Why adultery can help save a marriage

[Jerry]

Only if you promise to color between the lines.

Aww maaaann

Do we need a scientific article with data to explain everything?

I'm only holding others to the same standard they hold me to, so if you say "candy is good" and not "this is just my personal opinion, I could be wrong and I would never impose my beliefs onto others, but it is my mere belief that I like candy. Again, this is just my opinion. Other people have other opinions on candy which are perfectly valid, my personal tast is no more valid then theirs as my sense of taste is subjective" then you had better have an library of credible sources to back that that up :2razz:

If there's not a scientific study supporting an assertion does that mean the assertion is false? No, it just means no ones taken the time to do a study.

For the purposes of an online debate, if a credible source can not be freely linked to then the argument is baseless and there is no reason for anyone to accept it.

If you have a study to the contrary then share it otherwise you are wasting time with ill-conceived skepticism to avoid debating an inconvenient truth.

I don't know when skepticism became a bad thing, but if you could you quote the claim of mine I need to back up I would be happy to provide a source.

 

[scourge99]

I'm only holding others to the same standard they hold me to, so if you say "candy is good" and not "candy is good in my opinion" then you had better have an library of credible sources to back that that up :2razz:



For the purposes of an online debate, if a credible source can not be freely linked to then the argument is baseless and there is no reason for anyone to accept it.



I don't know when skepticism became a bad thing, but if you could you quote the claim of mine I need to back up I would be happy to provide a source.

I understand the dilemma. The problem is that there appears to be no such study either way. So you can either be skeptical of both sides or explain why you believe one or the other, that is, debate the issue.

 

[Jerry]

I understand the dilemma. The problem is that there appears to be no such study either way. So you can either be skeptical of both sides or explain why you believe one or the other, that is, debate the issue.

And see? That's all I've don.

The argument was made that adultery doesn't affect children when it's consensual. The argument couldn't be backed up, so there's no reason for anyone to accept it.

I didn't say the argument was false. I didn't say that consensual adultery was just as harmful as non-consensual adultery, I just asked a couple questions; ie, debated.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

I could certainly see it doing some damage if the children actually knew about it, but hopefully a lot of swinging couples are smart enough to keep it from their children just like any other sex thing between each other. I just don't think that there is something inherently damaging about an adult couple who are consenting being swingers.

 

[MC.no.spin]

I just don't think that there is something inherently damaging about an adult couple who are consenting being swingers.

The real issue is that their behaviour is a symptom of a deeper problem: Sex addiction. But it is their problem and not mine.

Another point about adultery is that it can sometimes result in an unwanted pregnancy. I am an example of that, actually. I grew up with no father as a result.

For the person who cheats, while it may indeed keep the marriage limping along to keep it a secret, their ability to maintain a successful marriage is severely impaired. They will feel more argumentative towards the spouse, and they will be much more critical of him or her as it makes them feel better that the cheating was done on such an asshole/bitch, rather than a loving and kind person.

Ultimately, the notion that this could ever be a good thing is just a reflection on the desire to justify one's weaknesses and feel better about them. The real way to happiness is to keep one's word.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

The real issue is that their behaviour is a symptom of a deeper problem: Sex addiction. But it is their problem and not mine.

I don't think that's necessarily true of all swingers.

Another point about adultery is that it can sometimes result in an unwanted pregnancy. I am an example of that, actually. I grew up with no father as a result.

Of course it can. I never said it comes without risk. There are risks of STD's as well.

For the person who cheats, while it may indeed keep the marriage limping along to keep it a secret, their ability to maintain a successful marriage is severely impaired. They will feel more argumentative towards the spouse, and they will be much more critical of him or her as it makes them feel better that the cheating was done on such an asshole/bitch, rather than a loving and kind person.

And what is this based on? I have friends who are swingers and their relationship is stronger than most monogamous couples that I've seen. The swinger lifestyle certainly isn't for everyone.

Ultimately, the notion that this could ever be a good thing is just a reflection on the desire to justify one's weaknesses and feel better about them. The real way to happiness is to keep one's word.

Well, I believe in indulgence instead of abstinence. As long as it involves consenting adults, I don't think that we should have to restrain our natural animal instincts. I think that we should embrace them.

 

[Jerry]

I don't think that's necessarily true of all swingers.

Of course it can. I never said it comes without risk. There are risks of STD's as well.

And what is this based on? I have friends who are swingers and their relationship is stronger than most monogamous couples that I've seen. The swinger lifestyle certainly isn't for everyone.

Well, I believe in indulgence instead of abstinence. As long as it involves consenting adults, I don't think that we should have to restrain our natural animal instincts. I think that we should embrace them.

So your friends are your proof?

Please source their identities and give a link to verify the specific events of their swinging lifestyle.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

So your friends are your proof?

Please source their identities and give a link to verify the specific events of their swinging lifestyle.

Yes my friends are my proof and what I've seen of other swinger couples.

I'm not going to give their identities nor am I going to give specific events of their swinging lifestyle. This is my opinion based on what I've seen from my friends and other swinger couples. You are more than welcome to believe it or not. I really could care less. I realize that trying to convince you of something would be a waste of time and a fruitless endeavor. However, my opinions are at least based on outside sources. What are your opinions based on? Do you know couples who are swingers?

 

[Jerry]

Yes my friends are my proof and what I've seen of other swinger couples.

I'm not going to give their identities nor am I going to give specific events of their swinging lifestyle. This is my opinion based on what I've seen from my friends and other swinger couples. You are more than welcome to believe it or not. I really could care less. I realize that trying to convince you of something would be a waste of time and a fruitless endeavor. However, my opinions are at least based on outside sources. What are your opinions based on? Do you know couples who are swingers?

So you still can't back up your argument.

Nice.

 

[MC.no.spin]

And what is this based on? I have friends who are swingers and their relationship is stronger than most monogamous couples that I've seen. The swinger lifestyle certainly isn't for everyone.

Those friends sound like they have no agreement to be faithful. It is a different scenario.

Well, I believe in indulgence instead of abstinence. As long as it involves consenting adults, I don't think that we should have to restrain our natural animal instincts. I think that we should embrace them.

You are of course entitled to your beliefs. What I'm really talking about are marraige vows and keeping them; I'm not talking about consenting adults who want to be swingers in their relationship.

It reminds me of the gay marriage debate, as part of the problem is that marriage is considered a monogamous relationship, and the gay culture tends to embrace "natural animal instincts" instead.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

So you still can't back up your argument.

Nice.

I can back up mine far more than you can back up yours. What is your source?

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Those friends sound like they have no agreement to be faithful. It is a different scenario.

That's what I've been talking about, though; where both people are consenting.

You are of course entitled to your beliefs. What I'm really talking about are marraige vows and keeping them; I'm not talking about consenting adults who want to be swingers in their relationship.

It reminds me of the gay marriage debate, as part of the problem is that marriage is considered a monogamous relationship, and the gay culture tends to embrace "natural animal instincts" instead.

I think that's kind of an unfair stereotype. While there are plenty of people within the gay culture who do that, there are a lot of them who just want to settle down and have a family.

 

[Jerry]

I can back up mine far more than you can back up yours. What is your source?

Why are you asking me for a source on my argument when I haven't made an argument?

You're not making very much sense :lol:

All I've don is question yours :2wave:

 

[Jerry]

That's what I've been talking about, though; where both people are consenting.

I think that's kind of an unfair stereotype. While there are plenty of people within the gay culture who do that, there are a lot of them who just want to settle down and have a family.

So your saying that gays will not be faithful even when they can marry?

That's even more then less reason to support gay marriage.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Why are you asking me for a source on my argument when I haven't made an argument?

You're not making very much sense :lol:

All I've don is question yours :2wave:

No, you brought children into the discussion which tells me that you think children would be affected if their parents engage in a swinging lifestyle.

And no, I'm not going to post specifics about my friends because I respect their rights to privacy and I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate me divulging their personal information to a stranger for the sake of a stupid argument. Like I said earlier, if you don't want to believe my sources that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You seem to have your own preconceived notions about the subject.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

So your saying that gays will not be faithful even when they can marry?

That's even more then less reason to support gay marriage.

Where the hell did I say that? Are you trying to troll the thread by continuing to make up arguments that I've never had?

All I said was that while it is true that some people in the homosexual community succumb to their animal instincts, there are a fair amount who want to settle down and have a family. That's all I said.

As for your made up argument, I think it's absurd to expect all homosexuals to settle down into a monogamous lifestyle if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Should all heterosexuals settle down into a monogamous lifestyle just because they are allowed to marry?

 

[Jerry]

No, you brought children into the discussion which tells me that you think children would be affected if their parents engage in a swinging lifestyle.

The children are always automatically a part of any and every single discussion regarding the family, regardless of topic, as children are a part of the family.

So, if the argument is that swinging doesn't harm children anymore then monogamy, then this means that swinging doesn't cause any harmful results more then occurs in monogamy. Such results being divorce, juvenile crime, running away, drug use, etc.

You assert that swinging is benign. Prove it.

And no, I'm not going to post specifics about my friends because I respect their rights to privacy and I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate me divulging their personal information to a stranger for the sake of a stupid argument. Like I said earlier, if you don't want to believe my sources that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You seem to have your own preconceived notions about the subject.

And since you know that I know that the forum rules prohibit you from divulging the identities of private citizens, what valid debate tactics do you think I was employing?



I made you discredit your own source :2wave:

 

[Dr_Patrick]

The children are always automatically a part of any and every single discussion regarding the family, regardless of topic, as children are a part of the family.

So, if the argument is that swinging doesn't harm children anymore then monogamy, then this means that swinging doesn't cause any harmful results more then occurs in monogamy. Such results being divorce, juvenile crime, running away, drug use, etc.

You assert that swinging is benign. Prove it.

Um...I disagree. I think that when it comes to sex the children shouldn't even be a part of the discussion because what happens sexually between a couple is a private thing between the couple. I don't have to prove anything to you. I've already stated that my knowledge of the subject comes from friends who are swingers and other swingers that I've seen. If that's not good enough for you, there's nothing more I can do for you. You can continue to absurdly assert somehow that the children are involved and impacted by a couple's sexual decisions, but I will continue to disagree with you.

And since you know that I know that the forum rules prohibit you from divulging the identities of private citizens, what valid debate tactics do you think I was employing?

I made you discredit your own source.

Have a nice day :2wave:

I didn't discredit a thing. You assume that I was trying to prove something to you and I'm not. Yet here you are still arguing that somehow the children are involved.

And thanks. I will. :mrgreen:

 

[americanwoman]

Um...I disagree. I think that when it comes to sex the children shouldn't even be a part of the discussion because what happens sexually between a couple is a private thing between the couple.

I shudder to think if my parents talked to me about their sex life when they were together. It was bad enough finding their homemade porno, but that's a whole other story......

 

[Jerry]

Where the hell did I say that? Are you trying to troll the thread by continuing to make up arguments that I've never had?

All I said was that while it is true that some people in the homosexual community succumb to their animal instincts, there are a fair amount who want to settle down and have a family. That's all I said.

You wouldn't know a troll if it ripped a tree out of the ground and bashed you in the head

It's called "smoking you out".

Observe:

As for your made up argument, I think it's absurd to expect all homosexuals to settle down into a monogamous lifestyle if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Now looky here...see? You DO argue in favor of gays swinging even after they can marry. I care even less about 'gay rights' as a result.

Should all heterosexuals settle down into a monogamous lifestyle just because they are allowed to marry?

Well, not because they are allowed to marry, no, but if they are actually married, then yes....at least until polygamy becomes legal...but even then sex should stay within the marriage.

 

[Jerry]

I shudder to think if my parents talked to me about their sex life when they were together. It was bad enough finding their homemade porno, but that's a whole other story......

It's not private when the sex life leads to a divorce....hmm...something to consider

 

[Dr_Patrick]

You wouldn't know a troll if it ripped a tree out of the ground and bashed you in the head

It's called "smoking you out".

:rofl Smoking me out? From what? From an argument that I never had with you? From not caring about proving something to you and realizing that it would be a fruitless endeavor even if I did care?

Observe:


Now looky here...see? You DO argue in favor of gays swinging even after they can marry. I care even less about 'gay rights' as a result.

There's nothing to argue. It's idiotic to think that all gays would suddenly be monogamous if they were allowed to marry. Why are gay people an exception with you? You don't expect heterosexuals to all be monogamous. Why should homosexuals have to toe the line?

Well, not because they are allowed to marry, no, but if they are actually married, then yes....at least until polygamy becomes legal.

Then I take it you believe there should be a law preventing heterosexual couples from this behavior as well? If not, why only hold homosexuals to this standard?

 

[Jerry]

:rofl Smoking me out? From what? From an argument that I never had with you? From not caring about proving something to you and realizing that it would be a fruitless endeavor even if I did care?

There's nothing to argue. It's idiotic to think that all gays would suddenly be monogamous if they were allowed to marry. Why are gay people an exception with you? You don't expect heterosexuals to all be monogamous. Why should homosexuals have to toe the line?

Then I take it you believe there should be a law preventing heterosexual couples from this behavior as well? If not, why only hold homosexuals to this standard?

What do you mean "should be a law"?

South Dakota Codified Laws Text Search

South Dakota Codified Laws

25-4-2. Grounds for divorce. Divorces may be granted for any of the following causes:
(1) Adultery;
(2) Extreme cruelty;
(3) Willful desertion;
(4) Willful neglect;
(5) Habitual intemperance;
(6) Conviction of felony;
(7) Irreconcilable differences.

Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0703 (1) to (6); SL 1985, ch 207, § 3.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

What do you mean "should be a law"?

I thought you were implying that the behavior shouldn't be allowed at all. Obviously people can get a divorce if they so choose for those reasons.

 

[Bonnie1988]

South Dakota Codified Laws

25-4-2. Grounds for divorce. Divorces may be granted for any of the following causes:
(1) Adultery;
(2) Extreme cruelty;
(3) Willful desertion;
(4) Willful neglect;
(5) Habitual intemperance;
(6) Conviction of felony;
(7) Irreconcilable differences.

#4 and #7 basically make it no-fault. I don't think #6 should be on the list.