# Another love and marriage thread



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

...because I was up way early reading......

*"Your love is located within you. It is yours to nurture and savor, to give to others in any way you choose. Love must be without qualifications or demands. You must learn to find ecstasy in other peoples happiness. Once you feel love for yourself, it is quite normal to give it away." Wayne Dyer Gifts from Eykis*

One of the nearly universally accepted assumptions in our society is the assumption that the monogamous pair is the only valid structure of human sexual relationships, being so superior that it doesn't warrant scrutiny. In fact, our culture puts so much emphasis on it, through cultural norms, modern literature and films, that serious discussion on the subject of alternatives is rare. Monogamous marriage has even been incorporated into the law of our land in the section that specifies how money for sex education must be spent. It is a focus of the religious right when they talk about how to reduce welfare, how to reduce abortion, how to reduce single parent families, and many other issues.

The reasons given for monogamous marriage being the only acceptable form of couple relating, and the only place where sex is allowed, generally fall into two categories:

1. It is our natural state
2. It is the only moral state, the one approved by God - all other options are inherently sinful.

It is interesting to note that these are essentially the same reasons given by the fundamentalist right for their condemnation of homosexuality, namely that it is unnatural and immoral. 

There is an excellent Beacon Press book by E. J. Graff, "What is Marriage For". Graff's six reasons for marriage are: money, sex, babies, kin, order and heart. 

She provides an excellent historical review of marriage and convincing evidence that our view of marriage is a very culturally determined one, and not necessarily a "natural" condition of the human organism.

If intelligent life is about the free and responsible search for truth and meaning then it is apparent that unquestioned answers are more dangerous than unanswered questions. Are we hard wired for it? Is it the only "moral" way of relating sexually to others?

*"The complexity of a system is limited only if the system is rigid, inflexible and isolated from its environment. Self-organizing systems in continual interaction with their environment are capable of tremendously increasing their complexity by abandoning structural stability in favor of flexibility and open ended evolution." 
Erich Jantsch. Design for Living.*

In examining the natural structure of things, the binary system doesn't really stand out. The atomic structure has three parts; proton, electron, and neutron. These then combine to produce a complex array of atoms and thence molecules. Architectural structures generally, from the pyramids through to the geodesic domes of Buckminster Fuller, are based on the triangle. In music, a three-note chord is more dynamic and powerful than one made up of two notes. I know these are not persuasive arguments, but something to think about.

The increasing evidence from animal research is that fewer and fewer species (once thought to be so) are really monogamous in the wild. In the animal kingdom, less than 5% of all animals are now thought to be monogamous.

The evolutionary biologists posit that there are many good reasons for nonmonogamy, but their theories are difficult, if not impossible, to test. The anthropology argument for monogamy, that a man would only protect his children if he was sure of their paternity, is being questioned, most recently in a book called "Cultures of Multiple Fathers". In this study, the authors found evidence that showed that the children of women who had sexual relationships with many men had better survival rates - because of "potential" paternity, they were less vulnerable.

Of the 1270 human societies catalogued in Murdoch's Ethnographic Atlas, about 85% indicate some form of multi-spouse relationships. Even the few societies that theoretically espouse monogamy, like ours, have trouble showing any evidence that it works. 

On the contrary, there seems to be a lot of evidence that Western humans don't do monogamy well in the high divorce rates, high rates of infidelity, the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world, high single parent family numbers, and other indicators. We often see people leave an otherwise good marriage because they fell in love with someone new, in what might be called serial monogamy. In short, the argument that the human animal is "hard wired" for monogamy is difficult to support.

In any case, since we humans are so bad at monogamy, other freely chosen relationship structures should also be supported.

It is sinful - God doesn't like it.

*"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others." Oscar Wilde Chameleon.*

*"Confusing monogamy with morality has done more to destroy the conscience of the human race than any other error." George Bernard Shaw*

The sinfulness and wickedness of sex is based on the assumption that God doesn't like sex. This poison has its roots in Ancient Assyria, and the religions of Mythra and Zoroastrianism, which first put forth the idea of "the obscenity of the flesh." The sex drive, being one that cannot be denied, becomes a rich source of implanted guilt and shame, used to manipulate and degrade the individual. Therefore any natural sexual feelings need to be accompanied by shame, and therefore kept secret.

Somehow this shameful, sinful act is transformed into sacred overnight if accompanied by the right words by someone with the appropriate qualifications to marry people. It does not seem to matter how the marriage was arranged, for what reasons the people are marrying, or even if they want to be married. The only requirement is that they go through the legal process.

Without going into it too deeply, a perusal of most mainstream religions show that

1. Many of the ancient texts were written by polygamists, and
2. Most of the rules were based on considering women as property, rather than as a result of a solemn promise between equals.

It is also worth noting that no matter how strict the moral teachings, or how severe the punishments, be it from the Taliban, the Bible belt, Rome or Washington, human beings persist in trying to satisfy their sexual desires. A recent news article reported that 40% of nuns had a history of being sexually abused, either before or within the Roman church. The data on priests is slowly becoming public. The data on the general public is harder to obtain, given the resistance to admit to being abused, or being an abuser. It is clear that sex crimes put a lot of people in jail.

There is historical evidence of religions that embrace our sexual nature in a positive way, found on temple carvings from Asia, pottery from Europe and elsewhere, but it is not a feature of current Western mainstream religious practice.

Serial monogamy is perhaps an unconscious compromise between the cultural ideal of monogamy and the facts of human nature - in other words, we acknowledge that you can love more than one person, but only one at a time.

The destructive effects of serial monogamy on children are well documented, with 8 million single parent families in the US, infidelity-fueled acrimonious divorces, through to the spate of spouse murdering lately. Much of the evidence seems to indicate that human attainment of the cultural ideal of monogamy is a myth.

The moral argument for monogamy is a weak position. A better moral argument can be made regarding what is best for each individual and for society, that is, do we make life better for each and all by insisting on sex only in monogamous marriage of heterosexual couples, or on letting individuals find responsible ways of relating that, in Pagan terms, "harm none". Liberal religion has taken a fine stance supporting homosexual and heterosexual couples, and unmarried couples as well. What is so hard about seeing the parallels to the "more than a couple" part?

It is a reality that there are many people now relating sexually in groups greater than two. The reason I keep referring to "relating sexually" is that this seems to be the stumbling block for many. If polyamorists were to keep it platonic, not be sexually involved with people they love in numbers greater than one, most would applaud their loving behavior. But when they admit that they not only love more than one, but have sexual relationships with more than one, all the red flags come flying out.

Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 6, Feb. 27, 2003
by Derek McCullough and David S. Hall, Ph.D.


----------



## Terri in WV (May 10, 2002)

Ever heard of Calvin and Hobbes? Much easier reading for early in the morning.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Interesting.

Looked at in purely objective terms, there's really no comprehensive reason to believe that monogamy is the natural state of humans. Countless cultures have emerged with countless ways of determining the proper role of individual sexuality with regard to society as a whole. Almost without exception all systems they feature some form of exclusive pairing, the breaking of which is considered an affront to that culture, and equally without exception, the rules are frequently broken, and fail to cover all the variations of human inclination. They all, also, are inherently unfair.

I think this is unavoidable. No culture or society can thrive with out some standards of behavior within the context of the group, and almost by definition, these some of these rules are going to be arbitrary.

Ours, arguably, promotes monogamy. I say arguably, because it's really more accurate to say that ours promotes the perception of monogamy, and has always generally ignored deviation from the norm as long as appearances are kept up. The crime hasn't been so much 'adultery' as it has been 'getting caught at adultery. I'm not just talking about the contemporary US here, but all of Greco-Roman civilization.

I'll admit that I have a bias towards monogamy, and not just for the most obvious reason that I'm Catholic. For most of my life I wasn't - I was more of a libertarian-agnostic, and even then I was (mostly - I did sow some wild oats in my youth) strictly monogamous. I don't know how typical it is, but in my agnostic days, I was very concerned with ethics, morals, and the source of morality.

I'm going to stick to the reasoning of my agnostic days, since Catholic morality is generally well known on the topic (even if it is often misrepresented) and not shared by everyone. 

First, and most obviously, one to one pairing makes sense, because it is the simplest form of distribution. The species is divided approximately in half between make and female, so it comes closest to ensuring that there really is someone for every one. Tampering with even distribution of human pairing has wild, often unpredictable and even violent consequences. When you have large segments of the population - of either gender - for whom no mates are available for any length of time, bad things usually follow.

Secondly, humans actually fare better working within constraints, even arbitrary ones. I would argue, that excellence in human pursuits actually requires external constraints, and the highest forms of human excellence occur when those constraints are embraced. In art for example, the best painters are those who embrace the two dimensionality of the canvas and their available pallette. In sports, the greatest achievements are only possible because of the rules which confine the game.

On an individual level, this equates to self-discipline, or constraints which the individual takes upone themself. It is dedication to a goal, and the ability to avoid distractions - or put another way, sacrificing 'everything' they want in order to experience a few things they want more completely.

Parallel to this, but appropos, I believe, is the idea of heroism. The hero, as most eloquently expressed by Joseph Campbell, is the human who sets as their goal, something outside themselves, and sets aside everything else in pursuit of that goal. Most often, this goal is something which they themselves, never actually get to enjoy. This isn't just western heroes, but all heroes in all cultures, and in all cultures, this heroism applied to love has been considered the highest form of love. Surprisingly enough, even in polyamorous cultures, this highest form of love is always for a single individual.

In this light, while, our western preference for monogamy actually makes a lot of sense, if we aspire to heroic love and if you believe heroic love is possible, it's hard to aspire to anything else.

I fully realize that sex can happen outside the context of love, and as I said before, I have tried it. I personally found it rather like having ince cream for dinner (I've tried that too): It seemed like a good idea at the time, and it fulfilled a craving, but I never felt very good the next day.

In even more pragmatic terms, no matter how good sex has been the first time with someone new, it was always much better the 15th time, or the 300th time, and I've never been able to get to that point without having a personal and exclusive bond with the woman in question.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

i dont share.


----------



## cindilu (Jan 27, 2008)

elkhound said:


> i dont share.


Me either.... :umno::buds:


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

I think that is the longest post in ST history!!! =)


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

As a kid growing up i didn't know anyone that was from a divorced family. I didn't know what that word meant. I'm 53 now.

Monogamy was more or less pretty normal here in America until 1980ish... of course there were a few bad apples, but most toed the line. At least in the area i grew up in.


----------



## starjj (May 2, 2005)

I am so busy I don't have time to read all this. Besides if at 63 I don't know most of what I need to know well forget it (and I probably have)


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

elkhound said:


> i dont share.


My great-great aunt summed it up well. She said "I knew I wouldn't be one of two". 

So, her husband dropped her off at the border of her Fathers land. I do not think that her soon-to-be ex wanted to talk to her Father at that particular moment.

Monogamy is probably a cultural thing, but it is a cultural thing because so many people WANT it!


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

elkhound said:


> i dont share.


That's too bad...you should share yourself with at least one person.


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

shanzone2001 said:


> I think that is the longest post in ST history!!! =)


Hmmm I think maybe my reply to NoClue in one of his threads was probably about 800 words longer


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> My great-great aunt summed it up well. She said "I knew I wouldn't be one of two".


I am not sure if I am confused or not about this statement so I'm going to repeat what I think it means and please tell me if I am right because if I am understanding it wrong I would very much like to know. What I understand from that is she basically was saying she knew she wasn't going to make it as a couple. Or was it just with that particular man?



Terri said:


> Monogamy is probably a cultural thing, but it is a cultural thing because so many people WANT it!


I say this with humor: So many people want McDonald's too...and it's a part of our culture here. :shrug:

I saw the article as a very long way (and I didn't post the whole thing), to say that all healthy relationships are valid in the general sense...however, certain relationships aren't viable for everyone.


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

Terri in WV said:


> Ever heard of Calvin and Hobbes? Much easier reading for early in the morning.


This was my easy reading for early morning lol. You should see what I have to read for my work all day long!  :hair

Can't wait to be a dirt farmer.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Great article Why! 

sigh.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I remember as a kid in grade school the folks reading the local paper, and under a heading in the paper that usually didn't appear there was this heading (Writ of Divorcement). I don't know if the folks knew the people or not. I didn't know them by name. They wernt local, but were in the readership of the paper somewhere. I remember the folks remarking about it and how unusual it was. That was in the 50s. Bu the 70s I was getting divorced on a regular basis lol


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

WhyNot said:


> I am not sure if I am confused or not about this statement so I'm going to repeat what I think it means and please tell me if I am right because if I am understanding it wrong I would very much like to know. What I understand from that is she basically was saying she knew she wasn't going to make it as a couple. Or was it just with that particular man?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I took it to mean the guy was not, uh, "wired" to be monogamous--either by infidelity(since they would be married, citing the "rules"/expectations) or he was polygamous. Not necessarily that they were incompatible. Compatibility back then was so down on the list.


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

wyld thang said:


> I took it to mean the guy was not, uh, "wired" to be monogamous--either by infidelity(since they would be married, citing the "rules"/expectations) or he was polygamous. Not necessarily that they were incompatible. Compatibility back then was so down on the list.


I thought of that....but I think the not being "one of two" tripped me up because I was thinking if he was a cheater it would be more like "I'm not one of three" or 8 or whatever...etc. :shrug:

Hey. I keep saying I think differently than most people. Tonight we had a meeting at work and everyone saw this in perfect display. We were told...and I quote... "Next write the days of the week, monday through friday all the way down the paper." EXACT words.

What did I do? I wrote the days of the week...starting with Monday and going till Friday over and over all the way down the paper every line.

I was the only one that did that...I thought nothing of it...carrying out my instructions. EVERYONE ELSE lol did it "right"...they wrote one set of monday through friday taking up the whole paper and distributing the days evenly.

:shrug:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Maybe one could throw in the reality of the thriving sex industry, of the many "long-term" prostitute/john relationships out there that exist. Why? because the lady listens and is attentive to need, and that swings both ways, the need to be nurtured or the need to be nagged(ha).

Maybe if people were truly free to come and go in relationships, we might cherish their presence all the more. After being judged a floozy for not killing myself to stay in a marriage at all costs by those that hold monogamy so dear(which was totally absurd), I'm done with those rules. 

And if that is deemed shallow and selling out, no matter, IRL the ones I love know I love them with everything I got. That is what matters, to me, that I walk in love.

Signed, Off the Marriage Grid


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

haha, I would write "the days of the week, monday through friday all the way down the paper"(like, a line) and that was that.


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Sounds like some fanciful thinking with some strenuous efforts to try to make it sound academic.

It sounds like he still believes Margaret Meade and her accounts of "open marriages" and sexual activity on Samoa..............the problem.......when other anthropologists went to do follow -up studies they did not find anything like Margaret had described. When the Samoans found out what Margaret had actually written about them........they were offended and felt insulted.

Poor Margaret.......the book that made her famous........just did not prove to be true and accurate.

Sounds like this person is trying to follow in Margaret's foot-steps. :shrug:


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

WhyNot said:


> I am not sure if I am confused or not about this statement so I'm going to repeat what I think it means and please tell me if I am right because if I am understanding it wrong I would very much like to know. What I understand from that is she basically was saying she knew she wasn't going to make it as a couple. Or was it just with that partner


Her husband had 2 women: his wife and his mistress. She meant that she would be his only woman or she would not have him.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Momma's baby, daddy's maybe.  an old saying that is truer than most want to think about. I think men are hard wired by nature to be somewhat blinded and to raise other men's progeny. If there were paternity tests all around there would be a lot of family trees being redrawn.


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> Her husband had 2 women: his wife and his mistress. She meant that she would be his only woman or she would not have him.


AHH! She meant one of two women! Not one of two people in a relationship. lol Thanks Terri. I was actually very intrigued when I first read it because I thought it meant that she just "knew for certain" that she would never want to be a couple...and that was amazing to me.  I appreciate you revealing the 'mystery'....and I'm pretty sure that everyone else "got it" except for us select few.


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

Nevermind. I have to re-read the article I posted now LOL


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I think a lot of the reason(trying to be, uh, hmmmm) for the present higher divorce rate is the elevated status/worth/humanness of women. Instead of a cheap view of marriage that is the usual blame given by monogamy pushers--if that were so, seriously why get married in the first place or set up house? Divorce is hell to go through emotionally and financially.

It would be interesting to compare the goings on of cultures where women had equality/were not "property".


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

yeah I think the REAL question is the value/standing of women. are they equal in control.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Yay Bob Marley!


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm on the fence about the woman thing, property thing, etc. Sure, at one time it was sort of dealt with that way in a sense but surely people did still marry out of love or at the very least grow to love one another. Surely some people were happy no matter how society/culture decided to enforce, force, design or whatever.

Just as there are people now who are most assuredly happy with their marriage whether it is to one of the opposite sex or not, whether it is to one person or several.

Although, just like most things....there are people in the same situation(s) that are not happy. That's just the nature of it.

The nature of life.

My divorce was very difficult on me and I am not even going on financials...simply the emotional aspect of it was enough. Even though I had the reason of my and my daughter's literal life to consider...because I had to hide from him and etc...doesn't mean that I wasn't affected by it emotionally. Doesn't mean it didn't tear me up inside. Took me years to even want to really put my heart out there again. I loved him very much, even with what he did.

I don't know that making it easier or less of a stigma to get a divorce means that it lessens the value of marriage. Perhaps for some it does...but not for everyone. It stands to reason even when there was less tolerance for divorce, that not everyone that was married during that time valued their marriage any more or less than a person now.

meh... it's one of those things that can be talked about but not really "proven"... just like, to me anyway...you can't really "prove" that one relationship configuration is any less or more than another in an across the board sense...however in an individual sense, it's there.

It's like a computer program...a lot of people may have the same standard, but everyone customizes their preferences.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

http://www.amazon.com/Jude-Obscure-...s&ie=UTF8&qid=1376020322&sr=1-5&keywords=jude

Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy--despite all the romantic mythic hoopla, in reality it has been portrayed as stupid to partner up for love by western culture. Hardy's novel recounts this "reality" and makes the comment that it's stupid it has to be that way...

"Hardy's last and most controversial novel, _Jude the Obscure_ caused much outrage when it was published in 1895. Jude Fawley, poor and working-class, longs to study at the University of Christminster, but his ambitions to go to university are thwarted by class prejudice and his entrapment in a loveless marriage. He falls in love with his unconventional cousin, Sue Bridehead, and their refusal to marry when free to do so confirms their rejection of and by the world around them. The shocking fate that overtakes them is an indictment of a rigid and uncaring society."


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

all that is to say, that taking actual history into account, we've come a long way baby!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

always fun to poke at a taboo, love ya Why!


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Like Gus on Lonesome Dove. Id just like to get a poke lol


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

FarmboyBill said:


> Like Gus on Lonesome Dove. Id just like to get a poke lol


show me your taboo haha!


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

Whynot, I think that no matter who you love, that yes, it all starts inside of you.

I have gay friends who are married/ and divorced. This after being together 25 years, without benefit of marriage. Marriage doesn't make anything 'more valid'.
I respectfully disagree with government defining what marriage is. 
The gov't has their foot in the door now and many gays dont understand that this isn't a 'win'. They aren't paying attention. 
Many gays voted for big zero because he was 'in favor' of gay marriage. So what? Look who he sides with- you think the muslims are in favor of homosexuality?
So, all of this, to me, is just so much intellectual 'blah blah'.....
Part of so much of the divorce rate is that we are part of 'throw away' culture now, not 'cherish, fix it' etc. I went through a divorce a long time ago. I am not judging anyone, nor am I referring to abusive relationships, etc.
Also, guess I am answering what you wrote about once on FB, a while ago.
I understand why marriage is considered important.
It isn't always necessary.
Soon, other forms of 'marriage' will be okay with the government; ie, marrying your dog/having intercourse with your dog-- marrying children, pedophelia will be ok (there are groups out there who are lobbying for it) 
I am not equating gay marriage with this stuff, but when gubermint regulates what marriage is, or changes the old traditional stuff, it opens up the door for a whole lot of other categories.
I hope I haven't offended, I just am throwing this out there into the 'stew pot'.....
Everyone is entitled. I dont know what is the answer; but I do believe that the government shouldn't have a say so, or, at least a very very minor say so....


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

WhyNot said:


> .....
> Hey. I keep saying I think differently than most people. Tonight we had a meeting at work and everyone saw this in perfect display. We were told...and I quote... "Next write the days of the week, monday through friday all the way down the paper." EXACT words.
> 
> What did I do? I wrote the days of the week...starting with Monday and going till Friday over and over all the way down the paper every line.
> ...


I understand completely. I went through college as an additive inverse.

Mon


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

SZ Id show it to ya. It must be taboo. nobodies seen it for decades lol. Jay/terri. Am I riding close to another one LOL.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Pop version of the original article
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

My head is spinning from the incorrect thinking of the original article. Monogamy even if it kills us once was the thought of American culture, but infidelities acceptable as long as discretion was used. The shame was in public knowledge. Families stayed intact for the sake of wealth and stability.

The divorce rate, even among practicing Christians is over 50% so the best we can say about it is serial monogamy. Look how many pastors are divorced and remarried. Even Adam's first wife Hillith was put out of the Garden of Eden. I'm sure God hated it but he did it anyway. 2nd time around he put them BOTH out of the garden!

Are we talking sexuality or emotional intimacy? We can Love many in many different ways.

America is NOT one culture and never was. We never were a Christian Nation in spite of the religious blather used for Manifest Destiny. Morality is not legislated. Laws are to protect the vulnerable from the predators for the wellbeing of society. Often they are wrong and we change them. Women were once property. They were uneducated and overly emotional. Couldn't have them running amok and being uppity without permission. Many men still fear we'll steal their souls.

The social norms around sexuality are for perpetuation and stability of the species. True monogamy hasn't really happened, faked monogamy works reasonably well except for judgmentalism of the guilt-ridden fakers. Matriarchal tribal polymory seems to work very well here and abroad, even in white European colonies. Everyone seems to be happy, children are secure and well adjusted. Polygamy is alive and well in the country, although not flaunted. 

The relationship structures in the home are no one else's business as long as they're between consenting adults and do not create a burden to society.

The sexual relationship models that do not work for toward perpetuation and stability of the species are incest and homosexuality. Up until recent history, both were considered deviancies and were illegal. Those who were persistent were institutionalized. We don't do that anymore

I am in frequent contact with members of inbred clans, the ones Margaret Sanger spoke of as "defectives" in need of sterilization to stop their proliferation. Since Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society and the miracles of modern medicine, these people live longer, breed more and the taxpayers keep supporting them cradle to grave. Unfortunately, they don't KNOW instant sexual gratification with your mother, brother, uncle, daddy, cousin, sister, kid is illegal or morally wrong, or it is the reason behind their serious mental and physical birth defects. They bring new blood in just often enough from the other clans to keep themselves from dying out.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

FarmboyBill said:


> SZ Id show it to ya. It must be taboo. nobodies seen it for decades lol. Jay/terri. Am I riding close to another one LOL.


Don't show it to me!!! Show WT, not SZ!!! Lol


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

Hi Sherry! I am just going to interject my comments within yours, it seems the easiest and most straight forward way to respond right now. 



sherry in Maine said:


> Whynot, I think that no matter who you love, that yes, it all starts inside of you. Me too, I think most things start inside us...from within to without...the good and the bad.
> 
> I have gay friends who are married/ and divorced. This after being together 25 years, without benefit of marriage. Marriage doesn't make anything 'more valid'. Agree.
> I respectfully disagree with government defining what marriage is. I agree but am not sure if you got the idea that the article was saying that or not, I didn't get that, but my perception isn't every one's either
> ...


I understand not letting the government rule our lives..but then again WE ARE supposed to be the government. At least, that is how I interpret the Constitution. That, and, I believe people should be treated as equally as we are capable of them being treated. Which is why I support and will continue to support the ability of people to marry in the legal sense as long as they are capable of understanding a legal document, of majority age, etc. I choose to differentiate between religion and state. I also understand that some people choose not to do that. (in general, again not trying to put words in your mouth...I just mean people in general)

I really am enjoying that so many people here are taking this in the spirit in which it was intended this time...which was to just discuss. To me, discussion lets us get to know each other in a different way than just banter. Banter is nice though.


----------



## WhyNot (Jun 21, 2011)

Laura....all I have to say at this moment to you is....most of what you say I see in the article but you don't see the same thing and at this moment I am going to "blame" it on the article spurring thoughts for me over the last 18 hours or so that perhaps aren't in the article LOL.

I don't seem to disagree with anything you have said and I'm pretty sure I understand what you have said...but I'll look again to be sure whether or not I choose to argue with you


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

I couldn't get through the article without it instigating a migraine. I thought it was making assumptions of what people believe, rather than what they think they believe; rhetoric versus actual behaviors.

We are under constant bombardment of bullsnot from the religious right, liberal left and media sleeze. None of which know anything of Love, Intimacy or True Relationship. But deep within ourselves, past the pain and calluses, the Universal Truths are written in our hearts.

We all have the desire to love and be loved. We desire to be accepted for who we are, to be vulnerable without fear, to trust completely, to be trusted and respected, to get lost in the pure joy. I'm not judging anyone who finds that. 

I've only known 1 truly monogamous couple who had this throughout their 60 years and they were truly offbeat to the rest of the world. They married the weekend they met, she was 16, and they never spent a night apart until death 30 days from each other.

I see this Love in the polymorous cultures where healthy children come first, trust is required for the survival of the community. The depth of intimacy between people is astounding! It's a controlled community, public shaming happens, people are kicked out.

Being single and embracing it gives us time to observe and explore inside our heads and what is out there for us to meet our deepest needs for Love and Intimacy. What we did before didn't work, perhaps it wasn't the best model to work from, especially if there's a string of monogamy failures. We're not monogamous. What are the other relationship models?


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

Man, folks eill go through extreme measures, for an exuse to fool around.

I think people should do what they want, as long as they do what they say.

If i love someone, i have no desire to be in the sack with someone else, and do not understand why they would.

I dont believe in marriage, but i do believe in honesty.


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

what I meant about gov't interference in defining marriage-- pedophelia=wrong (sick) marrying your dog= (yuk) wrong
yes, the gubermint did declare interracial marriage as wrong; that's why I am saying they shouldn't be involved in the decision making process.
But, I dont doubt for a minute that some skank will legalize the two options above, by some kind of wierd misguided thinking....(probably call it 'racism' or 'animism' or 'victimization' etc etc) as soon as they can do it without us calling them on it.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I saw in a JW phamphlet? that 70% of all couples in Austrailia aren't married


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

sherry in Maine said:


> what I meant about gov't interference in defining marriage-- pedophelia=wrong (sick) marrying your dog= (yuk) wrong
> yes, the gubermint did declare interracial marriage as wrong; that's why I am saying they shouldn't be involved in the decision making process.
> But, I dont doubt for a minute that some skank will legalize the two options above, by some kind of wierd misguided thinking....(probably call it 'racism' or 'animism' or 'victimization' etc etc) as soon as they can do it without us calling them on it.


I kinda doubt it


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

FarmboyBill said:


> I saw in a JW phamphlet? that 70% of all couples in Austrailia aren't married


Jw?

Jeruselm watermelons? 

Jewish water buffalos?

Javier Wanz?

Jennifer winters?

Ya'll and your acronyms. I guess i am just slow.

Good for the Australians! Why anyone would want the goverment, or worse the church, involved in thier personal life, i will never understand.


I honestly dont care what anyone does, as long as its nor done to hurt, and i dont understand why anyone would care. If folks wanta have open relationships or three sones, thats thier business. I csn only say that if someeone tells me they want to be with someone else, that means they font want to be with me.

I guess i am just insecure.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I always thought it was interesting that Jewishness was matrilineal. If your mother was Jewish so were you. If your father was Jewish but your mother wasn't, you weren't. 

No one could prove who the father was. Where does the Ten Commandments fit in? Beats me. A lot changed with the establishment of Catholicism which was as much about control and orderliness for governing as anything else. The payoff for behaving of couse was heaven. 

Looking at non-Western religions provides more food for thought.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Jahovas Witnesses mick


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Darren your posting might explain something. I read where an actress went to Germany to find out about her granddad, who was in the army in WW 2. Seems he was 1/2 Jew and 1/2 German. I thought they purged pretty heavy IF one had any jew in them. Maybe not.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It's not unknown for a Jew to be blonde with blue eyes.


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

hey Mickm, over the years, I have seen 'stuff' that I didn't think would ever happen....guess what? Now it is happening! Things change. I hope both those things will never be legalized. Lots of stuff happening nowadays because no one actually thinks any human being would allow it.


----------



## mickm (Jul 23, 2010)

sherry in Maine said:


> hey Mickm, over the years, I have seen 'stuff' that I didn't think would ever happen....guess what? Now it is happening! Things change. I hope both those things will never be legalized. Lots of stuff happening nowadays because no one actually thinks any human being would allow it.



Ye, but most of the hunan rights stufc just makes sense. Just like bi racial marriage. There are probably quite a few dipsticks, still against it, but thankfully the majority git it right.

I am sure thete is a very smsll minority of people that want to mary a goat, but thankfully they are mostly locatedd in oklahoma

Thats just wrong, even if they are a cute nubian princess. 

I doubt we have to wory about churches allowing beastiality. Most animals are against marriage. Infact i read in a jw flier that over 90% of animals are not married


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

I live in a state with no laws against bestiality. There are Sex Farms. As long as no animals are harmed, animal rights groups have no say in how people use their animals.

There are several lobby groups in our country trying to lower the age of consent to 12. One world group is UNICEF or whatever it is, the one that pretends to be against the exploitation of children, but whose officials are always being caught in pedophilia.

Never underestimate the power of perverts.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Far as I know, ive heard of a few duck and goat likers here, on the eastern side of the state. Came in from Ark lol.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

one woman +one man= happiness


most of us cant keep one relationship going....much less more.....ever think of it like that.

one woman and a honey doo list is all one man can keep up with...period.

and vise versa.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

elkhound said:


> one woman +one man= happiness
> 
> 
> most of us cant keep one relationship going....much less more.....ever think of it like that.
> ...


 Are you with your first and only woman and are you in happiness with her? If the answer is yes, you are monogamous.

Have you had more than one woman? If The answer is yes, you are not monogamous.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

Laura said:


> Are you with your first and only woman and are you in happiness with her? If the answer is yes, you are monogamous.
> 
> Have you had more than one woman? If The answer is yes, you are not monogamous.



moÂ·nogÂ·aÂ·my (m







-n







g














-m







)_n._*1. * The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
*2. **a. * The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
*b. * The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.


doesnt matter if it 1st or 10th...one at a time.

i thought OP was talking about sleeping with and having a relationship with more than one person at a time...i could be wrong though...its why i said i dont share.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

That's serial monogamy. What's Biblical monogamy?


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

Laura said:


> That's serial monogamy. What's Biblical monogamy?


never hear the serial term used..heres what i found

serial monogamy_n_ the practice of having a number of long-term romantic or sexual partners in succession

as far as biblical monogamy....we all are in real trouble.....see what jesus said to the woman drawing him water and she told him she didnt have a husband.he told her had 5.this statement alone should show how he views sexual relations....she had lived with 5 men so she had been married 5 times.to him the act of sex equaled marriage.

all i can say is as i have always said i am a sinner...trying to do and be better.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> as far as biblical monogamy....we all are in real trouble.....see what jesus said to the woman drawing him water and she told him she didnt have a husband.he told her had 5.this statement alone should show how he views sexual relations....she had lived with 5 men so she had been married 5 times.to him the act of sex equaled marriage.


Hey, it's bad enough I've been legally married 4 times ... now you're telling me I've been Biblically married 47 times?!


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

^^^^thats some funny ^&()9 right there i don't care who you are^^^^:rock:


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Hey, it's bad enough I've been legally married 4 times ... now you're telling me I've been Biblically married 47 times?!



its why i said WE ALL....you are not alone.


jesus said if you think it you done it......paraphrasing.

i cant go to walmart anymore... to many distractions....:gaptooth::runforhills::angel:

infinity and beyond......lol


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Why is this thread making me think of the song ... ?
[youtube]uGb-NTSEvYs[/youtube]


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I was relieved to realize that if you go by the Bill Clinton definition of what sex is, turns out I've only been married 36 times. Whew!


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

married 3. lived with 2, Had sex with three maybe


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> That's serial monogamy. What's Biblical monogamy?


HUH????? 

How many types of monogamy?????? 

Are you saying. in your mind, that a 'life-long marriage' is the only thing that should be considered as 'monogamous???

For me, the term, 'monogamous' refers to a relationship where the partners' sexual activity is limited to the partner.........as opposed to a relationship where one or more of the partners also participate in sexual a activity with other people. 

Elkhound already posted definitions of monogamy.......do you have a list of sources that support your definition of 'monogamy???' :shrug:


----------



## SimplerTimez (Jan 20, 2008)

Laura said:


> That's serial monogamy. What's Biblical monogamy?


Depends on what your definition of 'bible' is.

~ST


----------



## SimplerTimez (Jan 20, 2008)

Darren said:


> I always thought it was interesting that Jewishness was matrilineal. If your mother was Jewish so were you. If your father was Jewish but your mother wasn't, you weren't.
> 
> No one could prove who the father was. Where does the Ten Commandments fit in? Beats me. A lot changed with the establishment of Catholicism which was as much about control and orderliness for governing as anything else. The payoff for behaving of couse was heaven.
> 
> Looking at non-Western religions provides more food for thought.


But you have to look at "Jewish" as separate from Torah. Torah teaches by paternal line; Judaism teaches by maternal line. One of many deviations, unfortunately, when the Torah culture became influenced by Zoroastriasm and other local non-Torah groups were assimilated.

~ST


----------



## SimplerTimez (Jan 20, 2008)

Cereal monogamy - the act of eating only one bowl of cereal at a time.

There, I think I cleared that up for all, yes?



~ST


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

And I thought I was a cereal killer......I stand corrected.....LOL


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I am a cereal killer, IF the cereals oatmeal, or cheerios


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I havnt had any cereal cept oatmeal in the wintertime only for 50yrs.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

The word _monogamy_ comes from the Greek words "&#956;&#959;&#957;&#972;&#962;", _monos_ which means one or alone, and "&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;", _gamos_ which means marriage.

digamy, From Latin _digamia_ (âtwice marriedâ), from Ancient Greek _&#948;&#953;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#943;&#945;_ (digamÃ­a, âbigamyâ), _&#948;&#943;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (digamos), from _&#948;&#943;&#962;_ (dis, âtwiceâ) + _&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (gamos, âmarriageâ). In modern terms, from _di-_ +&#8206; _-gamy_

_The additional phrase of "at a time" for monogamy in modern dictionaries is the result of Hegelian dialectics. Pick up any old dictionary if you can still find one and definitions are still true to their roots._

_It doesn't really matter what you practice, but at least know the correct word for it._


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Wow...I dont understand why you're still single? That just blows my mind.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Laura said:


> I live in a state with no laws against bestiality. There are Sex Farms. As long as no animals are harmed, animal rights groups have no say in how people use their animals.
> 
> There are several lobby groups in our country trying to lower the age of consent to 12. One world group is UNICEF or whatever it is, the one that pretends to be against the exploitation of children, but whose officials are always being caught in pedophilia.
> 
> Never underestimate the power of perverts.


I am not going to touch your second paragraph, but zoophilia and bestiality were made illegal and a felony in Washington State in 2006.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

Brighton said:


> I am not going to touch your second paragraph, but zoophilia and bestiality were made illegal and a felony in Washington State in 2006.


 Can you cite the law? I'm sure it was 2010 when a stallion killed the guy at a sex farm. State and county refused to get involved. Pervs have a strong lobby group since quite a few of them are politicians.

Fowler, I haven't been single nearly as long as you.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

an I bean single longer than tha bath a ya lol


----------



## skeeter (Mar 23, 2013)

Laura said:


> Can you cite the law? I'm sure it was 2010 when a stallion killed the guy at a sex farm. State and county refused to get involved. Pervs have a strong lobby group since quite a few of them are politicians.


I hear lots of bad things about where I live but we don't allow that kinda stuff here.


----------



## Terri in WV (May 10, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan

After Pinyan died,[1] Pam Roach, a member of the Washington State Senate and a Republican from Auburn, crafted a bill that would ban bestiality in Washington State.[18] Senate Bill 6417, which made bestiality a Class C felony, passed on February 11, 2006 with all 36 state senators voting for it. Bestiality had been legal in Washington state for 117 years, until the passing of the bill. Charles Mudede of The Stranger said "It was an almost comically easy law to pass." Bestiality had no political support in Washington state, and no group in Washington state advocated for bestiality.[1] The law is RCW 16.52.205(3). Mudede said that reading RCW 16.52.205 "is very much like reading hardcore porn." In addition, the law prohibits "videotap[ing] a person engaged in a sexual act or sexual contact with an animal" "either alive or dead." Because of the provision against videotaping, Mudede said that the law "points an angry finger directly at James Tait."[1]


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Laura said:


> Can you cite the law? I'm sure it was 2010 when a stallion killed the guy at a sex farm. State and county refused to get involved. Pervs have a strong lobby group since quite a few of them are politicians.


A quick google search first hit is:

http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6417

Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on March 24, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal. 

The perv that was running a "sex farm" as you put it, has been in and out of jail, currently in jail it seems. 

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/12/07/2795445/two-years-later-new-charge-filed.html


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> The word _monogamy_ comes from the Greek words "&#956;&#959;&#957;&#972;&#962;", _monos_ which means one or alone, and "&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;", _gamos_ which means marriage.
> 
> digamy, From Latin _digamia_ (âtwice marriedâ), from Ancient Greek _&#948;&#953;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#943;&#945;_ (digamÃ­a, âbigamyâ), _&#948;&#943;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (digamos), from _&#948;&#943;&#962;_ (dis, âtwiceâ) + _&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (gamos, âmarriageâ). In modern terms, from _di-_ +&#8206; _-gamy_
> 
> ...


oops!!!!....I believe that the meanings of words do change over time.......for example... trace the meaning of the word, "gay" over the past 50 years.

Thanks for the nice tutorial on the history of the word origination of "monogamy." I have not looked......is the word, "digamy" in any current dictionaries???


----------



## skeeter (Mar 23, 2013)

Laura said:


> The word _monogamy_ comes from the Greek words "&#956;&#959;&#957;&#972;&#962;", _monos_ which means one or alone, and "&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;", _gamos_ which means marriage.
> 
> digamy, From Latin _digamia_ (âtwice marriedâ), from Ancient Greek _&#948;&#953;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#943;&#945;_ (digamÃ­a, âbigamyâ), _&#948;&#943;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (digamos), from _&#948;&#943;&#962;_ (dis, âtwiceâ) + _&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (gamos, âmarriageâ). In modern terms, from _di-_ +&#8206; _-gamy_
> 
> ...


I was kinda curious about marriage as given in the Bible. So I went and did a word search. 

In the Greek (New Testament), the following word was used for marriage in the Bible:
Greek Strong's Number: 1062
Greek Word: &#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;
Transliteration: gamos
Phonetic Pronunciation:gam'-os
Root: of uncertain affinity
Cross Reference: TDNT - 1:648,111
Part of Speech: n m
Vine's Words: Feast, Marriage, Marry
Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:
marriage 9 
wedding 7 
[Total Count: 16] 

of uncertain affinity; nuptials :- marriage, wedding.
âStrong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

I didn't find any references to monogamy or bigamy. But the Bible does say that a man shall marry a woman and they shall cleave together as one. There are some other indications that multiple marriages were not what God intended but were commonly practiced.

From here the subject gets very theological and their are a few viewpoints - such as adultery, whore mongering, and grace are mentioned in their points of the discussion. 

To me, I guess it is being true to thine own self.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

Thanks for the correction and update on the bestiality stuff in this state. My how time flies! I didn't keep up with it with a kid reading over my shoulder.

The definitions I posted are from Wiki. You know the meaning and spelling of words by knowing their roots. Those roots, and root words do not change. Either words have meaning or they have no meaning. It's how kids win spelling and vocabulary bees and used to be a basic tenet of education.

By the way, Wiki is an interesting read on the different types of monogamy. I didn't click all the links, but I'm sure it has church teachings on the subject.


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

skeeter said:


> I was kinda curious about marriage as given in the Bible. So I went and did a word search.
> 
> In the Greek (New Testament), the following word was used for marriage in the Bible:
> Greek Strong's Number: 1062
> ...


So, how do you happen to have a copy of 'Strongs?' That is not a very common household book. (I inherited mine from my dad......he was a pastor and a chaplain.)


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> Thanks for the correction and update on the bestiality stuff in this state. My how time flies! I didn't keep up with it with a kid reading over my shoulder.
> 
> The definitions I posted are from Wiki. You know the meaning and spelling of words by knowing their roots. Those roots, and root words do not change. Either words have meaning or they have no meaning. It's how kids win spelling and vocabulary bees and used to be a basic tenet of education.
> 
> By the way, Wiki is an interesting read on the different types of monogamy. I didn't click all the links, but I'm sure it has church teachings on the subject.



Wiki......?????? It can be fun reading.......but hardly a credible source.......since anyone can add ANYTHING to that......gee.....I could post something on Wiki......and then turn around and quote Wiki...........sorry, but Wiki has NO credibility. I am surprised that you used Wiki as a source........your posts usually seem better than that.


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> Those roots, and root words do not change. Either words have meaning or they have no meaning.



Are you saying that the meaning of the word "gay" has not changed over the past 100 years????


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> The word _monogamy_ comes from the Greek words "&#956;&#959;&#957;&#972;&#962;", _monos_ which means one or alone, and "&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;", _gamos_ which means marriage.
> 
> digamy, From Latin _digamia_ (&#8220;twice married&#8221, from Ancient Greek _&#948;&#953;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#943;&#945;_ (digamÃ­a, &#8220;bigamy&#8221, _&#948;&#943;&#947;&#945;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (digamos), from _&#948;&#943;&#962;_ (dis, &#8220;twice&#8221 + _&#947;&#940;&#956;&#959;&#962;_ (gamos, &#8220;marriage&#8221. In modern terms, from _di-_ +&#8206; _-gamy_
> 
> ...


Gee......I looked up the word, "digamy" on 2 'on-line' dictionaries......and both of them said that there is no definition for that word.

How is that possible????......if meanings never change????????

I wonder if maybe the word, "digamy" never made the transition from Greek to English???


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

sigh. there really is a whole lotta love in this world. let it be.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

ps, horses much prefer a horse-human relationship with a human that can communicate and understand horse, with a strong companionable energy. They are herd animals, good relationships are crucial for survival. You prove yourself weak and stupid they will dominate the hell out of you--kicking you out of the gene pool so to speak. And being the weaker physical being you WILL submit. Despite your pathetic lil whip and pointy boots.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

Greek and Latin have no meaning, and never had a place in the universal world of language, science and history? It's difficult to cut and paste entries from hardcopy dictionaries and textbooks.

The term Gay co-opted to mean homosexual came from the Cary Grant movie where he is wearing a woman's frilly floral robe, does a little jump and says, "maybe I decided to be gay all of a sudden."

I'm not making judgments on anyone's life choices. When someone uses words, I like to know why their words don't match their actions. Throwing away half our vocabulary and using one word to mean anything we want explains a lot.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I have a Strongs Bill. Give to me by a preacher. I cracked it ONCE.


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> Greek and Latin have no meaning, and never had a place in the universal world of language, science and history? It's difficult to cut and paste entries from hardcopy dictionaries and textbooks.
> 
> The term Gay co-opted to mean homosexual came from the Cary Grant movie where he is wearing a woman's frilly floral robe, does a little jump and says, "maybe I decided to be gay all of a sudden."
> 
> I'm not making judgments on anyone's life choices. When someone uses words, I like to know why their words don't match their actions. Throwing away half our vocabulary and using one word to mean anything we want explains a lot.



Gosh!!!!.......I thought that we were conversing in English!!!! Shame on me????? 

If I go to Brazil, I would expect the common language would be Portugese......it would seem to me that the meaning of English words would be pretty irrelevant in that environment. 

Who threw away half of our vocabulary??????.........which half????......is there a list of the words that have been exiled?????......when did this happen?????

No need to copy and paste from hard book editions........perhaps such info as the name of the dictionary, publisher, date of the edition and date of publication, etc.......and wondering why such terms are not in all dictionaries......????

I was not aware that textbooks are used in place of dictionaries...:shrug:

I have heard that some dialects of some eskimo languages (Inuit???) have 32 different words for snow. If I am following your logic, then we who live in the USA should be using those 32 different terms.........otherwise we are just using one word for EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. :shrug: ???????


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> Greek and Latin have no meaning, and never had a place in the universal world of language, science and history?



Are you assuming that I have no appreciation of Latin and Greek?????

Granted, in high school I only had one year of Latin.....in college......one year of 'classical' Greek and another year of 'koine period" (New Testament) Greek.......and, on a graduate level, one year of Hebrew.

I believe that I have some awareness of the value and role of those languages in history,

So, I am certainly no expert in those fields..........and I always am ready to learn from those with more experience in those fields.


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> I have a Strongs Bill. Give to me by a preacher. I cracked it ONCE.


 I have seldom 'cracked' mine.......but it is am amazing resource......and it is nice to have on hand when I do want to use it.


----------



## skeeter (Mar 23, 2013)

billooo2 said:


> So, how do you happen to have a copy of 'Strongs?' That is not a very common household book. (I inherited mine from my dad......he was a pastor and a chaplain.)


https://www.wordsearchbible.com/basic?ref=be

The software here can be downloaded and 'Strongs' can be downloaded as a book to the library. There are many other free books that are a help too. 

I love my Strong's and use it often since it gives me the root meaning of the words that are being used in the Bible which totally enriches my understanding.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

Well, Billoo I'm glad you have a grasp on the construction of the English language.


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

skeeter said:


> https://www.wordsearchbible.com/basic?ref=be
> 
> The software here can be downloaded and 'Strongs' can be downloaded as a book to the library. There are many other free books that are a help too.
> 
> I love my Strong's and use it often since it gives me the root meaning of the words that are being used in the Bible which totally enriches my understanding.


Thanks for the link.......that looks like an awesome site!!!


----------



## billooo2 (Nov 23, 2004)

Laura said:


> Well, Billoo I'm glad you have a grasp on the construction of the English language.


I apologize if I gave you or anyone else a false impression.......I had no intention of deceiving anyone.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

This conversation is jumping around and I am not sure what the point is.

Marriage this, marriage that. Seems to me that true love of any kind is rare. There is a whole lot of selfishness, infatuation, and exploitation running amuck trying to pass for love.

Funny how since the counter culture 60's so many people have been saying "me, me, me!" all the time and then wondering why they constantly fail at forming a healthy "we". With each generation the selfishness grows greater. Dress it up in whatever costume you want to justify or exalt it with but it is just selfishness at heart. 

Whatever happened to love of duty? Hormonal romance comes and goes and does not last long, but with duty you get up everyday and chose to love your spouse and family and through loyalty you all love each other. If the romance is not there you stick with it and shoulder your commitment, it is your job, yes your JOB.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

um, uh...speaking from the left coast and living amongst a lot of those old hippies(and their offspring) and being friends with them and all, uh, they actually had a lot of good ideas they been doing for what 50 years now? a whole lotta awesome "we" that isn't defined/restricted by the ol one man one woman monogamy thing which all goes into making wonderful pairings and friendships.

those who are in this mix know what I mean. it goes beyond domestic partnership into how you relate to every person you meet.

romance is not love. real love is never a job. A job is a task you do in exchange for currency to exchange for things you can't barter or make or exchange other things for otherwise. Making commitment a job makes makes the committer a whore, you sing for your supper. btdt,

my husband said that to me, that being wife/mother was my job and I better perform and god forbid I should waste time on anything outside that. That I made my bed and now I lie in it and die a selfless martyr like his mother who did for his father and did all that choosing and loyalty and sticking with it and shouldering and jobbing.

NO THANKS


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

For some people everything is disposable. Absolutely everything even emotions, heartfelt hurt and joy. We have raised a generation or two of hollow, no conscience, want it now 'cause i do, cause i deserve it, cause i want it. Right now..... a full blown total civil melt down would prolly kill most of em.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Whatever happened to love of duty? Hormonal romance comes and goes and does not last long, but with duty you get up everyday and chose to love your spouse and family and through loyalty you all love each other. If the romance is not there you stick with it and shoulder your commitment, it is your job, yes your JOB.


I wouldn't want a partner to stay with me out of mere duty if the love was gone.

That's not good for anyone, IMO. :shrug:


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

People are free to make whatever good or bad choices they like. If a person feels they are only responsible for themselves and their own needs then so be it but those people should avoid long term commitments like marriage.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Ehh. Life is short, and I don't think it's monstrously selfish to want out of a relationship that has run its course. 

All of my divorces were by mutual consent, and even though I was the instigator, most of my ex's found a new partner faster than I did. #3 and 4 both remarried sooner than I did (and good for them!).

My parents were married for more than 40 years, and were miserable the whole time (or at least for the 27 years that I experienced). My childhood undoubtedly would have been a lot happier had they parted ways. I never saw my parents hug or kiss, or even compliment or say a kind word to one another. They tried to stay in different parts of the house, and only came together at mealtimes, which tended to erupt into plate-hurling melees.

I see nothing virtuous in preserving a marriage like that. (My mom did get out eventually, and enjoyed a couple of good years with a good man who truly loved her.)


----------



## tambo (Mar 28, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> Ehh. Life is short, and *I don't think it's monstrously selfish to want out of a relationship that has run its course*.
> 
> All of my divorces were by mutual consent, and even though I was the instigator, most of my ex's found a new partner faster than I did. #3 and 4 both remarried sooner than I did (and good for them!).
> 
> ...


I think it is selfless and one of the kindess things you can do to let a person go that you know is unhappy in the situation. If you want the relationship and they don't love them enough to let them go. I wouldn't want someone to be with me if they didn't want to be with me. Life is to short for that. 

On the other hand if they want it and you don't, love them enough to be honest enough to say so. This can be done in a loving and kind way.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Certainly if any of my ex's had said, "I don't want to lose you" or "Let's try again" or "Maybe we should see a counselor," that would have given me pause, and I might have made an attempt to work things out. But they were just as happy as I was to pull the plug, and there were no kids involved, so what's the harm? :shrug:


----------



## tambo (Mar 28, 2003)

None. I agree with you Willow.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Love is like a garden that needs to be fenced in, nurtured, cultivated, and protected. Whims usually end just as whimsically. I think a lot of people think a relationship takes care of itself and then the two people in the relationship just sit around sucking up the endless bliss, but a good relationship takes stewardship.

One very large hole in the romantic shipwrecks I have encountered or have been in was a lack of appreciation in the people in the relationship. Love was taken for granted and lovers never stopped to be thankful for what they were bless with. Instead, they were caught on the treadmill of wanting more, which brings me back to selfishness and self centeredness.

If people are throwing plates then maybe they were an ill match from the start, but that is just an assumption.


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

It seems what's lacking for us is the social fidelity, the contract in relationships to always have each others' backs no matter what, to be to back each other up and always be a team. Life is full of surprises and a lot of those suck. You build trust and respect, you and your partner will throw down their and pull each other out of the suck without question.

This has nothing to do with sexual fidelity. Sex happens.

My parents, aunts and uncles have been married for 63 years. We are watching them honor their vows as they take care of each other to the end. Some of us are under no illusion there was sexual fidelity, or this was easy. 

I know many permanent couples who choose to look at things realistically. They've worked long and hard to build trust and respect with this person, to build their homesteads and businesses together when somebody got sucky. If they divorce, they both lose what they've worked hard for, there goes the Dream. They choose temporary separate living space on the same property to keep the family, farm and businesses going.

Their experiences match what the old folks in my family said. The Suck lasts for about two years of giving space, friendship and staying true to the social contract.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Unrealistic expectation can lead to unhappiness and a feeling of entitlement, a feeling that you are entitled to what is unrealistic and simply because you want it then what is unreal can become yours. Warm affection, devotion, and shared home cooked meals are all that most of us need. Fireworks are for the 4th of july.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Flames go out when you blow on em once a year.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

flames also go out when you don't tend the fire and burn all your wood for the winter on a bonfire for one night.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I can always scrounge up more firewood. But, yes, a good fire does need to be tended or it might go out!


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Not if the winter is drastically cold and bitterly long. Brrrrrrrrr. I think a wise couple ration their wood, plug the holes in the house, and stock up on extra blankets for the cold lean months. The ant and the grasshopper.


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

I don't think it's about fires or whether the ember is hot or cold. It's about commitment, good or mediocre, there are also reasons for divorce.

I married out of a sense of duty, some of you can say it was misguided, but no matter to me. She was pregnant, and I wasn't going to let a kid not have a dad. I grew to love her, but regardless, I was committed. We had three sons together. I wasn't perfect, but regardless I was faithful, and pushed unfaithful opportunities away. I busted my ass to make a life, but it didn't fit her timeframe, and maybe it just wasn't her choice of life?

She looked across the fence for greener pastures, cuz this side didn't look as good.
...............

My last and youngest boy was married Saturday. He has very strong beliefs as well. His wife also seems to hold strong beliefs. He didn't invite his mother, and even though I can see and somewhat understand the reasoning, regardless it hurt me. I know it hurt her as well, and I felt for her.

I know from experience how hard marriage can be, as well as the many blessings it can hold. It's about COMMITMENT, and LOVE, and HONOUR! It's something that is learned. It's something my folks held onto through thick and thin.

It shouldn't be given lightly! It's a hard thing to share, and why waste it with empty words?

I'm just rambling, my brain is awash with thoughts about the subject.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If people are throwing plates then maybe they were an ill match from the start, but that is just an assumption.


My mother told me once, when I was grown, that my father beat her up on their wedding night, because that is how Polish men teach their wives who is boss. 

Even though I'd seen him beat her many times, that seemed a bit over-the-top to me, and I didn't fully believe her until years later, when I came across a news article about Polish feminists who were trying to change their culture, which traditionally has been brutal toward women. Supposedly there is a saying in Poland that "if you don't beat your wife, her liver rots." 

So maybe what Mother described wasn't so far-fetched after all.











> I married out of a sense of duty, some of you can say it was misguided, but no matter to me. She was pregnant, and I wasn't going to let a kid not have a dad. I grew to love her, but regardless, I was committed. We had three sons together. I wasn't perfect, but regardless I was faithful, and pushed unfaithful opportunities away. I busted my ass to make a life, but it didn't fit her timeframe, and maybe it just wasn't her choice of life?
> 
> She looked across the fence for greener pastures, cuz this side didn't look as good.


I married once like that, because I had accidentally gotten pregnant. A month later, I lost the baby. Stayed married to him for almost 12 years though .... he was a good guy. But I never loved him, and eventually I had to follow my heart. No, I didn't leave him for another man ... just for my freedom. There was no one else in the picture. But it turns out there was a woman at work he had been interested in, and within days of our breakup, he was chomping at the bit to start dating her. They're married now, and from what I see on Facebook, they appear to be happy together. I truly believe things worked out for the best!


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

City Bound said:


> Unrealistic expectation can lead to unhappiness and a feeling of entitlement, a feeling that you are entitled to what is unrealistic and simply because you want it then what is unreal can become yours. Warm affection, devotion, and shared home cooked meals are all that most of us need. Fireworks are for the 4th of july.


So how's the amish girl and mud hut working out? Or was that an unrealistic expectation?


----------

