Sorry for the things you went through. From your post on the first page it seems that perhaps you thought I was into this sort of thing. Not so. Couldn't do it.
As to what Way ministers did in the past...that was way wrong and an abuse of power etc.
Frankly though, I don't see what the Kings, some considered men of God, did in the OT as all that great either. I don't see much in the Bible that speaks to how evil it was to have a harem, either. My problem with what VPW, LCM and others did was not that they broke some commandment, but that they abused their position and in doing so abused people and lied, betrayed, and forever injured women and families. They not only hurt the women that they preyed on but they betrayed the rest of us in doing so. What they did was not swinging, it was rape and sexual misconduct.
In the OT and other places around the world there was an understanding between the king, his queen or wives, and his concubines. Although, women were not on the same footing as men let alone the king. They had little choice in matter. Again, I don't see much in the Bible condemning this, but I would.
I don't see it as my place to say what is right and what is wrong between couples who are ALL consenting and ALL in FULL understanding and acceptance of what is going on, as long as no one is getting hurt. If someone is getting hurt, be it children, a spouse, a family, a partner, then obviously something is wrong and something needs to change.
Honestly, I don't know how people can do it. I also don't know if in every situation that there is not an emotinoally injured person involved who is being taken advantage of. I wouldn't know, but I won't assume it either. I've known some women that were just as sex crazed as some men are. So, who knows the motives and capcities of every individual?
As to what marriage is....well I don't think there is a lock on that definition, but I would think that the specifics of that definition is largely agreed upon between the two people taking it on. So if two people have agreed on it, I don't care to imagine what is or is not going on in their bedroom.
So, hopefully all this clarifies what's wrong with me.
I think that those who would condemn this lifestyle should just mind their own business.
Seems to me that we've had this debate a couple of years ago...but it was about a different lifestyle. And it seems that the conclusion to the matter was that people who don't approve of it should just mind their own business. I don't see what's different about that particular type of relationship and the one that is being described here.
Sure, there may be some who are unsavory about how they live their lifestyle and allow that lifestyle to impact their kids, but why should kids be allowed to be a factor. After all, we need diversity in this world, right?
Seems to me that, in this modern society, one of the big things we should have learned by now is that we should mind our own business and stay out of other folks' bedrooms (or swing clubs, nudist resorts, or whatever). If we shouldn't impose our narrow moralities upon others, in one area, then we shouldn't impose our narrow moralities upon others, in any other area...as long as those who are actively and directly involved are over the locality's area of consent (be it 12, 14, 16, 18, or whatever) and are able to give consent.
After all, if we or our children see two women or two men making out in public, we know that we shouldn't impose our morality upon them...i.e., if we don't like it, don't look. But we absolutely shouldn't say anything about it. If we see a magazine cover with the same thing, then we should simply not look at the magazine. But if we see the same thing, but it's two women and a man, two men and a woman, three women, or whatever permutation, we all of a sudden have a right to complain? I see a little hypocrisy in the argument.
We have a situation where doing the honorable thing and marrying the woman you get pregnant (marrying the man who made you pregnant) in order to give the kid a name is now considered passe (how do you do a grave in UBB code???), we have a situation, ever more common, where a woman has multiple kids from multiple fathers, we even have a word for it now: "blended families." Nobody says anything about it. It's considered rude to even bemoan it at all anymore.
But, yet, we dare criticize those who agree to stay together while agreeing to go elsewhere (or go multiple directions) for their sexual fulfillment?
WTF??
Again, don't get me wrong...I am not advocating having a party at home with the kids in bed. I am not advocating having lifestyle magazines around where the kids can see them. But who are we to criticize them...considering where our society is and considering what else that we condone or tolerate?
Folks, we already have a hedonistic society. Don't believe it? Just turn on the tube or just look around you.
And if that's the society we want in some areas, then who are you to criticize if somebody else goes and tries a different variation than what is commonly accepted?
Sorry if it sounds harsh...but if we, as a society, say what we do in regards to some serious deviations from sexual morality...we have no right to say anything about any deviation from sexual morality. IMHO. FWIW. YMMV.
Bottom line, if we have chosen to live in a "diverse," "accepting" society as we have, through our actions done, then I fully agree with Lindy's sentiment:
As to what marriage is....well I don't think there is a lock on that definition, but I would think that the specifics of that definition is largely agreed upon between the two people taking it on. So if two people have agreed on it, I don't care to imagine what is or is not going on in their bedroom.
Marriage is either a sacrament or a contract.
A sacrament has parameters established by God that must be fulfilled for it to work as intended. It is a grace.
A contract is simply an agreement between parties. The parties set up the rules.
We have rejected marriage as a sacrament. Therefore, it is a contract.
Bottom line, if we have chosen to live in a "diverse," "accepting" society as we have, through our actions done, then I fully agree with Lindy's sentiment:
As to what marriage is....well I don't think there is a lock on that definition, but I would think that the specifics of that definition is largely agreed upon between the two people taking it on. So if two people have agreed on it, I don't care to imagine what is or is not going on in their bedroom.
Marriage is either a sacrament or a contract.
A sacrament has parameters established by God that must be fulfilled for it to work as intended. It is a grace.
A contract is simply an agreement between parties. The parties set up the rules.
We have rejected marriage as a sacrament. Therefore, it is a contract.
What does YMMV mean?
I get your point MarkO... I'm one who chooses not to condemn a homosexual man or woman (any of them really) for essentially the reason you used in the two posts you added this morning.
However, in that context, I also would not condemn the swinger couple as such. But that doesn't mean I could stomach that behavior -- as with gay people -- I find that kind of conduct (between men anyway ) extremely distasteful. But as people or as a person, I don't view them as evil people per se.
WE -- is a bit presumptuous -- I cannot agree with all the we's in Mark's assumptions.
I don't presume to speak for MarkO...
but could the "we" as he uses it is just a way to describe the society WE live in, as opposed to meaning that each of us made a conscious choice to, for example, tolerate certain behaviors, etc?
I've had an interesting morning retrieving calls and opening mail at work. From a man calling me horrible things and hanging up to a hand written letter from a judge in KY for how well I handled her.
(they don't know I can't spell worth a crap either)
I've had an interesting morning retrieving calls and opening mail at work. From a man calling me horrible things and hanging up to a hand written letter from a judge in KY for how well I handled her.
(they don't know I can't spell worth a crap either)
:unsure:
I had no idea... please Kathy, that wasn't about you... I was just being goofy... sorry if I offended you. :wub:
I don't see the issue as due to this being a hedonistic society. That is a pretty broad brush. The real reason is that we live in a secular society with a secular government (thank God ). It is a melting pot of ethnicity, culture, theology, philosophy, etc. That is the main reason marriage is a contract and not just a sacrament. Sure anyone can still take vows before their god and not sign any papers, but they wouldn't get the benefits that they would if they did. So it is a contract. Although, two people can still have that contract and still agree that their marriage is a sacrament and act accordingly.
But, since we have this melting pot, we should imbrace what makes it so great, that being accepting people's differences and uniting on our commonality, instead of forcing our views on others. Especially, when our differences are virtually inconsequential in regards to society and our personal beliefs.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
7
15
10
Popular Days
Jan 29
24
Jan 26
21
Jan 25
15
Jan 27
10
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 7 posts
ChattyKathy 7 posts
Dot Matrix 15 posts
Rocky 10 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2007
24 posts
Jan 26 2007
21 posts
Jan 25 2007
15 posts
Jan 27 2007
10 posts
Dot Matrix
Another thing, if you are going to swing- don't you think you should be attractive?
How insulting to have an ugly person ask you to swing...
Geezzzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i really think it is about more than looks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
This is hysterical
I agree its about more than looks
However, when I was around 25/30 I had a very ugly couple ask me....
I thought Ewwwww!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Krys,
Sorry for the things you went through. From your post on the first page it seems that perhaps you thought I was into this sort of thing. Not so. Couldn't do it.
As to what Way ministers did in the past...that was way wrong and an abuse of power etc.
Frankly though, I don't see what the Kings, some considered men of God, did in the OT as all that great either. I don't see much in the Bible that speaks to how evil it was to have a harem, either. My problem with what VPW, LCM and others did was not that they broke some commandment, but that they abused their position and in doing so abused people and lied, betrayed, and forever injured women and families. They not only hurt the women that they preyed on but they betrayed the rest of us in doing so. What they did was not swinging, it was rape and sexual misconduct.
In the OT and other places around the world there was an understanding between the king, his queen or wives, and his concubines. Although, women were not on the same footing as men let alone the king. They had little choice in matter. Again, I don't see much in the Bible condemning this, but I would.
I don't see it as my place to say what is right and what is wrong between couples who are ALL consenting and ALL in FULL understanding and acceptance of what is going on, as long as no one is getting hurt. If someone is getting hurt, be it children, a spouse, a family, a partner, then obviously something is wrong and something needs to change.
Honestly, I don't know how people can do it. I also don't know if in every situation that there is not an emotinoally injured person involved who is being taken advantage of. I wouldn't know, but I won't assume it either. I've known some women that were just as sex crazed as some men are. So, who knows the motives and capcities of every individual?
As to what marriage is....well I don't think there is a lock on that definition, but I would think that the specifics of that definition is largely agreed upon between the two people taking it on. So if two people have agreed on it, I don't care to imagine what is or is not going on in their bedroom.
So, hopefully all this clarifies what's wrong with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I think that those who would condemn this lifestyle should just mind their own business.
Seems to me that we've had this debate a couple of years ago...but it was about a different lifestyle. And it seems that the conclusion to the matter was that people who don't approve of it should just mind their own business. I don't see what's different about that particular type of relationship and the one that is being described here.
Sure, there may be some who are unsavory about how they live their lifestyle and allow that lifestyle to impact their kids, but why should kids be allowed to be a factor. After all, we need diversity in this world, right?
Seems to me that, in this modern society, one of the big things we should have learned by now is that we should mind our own business and stay out of other folks' bedrooms (or swing clubs, nudist resorts, or whatever). If we shouldn't impose our narrow moralities upon others, in one area, then we shouldn't impose our narrow moralities upon others, in any other area...as long as those who are actively and directly involved are over the locality's area of consent (be it 12, 14, 16, 18, or whatever) and are able to give consent.
After all, if we or our children see two women or two men making out in public, we know that we shouldn't impose our morality upon them...i.e., if we don't like it, don't look. But we absolutely shouldn't say anything about it. If we see a magazine cover with the same thing, then we should simply not look at the magazine. But if we see the same thing, but it's two women and a man, two men and a woman, three women, or whatever permutation, we all of a sudden have a right to complain? I see a little hypocrisy in the argument.
We have a situation where doing the honorable thing and marrying the woman you get pregnant (marrying the man who made you pregnant) in order to give the kid a name is now considered passe (how do you do a grave in UBB code???), we have a situation, ever more common, where a woman has multiple kids from multiple fathers, we even have a word for it now: "blended families." Nobody says anything about it. It's considered rude to even bemoan it at all anymore.
But, yet, we dare criticize those who agree to stay together while agreeing to go elsewhere (or go multiple directions) for their sexual fulfillment?
WTF??
Again, don't get me wrong...I am not advocating having a party at home with the kids in bed. I am not advocating having lifestyle magazines around where the kids can see them. But who are we to criticize them...considering where our society is and considering what else that we condone or tolerate?
Folks, we already have a hedonistic society. Don't believe it? Just turn on the tube or just look around you.
And if that's the society we want in some areas, then who are you to criticize if somebody else goes and tries a different variation than what is commonly accepted?
Sorry if it sounds harsh...but if we, as a society, say what we do in regards to some serious deviations from sexual morality...we have no right to say anything about any deviation from sexual morality. IMHO. FWIW. YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One more thing...
Bottom line, if we have chosen to live in a "diverse," "accepting" society as we have, through our actions done, then I fully agree with Lindy's sentiment:
Marriage is either a sacrament or a contract.
A sacrament has parameters established by God that must be fulfilled for it to work as intended. It is a grace.
A contract is simply an agreement between parties. The parties set up the rules.
We have rejected marriage as a sacrament. Therefore, it is a contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
What does YMMV mean?
I get your point MarkO... I'm one who chooses not to condemn a homosexual man or woman (any of them really) for essentially the reason you used in the two posts you added this morning.
However, in that context, I also would not condemn the swinger couple as such. But that doesn't mean I could stomach that behavior -- as with gay people -- I find that kind of conduct (between men anyway
) extremely distasteful. But as people or as a person, I don't view them as evil people per se.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
YMMV=your miles may vary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Ahhhhh, Eye Sea! Tnks you. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Now you wouldn't be mocking my spelling ability would you dude!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No weigh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
WE -- is a bit presumptuous -- I cannot agree with all the we's in Mark's assumptions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't presume to speak for MarkO...
but could the "we" as he uses it is just a way to describe the society WE live in, as opposed to meaning that each of us made a conscious choice to, for example, tolerate certain behaviors, etc?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I'm going to get you!
I've had an interesting morning retrieving calls and opening mail at work. From a man calling me horrible things and hanging up to a hand written letter from a judge in KY for how well I handled her.
(they don't know I can't spell worth a crap either)
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I had no idea... please Kathy, that wasn't about you... I was just being goofy... sorry if I offended you. :wub:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Oh goodness no way have you offended me. I have enjoyed the heck out of it. I was just razzing you dude.
The other stuff I mentioned is just life here at the office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
wheeeeuw! Glad to hear it. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
peace...love...dove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Mark,
I don't see the issue as due to this being a hedonistic society. That is a pretty broad brush. The real reason is that we live in a secular society with a secular government (thank God
). It is a melting pot of ethnicity, culture, theology, philosophy, etc. That is the main reason marriage is a contract and not just a sacrament. Sure anyone can still take vows before their god and not sign any papers, but they wouldn't get the benefits that they would if they did. So it is a contract. Although, two people can still have that contract and still agree that their marriage is a sacrament and act accordingly.
But, since we have this melting pot, we should imbrace what makes it so great, that being accepting people's differences and uniting on our commonality, instead of forcing our views on others. Especially, when our differences are virtually inconsequential in regards to society and our personal beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
IF you ever should get the talking doll mad at you... RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
...thankfully it doesn't happen much or often...!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
However I am prepared to go anywhere it's necessary and make a few men sing a higher note....but that's 'tacks....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
YIKES! :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Yours are safe dude!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Well maybe we are doing a little cyber swinging right now.... Ummmmm?
Come here, Tom....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.