| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Lorbaat wrote:
> > Committing yourself to one person requires a level of trust and, well,
> > committment that just isn't present in an open relationship. Period.
>
> Bull. Committing to multiple people requires MORE trust between all involved,
Really? How? I see it as hedging your bets, leaving yourself an out.
> and
> can involve more commitment, as you are going against "the norm" in your daily
> life.
Don't confuse commitment to what you're doing to commitment to a person. Once
again, if you are dividing yourself between X and Y (not to mention possibly
seeking Z) you are not fully committed to either X *or* Y.
> > Straw man. Choosing between a romantic love and a familial love is NOT the
> > same as choosing between two romantic loves.
>
> And why do you seem to think polyamory would only involve romantic love?
Uh, what? I thought the point of polyamory, as most people saw it, was loving
more than one person at a time.
If you're just talking about having multiple sexual partners, hey, more power
to you. A lot of the worries abotu commitment no longer apply.
> In
> any
> case I've heard of, children are from multiple pairings.
Huh? You lost me there.
> A different tack - you married, had kids, divorced, remarried, and had kids.
> One
> child from each marriage were in the hospital at the same time in different
> states. You'd have to pick one, while your wife/ex-wife (if they weren't in
> the
> accident) could attend to their "own" child.
Yeah, you're right, that would indeed suck.
> In polyamory, you'd have the SAME "coverage", but possibly with MORE loved
> ones to
> attend to the sick.
Once again, I'm forced to defer to the idea of having friends that I'm not
romantically involved with give me a hand.
> > That's funny, when I need extra help like this I have friends I can turn to-
> > it
> > doesn't require any sort of romantic involvement.
>
> But why should the romantic/familial connection of polyamory be considered
> "less"
> than that of friends? Personally, I'd consider the friends the lesser of the
> two
> situations.
More or less what? What are you babbling about? I simply said that close
friends are capable of forming a support network just as well as multiple
lovers, so claiming that as an advantage of polyamory is ridiculous.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) I think the divorce statistics in the US prove that monogamists leave themselves an out quite often. (...) It can also involve FAMILIAL love, which you seem to push as the sticking point for the cases of "people in need". (...) That's (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Bull. Committing to multiple people requires MORE trust between all involved, and can involve more commitment, as you are going against "the norm" in your daily life. (...) And why do you seem to think polyamory would only involve romantic (...) (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
|
|
|
|
