Dedication + recurrence
If two lovers were dedicated and loyal to each other, then in a recurrence or rebirth we come back [e.g. by the machine which brought us into being to begin with], and do the same again but with different spouses, who in eternity are you loyal too?
To me this poetically suggests that loyalty is not a divine aspect?
A divine society would thus not be one where people ‘owned’ each other, nor would be owned, nor seek to own.
_
How did dedication and loyalty suddenly turn into ownership?
If no ownership then you would be able to be with who you choose, or what is making the choice other than a desire to constrain the lover to only you, and you them. Misses the point a bit.
If you see a connection between loyalty and ownership, then you are going to come to a particular set of conclusions. Someone who does not see it that way, will reach other conclusions.
This is something I’ve thought a good amount towards. If, in eternity, you are dedicated and loyal to another and they to you and each of you more to each other than any other, then loyalty is still a divine aspect, yet comforts of the flesh and spirit both would have to be taken into account at that point and allowed, especially if in the recurrence and rebirth you wind up on different planets or in different realities entirely or even on the same planet in the same reality, but on other sides of the world with insane adversity in your way. There would have to be that understanding of the animal nature.
Maybe you will feel the same towards everyone in the afterlife. Perhaps equally indifferent.
How can one know?
It is not a thing of perspective but of philosophical choices, and in some ways prejudice ones. What is within the decision to not love others? Or to love only one? Do we even make those decisions? [are they instinctual/subconscious].
The original inquiry of the thread proposes a simple logic issue; two or more marriages/loves would result in the stated contradiction of loyalties. After this conclusion we can ask; in the proposed place where everyone exists after life/or a shared eternal, would there be marriage [due to the contradiction]?
Admittedly we have to jump to the idea that the said place is ‘divine’, in order to say that divine living would not then be monogamous. If it is not divine then what is? Any religion i can think of makes that jump and most envision a moral way of life from what they think the other side and divinity is like.
Why situate the question in a divine realm? The nature of relationships in such a place is unknown. You can discuss loyalty, marriage and monogamy in the here and now. And you can use real examples. 
Why not situate it in a divine realm? Why not put the question on such a Godly plane of existence to have it solved there? You ask why situate it there and then suggest a different place to situate it and then state to use real examples. Why not do both? Why not bridge a gap between religious experience, or theology in general, and ‘reality’? What makes you think that a divine being would handle a situation of love as any differently? Wouldn’t you, living in a world of such thoughtful criticism, sharp sarcasm and biting wit, see how quickly that even an immortal or divine vestige would be all but torn to shreds in such an argument without careful answer and at such a point as that, is not such care in answering what drives people to love? At that point, if one were to master such care with thought and words to give forth suitable answer to such a question, wouldn’t they then be suitable life partners having shown such ready commitment to such a topic that denotes an undertaken interest in the field and range that the topic covers?
To bring it up again to thoughts of reincarnation is also to take it to very ‘realistic’ step, because we simply don’t know if we get reincarnated. We think strongly that the possibility exists and at such a point as the possibility existing, maybe something wants a concrete answer in the way that the question was asked, yet have it be on a realistic level it could still relate to and understand, which states that in the long term, through flesh and spirit, memories get lost or faded and all that you would be left with would be vague impressions and feelings and senses. If you were to run into someone you loved so strongly in a previous life, would you be male? female? Would you have been able to control such a thing? What if you both were male or female and had to be gay to truly enjoy the love that you had in that past life?
What if, for going through that lifes struggles, you missed each other when you passed each other and went through life alone. What if you were born into a war where you had to fight each other to the death? At what point does such simple explanations of love as we have been given cease to be enough as we reach for the deeper knowledge and education of what it would truly mean to be dedicated and loyal in such trying circumstances beyond ones control such as the situations and circumstances provided by the OP.
And then once you entertain those thoughts and come back down to a realistic approach, it helps put things in proper perspective and you might see the possibility of just thinking momentarily for a single life time and trying to find that one soul mate, or someone very much like them as to fool your own senses enough to enjoy life and that commitment as much as possible. It would be like Cassanove, who truly loved all the women he loved and who all loved him regardless of the knowledge of his other loves, because of how he made them feel; and there could be womam cassanovas all over the place, too.
Why not think beyond and then bring it back in and think beyond again only to firmly set in place, in your own self, the actual understanding of such a thing and then the answer is adequately earned and understood and is perfect.
Ok. In the case of rebirth or recurrence and with no eternity [that’s like saying there is no infinity], and no heaven/Elysium or otherworld; the soul or otherwise the travelling entity moving from one body to the next, cannot be loyal unless by chance they always meet again i suppose. This issue is resolved when we consider that; they would have to be born and die at the same time, otherwise there would be an overlap in terms of lives and time values spent in the world, and that counters the proposition [that there is no other place].
Unless you take into account will power, heart and momentum. Theoretically, a strong-willed spirit (sentient piece of energy) would be capable of directing where and possibly when they go. If two such spirits were to be caught up in a love affair that went beyond mere life and death, they would theoretically go through so many lives, eternities, realities, etc. without ever seeing each other and learning to follow a trail of energy. At the same time, much like a bunch of monkeys hammering away on typewriters and stumbling upon Shakespeare’s work, such spirits would theoretically find each other again. Since it could be assumed realistically that if this effect does exist, the flesh would not remember strongly the memories of the spirit and vice versa, it could also be readily surmised that over a long, long extended period of time, what rests beyond eternity and still within it, wrapped in layers with layers, they would slowly be learning how to find each other and debating whether it’s worth the pain of such an endeavor that they can no longer firmly or properly remember or know what it is that is pulling them back together again.
And at such a point, the imprinting on that sentient bit of energy is going to respond to the imprinting left of other bits of energy much like how a fish remembers where it is spawned so that it can return and repeat the process and continue on the cycle of life and death and rebirth. Such strong spirits, in their learning, would theoretically time travel, travel to alternate realities; completely rip apart and destroy realities both willingly and unwillingly, both intentionally and unintentionally throughout so many failures, successes; learning lessons.
And, it would have to further be assumed that a re-emergence of those bits of energy known as souls and the re-meeting could theoretically destroy the world we inhabit; probably not outright, but by tearing apart and fracturing the spirit, heart and psyche of countless billions of people and risking them tearing apart their own created world and possibly destroy their planet in the process of dealing with all of the deeply-rooted fears and problems of such ‘immortal’ vestiges.
They say that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned… I say that Hell hath no fury like such a couple being deprived each other and it would be tough to argue against such a statement.
Phred
Lovers rarely die at the same time, and only a small proportion of situation circumstance [causality] is down to the will [which doesn’t exist or have thingness].
With the infinite [or not] monkeys thing; there would be a lot of hammering [ 
] between the true loves actually meeting up. Which leaves us with the same problem of loyalty, not to mention the horrible mess between.
With attractions and connections, there are not only problems in matching locations, lives and ages etc, but mostly you don’t decide when and where you are born! These things are of sperm + egg, and the fates of the parents.
Isn’t freedom the only truly divine thing? You really want a world which isn’t completely predictable, and that your every step is not being motivated by a fate or web of connections ~ surely?
_
I take it someone is not very adventurous about their private life. How vanilla.
[size=85]Be wary of utopias, every man, woman and child has their own idea of what should and shouldn’t be.[/size]
What do you mean?
Ownership floats a lot of boats.
What do you mean by “who in eternity”? At the present moment, the lovers have returned and are with other people.
The way I look at it, being with someone else doesn’t prove nor disprove loyalty.
Another lifetime - another lover, other choices.
If there even is such a thing as reincarnation, the loyalty belongs to the present spouse.
I think you actually answered your own question with your last sentence but I may be wrong.
As a child a face was in my dreams constantly. I found this face on a blind date in my late teens, it turned out to be my husband. His family saw me and said “he finally found his redhead”.
Eternal partners or just for this life? I don’t know, I just know we were pushed together somehow and we fit.
Oh that. 
That’s a desire and weakness except in play-acting, but then its not real.
Then the soul has been disloyal ~ being the body/world/life beyond lives.
*The freedom of being with someone else is the very freedom being proposed here.
Ok, then that is how it is for you. who knows in a destiny free reality you could have met in a previous life, but from that freedom basis. In agreement I don’t see why without destiny it cant go more like what we want? So if you guys >wanted to< meet up, then as long as the timing is right, you could get born around the same time and do so. If that doesn’t happen straight away, then in the meantime you may meet a life companion like some people do etc. With rebirth there perhaps are no needs for such limits as religion proposes. How do we know if religions aren’t simply societal devices, and have never told us what divinity is truly about?
_
Very often though they land up sinking.
We are, all of us to a T, delusional as far as relationship goes, I am afraid. We do not dictate, or even choose our relationships. They seem hit and miss. Under all that dating games, there are innumerable spirits, floating around disembodied, waiting a suitablepair, they can embed as parents.
It may be a very competitive world out in that far away land of spirits, and there may be literally thousands if not billions of spirits waiting. Like a big bazaar of parent choosing. There is no time there, so the waiting doesn’t occur in time, because the substantiation of spirits happens all the time, choices are based on what’s left after the strongest spirits grab the best parents.
We are on,y putty in their hands, this is why the urgency of life is posited into the newest and best re-creation. Wars in heaven are the usual, not the exception to the rule over who gets what parents. The unluckiest, who are in hell, are burning up of envy, and that is their retribution for getting even with the unfairness of it all. They are forever condemned to the mediocrity of voyeour-ism.
Everyone knows their place, and plays the usual dedicated, recurring games. It’s a lot of fun, ahem. Well it’s supposed to be. The Gods only too happy not to recur, since they know only too well the price They have to pay for such a recurrence. Sometimes they wonder whether it’s even worth it. But They too are bound, and follow the same cosmic laws that They had created, from the nothing, that is always Everything. The uncreated have the most power in this scheme, they are the movers and shakers behind it All.All possibility belongs to them, they are, the unmoved movers. The potential is beyond imagination, It is the seed of the infallible, universal reason of all being, to be, rather than not.
Dedication is the product of infinite recurrence. It is a rationale, for the inexplicably intertwined succession of determined actions. We are bound by cosmic laws, we are slaves to them, unfree, and delusional.
.