 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Agreed-- however, I think you missed my original point anyway-- my point wasn't that Christ DOESN'T have significance any more but that as a physical event spread by word of mouth (physical) and the bible (also physical) Christ is finite. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Funny, I don't recall you answering this question before. I *do* recall you dodging it, though... Provide a cite to where you provided a cite, then... ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Scott: (...) You really are a bit dense sometimes, Scott... Quoting myself in the *very paragraph* you're supposedly "responding" to.. (...) Is that so hard to understand? In shorter sentences: Public (government funded) no. Private yes. Like I've (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) <snipped long references about history of Christmas> My point was that Christ's significance is not limited to what He said and did 2000 years ago, but also who He IS - today - present tense - as in alive and risen from the dead. The history (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I'm not Catholic, but I've generally found myself in agreement with all the Pope's previous statements. There must be some kind of mistake - I just can't see him saying something clearly un-Biblical like that. SRC (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) The Christmas that is celebrated today is bits and pieces of a variety of traditions and religions from all over the place. If you are refering to the name, yes, that comes from the Roman Catholic Christ Mass. Various Christian sects have (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Scott, why do you waste everyone's time with totally useless questions? This is plowed ground IN THE ACTUAL POST. Larry stated quite clearly his position. I don't see how much clearer it can be, and if you can't see the answer, you really (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) It is the exact opposite. (...) Usually, you tell me that they should be able to. Usually you say such institutions will discover such actions are bad - and the market should decide. I'll ask you again, do you think any school, public or (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) My point is "ploughed ground" Larry. (...) It takes >1 to debate Larry. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I heard it twice on the radio, but yes, I will try to find a print citation of it later today. Right now I'm off to Seattle for my first official LUG meeting! Can't believe it! Bill (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: [The pope's] (...) Fascinating! Can you provide a cite? Maybe the pope is catholic(1) after all :-) 1 - in the secular meaning of catholic ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) (I think it was a Steve) (...) What are you agreeing with <silly grin> Sex outside of marriage? Putting discussion in a subsequent post? The need for patience? I think my wife is OK with the latter two but our contract doesn't allow the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Right. But my thesis is that it is not necessary for an egg and a sperm to get together for a viable embryo to result. Two sperm carry sufficient genetic material to complete the needed chromosomes for a viable embryo, as long as one is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) You're going to have to admit that humanity is subject to the same genetic rules as other species, for starters. Once you grant that, you're all set. *All* you need to do is construct a mechanism for taking the genetic material of the two (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Oh ya. And I see you just posted a good thought starter about where morality comes from, etc. I don't speak for all atheists. I don't speak for all libertarians. (technically I'm not even atheist, actually... I'm atheist leaning agnostic) But (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) OK, here you go: for the details of Gerry Crane and how he was hounded to death for being gay, try going to Yahoo and using the search string "Byron Center Gay" This article from Time is from the beginning of Gerry's ordeal: (URL) the details (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Provide a cite please. That is, show how your set of rights are *harder to change* than ours, not that they currently give you more or less freedom. (1) That's the point I'm making, which you missed. 1 - they give you less, regardless of what (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Well, that's an easy one. Einstein's dead, so I have to go with J2. However, were Einstein alive, I'd expect he wouldn't be 8wide infected and therefore I'd go with Einstein. <grins, ducks and runs> ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existence isn't possible, because His existence isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existance isn't possible, because His existance isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Minor point: Christmas is of Catholic origin, springing from Constantines pronouncement of Rome as a Christian Empire. They kept their basics practices and just changed the name plates on the base of their idols. In the Pilgrim days Christmas (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) (URL) then did we receive our holidays (holy days) with their customs and traditions _ Christmas as well as Easter, Halloween, and Mardi Gras? Each of them has come to us from ancient Babylon, through Rome, through the Roman Catholic church. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Not really - Xmas was a pagan ritual coopted by the Christians because they couldn't quash it. (...) But if you don't believe in Eternity, who cares? Certainly not the person that doesn't. (...) Actually, it was founded on freedom OF religion, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) (and in another post) (...) Mr. Pieniazek, You issued this challenge to me in another thread concerning sexual ethics. Perhaps you missed my note to Kevin which - to some degree - agrees with your concerns: --- The reasoning behind the sexual (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) With great trepidation, I must ask: what makes you believe that? (...) This is what I kept challenging John Neal about (and that he never directly answered). What's more important: who Christ is, or what his message is? His (and yours) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:G5MIGo.8H@lugnet.com... (...) I (...) the (...) is (...) a (...) I'll wait for Mr. Pieniazek to weigh in - to see if he was thinking along the same lines - before I respond. Thanks for your (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) **snip** (...) Well, if you're going to get all technical on me... 8^) I confess I was reading from Larry's statement forward, that there was indeed the medical possibility of a male carrying a child. Put in the terms you revealed to me, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) So, what you are saying is that rape cannot exist within a marrage? Is this part of what you are trying to say? That a woman should be no more than a hole for a man? In spite of 50 years or more of court (and moral) decisions? I _dislike_ that (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Actually, I think it was quite on topic. Dave! was just trying to expose the precise line at which point it becomes immoral according to the proposed moral law. For example, IF (big if) homosexual sex could produce a child, would it then be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) a (...) Dave, I don't think this has any bearing on Steve's original statement, which was that (...) The male animal bearing a fetus that you speak of was not a result of homosexual sex, nor could it have (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Already established and debated. You're right. (...) I'm sure Dave! would correct you by saying science can't "PROVE" anything, but that's just semantics :) (...) Oh? That's new. I either doubt your conclusion or have a different definition of (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) It has been demonstrated that an embryo can be implanted into the abdomenal cavity of a male mammal and brought to term through the application of hormone therapies and medical supervision. The experiment I read about involved a male baboon (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Mr. Pieniazek, Thanks for your interest. You recently interacted with an argument of mine as follows: (...) You won't hear me argue about morality for species other than human beings, so the first point is irrelevant. I'm wondering how it isn't true (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Well-- I hope not! My writing a lot should only inspire response if you think it's worty of responding to :) If you'd like to respond, feel free. Really, the point is to try and allow others to learn from me, and to allow myself to learn from (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Having sucked up a whole previous debate's worth of this sort of attack, I'm going to address this briefly. I am not blind, nor am I proceeding along a path of destruction any more certainly than you are. I'm sure it's possible to discuss (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) That's good - many just blindly proceed along the path to destruction. Christ Himself said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
David: I hate to be so simplistic. But you've certainly written a great deal... and that deserves a response. However, a point by point response is probably inappropriate, not to mention exhausting, and would require more time than I certainly have (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) And applies equally for aethiests too, as I'm sure you meant to say. As for the backstory, see "Plowed ground". DaveE (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Problems with Christianity
|
|
Ok, I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I'm not exactly where to place it in the fray, so I'm just starting a new thread. (Also, I'll be able to see the dots on this one in the event that people respond) I think I've boiled down the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Provide a cite Larry - it would help make your point credible. (...) Are you saying the board had a right to sack him as he was gay? That is your usual line of argument is it not? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Does a society not express a preference in a referendum? (...) I think you are putting words in my mouth Larry - and they are all the wrong ones. (...) I feel a little sorry for you Larry. You sound so bitter at what you feel your fellow man (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) That is pretty much what you have said to me a few times. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) <larry snipped the rest of the text which explained the point I made - funny that> (...) My point is clear - nobody is forcing anyone to believe that polyamory and polygamy is not socially acceptable - the society I live has decided is not, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own. It is true, I don't have the right to carry a gun to church - but I don't want it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) And your point is what, exactly? (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) In the consulting racket, that's what we call a "drive by"... "I'm not interested in your discussion but I did have to put this one point in, and now I'm ignoring you again so don't bother trying to refute it as I won't see it" (overstated for (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Fair enough. But my point remains. Arguing against certain behaviours on the grounds that they are not allowed by the church (which is what Steve is doing) requires a great deal of backstory to be proven before there is any hope of justifying (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) These aren't EXACTLY on track, but they're close, and both of these things happened in West Michigan and both are pretty well documented in media archives. I am working from memory so may not have all the facts 100% straight. - A teacher was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Plowed ground alert. (...) For now. Subject to whim reversal, of course, since you have no mandated and irrevocable protections of your rights (neither do we, but ours are a bit harder to water down since they are in the Constitution, and the ones (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) You're not paying attention, Scott. The very next paragraph explains why a society cannot express a preference. The majority of members can hold a preference and can use the organs of the state to impose their view, but a society, since it is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) You say "government" like it were an entity which just appeared after some sort of a coup. Here in the UK, the government exists "create an open and inclusive society, where rights are balanced with responsibilities, and where every citizen (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I think they can. (...) I accept that the majority in a society can implement change - we call it democracy. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Well, in the society I am part of polyamory and polygamy are not socially acceptable. Scott A (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) (not interested in the debate, just forgot to add .debate back into my skip filter, and this caught my eye) If this is your argument against polyamory, then it's also your arguement against any kind of familial relationship. Person A = parent (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) He was responding to an invitation to expand on something. At least this thread is on-topic for its subject! Kevin (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Hi Steve, That was interesting, and it certainly makes a change from Leviticus and the crimes of Sodom :-). However, I don't think it tells me anything that makes me more sympathetic to the Christian POV on sexual morality, or changes my own views. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) The latter. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Yet you continue to ignore the fact that polyamory or polygamy CAN result in familial love (multiple children from mixed "couples"), so it does have bearing. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) This happens to turn out to not be actually true if one steps outside the human species. Further it's not true in principle for humans today, and as medical science continues to advance, soon it won't be true in actuality. (...) What does the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) No. I wrote state because I meant state. Societies can't express preferences. Members of societes can (forcibly) *impose* their preferences on other members, through the mechanics of the state, but the society as a whole cannot have a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) No, I'm sure he means State/Government. If you distil "society" (as you're referring to it here) down, it amounts to two forces: - market (in that if "society" frowns upon certain activities, there will be influence on cost/benefit analysis (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Heh! No, I wasn't suggesting that you did. But still, saying "there have been cases! Really!" Doesn't cut it. Or, to put it another way, "I read in the Boston Globe once that a guy got arrested for painting his house green! He was convicted (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) You missed my point, and it's my fault. Person A is in a relationship with both persons B and C. B and C both want A to do something, and A cannot do both (what those things are doesn't matter). A is forced to choose, merely by dint of being (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Except that I have NO idea where they are - they're buried in with millions of car mags. I don't put them on an altar or anything. (...) Good question. At the time, personal choice. I grew away from the other woman. I can tell you that IF (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Yes, I know. Hinge, triangle, primary/secondary, etc (those are the only ones everyone seemed able to agree on). (...) Right. But my point stands- you're forced to make a choice that you would not be forced to make if you were committed to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Ah. I assumed they were somewhat rhetorical at best- at worst, they have nothing to do with the question at hand. But here are my answers: (...) Who said I thought it was important? I never said that I thought it was important or necessary to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Yep, that pretty much covers monogamy. Polyamory/polygamy, though, has Person D (or E/F/G/etc) also. (...) You haven't thought about what I've been saying, obviously. (...) Definitely. You seem to think that having MORE people that care about (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) want (...) all (...) want to (...) you (...) that? This is a real issue, and different groups of people resolve it differently. Poly groups are not all the same, there are a lot of different structures developed by (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) my (...) to (...) Too much snippage. The entire paragraph you're quoting from contained questions just before your quote: (...) I'm still interested in your answers. (...) that (...) that (...) logic, (...) A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G5Ku3I.EEA@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) You're welcome. Take care, Steve (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) That's ok, I think I understand the thought, even if I disagree with it. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and explain. eric (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G5Ks5w.9nG@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) a (...) for (...) equally (...) Eric, Those are common questions (you're in good company), and I'll answer them all in the negative. What I'm (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Does this mean that you beleive that a person who is, for whatever reason, infertile should never seek out the other kinds of completion involved in a romantic/sexual union with a member of the opposite sex? Your reasoning for finding (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) So, as I said, it shouldn't be too hard for you to whip out a Playboy and cite a case example. (...) OK, so you married one. What was keeping you from carrying on a relationship with both after that? What was keeping you from marrying neither (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Have you really thought that through? Person A has to choose between being with Person B and Person C. He chooses to be with B. C now has no one to be with, despite being in a "committed" relationship. I don't see how a person in a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Kevin, I ask only because if you have disagreements that constitute such a "wide [moral] gulf," and are willing to lay down statements such as "there's no non-religious reason [by this I take you to mean 'rational']...," perhaps it would be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) They're not amusing when you are the one being prosecuted. Many of the stories in there aren't "look at this stupid law noone enforces", they are "I can't believe they ARE enforcing this law on Mr/Mrs. X". (...) I married one. If polygamy were (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Really? Then it shouldn't be much work for you to actually answer my question and point to a case where someone was arrested and convicted of one of these acts (and NOT for prostitution). (...) Yes, stupid blue laws still on the books can be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I think the divorce statistics in the US prove that monogamists leave themselves an out quite often. (...) It can also involve FAMILIAL love, which you seem to push as the sticking point for the cases of "people in need". (...) That's (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Then they are no worse off than if they were in a monogamous relationship? Seems to me you proved polyamory is the better choice here - no more negatives than monogamous, yet the possibility for more positives. (...) You can't fit ANY one (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Really? How? I see it as hedging your bets, leaving yourself an out. (...) Don't confuse commitment to what you're doing to commitment to a person. Once again, if you are dividing yourself between X and Y (not to mention possibly seeking Z) (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Bull. Committing to multiple people requires MORE trust between all involved, and can involve more commitment, as you are going against "the norm" in your daily life. (...) And why do you seem to think polyamory would only involve romantic (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Happens all the time, as do convictions. They just don't make the news much. Read Playboy (I do. Hell yes I look at the pictures, but there's a lot of good reading there!), they bring up the ridiculous nature of some of these morality laws all (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Well you can't prove the positive either, so keep an open mind on it. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Yes, but it doesn't mean I have romantic feelings for them. I am capable of caring for someone without wanting to <thinks of a Lugnet-acceptable term> get it on with them. (...) Appreciating someone's physical attractiveness doesn't require (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Really? You don't see the link between asking what place of mine it is to judge another person's relationship choices, and then saying that seeking a monogamous relationship is "foolish" (or below, "needless", or "probably a bad" idea? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) make (...) Um...No. I don't even see the link. Are you reacting to the word foolish? How would you feel if I replaced the word foolish with 'probably a bad idea' or 'needless'? Chris (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Eric, from this an another note of yours, it is clear that I approached this conversation with the wrong tone. I will seek to be more neutral herein. (...) What about your friends? Can you have friends that supply you with forms of entertainment (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Not to put too fine a point on it, Chris, but given the above, isn't your accusing me of having an attitude, and asking who the hell I think I am to make judgements, and calling my use of the term "copping out" a bad thing just a little, tiny, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I think that the reason we surround ourselves with social relationships of various kinds is to satisfy needs. (Needs in the soft sense, really more appropriately called desires.) I agree with Kevin that it is highly unlikely that anyone ever (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) No, not really. When you're committed to one other person, no part of your brain is seeking another person, or giving attention to another person you're already seeing. (...) No, they're thought experiments. Yours apparently failed. (...) Not (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) As I said to someone else, I'm not going to get bogged down in a semantic argument. (...) This: "Your use of the term "copping out" seems pejorative to me: I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all my needs, and I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) As deep as any relationship can be. That's like asking how much can you love your mother if you're having to think about loving your father. Love is not finite. You don't have 100 points of love to spread around and so the more people you have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) State? I think you mean society. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Tom Stangl wrote in message <3A38F3DE.3C147982@n...pe.com>... (...) implied) (...) Not at all, and I hope I didn't imply that exclusion. Many poly people are het... just a majority of the ones I know identify themselves as bi. Kevin (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) When a state says that a contract between a man and a woman has more standing or more importance, that is, that it is recognised as a special kind of contract, when compared to a contract between a man and a man or a man and two women (like i (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) I don't like to say impossible... but certainly improbable. A combination of people is more likely. But in fact I think you're right that ALL needs should not be expected to be met - apart from anything else, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I'm sure. You're right, in most states they are. When was the last time anyone was convicted of them, though? When was the last time someone was *arrested* for them? (...) Given the state of politics in this country, it's pretty clearly not in (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) to (...) the (...) as (...) what's (...) I snipped it away because in spite of what it said, your use of the term "copping out" seemed to me to show that you *did* see something wrong with it. You didn't answer my (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) means (...) concept - (...) ago (...) Well, stipulating that I don't much care what it means :-), but for the sake of the discussion, no: go ahead and expand on the idea. Kevin (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
