| |
Lorbaat wrote:
> 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.
I think the divorce statistics in the US prove that monogamists leave themselves an
out quite often.
> > 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.
It can also involve FAMILIAL love, which you seem to push as the sticking point for
the cases of "people in need".
> 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.
That's basically the counter to your argument.
> > 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.
And polyamorists that have BOTH lovers/family AND friends are worse off how?
> > > 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.
See above.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Really? How? I see it as hedging your bets, leaving yourself an out. (...) 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) (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
