There is a time and a place for feelings. I'm not immune to feelings, but you can't just let your feelings control you. A relationship with someone (especially one that is intended to last forever like marriage) is a serious decision. Why on Earth would you let your feelings enter into that decision? The only smart way to make decisions is using reason, not emotion.

Are you actually trying to say you think people should just have any old beliefs without any justification for those beliefs? You just randomly choose what to believe with no reason? I sure hope you don't vote!

You've clearly not understood anything I've said in this thread. I have not "slammed" anybody for anything. I absolutely respect other people's right to make choices, even choices I disagree with. I am the biggest advocate of freedom and human rights that you will ever come in contact with. I would just like to know why people make a certain choice because I honestly don't understand it. I have never once implied that I don't think people should be allowed to make the choice or "slammed" anyone for making the choice. You might want to re-read what I have actually written with a more objective eye.

That feeling of being backed up against the wall is common when faced with the fact that one's beliefs may not be tenable. I realize that it's an uncomfortable feeling. It is often even for me after years and years of training and experience in rational discussion. However, the appropriate thing to do in that situation is to re-examine your beliefs and be prepared to admit that you might be wrong. What too many people often do instead is take offense or even become violent on occasion. That's just not very productive.

I was completely honest from the very beginning of this thread. I did and still do seek to understand why people would make the choice to require sexual exclusivity from their partner. It doesn't make much sense when you say that I was looking for a debate "instead of understanding." What do you think the point of a debate is? A debate is an attempt to find understanding. In fact, a debate is pretty much the only reasonable way to seek understanding. If I were not to debate the answers given, then I could certainly not claim to truly be seeking understanding.

Surely you don't just believe everything you are told, right? When faced with potential "information," you should always question it to see if it is justified. If you don't you will end up believing a lot of strange and very untrue things.

You seem to actually have the beginnings of an argument here. I will attempt to put it into a more structured form with numbered premises to try to understand it better.

To make the sentences shorter and therefore simpler to understand, I will use the following variables:

X: a person
Y: X's partner in a relationship
Z: emotions, intimacy, bonding, trust, and being invested in one's partner

Here is what I think you are saying:
1. X requires relationships in which both X and Y have Z.
2. X requires relationships that are special for both X and Y. (implicit premise)
3. If Z exists in more than one of a person's relationships, there would be nothing special about any of that person's relationships.
4. X has no desire to have sex with someone without Z
5. X will be hurt if X's relationship does not meet X's requirements (implicit premise)
Therefore, if Y had sex with someone besides X, X would be hurt.

OK, let me study this for a second.

We can conclude from 1, 2, and 3 that X wants a single relationship and from the addition of 4 that X's partner in the relationship would be the only person X wants to have sex with.

This proves quite well that X would be sexually exclusive within the relationship. However, that's not the stated conclusion. The stated conclusion is that Y not being sexually exclusive would hurt X.

When we consider premise 5, we can come up with the following:
We can conclude that if X or Y did not have Z that X would be hurt.
We can also conclude that if X or Y had Z in multiple relationships, it would hurt X.
This argument does support its stated conclusion, however, because the only thing we know about anyone's preferences regarding sex is about X. We know nothing about Y in that regard, so the conclusion doesn't hold water.

Now, to be fair, we could easily fix this argument by simply adding another premise that states "Y has no desire to have sex with someone without Z." However, I can't think of any good reason to add that premise. Why must that be true of Y? It sounds to me as though X is simply transferring her own feelings onto Y and feeling hurt unnecessarily.

By the way, I also think the truth of premise 3 is pretty questionable.