posted
That's...well, I think you might be right on the last bit Tom, but by no means is it so plain and self evident as to be a 'fundamental truth'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...I think a fundamental truth that's being missed here is that infidelity can occur even when the marriage is strong and worth preserving in all other ways.
Of course people who are in a "good" marriage cheat, it isn't always that there is something wrong with the marriage which causes someone to be unfaithful...sometimes there is just something wrong with person.
But if that is the case, that it is a good marriage, and the person still steps out, then once it is found out, it does irreparable harm to the relationship, and what started off sound and whole is now rent and broken.
I'm not saying that anyone who takes back a cheater is doing the wrong thing. Sometimes lives become so entangled that to separate them is tantamount to death, but I do say that choice is a compromise and requires a person to live with intense pain and anger and I simply can not imagine that it would not change the marriage on a fundamental level.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and before we move too far away, I'd like to apologize for bringing your spouse into the discussion Tom, that was rude of me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do want my kids to have something of me. I'd like them to have my sense of humor, or the way I see life, or my love of singing. The color of their eyes or the shape of their head has nothing to do with it. SW, you didn't answer about the breach of trust that asking for a DNA test would represent. I really do think it is not the symptom of a healthy relationship. Actually, I even think it could damage a marriage a lot.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Tom. Nature is almost inherently selfish. We can do better. What a great world it will be when we are able to care for the children of others as our own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I think you would be astonished at the number of couples who deal with infidelity and still have loving, wonderful marriages.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna: I want those things too. I just find it extremely judgmental to say that it is selfish and stupid to want your genes passed on.
It could be a breech of trust. That is the risk you run to confirm suspicions of infidelity. I personally wouldn't (and didn't) get tests, as I trust my wife implicitly, but I'm not going to nay say someone who wants a little confirmation (and while it would cause problems should it be found out, there is no reason it should, as these medical type things are usually confidential).
boots: Care for others children, or care about? Because people just lack the resources (time and money) to care for everyone's kids, but not about. Nor would I trust everyone with my children.
As loving and wonderful marriages post infidelity, I have no doubt there are quite a few. That being said, how much more loving and wonderful would they be had they not had to overcome this huge trust issue. It is even possible that getting over that issue created an even tighter bond then previously. But I doubt that is the norm, nor would I bet on it.
Bottom line, there are only a few things you swear to in a marriage, and not humping the neighbor is pretty big one.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caring for any children born to the union is also a big one. In fact, I would guess that for most of history the man's promise to provide for the children born to his wife was taken much more seriously than his sexual fidelity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you're missing my point. Remember that for most of history DNA testing hasn't been an option. And even today in many states a man is the legal father of children born to a woman he is married to. It's part of the marriage contract that he agrees to be the father of children born into the marriage, not of children that she can prove have his DNA.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That agreement is predicated on that they are his children as evidenced by the promise of fidelity, which is in the vows, where as raising the children isn't.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wanting your children to have their mother's smile and their father's eyes, and their grandmother's chin is...selfish and stupid in your book.
Yes. Because there's no guarantee that your child, even if he or she has your sperm, will have your eyes, your wife's smile, or your mother's chin. And being disappointed about that is as silly as really, really wanting a boy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That agreement is predicated on that they are his children as evidenced by the promise of fidelity, which is in the vows, where as raising the children isn't.
Out of curiosity... can you post here or link to the vows you are referring to?
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps expecting traits to manifest is asking for a let down, and actually being disappointed is silly, but that was not what I was trying to say. People tell me my son looks like me a lot, and I enjoy it every time. My taking joy in the pieces of me that made it to him are neither selfish nor stupid.
I doubt you are saying anything as personal as disagreeing with my last statement there Tom. But do realize that when you say things like "I submit that only selfish bastards care about the latter." that it is an inflammatory statement, which basically says, if you care about this thing I don't, you are a selfish bastard. Of course you can say anything you like. But I doubt you want to point that many fingers at that many people. I could be wrong of course.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We are gathered here to unite these two hearts in the bonds of holy matrimony which is an honorable estate. Into this, these two now come to be joined. If anyone present can show just and legal cause why they may not be joined, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
Who gives this woman/man to this woman/man?
(First Person), will you have this woman/man as your lawful wedded partner, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love him/her, honor him/her, comfort him/her, and keep him/her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him/her as long as you both shall live? (I will).
(Second Person), will you have this man/woman as your lawful wedded partner, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love him/her, honor him/her, comfort him/her, and keep him/her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him/her as long as you both shall live? (I will).
THE RING
Behold the symbol of wedlock. The perfect circle of love, the unbroken union of these souls united here today. May you both remain faithful to this symbol of true love.
Please join hands and repeat after me (first person, while placing ring on proper fingers).
I,(name)take (name), as my wedded partner, to have and to hold from this day forward,for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health,to love and to cherish, till death do us part.
I,(name), take (name),as my wedded partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.
For as much as (name) and (name) and have consented together in wedlock, and have witnessed the same before this company of friends and family, and have given and pledged their promises to each other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a ring, and by joining hands.
By the authority vested in me by (name of state or country), I pronounce this couple to be united in marriage. You may kiss.
posted
Wanting your child to have your genes may not be stupid but it is selfish. It is all about one's self. Not necessarily an uncommon or particularly evil brand of selfish, but still about loving the self you see in someone else.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not just seeing yourself in your children, but your family and your spouse. Plus it is about the continuity of life, and continuing on and taking out the sting of death to know that part of you continues on, just as your dead loved ones go on through you.
I honor people who choose to love children who are not their own, but no way shape or form do I accept that the "default moral choice" is to care for a brand new baby who is not yours simply because you are married to its mother, and further that if you do not, you are a selfish bastard.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't call it the default moral choice. How, though, is being concerned about your genes going on not about you? Any child continues life just as much as one with your particular genes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one I am an only child...so the only way my parent's gene's would have continued at is if I have children (which I do).
Passing on your genes is one of the highest evolutionary objectives there is.
As to selfish, I only think of things being selfish when you are putting yourself before others, so, acts like breathing and eating are not selfish, unless you are breathing or eating someone's air/food.
The way that people make children involves passing on your genes, and wanting to be a part of that process isn't selfish. Or else everyone who has biological children when there are still children in the foster care system is selfish...which they aren't.
ETA: It's Tom who is implying it is the default moral choice.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My taking joy in the pieces of me that made it to him are neither selfish nor stupid.
If none of the pieces of you made it to him, if in fact your wife won the lottery and all of her traits somehow manifest there, would you love him less? If not, why do you think it matters at all?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think very highly of myself so I assume any child with my genes will be superior to all other children. Therefore, I want my kids to be mine- cause they will be smarter, cuter, healthier than the average kid. So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: No, I take pride in my children looking like my wife too...she is a beautiful, smart, driven woman who has a strong moral fiber and is funny and fun to be around, which is why I married her. It matters because parts of me and her will live on in our children after we die, just as parts of my dead grandparents live on through me. It is being part of the continuity of life.
How is it that if you do not accept your wife's illegitimate child that you become a selfish bastard?
scholarette: I'm not sure if you are funning with me or being serious.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it that if you do not accept your wife's illegitimate child that you become a selfish bastard?
It's caring whether or not your child is illegitimate that makes you a selfish bastard. You're ultimately punishing the child for your wife's misdeed, when -- as you admitted just above -- your genetic material is a purely optional contribution to your parenting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Tom, but I don't think you have a moral leg to stand on to make such judgmental and widely damning statements.
By your bassakward standards, every child you do not take in off the street you are punishing and everyone who doesn't run an orphanage is a selfish bastard.
We are only on the hook for the well being of our own children. Some good folk extend their responsibility to include others by choice, and they should be praised, but there is no obligation for people to take care of other people's kids.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be sad scholarette...having pride in your kids isn't a bad thing...and you are smarty smarty threw a party.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think very highly of myself so I assume any child with my genes will be superior to all other children. Therefore, I want my kids to be mine- cause they will be smarter, cuter, healthier than the average kid. So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
quote:You're ultimately punishing the child for your wife's misdeed...
Where we discussing abandoning a child who you have raised for years after finding out they are not yours, I would agree. But that is not the case we are talking about, we are talking about a brand new baby here.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tangent -- it's a little odd that the site linked above is about commitment ceremonies, which it makes clear on its front page are not considered legal marriages in many jurisdictions (which is why the organization sponsoring the site registers them), but then uses the language "By the authority vested in me by (name of state or country)" in its suggested vows.
I'm pretty certain that no state or county has vested authority in anyone to perform an action that it doesn't legally recognize.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think very highly of myself so I assume any child with my genes will be superior to all other children. Therefore, I want my kids to be mine- cause they will be smarter, cuter, healthier than the average kid. So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
Bolded by me.
That is because the people talking to me are stupid and careless. When you talk to them, you can just hear the misspellings they would be making.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
We are only on the hook for the well being of our own children. Some good folk extend their responsibility to include others by choice, and they should be praised, but there is no obligation for people to take care of other people's kids.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: That is because the people talking to me are stupid and careless. When you talk to them, you can just hear the misspellings they would be making.
posted
Though the names Clive and KirKis come from the same legendary video game, we are in fact, Not the same person IRL. KirKis is the ID I use in just about everything I do.
SW makes a ton of sense to me. I agree with all of what you said. If I found out today that my daughter was someone elses I still would love her and fight for her. I have already bonded with her. I just can't see it right to "force" a man to take care of a child that isn't his.
Saying that your wife cheating on you and bearing another man's child will now be YOUR child just because you two are married ... is so wrong to me.
And if you don't leave someone after they cheated on you... wow. Thats a pretty open relationship.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you don't leave someone after they cheated on you... wow. Thats a pretty open relationship.
I think the proper term is "forgiving" not open. I know several marriages that have survived infidelity that were definitely not open relationships.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Passing on your genes is one of the highest evolutionary objectives there is.
Evolution doesn't have objectives. Its a random process.
Individuals don't evolve. Species evolve.
The desire to pass on ones genes is one trait that improves the survival of your species' genes.
The desire to see all the children of your species, who share most of your genes even if they have no relationship, also improves the survival or your species' genes.
Beyond that, if you use any form of birth control then there is no question that you aren't controlled or particularly motivate by gaining an evolutionary advantage.
[ July 11, 2011, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think the proper term is "forgiving" not open. I know several marriages that have survived infidelity that were definitely not open relationships.
And I know several open relationships that have not survived infidelity. The two are definitely not equivalent.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The child of your wife is your child. That's one of the primary purposes of the act of marriage.
I understand (and I could be mistaken) that a child born to a mother who is married, the man she is married to is legally listed as the father. But that doesn't make the child yours. We we discussing the theoretical situation where the child's origins were known. DNA testing only became available in the 70s, so this clause of having the husband be the father makes perfect sense when you can not prove it either way. I bet (but don't know for a fact) that if a man had proof the child wasn't his, he could get his name removed with little difficulty. My point...the one that we disagree on so clearly Tom, is that if you choose to accept to be cuckold that is your choice, but to say that everyone who doesn't accept it is a "selfish bastard" is judgmental and amoral.
Boots: So, a stranger comes up to you, and thrusts a baby into your arms, if you don't take care of the baby you should be prosecuted for child abandonment and mistreatment? What if the stranger never comes back, you now have to take care of that baby for 18 years? There is a world of difference between caring about other people's kids (Hey kid, get out of the street, there are cars coming!) and being responsible for other people's children.
Rabbit: Evolutionarily speaking, one of the highest goals of individuals is passing on their genes. Picky picky.
At the heart of marriage (for me anyway) is trust. This is the person who you can count on, who is there for you, and vice versa. While the sex in infidelity is defiantly an issue, it is not the main issue for me, the trust is. Tom's assertion that "...infidelity can occur even when the marriage is strong and worth preserving in all other ways." is like saying that the tires on that car that was totaled are in great condition! Did you see the interior, not a scratch!...meanwhile, the engine (the thing that makes movement possible) is a twisted heap of smoking trash. Yes you can replace the engine and repair the damage, but "worth preserving in all other ways" carries no weight with me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit: Evolutionarily speaking, one of the highest goals of individuals is passing on their genes. Picky picky.
No its not and its not nitpicking in the least. Evolution has no goals and no values. Nature does not enforce the desire to evolve on individuals. Evolutionary theory does not make passing on ones genes a goal.
Individuals do not evolve. Species evolve. Evolution favors species in which the individuals desire to pass on their genes. This is only one of many traits favored by evolution. Evolution also favors species that nurture their offspring as a species and not simply as individuals. So for example among wolves, only the strongest members of the pack pass on their genes, the other members of the pack contribute to survival of the species by nurturing the young of the alpha pair. The Evolutionary process has found hundred of combinations of traits that have resulted in species that survive. Desire to pass on genes is not higher in than pecking order than hundreds of other traits.
In fact, one of the reasons humans have been so successful is because we have evolved to nurture children who are not our own flesh and blood.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blerg...you miss my point, repeatedly and insist on your own terminology. I don't care. There would be no evolution without the passing on of genes. That fact that some members contribute by aiding the offspring of others is irreverent if you didn't have the passing on of genes.
If everyone stopped being able to reproduce, then survivability of current offspring would be meaningless.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boots: So, a stranger comes up to you, and thrusts a baby into your arms, if you don't take care of the baby you should be prosecuted for child abandonment and mistreatment? What if the stranger never comes back, you now have to take care of that baby for 18 years? There is a world of difference between caring about other people's kids (Hey kid, get out of the street, there are cars coming!) and being responsible for other people's children.
Where do you suppose that I have suggested that people should be prosecuted for selfishness?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You vehemently disagreed with the statement that people are not responsible for other people's children. Adults who are responsible for children are prosecuted when they fail to provide for their children.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, I was speaking morally, not legally. We have lots of moral obligations that are not legally enforced nor should they be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand (and I could be mistaken) that a child born to a mother who is married, the man she is married to is legally listed as the father. But that doesn't make the child yours.
Yes, it does. The only thing that would make the child not mine in that scenario would be my outright rejection of that child.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
