| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> One guy I know says that monogamy was originally established by an
> overcontrolling power structure way back to keep people dependent on the
> state.
> His assertion is that all our needs shouldn't be depending on one partner,
> because those shoes are just too large to fill by one person. If nothing
> else,
> because of the differences in the way men and women think, we need a man and a
> woman who are so close that we could call them a spouse, but better yet,
> several of each. By forcing a false morality that demands monogamy, the state
> keeps people off balance and more dependent on authority.
This is pretty typical of the crap that polyamorists spew in an attempt to make
themselves seem enlightened.
First of all, what state is forcing morality on anyone? As far as I know, in
most state adultery isn't even illegal. Many religions frown on having *any*
sexual partner without the express purpose of procreation, so it's not as
though some overarching religious institution is telling you that one
partner=good, and many partners=bad, either. And what supervillian-esque cabal
is supposed to have come up with this "plan"? "Ah, yes, by making them all
seek one partner, we can keep them off-balance! Muhahahaha!" Please.
In all my debates with polyamorists, and reading about polyamory, I've never
seen or heard anything to sway me from my opinion that polyamorists are
basically either 1) copping out on looking for one person who does fill all
their needs, or 2) really enjoying having open relationships for the more
obvious reasons.
I don't think there's anything wrong with either 1 or 2, as long as all the
people in said relationships are aware of the ground rules, but I do think that
trying to pass it off as "enlightened", or, even worse, some kind of inborn
sexual preference (like being hetero-, bi-, or homo- sexual) is just a load of
denial.
eric
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) never (...) Why do you think it's important to look for one person who does fill all ones needs, Eric? Do you think it's likely that one would find such a person? ALL needs? Your use of the term "copping out" seems (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Um, EVERY US state? Polygamy is illegal, so there are many rights you lose by having an "under the books" polygamous marriage (try visiting a 2nd wife/husband in the ICU. Try asking for property from a death if you aren't specifically listed (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) a (...) state (...) make (...) The only problem that I see with this explanation is that it's made up. I mean, I think it is. At best it's conjecture. (...) Ummm...all of them. I assume that you mean state as in national government, not states (...) (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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) I wonder how much of our societal unacceptance of polyamory is based on the desire for control? It would be harder for the government to keep track of stuff, but so the hell what? But for those who think that kind of control is good, I can see (...) (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
|
|
|
|
