To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8003
8002  |  8004
Subject: 
Re: Religion and Science
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:10:16 GMT
Viewed: 
1120 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low posts before he's finished, the idiot:
(snipping some intereseting points of discussion to focus on something I
haven't really considered before)

Polyamory too: this is a religious shibboleth which spilled over into law
(like so many things - eg Sunday closing) and hasn't yet un-spilled, but
there's no non-religious reason why consenting adults should not form >families with more than one adult. <more than two adults?>

I wonder about this -- maybe there are good sociological/behavioral reasons
for 1+1 couples making better families (still a hot topic in Utah as far as
I know). What type of marriage has been more common around the world,
couples or multiple partners? Where does serial monogamy/monandry fit in
(where you have an exclusive relationship with one person for some time, but
several people through your lifetime)?

What did the first humans do (talking about the juvenile chimp types, not
Adam and Eve)? Any comparative primatologists out there?

My feeling is that most humans are best suited to long-term pairings, for
resource sharing efficiency and stability of the relationship (not to
mention falling in love and wanting to be with someone forever).

This is not to say that well-adjusted people couldn't and don't live happily
as a single person or in open relationships (or as a triple or quadruple (or
sextuple cf _Friends_ (and what about consensual incest anyway?))), just
that I don't think it would work very well for most people. Any thoughts?

--DaveL



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Religion and Science
 
Dave Low wrote in message ... (...) happily (...) (or (...) Exactly Dave. Polyamory is something suited to some people, certainly not all, probably not most: but most people never even consider it because it's outside the social norm. No family (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Religion and Science
 
(...) I wonder about this -- maybe there are good sociological/behavioral reasons for 1+1 couples making better families (still a hot topic in Utah as far as I know). What type of marriage has been more common around the world, couples or multiple (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR