| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Lorbaat wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > Lorbaat wrote:
> > Have you really thought that through?
> >
> > Person A has to choose between being with Person B and Person C. He chooses
> > to
> > be with B. C now has no one to be with, despite being in a "committed"
> > relationship.
>
> Yep, that pretty much covers monogamy. Polyamory/polygamy, though, has Person
> D
> (or E/F/G/etc) also.
You missed my point, and it's my fault.
Person A is in a relationship with both persons B and C. B and C both want A
to do something, and A cannot do both (what those things are doesn't matter).
A is forced to choose, merely by dint of being in a relationship with two
people simultaneously.
> Definitely. You seem to think that having MORE people that care about you is
> a
> negative. I certainly don't.
No, I didn't say that. Nor can you infer that from a careful reading of what I
have said.
> OK, then it's obvious that you haven't reasoned this through enough.
>
> In EVERY case where you said "pick B or C", my answers has been "pick B or C"
> familialy. In a monogamous relationship, you must pick B or C with NO backup.
> Polyamory/polygamy presents the EXACT same choice, EXCEPT that you CAN have a
> "backup".
No, there is no backup. B and C both want A, not D. D is incapable of filling
the need that B and C have, only A can.
A must choose. There is no backup.
No offense, but this is the last time I'm going to explain that concept.
> > > How do you commit to 2 children from different marriages at the same time?
>
>
> I see you can't seem to answer this one, except for "that would suck". Great
> answer. Monogamy gives you that as the solution, poly[amory/gamy] gives you
> more.
Actually, I meant to snip it, because I'm tired of trying to get it through to
you that familial love is not the same as romantic love (except in parts of
Arkansas), and therefore has absolutely no bearing on the questions at hand.
eric
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Yet you continue to ignore the fact that polyamory or polygamy CAN result in familial love (multiple children from mixed "couples"), so it does have bearing. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) (not interested in the debate, just forgot to add .debate back into my skip filter, and this caught my eye) If this is your argument against polyamory, then it's also your arguement against any kind of familial relationship. Person A = parent (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Yep, that pretty much covers monogamy. Polyamory/polygamy, though, has Person D (or E/F/G/etc) also. (...) You haven't thought about what I've been saying, obviously. (...) Definitely. You seem to think that having MORE people that care about (...) (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
|
|
|
|
