| |
Lorbaat wrote:
> 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?
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
in the will). Many states still outlaw same-sex marriages, denying partners many
rights that "common" people have (barbaric!).
> 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,
What if they can find MORE than one person, each of who can fill all of their
needs, and both/all of those people are perfectly willing to exist in such a
relationship? Why should that be illegal, denying some of the people in the
relationship legal rights enjoyed by monogamists? Why should we legislate their
morality on this?
> or 2) really enjoying having open relationships for the more
> obvious reasons.
Definitely nothing wrong with that if all in the relationship are fine with the
situation.
> 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.
Prove it is NOT inborn - the brain is not understood in any great amount, there are
more and more things that are being found to be "inborn". I would argue that ANY
"inborn" "irregularity" in brain function should NOT be medicated/legislated away
if it does not hurt others.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) So? Legal marriage is a mass of pitfalls, anyway. For example: (...) Although this is outside the question at hand, I certainly agree with this sentiment. But it illustrates my point as well, legal marriage is a fairly narrow band. And (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
