# Changing marriage?



## Rev. Clonn

From the article Is It Time To Change Our Views Of Adultery and Marriage? | Lisa Haisha
Do you think we need to go back to a more traditional form of relationships?
what makes it better that what we have now, and would you really want to live that way?


----------



## over20

Great article, thanks for sharing. Remembering how the lifespan was so much shorter years ago, certainly would change things. We all do have so many more challenges now a days to stay married. I have a feeling couples now a days communicate prob better than those of decades past because of the mere fact there are so many tools and resources available to couples.


----------



## Married but Happy

As some of us here keep saying, marriage is a social convention, and conventions have been different in other times and places, just as they are today within different segment of society.

Marriage clearly IS changing, right before our eyes, in dramatic ways. Much of it is for the good, but "old" ideas (a century or so) die hard.


----------



## Jung_admirer

All these forms of relationship.... plural marriage, open marriage, monogamy .. are available today. The posted article is attempting to get people to consider a broader frame-of-reference. 

I suggest you know yourself. When you know what you want, you will not compromise your N.U.T.S. (well, hopefully not)


----------



## Ikaika

Traditional - New Testament, Old Testament, my ancestral heritage... Whose tradition?


----------



## 2ntnuf

> Is it realistic to think that two people could be emotionally, mentally, physically and sexually compatible for that long?


It's realistic to know and accept that people change all of their lives and to make a responsible choice to either commit to someone and the changes that will inevitably take place, or accept that you don't want to change and grow with someone and decide not to get married.




> perhaps a new kind of conversation can unfold with your spouse or partner where you jointly communicate your needs and set reasonable and practical parameters of what is and isn't allowed in your marriage, so the negative and hidden behaviors associated with adultery don't take place.


Why not just accept that you are not right for a committed relationship?




> Online adultery site ****** ******* says Japan was the fastest country to reach 1 million users, and the ratio of women to men on the site is about two-to-one.


Is she concluding from this, or suggesting that women have affairs twice as much as men?




> f marriage is a sacred union, then we owe it to our partner to be honest with them, however complicated each other's individual expectations may be.


I don't like her use of the word, "sacred". Marriage is not a religious institution, unless both partners are religious. It is at it's base, a commitment to a lifelong partner. 

It is more necessary to be honest with yourself, first. Then, you might not put yourself in a situation that requires all of the effort that she is suggesting needs put into marriage.




> Imagine how many divorces and heartbreaks we could avoid if our culture was okay with having this type of open communication --


Imagine how these folks children will define love and commitment. There will be little of that. It's a selfish lifestyle at best. Maybe we need to work on understanding how to love ourselves and to love others with the same veracity?

Communication? I think she means open marriage where the partners can find sex elsewhere. Doesn't have much to do with the all encompassing commitment that marriage was supposed to be for the sake of the children produced by their union. 




> If we're going to broaden or evolve the definition of marriage to incorporate modern realities, communication is the first step.


This truly is not modern as she stated near the top.



> In fact, the modern version of marriage emerged a mere couple of hundred years ago.


And again, here:



> n the past, marriage rarely involved love (most marriages were arranged based on income and social status), and the majority of societies allowed and expected plural marriages, with either multiple wives or multiple husbands.


So, instead of moving forward, she wants everyone to go back to something that was already attempted and was altered, most likely because there were problems that didn't make the world a better place?

Seems to me, "If we do not learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it." 

This doesn't mean I don't think there needs to be changes. I just think these aren't the kinds of changes that will do the most good.


----------



## jb02157

2ntnuf said:


> So, instead of moving forward, she wants everyone to go back to something that was already attempted and was altered, most likely because there were problems that didn't make the world a better place?
> 
> Seems to me, "If we do not learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it."
> 
> This doesn't mean I don't think there needs to be changes. I just think these aren't the kinds of changes that will do the most good.


That's exactly what I take away from this article. The assumptions the author makes aren't well thought out and I disagree with most of them.


----------



## Rev. Clonn

Thanks everybody, I was shown this by a lady I have in MC. I think she wants to be a cake eater and wants me to approve it.
Her plan was to base it on biblical principals. 
Me approve of your continued bad behavior. Not this guy.


----------



## Mr. Nail

If you don't want to feel guilty just redefine the rules until what you are doing is ok.
There are a number of truths in the world that fly in the face of my experience. This is one of them. If we really are not programed for monogamy, how did an average Joe like me wind up with parents that stayed together till death. How did I wander into a relationship with a faithful woman who wants nothing more in life that to be with me. Folks, I'm just not that lucky. The odds must be more in the favor of this than the statistics indicate.
MN


----------



## EleGirl

Rev. Clonn said:


> Thanks everybody, I was shown this by a lady I have in MC. I think she wants to be a cake eater and wants me to approve it.
> Her plan was to base it on biblical principals.
> Me approve of your continued bad behavior. Not this guy.


What biblical principals does she think allows women to cheat on their husbands? I'm curious.


----------



## Rev. Clonn

According to her the line in the article 
"Hundreds of years ago, life expectancy was a fraction of what it is today. When two people in their 20s got married, it was quite possible that one of the two would be deceased within 10-15 years --often much sooner"
Referred to biblical times and as such she would have to think we have twice as much life now so the rules should be changed. She brought up half a dozen scriptural quotes that taken out of context supported her position. but when we read the whole sections she was livid, that I would not just take her word for it. She hasn't come back. Pity


----------



## anotherguy

rationalization is a powerful thing.

Typically that type of person will just go somewhere else until they get the answer they want. Which is fine really - they will have to live thier life and make their mistakes (or have successes) same as everyone else. 

You cant draw a direct line between middle ages life expectancy and pre-supposed abbreviated long term relationships today. Sorry.

Hey - My grandmother was married happilly for 75 years. Shrug. What does that prove? Nothing whatsoever.


----------

