But I take it you've never been in an open marriage, which is what these studies look at. It's also not going to work for everyone. The bottom line is open marriages have higher satisfaction within the marriage than monogamous marriages.

What researchers have found is swinging won't save an already failing marriage. It does, however, seem to improve trust, confidence, and happiness in already healthy marriages.

It's really weird these are the results as swinging becomes more common. It's just a case of our intuition lying to us.

I didn't actually look at the study, but I'm guessing there might be personality differences in people willing to try swinging in the first place.

Probably. I sure as shit wouldn't want an open marriage...I get jealous if my partner pets a dog or holds a baby.

Regardless, I wouldn't deal in absolutes about sex and marriage while talking about trust. There just isn't anything supporting pre-marital sex or open marriages cause all trust to be lost as CPK claimed.

It's even more problematic when you consider "traditional marriages" have such a high rate of failure. Or, prior to divorce becoming socially acceptable, the amount of people who carried on affairs.

i find the premise of the study to be too biased.

People in open marriages have a predisposed mentality to a polygamous lifestyle, which as you of course stated is a rare quality due to jealousy.

The results are interesting but by the nature of the a polygamous lifestyle they are unapplicable to the generation.

However i wouldnt be surprised if in 10-20 generations humans are all polygamous, or at least it would be an inverse of the poly vs mono we have now.

Scenario: Your father is cheating on your mother for another woman. How would you feel? This is known as committing adultery. According to your 'beliefs' this would be completely okay for you, despite it completely destroying your family.

Fornification: generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. The female gets pregnant but then the male runs away as he does not want to get married as he was only there to fulfill his lustful desires. Now the baby is born without a father.
Now what if you were that baby who grew up without a father? Would you be okay with that as well?

Sexual perversions - no sexual intercourse with any blood relatives or any animals. Would you really do that to your fellow sibling or your pet? You would also call it moral and justify it right? Oh please tell me you would call it right as there is nothing wrong with that.

You do not see anything wrong with man lying with man or woman lying with woman? Explain to me why you see nothing out of the ordinary in this. As a human with a mind, you should be able to know based on morals what is right and what is wrong.



Are you willing to bet your fg on that?



First and foremost if you put your text inside a quote, I do not have the luxury of moving that into an independent quote.

Oh yes man can love man, woman can love woman, man can love woman transgender and they can love whoever they want. The problem arises with sexual immorality. The problem arises when one becomes a prostitute.



So if what I put was tl:dr, I bet you didn't read the entire page of that link you posted up as it is even longer right, right?



So I posted some research to back up as to why it is wrong, it even gave some examples as to what would happen physically and what would happen to the relationship. I could post more of the kind if you wish. I could try to find the page of those who had sex before marriage weren't as happy as those who did wait for marriage.
Ofcourse, you wouldn't listen to that either. Luke 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

The verse above says it all. You will never be convinced as you will not listen to the Prophets.

None of these consequences is due to the action in question. One can be in an a polyamorous relationship. One can have sex with a woman within marriage and still refuse to raise a baby should she get pregnant. Similarly, one can have sex outside of marriage and choose to raise the baby as a couple.

The third is just an appeal to emotion: "Oh please don't tell me you don't see anything wrong with that cause it grosses me out and God says it's bad!" I certainly see nothing explicitly morally wrong with sex between siblings if pregnancy can be guaranteed to be prevented, though I think in generally it's something to best be avoided. Sex with pets is different because they can't consent; if they could then it would of course be morally acceptable. That's not to say these behaviors should be socially or personally acceptable, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with them such that they should be banned.



Morally? Absolutely not, nor does anyone who has a reasonable moral compass that hasn't been hijacked by their religion's seemingly arbitrary moral dogmas. What naturalistic reasons do you have for suggesting that homosexual sex is an intrinsically morally wrong behavior? I will not accept revealed Scripture as a reason.



I think he was just using tl;dr as an indication that he was giving a summary of the link he posted, not commenting on your post.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 31 2015 03:00am

The most abhorrent wickedness enacted by religion is the hijacking of morality. Human beings have the ability to learn from the experiences of their lives what is good and evil, right and wrong, or just and unjust. It's probably, in my opinion, a human beings most amazing and virtuous ability. Religion destroys that beautiful talent to it's very core. It wipes it from the minds of those it corrupts like some kind of virus, spreading itself from wretched person to wretched person, proselytization built into it's programming. When a human being abandons their own ability to judge morality and lets someone else, a preacher, an author, anyone tell them what right and wrong is, tell them what morality is, that is the most vile action they can commit. In my mind, people who let a religion decide what is sin and what is good and evil for them are no longer human, they are subhuman trash to be castigated and isolated. They've abandoned what makes them human.

Uh....



^ This?

I'm really hoping you just misunderstood my post instead of replying in a fit of rage over topics you can't address. Try again, please.

I think Voyaging pretty much covered this before I got to it. The only thing that I would add is that out of the ordinary =/= immoral and that I actually have few issues with incest between consenting family members of the same generation provided they are responsible when it comes to the question of whether or not to have a child.

You can't say you take your morality from the old Testament and then proclaim incest a sin... it's contradictory.

There's more than just this one. The one I posted was one of the more important ones from recent years that gets cited all over the place. It was originally a follow up to this study from 2000:

http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm

...which had the same conclusions, but they had many of the same questions that have been asked in this thread. In my original link (Fernandes) may have been biased to some extent, which he admits:





However, if there was a large amount of bias in the sample, it would be odd that it had the same results as a completely different sample from 8 years prior.

Then there's this study from Melissa E. Mitchell et al. from 2013 discussing polyamorous relationships (different from swingers in that relationships are more than just sex):

http://members.psyc.sfu.ca/documents/doc/164

Specifically:



In other words, the study found polyamorous relationships helped their participants ease the burden of having to fulfill partners' needs. For example "My wife doesn't like to play video games, but our girlfriend does, who also knits with my wife when I don't, in addition to fulfilling my wife's bisexual needs."

Anywho, this stuff is all over the place right now causing quite a stir in psychologists and marriage counselors. What society previously thought about polygamy may have been completely wrong. It's one possible answer for the increasing divorce rates and single-parent households that have plagued Baby Boomers and Gen Xers.

As for the topic, the research we're getting is showing the bible has meant fuck-all in regards to having a happy marriage (and religion in general). It's a correlation != causation situation, where successful, monogamous, religious marriages may have been successful because of factors not related to either partner's sexuality.