Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:38:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1172 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > but there's no non-religious reason why consenting adults should
> > > not form families with more than [two] adult[s].
>
> > I wonder about this -- maybe there are good sociological/behavioral reasons
> > for 1+1 couples making better families
>
> I don't think so. I think that it's pretty clear that the model that is less
> popular in North America now than it once was, with grandparents hanging
> around helping is superior to the two-parent-and-2.3-kids model. In general,
> larger natural systems are more stable and contain more inherent buffer. I
> think that more adults in a family would help.
This makes sense, but I'm not sure the grandparents/coparents analogy holds.
Note: this is all off the top of my head, feel free to throw in some real
data. Grandparents are an inevitability (if they're still around when the
third generation is born), and are automatically bonded to their children
(assuming everything is okay in the family). Relationships within
conventional families can get pretty tangled, and I think polyamorous(?)
families, especially those with multiple sexual relationships, might have
much more complex and complicating family loyalties.
> I think the main reason that greater than two families don't more regularly
> form is that we're all a bit off mentally. We're all so scared and posessive
> that we can't make it work. Also, it's easier to hold a smaller group
> together in many ways. Have you ever gone with one person to pick out a
> movie at the rental place? What about with six?
Maybe it's the stability of smaller families that has led to them being more
common. Also, I'm not sure if it's wrong for some/most people to be scared
and possessive. I'm sure that polyamory is very threatening to many people
who seek commitment and exclusivity in a relationship ("How absolute is your
commitment to me when you're sleeping with Sean or Sharon?"), and I'm not
sure that such monogamous desires are necessarily neurotic.
On the other hand, and this sounds like classic liberal cheese, I think it's
much better for people to be truthful and accepting of their personality,
and to find partners (if they want partners) who are compatible. If someone
is gay, they proably shouldn't marry someone who is straight. If someone is
polyamorous, they shouldn't form a relationship with someone who depends on
on mutual monogamy. (tangent: would widespread polyamory facilitate gays and
lesbians having children?)
> > (still a hot topic in Utah as far as I know).
>
> I don't think it's really a 'hot' topic at this point. It's been a long time
> since the LDS church supported polygamy.
A slightly snide comment on my part, though I understand that there are
several breakaway communities where it is still practised.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Polyamory (was: Religion and Science)
|
| (...) Well, I think the role of grandparents in that family model is certainly different than the role of extra 'parents,' but I'm not sure that the difference is important. At least not to my point, which is that more adults is more of a buffer for (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) I don't think so. I think that it's pretty clear that the model that is less popular in North America now than it once was, with grandparents hanging around helping is superior to the two-parent-and-2.3-kids model. In general, larger natural (...) (24 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
