sunnylin01 Post time 2016-12-19 15:35:18

Is fidelity outdated?

(Telegraph) Married couples in Italy will no longer have to pledge fidelity to each other under a draft law being considered by Parliament. MPs are considering an amendment to article 143 of Italy's civil code which would remove the word "fidelity" from Italian marriage contracts. The promise not to cheat is a "cultural legacy from an outdated and obsolete view of marriage, family, and the rights and duties of spouses", according to a dozen senators backing the bill.
I find it truly rare to find fidelity in a lot of today's relationships.  Look at the celebs of our time, they change their husbands or wives almost on the daily basis. Fidelity in a relationship today may be old fashioned but it is the basis for marriage, for true intimacy and trust between husband and wife. What do you think?http://cms.iyuba.com/cms/news/image/52071.jpg

markwu Post time 2016-12-19 18:58:44

Berlusconi must have been behind that.

But note that all major religions in the world have one common edict, namely commit no adultery. Isn't that a strange coincidence?

However all of them surfaced in past eras. Modern times are somewhat different; people can argue it is better to have happy love in springy relationships than long-drawn pretense in relationships made moribund by over-familiarity, hormonal changes and harsh tolerance of brusque (mis)communication.

St_George Post time 2016-12-20 00:37:29

Fidelity is nice as an ideal, I for one wouldn't propose to lower the sanctity of marriage by changing the law to encourage cheating.

Surely nobody likes being deceived. End a relationship before you start another one, it's not that difficult.

Saul Post time 2016-12-20 20:56:31

markwu Post time: 2016-12-19 05:58 static/image/common/back.gif
Berlusconi must have been behind that.

But note that all major religions in the world have one comm ...

This is a Qur’aanic text which shows that plural marriage is allowed. According to Islamic sharee’ah, a man is permitted to marry one, two, three or four wives, in the sense that he may have this number of wives at one time. It is not permissible for him to have more than four. This was stated by the mufassireen (commentators on the Qur’aan) and fuqaha’ (jurists), and there is consensus among the Muslims on this point, with no differing opinions.

HailChina! Post time 2016-12-21 06:25:31

markwu Post time 2016-12-21 19:48:50

Saul Post time: 2016-12-20 20:56 static/image/common/back.gif
This is a Qur’aanic text which shows that plural marriage is allowed. According to Islamic sharee ...

It is somewhat one-sided; the men could marry up to four wives but women must have only one husband. And there was a reason for that. One understands the rule at that time came about because wars had depleted the number of men relative to the number of single women so that the remaining men could take more than one wife in order to provide for those women however under another higher rule that polygamy was frowned upon nonetheless but again it may still be overlooked if marrying someone's daughter was to reinforce an alliance. However this still doesn't explain why the quota is four nor why women were treated as diplomatic gifts on the one hand and as circumstantial beneficiaries on the other hand.

It also doesn't explain why this privilege is still retained when there is no war, more men, and less ability to provide support for more than one.

Which seems to say what might have been applicable only then has been taken as still full-force applicable even now when situations have changed because no one has the guts to challenge what has been laid down in writing.

Which in turn could explain why there are still so many conflicts today not the least of which honor killing.

Saul Post time 2016-12-21 19:50:04

markwu Post time: 2016-12-21 06:48 static/image/common/back.gif
It is somewhat one-sided; the men could marry up to four wives but women must have only one husban ...

one-sided...very true
Page: [1]
View full version: Is fidelity outdated?