Would it be cheating

[Benelux Federation]

Lets say that time travel is possible. And that you in 2017 are married but you go back in time to lets say 1833 and you also get married to a woman or man in 1833. Now you are both married in 2017 and 1833. So would you say that its cheating when one has not been born yet and the other has been dead for many many years.

If it would be cheating who are you cheating on the one you married in 1833 or the one you are married to in 2017

yes i know its a silly question.


Personally i would say its not cheating. As i don`t see how you can cheat on somebody who has been dead for years. And on somebody who has not been born yet.

[Grinning Dragon]

It would be cheating in the sense that you are married and went back in time and got married. Since you were first married in the future, the marriage in the past wouldn't be considered cheating on your 1833 wife.

Just be careful, you might be the one who gave life to your great grandpa.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well I'm a polygamist so, did you get spouse A's permission? Then you good

[Ifreann]

You're essentially asking if it's cheating to have a different spouse in a different city, and obviously is it. Polygamous arrangements excepted, of course.

[The Blaatschapen]

That all depends on what terms you got married. Open marriage is a thing.

That said, you usually need to identify yourself for getting married. How are you gonna do that in a time where you have no birth certificate.

[Costa Fierro]

And that you in 2017 are married

Well that would be a mistake and a half. Shit, I'd rather take my chances in 1833, even with the rampant diseases and puritanism.

[Dumb Ideologies]

This vaguely reminds me vaguely of the plot of a quite weak TV drama we had over here that inexplicably ran for years despite apparently no-one ever watching it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

And that you in 2017 are married

Well that would be a mistake and a half. Shit, I'd rather take my chances in 1833, even with the rampant diseases and puritanism.

Why? I mean, I'm biased in how I can't get married in 1833, but why?

[Costa Fierro]

This vaguely reminds me vaguely of the plot of a quite weak TV drama we had over here that inexplicably ran for years despite apparently no-one ever watching it.

Is it that guy who goes into a phone box and time travels between the modern day and WW2?

[Frank Zipper]

This vaguely reminds me vaguely of the plot of a quite weak TV drama we had over here that inexplicably ran for years despite apparently no-one ever watching it.

Time Slut?

[Pasong Tirad]

This vaguely reminds me vaguely of the plot of a quite weak TV drama we had over here that inexplicably ran for years despite apparently no-one ever watching it.

Time Slut?

Inspector Spacetime.

[Kannadrickenium]

Time Slut?

Inspector Spacetime.

That Community reference.

[Alvecia]

Yes. You might have gone back in time, but that doesn't erase your past, or your present, including the present in which you are still married.

[Goopig]

I suppose the real question is; if it's a given that it's cheating, who are you cheating on? Your own time stream is out of sync with the rest of the universe, so it's important to consider frame of reference. Your 2017 marriage is in the future relative to 1833, but the past relative to your own timeline. Consequently, from your own perspective, you are cheating on 2017-wife, but from the global timeline's perspective you're cheating on 1833-wife

[Ifreann]

I suppose the real question is; if it's a given that it's cheating, who are you cheating on? Your own time stream is out of sync with the rest of the universe, so it's important to consider frame of reference. Your 2017 marriage is in the future relative to 1833, but the past relative to your own timeliness. Consequently, from your own perspective, you are cheating on 2017-wife, but from the global timeliness perspective you're cheating on 1833-wife

I don't think that the space-time continuum cares about human romantic drama.

[Frank Zipper]

My name's Sven. I've come to fix your temporal anomaly.

[Purpelia]

The only thing that matters in regards to judging a persons behavior is the actual physical effects of that behavior. As in the end result. HOWEVER this is not just any behavior but behavior relating to romance and that's judged differently. In case of romance what matters is your personal continuity, as in what happened after what else for you. So yes, it's cheating and you would be a terribly person for doing so.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I suppose the real question is; if it's a given that it's cheating, who are you cheating on? Your own time stream is out of sync with the rest of the universe, so it's important to consider frame of reference. Your 2017 marriage is in the future relative to 1833, but the past relative to your own timeliness. Consequently, from your own perspective, you are cheating on 2017-wife, but from the global timeliness perspective you're cheating on 1833-wife

I don't think that the space-time continuum cares about human romantic drama.

*Cut's to The Watcher*
C'mon man! We all know you only married Eliza for spice trade connections, Jazmine is your true love!

[Internationalist Bastard]

The only thing that matters in regards to judging a persons behavior is the actual physical effects of that behavior. As in the end result. HOWEVER this is not just any behavior but behavior relating to romance and that's judged differently. In case of romance what matters is your personal continuity, as in what happened after what else for you. So yes, it's cheating and you would be a terribly person for doing so.

Nah, I got permission

[Gallade]

The more pressing concern might be the first generation cholera and/or syphilis, moral quandaries aside maybe aim to go forward in time for some galactic space babes, instead.

[Ifreann]

The more pressing concern might be the first generation cholera and/or syphilis, moral quandaries aside maybe aim to go forward in time for some galactic space babes, instead.

That'd be cheating too. But on the plus side, future STDs might be digital and thus us fleshy-types would be immune.

[Gallade]

The more pressing concern might be the first generation cholera and/or syphilis, moral quandaries aside maybe aim to go forward in time for some galactic space babes, instead.

That'd be cheating too. But on the plus side, future STDs might be digital and thus us fleshy-types would be immune.

I'm not entirely certain that I approve of what you're trying to do with that USB cable.

[The Blaatschapen]

That'd be cheating too. But on the plus side, future STDs might be digital and thus us fleshy-types would be immune.

I'm not entirely certain that I approve of what you're trying to do with that USB cable.

https://xkcd.com/644/

Second thread where this is relevant today

[Ifreann]

That'd be cheating too. But on the plus side, future STDs might be digital and thus us fleshy-types would be immune.

I'm not entirely certain that I approve of what you're trying to do with that USB cable.

I won't lie, if future galactic space babes show me a USB port that's designed so that there's no wrong way to plug it in, my pants will be travelling back to the present alone.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm not entirely certain that I approve of what you're trying to do with that USB cable.

I won't lie, if future galactic space babes show me a USB port that's designed so that there's no wrong way to plug it in, my pants will be travelling back to the present alone.

The galactic space babeshood of the travelling pants.