Why do some people try to steal other's wife/hunsband?
I know it's not wrong to fall in love with a married person but trying to steal that person from her/his spouse is to too far.
Shouldn't it be better if they give up?
P.S: I can understand when they try to steal someone boyfriend/girlfriend (even tough it's wrong), because they didn't get far in their relationship, but still a married couple is too much...
I never blame the person making advances in these cases. Frankly, they're not the one in the relationship/marriage so they don't really have to say no. I blame the cheater more than anyone else, its their job to say no and to stop advances.
That's taking cheating to the extreme level. For BF and GF it is quite common. Yeah it is kind of rude to steal another's spouse but that is just how reality is.
of course if it is an arranged marriage or their relationship is about to break.
Edit: what I mean is that if you were to fall for someone and later know that she's married.
Shouln't you give up?
But there's some people who don't, I dont understand
Even if they do chase after a person already in a relation, that person has a responsibility to be faithful to the other.
Even if they try to cast a doubt, if both couple are true to each other, it shouldnt be a problem. They know what they are capable and they would know that they wont hurt one another so why bother of what one tries to do to their relationship?
Even if they do chase after a person already in a relation, that person has a responsibility to be faithful to the other.
Even if they try to cast a doubt, if both couple are true to each other, it shouldnt be a problem. They know what they are capable and they would know that they wont hurt one another so why bother of what one tries to do to their relationship?
I guess so
-some wish that their relation fall apart to get their chance (that's wrong)
-and some get jealous to the point of destroying their bond even tough knowing that they didn't stand a chance
Why do some people try to steal other's wife/hunsband?
I know it's not wrong to fall in love with a married person but trying to steal that person from her/his spouse is to too far.
Shouldn't it be better if they give up?
P.S: I can understand when they try to steal someone boyfriend/girlfriend (even tough it's wrong), because they didn't get far in their relationship, but still a married couple is too much...
While I agree with you in a moral sense - we must actually look at the history our species comes from and the clues our biology give us.
Women stealth-ovulate. By comparison to other animals, who typically broadcast when they are most fertile through physical changes, women give off very, very few cues. Further studies have shown that women during ovulation are more likely to find it attractive for men to be in direct competition with other males and for them to fantasize about men other than the one they are partnered with.
What this means is that women are likely to be drawn to men for status and wealth in terms of a relationship, but also biologically programmed to seek to reproduce with men who are perceived has having superior genetics. Likewise - men are just wired to be more opportunistic, but to be very discerning in their selection of a long-term partner.
This actually plays out into some complex behavior. For example, because it is very difficult for men to tell when their partner is ovulating - if they want to be sure they are the father, then they need to pay close attention to her and to bed her routinely. This is a woman's way of keeping men from just being opportunists who only pay attention to them when they are ovulating.
In species who require a large investment of parental care (such as humans), it is typically bad to have the other part of the equation running around to pair up with other random factors. Perhaps the couple has a relationship dispute and the man just decides to run off with the fling who has his kid (or the kid he thinks is his....). So, keeping him rooted to his investment is a good idea for the woman.
This is especially important in human societies with concepts of wealth and social status. We inherit many things from our parents - one of them being skills that contribute to wealth and social status that we will also pass on to our children. Making sure that the kid really has your genes in him is kind of important if you're going to spend 20 years raising him.
This is, interestingly enough, where the importance of virginity came from. If you want a 'pure' heir, knowing that you're the only one who could be the father is a good way to do that. This is, perhaps, also where the importance of the eldest child came from. In many societies, it wasn't just the eldest son - it was the eldest child, period, who held the most sway in things. The first born daughter, particularly from a formal marriage (wealthy people in many cultures often had concubines or 'chamber maids' who were more or less there to be impregnated), often had considerable amounts of authority and sway even in societies where we are often taught that women were looked down upon. In the worst case scenario - they often negotiated unions between powerful family and business lines by entering into marriages with the first born sons of other wealthy people - thus creating a 'true' genetic union of both in their eldest.
It was the Catholic Church that largely put a stop to powerful family lineages by ordering it unlawful to marry into family less than seven generations removed. It was relatively common for cousins of powerful families to marry in order to keep political and economic power solidified within the family lineage. From a genetic standpoint - there wasn't much wrong with this. Cousins are far enough removed to not substantially increase the risk for defects, and families would often make a point (particularly within the 'fringes' of its lineages) to introduce 'new blood' from time to time.
The Church pretty much destroyed the system of hereditary monarchies in Europe and paved the way for the Enlightenment - which brought about advances in production and eventually led to the Industrial Revolution that has essentially obliterated acceptance of caste systems (even if societies do stratify to some degree or another).
The concept of 'one man, one woman' has, historically within our species, been reserved to instances where populations are relatively equal to each other. Concepts of partnering have been considerably fluid throughout history.
Although I, personally, like the idea of one man and one woman who remain with each other and do not stray outside the relationship.
of course if it is an arranged marriage or their relationship is about to break.
Edit: what I mean is that if you were to fall for someone and later know that she's married.
Shouln't you give up?
But there's some people who don't, I dont understand
If you truly love that person and you realize that person truly loves their husband/wife, then you should let it go. That would be the ultimate showcase of love. It's hard to realize and do that though. Those people who do want to destroy a happy marriage are acting wrong.
But if the married person is your true love and vice versa, then I believe in true love. End the marriage peacefully. That is easy if there are no kids involved, but even if so, follow your heart and still be a good parent.
All in all, do not chase unrequited love, especially someone who is married.
I'm happy Mother and I, the soul mates that we are, already have each other. Nothing to worry about.
It was the Catholic Church that largely put a stop to powerful family lineages by ordering it unlawful to marry into family less than seven generations removed. It was relatively common for cousins of powerful families to marry in order to keep political and economic power solidified within the family lineage. From a genetic standpoint - there wasn't much wrong with this. Cousins are far enough removed to not substantially increase the risk for defects, and families would often make a point (particularly within the 'fringes' of its lineages) to introduce 'new blood' from time to time.
The Church pretty much destroyed the system of hereditary monarchies in Europe and paved the way for the Enlightenment - which brought about advances in production and eventually led to the Industrial Revolution that has essentially obliterated acceptance of caste systems (even if societies do stratify to some degree or another).
First and second cousin marriages were then banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506, though dispensations sometimes continued to be granted.
There are several explanations for the rise of Catholic cousin marriage prohibitions after the fall of Rome. One explanation is increasing Germanic influence on church policy. G.E. Howard states, "During the period preceding the Teutonic invasion, speaking broadly, the church adhered to Roman law and custom; thereafter those of the Germans ... were accepted." On the other hand it has also been argued that the bans were a reaction against local Germanic customs of kindred marriage. At least one Frankish King, Pepin the Short, apparently viewed close kin marriages among nobles as a threat to his power.
You must be registered for see links
It seems to me that if cousin marriages 'within powerful marriages' were common, well, it was definitely against canonic law- unless the Church granted a dispensation of the rule.
But: "In fourteenth century England, for example, papal dispensations for annulments due to consanguinity (and affinity) were relatively few."
You must be registered for see links
However, by then, the forbidden degree of kinship was reduced back to 4. Albeit its computation was different.
"Roman civil law [which was the code adopted by the early Church] had forbidden marriages within 'four degrees' and had computed degrees by counting from one prospective spouse up to the common ancestor and then down to the other partner.... Marriages of first cousins, those between people related within four degrees, were forbidden...
"But in the first half of the ninth century, both the number of forbidden degrees was increased--from four to seven--and the method of calculating degrees was changed. Now, rather than counting up from one spouse to the common ancestor and down to the other, one computed degrees by counting generations back *only* to the common ancestor..."
"This new method of counting remained in force through the Middle Ages, though in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 the number of degrees within which marriage was prohibited was again reduced from seven to four."
You must be registered for see links
As wikipedia briefs it:
In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated. Eventually the nobility became too interrelated to marry as the pool of non-related prospective spouses became smaller. It was either defy the church's position or look elsewhere for eligible marriage candidates. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made what they believed was a necessary change to canon law reducing the number of prohibited degrees of consanguinity from seven back to four.The method of calculating prohibited degrees was changed also.Instead of the former practice of counting up to the common ancestor then down to the proposed spouse, the new law computed consanguinity by counting back to the common ancestor. In the Roman Catholic Church, unknowingly marrying a closely consanguineous blood relative was grounds for an annulment, but during the eleventh and twelfth centuries dispensations were granted with increasing frequency due to the thousands of persons encompassed in the prohibition at seven degrees and the hardships this posed for finding potential spouses. After 1215 the general rule was that while fourth cousins could marry without dispensation, generally the need for dispensations was greatly reduced. In fourteenth century England, for example, papal dispensations for annulments due to consanguinity (and affinity) were relatively few.
You must be registered for see links
Based on extending the prohibited degree of kinship, I'd actually expect powerful families to extend their relations and further strenghten their positions. Division of wealth/property due to inheritance could be overcome with marriage contracts.
"The increase in royal intermarriage often meant that lands passed into the hands of foreign houses, when the nearest heir was the son of a native dynast and a foreign royal.
Monarchs sometimes went to great lengths to prevent this. On her marriage to Louis XIV of France, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV of Spain, was forced to renounce her claim to the Spanish throne. When monarchs or heirs apparent wed other monarchs or heirs special agreements, sometimes in the form of treaties, were negotiated to determine inheritance rights".
The marriage contract of Philip II of Spain and Mary I of England, for example, stipulated that the maternal possessions, as well as Burgundy and the Low Countries, were to pass to any future children of the couple, whereas the remaining paternal possessions (including Spain, Naples, Sicily, Milan) would first of all go to Philip's son Don Carlos, from his previous marriage to Maria Manuela of Portugal. If Carlos were to die without any descendants, only then would they pass to the children of his second marriage. On the other hand, the Franco-Scottish treaty that arranged the 1558 marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots and Francis, the son and heir of Henry II of France, had it that if the queen died without descendants, Scotland would fall to the throne of France.
You must be registered for see links
Actually, it's due to inbreeding that some lineages became extinct. Like in this case:
You must be registered for see links
So it seems to me that the Church actually did a favor for dynasties by preventing inbreeding. (Which, had- for most of the times- been forbidden at least between first cousins.)
And in any case, I don't really see a cause-effect relation between the Enlightenment and the prohibited degree of kinship being 7 until 1215...after which it became 4 again...
Also, I always thought the Enlightenment challenged the authority and dogmas of the Church...
"According to Bertrand Russell, however, the enlightenment was a phase in a progressive development, which began in antiquity, and that reason and challenges to the established order were constant ideals throughout that time. Russell argues that the enlightenment was ultimately born out of the Protestant reaction against the Catholic counter-reformation, when the philosophical views of the past two centuries crystallized into a coherent world view. He argues that many of the philosophical views, such as affinity for democracy against monarchy, originated among Protestants in the early 16th century to justify their desire to break away from the Pope and the Catholic Church. Though many of these philosophical ideals were picked up by Catholics, Russell argues, by the 18th century the Enlightenment was the principal manifestation of the schism that began with Martin Luther."
You must be registered for see links
But of course you may have other sources. Evaluating historical phenomena much depends on the historians who put more or less emphasis on certain events, depending on their own bias and background.
Anyway, I know the Church had a role in humanization and spreading literacy, etc...(Just like there were enlightened monarchs who encouraged science and spread knowledge, supporting schools...etc.): but I just felt that your summary is oversimplifed (not that you wanted to elaborate on an offtopic subject I guess), and that oversimplification comes partially from a mistake in the fact of the degree of prohibited kinship...But again, maybe some christian apologists whom you read explain history in a different way.
Inbefore "This is a failure to understand what the Enlightenment and the Church are..."
Some people get off on all the sneaking around and get an ego boost out of taking someone else's partner. Sad that takers are so easy to find.
I agree with the other responses that the person in the relationship is the one to blame 100% of the time. Someone that's truly committed can't be persuaded to cheat.
