what it means to be *committed* is another story. And my wife and are *are* committed to each other (as she is to her other partner). But we are not *exclusive* with each other. There is a huge difference.

Ultimately, to be married is to have societal approval of the romantic relationship you have with someone else.

Okay. That's a lot different to what you said earlier.
So you believe marriage is to get a license from the secular authorities. Not that you are married otherwise. Okay. I think that is clear... if that's what you are saying.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry lol i know i said i was done but, i need to ask, What? what does society's approval have anything to do with a marriage? You are married to your partner based off their approval, you are not married to society for society's approval? OK let's put this to the test, I and my entire family do NOT approve of your marriage, the entire society of conservative Christians, Jews and Hindus, do not approve of your marriage. Does that mean you are no longer married?

Hmmm. That's an interesting question. You mean like if the government changed and revoked or took away your license? Hmmm.

 

[Earthtank]

Hmmm. That's an interesting question. You mean like if the government changed and revoked or took away your license? Hmmm.

No, he said "ultimately, to be married is to have societal approval of the romantic relationship you have with someone else." my question is what if many, even millions in society oppose his version of marriage, then what? Also, does this mean that south Americans living in Amazon Jungle are not married until they get that piece of paper?

Actually, now i am seriously done lol way toooooooooo many contradictions and logical fallacies to try and keep this whole thing straight.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry lol i know i said i was done but, i need to ask, What? What does society's approval have anything to do with a marriage? You are married to your partner based off their approval, or are you married to society for society's approval?

The *definition* is having societal approval. We ask for societal approval because of our mutual agreement.

OK let's put this to the test, I and my entire family do NOT approve of your marriage, the entire society of conservative Christians, Jews and Hindus, do not approve of your marriage. Does that mean you are no longer married?

Given that the local standard is a government license, no. If I lived in a theocracy based on those religions, then yes. That is one reason I don't want to live in a theocracy.

But, of course, that doesn't change the amount of my commitment to her or her to me. It is merely a word used for societal acceptance and approval.

I am sure there are literally millions in any society that will not approve of you personal version of marriage, will you now renounce your marriage?

I don't much care about the label given. I am committed to my wife. I have the various benefits of 'marriage' as it is defined by law. Past that, I don't much care what you call it.

I won't renounce my *commitment* even if the definitions change to say i am no longer married.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmmm. That's an interesting question. You mean like if the government changed and revoked or took away your license? Hmmm.

if the government revoked my marriage license, I would no longer be married. I would, however, still be committed.

 

[Polymath257]

No, he said "ultimately, to be married is to have societal approval of the romantic relationship you have with someone else." my question is what if many, even millions in society oppose his version of marriage, then what? Also, does this mean that south Americans living in Amazon Jungle are not married until they get that piece of paper?

Actually, now i am seriously done lol way toooooooooo many contradictions and logical fallacies to try and keep this whole thing straight.

Do those people living in the Amazon jungle have the local societal approval?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. That's a lot different to what you said earlier.
So you believe marriage is to get a license from the secular authorities. Not that you are married otherwise. Okay. I think that is clear... if that's what you are saying.

Yep. That's pretty much the local definition of the concept. More generally, a marriage is a formal way to get societal recognition of a relationship.

 

[nPeace]

No, he said "ultimately, to be married is to have societal approval of the romantic relationship you have with someone else." my question is what if many, even millions in society oppose his version of marriage, then what? Also, does this mean that south Americans living in Amazon Jungle are not married until they get that piece of paper?

Actually, now i am seriously done lol way toooooooooo many contradictions and logical fallacies to try and keep this whole thing straight.

I understand. So according to the law of the land.
I think that's what @Polymath257 means.
I gues the question would be... What if the government wasn't issuing license?
Then would people see a need for marriage? I don't think Atheists would, but religious people would, because it is instituted by God.
So Atheists would just be doing the same thing they are doing now, without the license - without marriage.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand. So according to the law of the land.
I think that's what @Polymath257 means.
I gues the question would be... What if the government wasn't issuing license?
Then would people see a need for marriage? I don't think Atheists would, but religious people would, because it is instituted by God.
So Atheists would just be doing the same thing they are doing now, without the license - without marriage.

I think people like to have societal recognition of their relationship when it gets to a certain point. Often, that recognition is done through a ceremony of some sort.We call that ceremony 'a marriage ceremony' and say those who have gone through it are 'married'.

In this society, the prescribed marriage ceremony requires a government issued license. That is what makes a couple married (no marriages for more than couples currently). Religion is beside the point.

Atheists love, they form commitments, they care, and nurture, they have the full range of emotions everyone else has.

We just don't believe in any deities.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand. So according to the law of the land.
I think that's what @Polymath257 means.
I gues the question would be... What if the government wasn't issuing license?
Then would people see a need for marriage? I don't think Atheists would, but religious people would, because it is instituted by God.
So Atheists would just be doing the same thing they are doing now, without the license - without marriage.

Marriage is instituted by human beings. Atheists are just as likely as anyone else to be married, because it's a societal thing, not a god thing.

 

[nPeace]

I think people like to have societal recognition of their relationship when it gets to a certain point. Often, that recognition is done through a ceremony of some sort.We call that ceremony 'a marriage ceremony' and say those who have gone through it are 'married'.

In this society, the prescribed marriage ceremony requires a government issued license. That is what makes a couple married (no marriages for more than couples currently). Religion is beside the point.

Atheists love, they form commitments, they care, and nurture, they have the full range of emotions everyone else has.

We just don't believe in any deities.

So you think marriage evolve from apes wanting to have some ceremony to show that they are commuted, and it evolved? Do animal do that? Don't you believe we are animals? Why do we care about commitment, and ceremonies? If animals cared about commitment, why would a male allow another male to "strap" the female he is commuted to? Or why would he be committed to two or three females?
Doesn't add up.
You seem to be trying to deny that you have anything to do with the religious element... imo.

 

[Polymath257]

Then would people see a need for marriage? I don't think Atheists would, but religious people would, because it is instituted by God.

Let me ask you this. Suppose that a couple has been married and one becomes convinced that God does not approve of that marriage. Would you expect them to renounce the marriage even if they otherwise love and care for each other?

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to be trying to deny that you have anything to do with the religious element... imo.

Yes, I think religion has co-opted the institution of marriage to serve its own ends.

I'm not familiar enough with the archeology to know when marriage ceremonies first started. And, perhaps, that won't ever be known. But the practice does appear to be universal, even among those societies that are non-theist.

 

[nPeace]

Let me ask you this. Suppose that a couple has been married and one becomes convinced that God does not approve of that marriage. Would you expect them to renounce the marriage even if they otherwise love and care for each other?

What do you mean by, "God does not approve of that marriage"?
If God approves of marriage, but does not approve of that marriage, then it would mean that that marriage never happened... as far as God is concerned.
So it would be up to the person(s) to take action to breach the gap they created between Themselves and God, by ending that so-called marriage, and ungodly relationship.
Otherwise, it's their choice to forget about God.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I think religion has co-opted the institution of marriage to serve its own ends.

I'm not familiar enough with the archeology to know when marriage ceremonies first started. And, perhaps, that won't ever be known. But the practice does appear to be universal, even among those societies that are non-theist.

Well, it is clear you can't explain it from an evolutionary perspective, so the Biblical perspective seems to be the only alternative explanation, and correct one.

 

[columbus]

lack of respect towards one's spouse? How does that happen, do you think?

People marrying other people that they aren't really compatible with, in a long term way.

Back in the olden days things were very different. Most marriages barely outlasted child bearing years. That's because simple infections were untreatable. Gestation and child birth were very dangerous. Most working conditions were very unsafe. People died young all the time. As a result, marriage tended to be a relatively short term commitment.

Also, gender roles were clearly defined. As long as the man supported the family and the woman managed the home and kids, what they got up to outside that didn't matter all the much. Especially for men, since they didn't have to admit to being pregnant in a world before DNA tests.

But here's the bottom line.
What used to be a short term contract with clear parameters has become a much bigger deal. Fifty years of a "mutually supportive and committed" relationship, with rules that are more like guidelines than laws, has changed the definition of marriage for the foreseeable future. That's not what the word marriage meant for most of human history.
Back in Scripture days, marriage meant a guy getting an all purpose domestic appliance. As many as he could afford. Then it became official sanction for a human breeding pair. Then it became a legal agreement between two parties.
Now it's something else. Society is just plain different from what it used to be, and so is marriage.

They're better than the olden days.

Nowadays, it's better if people don't get married until they're experienced. And marry someone compatible, even if they're both of the same sex. The fact that so many religionists think that's wrong is evidence, enough for me, that religion is fiction.
Tom

 

[julianalexander745]

Chastity in this age of promiscuity is generally frowned upon but I wish to explore its benefits both psychological and medical so any doctors in the House please contribute.

Researchers have found that chastity before marriage offers many benefits, including a decreased chance of psychological damage from expressing intimacy without commitment, freedom from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies, and an increase in marital stability and satisfaction.

A Christian view on chastity : The Benefits of Chastity Before Marriage

World religions :https://www.quora.com/What-religion...r-celibacy-by-their-religious-leaders-priests

Wouldn’t all women be safer in a world that practised chastity before marriage? Women please have your say.

For instance [in the future] should a woman ..., who is unsurpassed in her beauty and adorned with the most exquisite and priceless jewels, travel unveiled and alone, from the east of the world to the west thereof, passing through every land and journeying in all countries, there would be such a standard of justice, trustworthiness and faith on the one hand, and lack of treachery and degradation on the other, that no one would be found who would wish to rob her of her possessions or to cast a treacherous and lustful eye upon her beauteous chastity!...’ Baha’u’llah

Chasity runs the risk of a seriously unhappy life and a potential misfire in terms of fleshing out a person's sexual satisfaction. It accounts for the Ted Haggards of the world.

Promiscuity allows any individual the ability to explore themselves and eventually arrive at an identity they can be happy and satisfied with regardless where that lifestyle takes them. The risks can all be mitigated effectively.