I had a comment on my Scottish words post, bidey-in, from someone called Mickey. He commented, “a rose by any other name is still the same–whether it is a bidey in or a partner–it still is a relationship without commitment and one that each one uses the other…for whatever purpose –how can one love purely in a relationship that is adulterous?”
Frankly, I was a bit worried about approving the comment in case I was deluged by weird Christian sect messages. However, I do want to say that I know several very committed and close couples who for some reason known to themselves have never thought it necessary to have a piece of official paper to seal their happiness.
Two of our friends have been living together for nearly 40 years and are completely devoted to each other. As it happens, they never had any children. I suppose children might be upset if their parents aren’t married and according to all the research, children are better off in all sorts of ways if the parents are married.
I’m more than a wee bit puzzled as to why Mickey is assuming that couples who are living together are committing adultery though. Surely one of the bidey-ins has to be married for that to be the case.
Nowadays most people who are living together have never been married to anyone before, so adultery just isn’t an issue at all.
I say, live and let live, as long as no-one is being hurt by the situation, surely it shouldn’t be a problem.
Hear hear!
Adultery can mean simply “sex with someone to whom you are not married” or “extra-marital sex” — depends which dictionary you consult and which society you live in — so technically if one goes by that definition each partner in a sexual relationship is committing adultery if they are not a married couple. That might be because it is adulterating marriage itself rather than one marriage in particular, perhaps.
It can also mean sex without the intention to procreate, if you go back to earlier usage. I find that slightly bizarre, but I suppose if you’re very strictly Christian of a specific sort it would make sense.
Miranda Lehman,
Thanks for dropping by and taking the time to comment. I suppose everyone has their own standards. I was amazed when an elderly lady described a friend of hers as being the ‘innocent party’ in a divorce case, by which she meant that her friend was unmarried, but I know that the ‘wronged’ wife certainly regarded the other woman as a marriage and family wrecker. Some of those hard line Christians see smiling as sinful!
Regards, Katrina