What is your thought on marriage?

[The Parkus Empire]

I presume that's why he mentioned Christ, the guy whose example we, as Christians, are supposed to follow.

I do not see where those words prevent polygamy. Specifically because I do not remember the verse saying 1 man and 1 woman.

Jesus didn't write anything down, he passed on traditions to his disciples. Some of what he passed down was later written down, but his disciples were considered the primary source (many were illiterate), and they taught mostly by mouth and appointing other teachers. It is their witness and continuous tradition we go by; the writings were never the basis of this community, but rather products of it. We can't really pursue this tangent any further without a thread jack.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I do not see where those words prevent polygamy. Specifically because I do not remember the verse saying 1 man and 1 woman.

That's because it is commonly interpreted to mean that. It should be noted that the aforementioned verse isn't the only one interpreted to mean that, for example, Matthew 19:3—9: "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?".

It's probably best to take this to the CDT.

[Petrolheadia]

That's what happens when science discovers things, we have scientific answers to more things

No, it's what happens when scientific sanction replaces our poetic disposition in driving us, when science becomes a god rather than a tool.

Yes, because how dare people live based on what is observed to be true, instead of unproven assumptions!

That was a slightly snarky way of asking you for a source.

Sacred tradition. The Church has ALWAYS forbidden polygamy, 2,000 years

So that would be a human tradition, not a godly one.

[Petrolheadia]

I do not see where those words prevent polygamy. Specifically because I do not remember the verse saying 1 man and 1 woman.

Jesus didn't write anything down, he passed on traditions to his disciples. Some of what he passed down was later written down, but his disciples were considered the primary source (many were illiterate), and they taught mostly by mouth and appointing other teachers. It is their witness and continuous tradition we go by; the writings were never the basis of this community, but rather products of it. We can't really pursue this tangent any further without a thread jack.

So,,if we can't push the "is it good if God exists?" angle, maybe let's focus on "is it good if there is no God?"?

[Oil exporting People]

IIRC, some biologists even believe that it would be healthier for each human/partner (This includes both males, females, and anything in-between) should have 2 partners instead of 1.

Said biologists are also idiots, as any basic research into the theories of why Humans went monogamous or the results of the sexual liberation will show. This isn't even touching the sociological effects of polyamory either.

[New haven america]

Give me some non-religious viable sources that show that consenting non-monogamous relations are bad, I'll wait.

I'm more lamenting how clinical basic passions have become.

The what happens when you have science (Or, from a religious angle, God gave us science).

And btw, that doesn't look like what I asked for~

[Oil exporting People]

I'm more lamenting how clinical basic passions have become.

The what happens when you have science (Or, from a religious angle, God gave us science).

And btw, that doesn't look like what I asked for~

See above your post.

[Ardrentt]

IIRC, some biologists even believe that it would be healthier for each human/partner (This includes both males, females, and anything in-between) should have 2 partners instead of 1.

Said biologists are also idiots, as any basic research into the theories of why Humans went monogamous or the results of the sexual liberation will show. This isn't even touching the sociological effects of polyamory either.

Well, the reasoning for the former was at a time when contracting an STD was a guaranteed death sentence; given the advancements in medicine going on now, it seems possible that it will be eliminated as a threat to human life within the next century.

Still, the commitment that would be necessary to maintaining a polygamous relationship (romantic more than sexual) does mean that most people shouldn't attempt one.

[Albrenia]

I mean, there's little doubt in my mind that polygamy would be a nightmare for me personally, but I've still no objection to other people doing it.

[Oil exporting People]

Well, the reasoning for the former was at a time when contracting an STD was a guaranteed death sentence; given the advancements in medicine going on now, it seems possible that it will be eliminated as a threat to human life within the next century.

No, actually they're set to become more deadly. Especially the most famous one.

Still, the commitment that would be necessary to maintaining a polygamous relationship (romantic more than sexual) does mean that most people shouldn't attempt one.

None should, as the example of Europe shows; while not exactly polyamorous, they do have a libertine attitude towards infidelity and look how that's worked out.

[Ardrentt]

Well, the reasoning for the former was at a time when contracting an STD was a guaranteed death sentence; given the advancements in medicine going on now, it seems possible that it will be eliminated as a threat to human life within the next century.

No, actually they're set to become more deadly. Especially the most famous one.

That seems to be true in the short term, but I was thinking along the lines of gene engineering. In that vein, it's also perhaps kind of fortunate that, given the rise in STDs, this type of technology is showing potential right now.

Still, the commitment that would be necessary to maintaining a polygamous relationship (romantic more than sexual) does mean that most people shouldn't attempt one.

None should, as the example of Europe shows; while not exactly polyamorous, they do have a libertine attitude towards infidelity and look how that's worked out.

They are also countries where divorce in general is more accepted as at least an option. Same thing for America, yet their divorce rate is comparable to France's. And both nations' populations have clearly noticeable differences in attitudes towards infidelity.

[Oil exporting People]

That seems to be true in the short term, but I was thinking along the lines of gene engineering. In that vein, it's also perhaps kind of fortunate that, given the rise in STDs, this type of technology is showing potential right now.

Gene engineering will help make us hardier, presuming it is mass used, but it will never stamp out disease; it (disease) always adapts.

They are also countries where divorce in general is more accepted as at least an option. Same thing for America, yet their divorce rate is comparable to France's. And both nations' populations have clearly noticeable differences in attitudes towards infidelity.

What that ignores is the overall marriage rates for both, which was 3.7 per 1,000 in France and 31 per 1,000 in the United States in 2012.

[Costa Fierro]

IIRC, some biologists even believe that it would be healthier for each human/partner (This includes both males, females, and anything in-between) should have 2 partners instead of 1.

Said biologists are also idiots, as any basic research into the theories of why Humans went monogamous or the results of the sexual liberation will show. This isn't even touching the sociological effects of polyamory either.

Yup. Human monogamy developed to better ensure the survival of offspring. It's also believed to be the reason why men have lower testosterone levels in response to their female partners becoming pregnant. It's well documented in a lot of mammal species where males have a harem of females that any outside males wishing to establish themselves as the dominant male will kill the offspring of the incumbent dominant male, then mate with the females to ensure his own genetic material is carried on.

Also humans aren't truly polygamous. Some of us exhibit what is known as "social monogamy", that is one person may have multiple sexual partners at one time, but still depends on one partner for food, shelter, security etc.

No, actually they're set to become more deadly. Especially the most famous one.

Well good thing for me that I intend on remaining a virgin.

[Thermodolia]

No, actually they're set to become more deadly. Especially the most famous one.

Oh look it's blatant fear mongering.


Here's the thing. You can't get AIDS from sex it's not fucking possible. What you get is HIV and AIDS is a complication of HIV. However HIV isn't the death sentence it was 10 years ago. Most people with HIV, especially those in first world nations, tend to live at least a good 40-50 years after contacting it.

We are also getting very close to finding a vaccine for HIV and a possible cure for it. So please stop with the fear mongering to spread your point

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, because how dare people live based on what is observed to be true, instead of unproven assumptions!

It's not about unproven assumptions, there is nothing to prove. It's just tragic that even carnal lust is becoming subject to clinical justification. It's only a step removed from seeking clinical justification for love.

So that would be a human tradition, not a godly one.

Nope, sacred Church tradition is inspired, Scripture is a part of it.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm more lamenting how clinical basic passions have become.

The what happens when you have science (Or, from a religious angle, God gave us science).

And btw, that doesn't look like what I asked for~

That's because you didn't define "bad".

[Petrolheadia]

Yes, because how dare people live based on what is observed to be true, instead of unproven assumptions!

It's not about unproven assumptions, there is nothing to prove. It's just tragic that even carnal lust is becoming subject to clinical justification. It's only a step removed from seeking clinical justification for love.

So that would be a human tradition, not a godly one.

Nope, sacred Church tradition is inspired, Scripture is a part of it.

What, is it bad that humans want to explore why they have the desires they have?

Also, if I made a Van Gogh-inspired painting, would it be a work of Van Gogh, or a work of my own?

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not about unproven assumptions, there is nothing to prove. It's just tragic that even carnal lust is becoming subject to clinical justification. It's only a step removed from seeking clinical justification for love.



Nope, sacred Church tradition is inspired, Scripture is a part of it.

What, is it bad that humans want to explore why they have the desires they have?

Also, if I made a Van Gogh-inspired painting, would it be a work of Van Gogh, or a work of my own?

What's bad is seeking clinical sanction of them. To have sex because it's healthy is very sad. To have sex out of lust is sinful, but at least it is something passionate.

It would be a work of both, if by "inspired" you mean you were possessed with his living spirit.

[Twilight Imperium]

Also, if I made a Van Gogh-inspired painting, would it be a work of Van Gogh, or a work of my own?

If you print out a copy of a Van Gogh painting, is it a work of Van Gogh, yourself, the Firefox corporation that made the browser you printed it from, or Hewlett Packard who made the printer?

[Larin]

For me: Marriage is very expensive, you have to invite people, and look if they have time etc. So marriage: No, thank you. If i had a girlfriend and she wants to marry me i would say to her: "You going to pay for it "

[Petrolheadia]

What, is it bad that humans want to explore why they have the desires they have?

Also, if I made a Van Gogh-inspired painting, would it be a work of Van Gogh, or a work of my own?

What's bad is seeking clinical sanction of them. To have sex because it's healthy is very sad. To have sex out of lust is sinful, but at least it is something passionate.

It would be a work of both, if by "inspired" you mean you were possessed with his living spirit.

First, the "health" part is just saying "look, it's not just fun, it's also good for you".

Second, how do you know these people were actually possessed by God, instead of being liars or delusional?

[The Parkus Empire]

What's bad is seeking clinical sanction of them. To have sex because it's healthy is very sad. To have sex out of lust is sinful, but at least it is something passionate.

It would be a work of both, if by "inspired" you mean you were possessed with his living spirit.

First, the "health" part is just saying "look, it's not just fun, it's also good for you".

Second, how do you know these people were actually possessed by God, instead of being liars or delusional?

You know as well as I do that the "health" studies about sex are very, very tenuous, mixing a lot of correlation and causation, and basically the stuff of novelty magazines. The only reason they exist is to justify it for us, to say it is okay and get an endorsement from our gods. It's the same reason we have magazines saying wine or coffee is good for your health, it's not really about that. If you really care about your health, there isn't any secret about it, you just have to stay active, eat right and get regular check ups.

That's outside the scope of this thread.

[Petrolheadia]

First, the "health" part is just saying "look, it's not just fun, it's also good for you".

Second, how do you know these people were actually possessed by God, instead of being liars or delusional?

You know as well as I do that the "health" studies about sex are very, very tenuous, mixing a lot of correlation and causation, and basically the stuff of novelty magazines. The only reason they exist is to justify it for us, to say it is okay and get an endorsement from our gods. It's the same reason we have magazines saying wine or coffee is good for your health, it's not really about that. If you really care about your health, there isn't any secret about it, you just have to stay active and eat right.

That's outside the scope of this thread.

Well, to stay active and eat right, you need to know what sort of active and right.

Also, sex has a large probability of being healthy - you just gotta burn a lot of calories by doing it.

[Empire of-the-isles]

Kinda useless, and at the same time not?

[The Eternal Aulus]

Monogamy is defendable in order to have some kind of sexual welfare among men if the amount of men surpass that of women. However, this does not defend marriage per se. Just monogamy, of which I am supportive in long term relationships.