| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> 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.
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.
> First of all, what state is forcing morality on anyone?
Ummm...all of them. I assume that you mean state as in national government,
not states of the US, but either way it's true.
> As far as I know, in most state adultery isn't even illegal.
In Missouri a whole host of things including: anal sex, oral sex, funny
positions, etc. are illegal. Further, prostitution and polygamy are illegal
for what are quite plainly reasons of morality. Hello?
> 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.
Well, right. That's the part that is implausible. On the other hand, you
don't see anyone in power campaigning to free people's minds either.
> 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,
To call it copping out implies that they're not doing what they're 'supposed'
to. Who the hell are you to judge on something like this? And even if you
don't really mean it like that, your choice of language still reflects an
attitude.
> or 2) really enjoying having open relationships for the more
> obvious reasons.
Yeah, I tend to attribute it to this. But that's a good thing, not a bad one.
More fun is good as long as the cost isn't too high.
> 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.
And on exactly what evidence would you base such an untenable opinion. How
could you possibly know whether it is an inborn sexual preference? For that
matter, I think the jury is still out on whether homosexuality is congenital.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
