Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Meh... personally I find monogamy to be rather silly.  I think one of the most basic points of life is to experience as much of it as possible.  I also think it's unrealistic to expect a person to remain exclusively interested in one body their whole life.  The social expectations on this issue seem to me like they result in nothing but problems.  Having said that, I'm 30 (29 but have for some reason already started thinking of myself as 30 even though that's a few months away yet), have been with my wife since I was 17, and have never so much as kissed another girl.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm a monogamist by virtue of being lazy. Wasn't intentional, but it's my own endearing concession to much of 'mainstream morality' that I really can't be arsed to be truly decadent anymore.

But I still don't understand the bisexuality leading to polygamy thing. I mean, if you're a heterosexual guy, there is more than one lady out there, and we don't seem likely to re-legalize you marrying a couple of them at once anytime soon...

Opposition to abortion is something I can understand but not really sympathize with, since "life" isn't really on the list of things I value. And anti-abortion people generally seem to be in it primarily for the social aspect, considering they appear to be just as likely as the general population to actually get abortions if anything I've heard anecdotally from abortion doctors is correct.

[misko27]

It's very simple. bi- means 2. Becaus ewe are not speaking old latin, 2 mfalls into the category of many, which is translated as poly-. sex can be construed as a act of love, and willingness to have sex with someone, which is, after all, marriage. therefore, bi-sexual, is willingness to have sex with many people, And marriage is commited to many people, therefore polygamy.
 
And that my friends, is how false logic works. Come tomorrow to see me prove there is life after death.

[Darvi]

Come tomorrow to see me prove there is life after death.

After what? I can extrapolate my being-aliveness into the future, and I can assure you that it has been constant for years, and will remain so.

[misko27]

Come tomorrow to see me prove there is life after death.

After what? I can extrapolate my being-aliveness into the future, and I can assure you that it has been constant for years, and will remain so.

I could, but Arthur b. Gamingon has the best proof. I bow to his logic.

Proof that there is life after death. After death comes the mourning. After the morning, comes the night. Just past the Knight is the Bishop. Above the Bishop is the Pope. The pope has serious convictions. After a serious conviction, you get life. Therefore, there is life after death.

[Darvi]

I can tell the bad logic from the fact that after the bishop, there's no royalty. Or was it a tower? 's past 5 AM, so I dunno at the moment.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I can tell the bad logic from the fact that after the bishop, there's no royalty. Or was it a tower? 's past 5 AM, so I dunno at the moment.

The Bishops are next to the King/Queen, so it would be royalty, and they're called Rooks, gah![/Chessthing]

[darkrider2]

I've got absolutely no problem with poly-relationships. With properly open minded and well intentioned people it could totally work, the problem is that monogamy is so heavily present in US culture that finding even two other people that open minded would be near impossible. Much less likely is finding two people that open minded who also want to go through with it.

Whenever I'm watching the old TV, all the arguments against homosexual marriage seem to be the same thing, "it would destroy the integrity of marriage". To which I ask, since when did marriage have integrity? It's been used as a power game tool for centuries and 41% of first time marriages in America result in divorce, not to mention the (likely relevant) portion of marriages where both people hate each other but remain married regardless.

And abortion is just such a touchy subject, cause the minute you mention pro-choice everyone jumps to the conclusion that you are a cross of satan and dracula draining the lifeforce of babies and refining whats left into fuel for your army. Also this...

Then, too, I think pro-lifers would get a lot more respect if they opposed abortion because they were in fact pro-life, and were also anti-war, pro-education, pro-adoption, pro-healthcare, anti-capital punishment, etc. But they're not, so it's obvious they're opposed to it because they're misogynistic fuckwits.

The whole gist between all of these conversations is that one side always goes "I'm going to make this choice for you because without me you'd do countless evils against humanity, you're welcome". I actually had a student in government class say she'd rather hand her child over to adoption then abort it, this is of course after stating that bombing abortion clinics was totally justified because anyone in there had or was going to perform murder.

[penguinofhonor]

I actually had a student in government class say she'd rather hand her child over to adoption then abort it, this is of course after stating that bombing abortion clinics was totally justified because anyone in there had or was going to perform murder.

I feel like those two statements don't belong in the same sentence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've got absolutely no problem with poly-relationships. With properly open minded and well intentioned people it could totally work, the problem is that monogamy is so heavily present in US culture that finding even two other people that open minded would be near impossible. Much less likely is finding two people that open minded who also want to go through with it.

I think monogamy has lost major ground recently. Amongst my peers, a vast majority are interested in casual sex without strings. To quote my roommate: "I don't want a girlfriend, that would be awful! I can't pick up girls if I have a girlfriend!"

Not that he manages to pick up women anyway...

[misko27]

As always, I don't give a damn about other peopel too much. It IS true, however, that a stable marriage, is far better for raising chirldren, the point, if anything, of marriage. Homosexuals can do that as well as anyoone, but polygamists would be far harder to do sucessfully, and would lead to far more unhappy childhoods.
 
Other then that, I go with the Koran on teh Topic of Polygamy: "As long as you can afford it, go right ahead."

[SalmonGod]

but polygamists would be far harder to do sucessfully, and would lead to far more unhappy childhoods.

Depends on what form it takes and the maturity of those involved, I would think.  If it honestly causes no strife in the relationship of the parents, I can't imagine any problems.  It seems like jealousy and insecurity are difficult things for most people to conquer, though.

[misko27]

but polygamists would be far harder to do sucessfully, and would lead to far more unhappy childhoods.

Depends on what form it takes and the maturity of those involved, I would think.  If it honestly causes no strife in the relationship of the parents, I can't imagine any problems.  It seems like jealousy and insecurity are difficult things for most people to conquer, though.

The last part is the point. In theory, it's fine. In practice,shit is hard. And in general, when thigns are hard, a lot of people will fail alot.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In tribal and pre-tribal societies, children are the responsibility of the entire society, not just the parents. This persists into later levels of socety, but rapidly diminishes in importance until you get to the industrial model of just parents. Regardless, we have demonstrable proof that these kinds of childrearing arrangements can work, and may actually be the "norm" if not for circumstance.

[SalmonGod]

In tribal and pre-tribal societies, children are the responsibility of the entire society, not just the parents. This persists into later levels of socety, but rapidly diminishes in importance until you get to the industrial model of just parents. Regardless, we have demonstrable proof that these kinds of childrearing arrangements can work, and may actually be the "norm" if not for circumstance.

Yeah, I've heard various things about this, but it mostly points to the modern family unit being a cultural construct.  Jealousy and insecurity are universal things, but we seem biologically wired to be monogamous up to a point.  The "7 year itch" is a real thing.  It's unusual for people to stay interested in each other forever, and supposedly this is timed to the point at which a child would begin to graduate from parental dependence to halfway independently existing among the community.

There's been plenty of experimentation of different family constructs throughout civilization, as well.  I read about a remote chinese (IIRC) region where there were no committed relationships between sexual partners, and children didn't know who their fathers were.  Women would invite men over for sex at completely their discretion, and multiple partners were the norm.  Children were cared for primarily by the mother's family, with uncles being the closest approximation to father figures.