It is my view that marriage is a formal promise between two individuals to go through life with one another in whatever manner they agree upon. The fulfillment of this pact relies on both individuals' integrity. If two people decide to get married, and they both agree upon terms that allow for extramarital affairs, they are remaining faithful to their promise. To each his own, as long as the terms are clearly defined beforehand.
However, most marriages seem to operate under the premise that sexual relations will be exclusive. If these conditions are not met, then they have violated their own promise, and compromised their personal integrity.
I cannot personally define what marriage should be, as it is a contract between two individual people who may or may not share my ideas and values. It seems to follow that if you make a promise, you should keep it. In this sense, of course marital monogamy is necessary, if that's what you've agreed to. It's not outdated, it is simply the preferred choice. It's up to an individual to live up to it, or negotiate another way.
As far as marriage itself goes, I believe that it is a bit of an outdated institution. Besides being a symbol of loyalty/affection, it originally served to secure property, provide a stable environment for offspring, ensure financial security for women, and lend legitimacy to a sexual union by making the promise publicly.
In our society, these reasons aren't so compelling anymore. Dowries are long gone. People can have sex without producing children by using contraceptives. Women don't rely on men for their livelihood, and both sexes can do a decent job as a single parent. "Fornication!" isn't punishable by death or scarlet letter. All that we have left is that public promise, and the symbol of affection. Does that reflect well on a person's ability to keep his/her word, that they need to sign a contract in order to prove faithfulness? Why isn't a verbal agreement enough?
Posted 73 days ago | Tagged As: It's a matter of personal integrity