Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah and I bet that those marriges also last longer than the ones in this country.
I bet that any marriage coupled with the fear of being stoned to death or beheadded if you leave would make any woman stay in a lousy marriage arrangement like that.
But it's "cultural" so it doesn't count, our "culture" isn't set up like theirs.
Yeah and I bet that those marriges also last longer than the ones in this country.
Well, when you treat women like property and do not give them any choice in the matter, then sure those awesome marriages last for a long time (or until the husband gets rid of them)
Galileo postulated ideas that were *not* friendly to traditional religious norms.
Should we always hold so tightly to the past? What are we afraid of? Ourselves?
Good question, and I say "yes." With greater freedom comes greater personal responsibility. In the U.S. in particular, people either don't want to be responsible with their own freedom, or they want to be too responsible for someone else's, like the way the religious right continues to try to curtail reproductive rights in women.
It's so much easier to say, "Oh, it's against the law, so you can't" and "Oh, it was written in this book thousands of years ago, so you can't."
Heaven forbid--pun intended--people actually have to exert the intellectual effort required for developing their own moral compasses and giving their own lives and interactions meaning. They need someone of alleged authority to tell them what to do and how to live.
He is not against monogamy. He is saying people who want exclusivity should have that. And people who don't want that should be honest about it. Also, people who have sexual needs that are out of the norm like fetishes, etc should be honest about that too. That way those people could get into relationships with others like them, or with people who are willing to go along with whatever arrangements will keep their partners sexually satisfied. That would be better than deceiving and lying to people and making them into unwitting partners.
Ya know...
I thought that when a couple decides to become sexually involved with each other they talk about what they like and don't like so there aren't any surprises down the line.
Are you saying that homosexual couples would be more monogamous because they are more open about discussing sexual needs than heterosexual couples?
I actually believe that before a couple becomes sexually involved they should discuss their fetishes, kinks, foibles and preferences so there are no disappointments or surprises.
Maybe part of the problem with our society is that there's FAR TOO MUCH sport fu****g going on and not enough "what if I?", "should I?", "what will happen if I?" questions being asked of themselves. And that's exactly my point about narcissism.
And what's an "unwitting partner"? Sexually? If someone wants to make you an "unwitting partner" of their special "thing" they gotta have... in my book that's tantamount to rape.
Good question, and I say "yes." With greater freedom comes greater personal responsibility. In the U.S. in particular, people either don't want to be responsible with their own freedom, or they want to be too responsible for someone else's, like the way the religious right continues to try to curtail reproductive rights in women.
Agreed.
Quote:
It's so much easier to say, "Oh, it's against the law, so you can't" and "Oh, it was written in this book thousands of years ago, so you can't."
Heaven forbid people actually have to exert the intellectual effort required for developing their own moral compasses and giving their own lives and interactions meaning. They need someone of alleged authority to tell them what to do and how to live.
Sheeple. Pure and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by recuerdeme
I don't think we need a gay columnist to [re]define what is normal or "right" or acceptable in a marriage.
Dan Savage has no sense of the sacred. The sacredness of the marriage vows, the exclusivity of the marriage bed, or the sacredness of the family. His understanding of marriage is a carnal one.
Did any of you taking the "con" side in this debate actually read the article in the OP? Because you're putting words/beliefs in Savage's mouth that he never actually said.
All I'm addressing is the idea that his opinion shouldn't count because he's gay. I'm just saying that straight people have said it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
Ya know...
I thought that when a couple decides to become sexually involved with each other they talk about what they like and don't like so there aren't any surprises down the line.
Are you saying that homosexual couples would be more monogamous because they are more open about discussing sexual needs than heterosexual couples?
I actually believe that before a couple becomes sexually involved they should discuss their fetishes, kinks, foibles and preferences so there are no disappointments or surprises.
Maybe part of the problem with our society is that there's FAR TOO MUCH sport fu****g going on and not enough "what if I?", "should I?", "what will happen if I?" questions being asked of themselves. And that's exactly my point about narcissism.
Couples should talk about it, but they don't always... that's the point. At least not the people who have needs that would be ridiculed or met with scorn. Those people don't always talk, they tend to just sneak around and do it.
And I didn't say anything about gay couple being more monogamous...? I said that Savage says they are more prone to talk about everything, even stuff that is out of the norm.
Being open about what you want is NOT the same thing as sport f**king. That is a leap. He's not talking about that at all. Not everyone wants to do that.. not even most people. But the thing is, for the person who is really in to sport f**king and has no intention of stopping, wouldn't it be better for that person to tell any potential partner that up front, so that person could decide for themselves if that works for them? Right now what happens most of the time is that person marries someone anyway and just does it behind their partner's back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(or until the husband gets rid of them)
