| , posted
over a year ago
It is possible to love more than one person at the same time. However, when a person enters an emotional binding 'contract' with another person - eg: a marriage, it always automatically defaults to an exclusive relationship with the partner, unless the partner has expressed otherwise. In other words, with that logic in place, it does not make sense why a person would enter a binding 'contract' with someone while keeping a mistress on the side, regardless of the reasons involved.
Reasons involved could possibly be: financial, power, political and even legal.
Think: aside from social labels, what else is the purpose of marriage?
The purpose of marriage aside from satisfying a social ego and tradition, is to build and grow an intimate relationship with your partner on an exclusive basis, unless expressed otherwise mutually by both people. If you keep a mistress on the side, that destroys the purpose of marriage. It makes marriage redundant.
In that case, why doesn't the person keep two lovers who accept the other lover, instead of getting married to one and having a mistress on the side?
It's like this: an American soldier pledges his allegiance to the United States and fights for its country. However, he feels that what he's making in income isn't enough. So he also sells his abilities to other factions like the Taliban and rogue nations like North Korea to earn an extra buck.
That doesn't look ethical at all, now does it?
Posted on 5 July 2009 @ 11:57 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)
|
yourhandholdingmine, posted
over a year ago