Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
bwana
20:01
OK, I will answer each aspect separately again:
But that’s exactly my point. This is a sick and demeaning practice of people who are too immature to hold a relationship at all. There is no correlation with monogamy here.
Yeah, I was referring to the original posting and only wanted to clarify my point on this.
Come on, you have to realize that these are apples and oranges. Love for kids, for parents, for pets, for friends, for significant others – these are all completely separate things, and you can’t compare them.
Like I said, there are differences of course, and the only thing I wanted to illustrate was that divided love isn't diminished love.
But I also think emotions can work differently for different persons. It's like with homosexuality: For me as a heterosexual, the idea of feeling romantic or sexual attraction to a man is something I can hardly imagine (beyond some comparably abstract level of course) and will probably (but you never know...) never experience. But I can accept that attraction works in a different way for some other people. Same goes for relationships. If some people say they can handle a different kind of relationship than monogamy or that monogamy doesn't work for them and that they are as happy and committed in their poly (or whatever) relationships as anyone else - well, who am I to judge them? Why should I assume they lie about their feelings?
I mean, those things that you mention are real problems, but not within the first and second world countries.
Two examples: In Germany (and many other countries for sure), you have certain financial and fiscal benefits if you marry, going so far as to considering using these benefits as a norm. And I know some couples whose financial situation was absolutely critical to their decision to get wed. You can think about that what you want, but it's a fact that massively influences people.
The other thing that spontaneously comes to my mind are medical decision and hospital visitation rights in the u.s., where non-married couples face difficulties.
Yes, marriage is a form of commitment, and you do it only when you know you can handle the commitment. Sure, sometimes (even often) it happens that people are too weak to work through downsides of the commitment or that they simply cease to love each other, and they have to go through the inconvenience of a divorce. It’s called a calculated risk.
You seem to assume people can realistically calculate the risk of their relationship failing. Well, humans are incredibly bad at estimating such risks.
Obviously, divorce is not pleasant,
Sorry, "not pleasant"? A divorce can financially ruin someone, and I'm not even talking about the alimonies, just the cost and the fees...
But that’s again a personal problem.
It's also a cultural phenomenon. People don't even consider alternatives that might be more fitting for them because they simply don't know these exist.
Marriage with children is a natural order which emerged in the human society.
Hm. I have several problems about this idea and I hardly know where to start.
Declaring whether a certain element of human society is "natural" is really hard to tell. In our western society, monogamy is the norm, but in the past and/or in other societies, you can find several forms of polygamy that lasted for centuries. Same goes for other social "norms".
Also, staying with a behaviour because it is considered "natural" will obstruct any development. A while ago, the feudal system was considered "natural". And even nowadays, people discriminate against homosexuals because they say claim homosexuality is "unnatural". Hell, our behaviour even changes our nature. If some your ancestors wouldn't have acted against their nature, you wouldn't be able to drink milk today. Which is considered unnatural by certain people, btw. Is having conversations over the internet without ever having seen each other face to face a "natural" human social behaviour?
Of course that doesn't mean I'm thinking you always have to act against what you perceive as your nature. I just don't think "it's natural" is a reason to do and accept anything, and "it's not natural" is a reason to not accept it.
Also, "in the human society"? Maybe in our "western society" and some other parts of the world like China, but have a look at Africa, Oceania and the Arab world...
I am not saying that it’s right because it’s natural, but it implies that this idea is generally accepted within such a society. You can conform to it, but you do not have to.
But if you don't conform, you have to suffer negative consequences of several kinds.
Sure, when you look around, you’ll probably see more people who want marriage and kids, but imposing a different world view on them would be immoral just like forcing people to marriage, don’t you think?
Uh, hold on. I wasn't talking about forcing people into poly relationships or something. Where did you read that? I was just talking about being more open, both as individuals and as a society, allowing people to explore alternative lifestyles without them facing discrimination.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl