Stay marry, but sleep with other people.

[arildno]

I was taught that as one of the reasons for Roman decline in a public school. Since there was a decrease in morals

Eeh?

the Romans did not have as many children

Wrong

since the family structure collapsed

"Familias" was NOT the same as "family"!
, which made them weaker.

Also the gluntony and self indulgence of Caligula did not help .
-scott

Eeh?
Caligula was no "glutton", besides, he lived about 70-100 years before the Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marc Aurel (that is, the period generally recognized as the strongest period in Imperial Rome.

 

[J77]

You've got to blame the internet for the increase in swinging as a life-style choice --- allows the strange to meet more easy

I thought the Romans died from eating whilst lying down

 

[Dawguard]

I see 'swinging' as a lifestyle that makes a joke of marriage. It is also a lifestyle that treats sex as a purely recreational activity.

Indeed, and that is my main contention with it. To ignore the danger that sexual promoscuity in marriage poses by protecting under a blanket statement of freedom is a dangerous thing. While I admit that these are not the only things that are said to defend it, it is defenitly the main argument people use. I find it almost amusing how terms such as "passing judgement" are bantered around lightly until they loose their meaning. Consider how immature it sounds to argue such as "'I find it disgusting', 'I find it disgusting that you pass judgement'". Please, remove pointless rhetoric from the debate.

I personally find the nature of sexual promescuity unappealing, but I also realize that I cannot make an absolute claim that it is wrong. I can't prove it's wrong morally, so I won't even try.

What I can say is that promescuity in marriage destroys the purpose of marriage. Marriage is supposed to create a family: this goes as far back as the patriarchal days of family dynasties. If we want to this focus from marriage then it looses its creates purpose. We might as well abolish it altogether and just mate like most animals. While you might say that is more free, please don't try to put it in a system of marriage and claim it's fine. The two are opposed, and without going into the question of which one is right or wrong, they cannot coexist.

Treading carefuly as always, I confess that I haven't spent a large amount of time invested in this particular topic. If I've stumbled through my logic, please point it out where I'm wrong.

 

[shmoe]

What I can say is that promescuity in marriage destroys the purpose of marriage. Marriage is supposed to create a family: this goes as far back as the patriarchal days of family dynasties. If we want to this focus from marriage then it looses its creates purpose. We might as well abolish it altogether and just mate like most animals. While you might say that is more free, please don't try to put it in a system of marriage and claim it's fine. The two are opposed, and without going into the question of which one is right or wrong, they cannot coexist.

Sexual promescuity does not equate to mating at random. The mating in an open marriage would still be between husband and wife. The extra-marital sex is for recreational purposes and I don't see how this interferes with what I consider the basics of building a family- having and raising children (putting aside any moral objections with the values you are teaching the children).

 

[Averagesupernova]

What I can say is that promescuity in marriage destroys the purpose of marriage.

By YOUR and the conventional accepted definition of marriage. However, there are scores of people who get married for many reasons besides the the classic reason. I can go to the hardware store and buy a tool that generally is used for something specific. But there is nothing that says I cannot use it for something else. I know this will sound apalling to some of you, but I'm simply trying to illustrate that those who get married and still fool around were most likely not interested in the conventional purpose of 'marriage'. They had their eyes on some other reason.

 

[daveb]

I find it almost amusing how terms such as "passing judgement" are bantered around lightly until they loose their meaning. Consider how immature it sounds to argue such as "'I find it disgusting', 'I find it disgusting that you pass judgement'". Please, remove pointless rhetoric from the debate

I too find it interesting that many (not all) who claim that others should be more tolerant are themselves intolerant of intolerant opinions. Let us stay focused on the OP.

As for how common it is, I guess that would probably depend on which which culture you examine. Just like there are polygamous cultures (both male polygamy and female polygamy), there are probably polyamorous cultures. In the U.S., I imagine it isn't that common since much of the U.S. is still tied to much of its puritanical roots, and this would have been considered an abomination back then. Now, it is true we have grown more tolerant of such things (not a value judgment on whether that tolerance is a good thing or not, just an observation), but the aversion to such ideas still lingers. Europe is probably a little more tolerant of such things, though I have no basis for that opinion. I could make an educated guess and claim that it is abhorrent in fundamentalist societies (regardless of Christian, Islam, etc.). My overall guess is that it isn't that common even though marriage historically has been a social and economic contract (rather than a religious one).

As for my personal opinion of the practice, I would never do it, I don't think it's immoral (given several caveats), but if someone else wants to claim it's disgusting and immoral, I'm not going to call them closed-minded - they are entitled to their opinion as long as they don't try to legislate morality. I can say that if both parties agree to it, and no children are involved, then as long as all parties enter into it aware of the potential consequences, I can see no rational reason why it is immoral.

And for what it's worth, I am not a moral relativist.

 

[ray b]

I was taught that as one of the reasons for Roman decline in a public school. Since there was a decrease in morals the Romans did not have as many children since the family structure collapsed, which made them weaker. Also the gluntony and self indulgence of Caligula did not help .
-scott

how his life that ended January 21, 41 CE: Caligula was assassinated
could effect the fall of rome in 476 is beyond me
far more likely is the takeover by christians, who refused to join the army or fight to save the city something that the christians don't teach
I wonder why that is?

btw the upper class family size had very little to do with army size
as very few of the upper class joined and they only needed a few leaders
and family size of the lower class stayed about the same

 

[Evo]

how his life that ended January 21, 41 CE: Caligula was assassinated
could effect the fall of rome in 476 is beyond me
far more likely is the takeover by christians, who refused to join the army or fight to save the city something that the christians don't teach
I wonder why that is?

Rome fell in 410 when it was sacked by the Visigoth King Alaric.

The sacking of Rome by King Alaric of the Visigoths is a good story by Procopius of Caesarea. The Visigoths had the city of Rome surrounded, the inhabitants of Rome were cut off, but after a long and fruitless siege Alaric realized it was going to take too long and be too difficult to capture the city so he made a plan. He decided on what basically amounted to a human "trojan horse"

He told the Romans that he gave up and would be moving out. He chose 300 of his youngest warriors to present to the Roman nobles as slaves, of course buttering the Romans up and telling them how great they were (the Romans of course believed this ).

Alaric instructed the Visigoth youth that they were to obey their new masters without argument and serve them eagerly to gain their new master's trust. On a predetermined day, at noon, (a time when Roman Nobles normally napped), they were to head to the Solarian gate, kill the guards and open the gates so that Alaric's men could invade the city.

 

[ray b]

yes the city was sacked at that date still 350 plus years after Caligula
but the empire did not fall at that time
the rulers had moved to Ravenna and so Rome was no longer the capital
the end was near, but the 410 sack was not it