Best Relationship Configuration Poll

[arthwollipot]

Well, that's a thing you said. Does it mean that you believe that homosexual monogamy is a thing of fiction, as in that it doesn't happen?

That sounds very...

What's the word?

Fictitious. The word is fictitious.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I reject the premise of the question that there is any such thing as a "social sexual relationship best suited for Homo Sapiens".

Have the relationship that's best for you as an individual.

 

[Upchurch]

I reject the premise of the question that there is any such thing as a "social sexual relationship best suited for Homo Sapiens".

Have the relationship that's best for you as an individual.

Even if you were going to approach the question analytically, I reject the premise that the "most beneficial" type is necessarily singular and not some mix of relationships across the population based on multiple factors, like population size, available resources, climate, change in climate, etc.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Even if you were going to approach the question analytically, I reject the premise that the "most beneficial" type is necessarily singular and not some mix of relationships across the population based on multiple factors, like population size, available resources, climate, change in climate, etc.

That and all the other personal and social factors ongoing.

Even if we're playing 'all other things being equal' we still have to decide what setting, social and otherwise, is going to constitute the 'all other things'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, that's a thing you said. Does it mean that you believe that homosexual monogamy is a thing of fiction, as in that it doesn't happen?

Pay closer attention to the actual meaning of what was actually written. The criteria given for homosexual monogamy was not that most homosexual people would be in monogamous relationships. The criteria was that most people would be in monogamous homosexual relationships. Now do you understand my reply?

 

[bruto]

Pay closer attention to the actual meaning of what was actually written. The criteria given for homosexual monogamy was not that most homosexual people would be in monogamous relationships. The criteria was that most people would be in monogamous homosexual relationships. Now do you understand my reply?

I think in this case the problem was in imprecise language, with "most adults" meaning "most of the adults in the group," not "most people altogether."

 

[Ziggurat]

I think in this case the problem was in imprecise language, with "most adults" meaning "most of the adults in the group," not "most people altogether."

Regardless, Upchurch's interpretation of my response has no connection to my actual opinion.

 

[Upchurch]

Regardless, Upchurch's interpretation of my response has no connection to my actual opinion.

Then, you should pay closer attention to what was actually written and respond accordingly.

Just to be clear, since you haven't been, what is your actual opinion on the existential nature of homosexual monogamy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Then, you should pay closer attention to what was actually written and respond accordingly.

I did. You didn't. Perhaps you mean that RogueKitten should have been more clear in her writing, but that's not my fault.

Just to be clear, since you haven't been, what is your actual opinion on the existential nature of homosexual monogamy?

There are homosexual couples in monogamous relationships. Had you asked the first time around instead of thinking you'd caught me in some huge error, then you would know this already.

 

[Upchurch]

I did. You didn't. Perhaps you mean that RogueKitten should have been more clear in her writing, but that's not my fault.

Always someone else's fault. Isn't that the way?

There are homosexual couples in monogamous relationships. Had you asked the first time around instead of thinking you'd caught me in some huge error, then you would know this already.

That is what I asked the first time around.

Was that RogueKitten's fault that you didn't see that, too? My fault for cleverly hiding my question in plain sight as the question I was asking?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Contractual marriage, or marriage of convenience and business with clear prenuptual, parental and other agreements worked out in advance and multiple partners allowed.

 

[HTTR]

Then, you should pay closer attention to what was actually written and respond accordingly.

Actually, Ziggarut took RogueKitten's words at face value. I don't see how he could have paid closer attention:
RK wrote (in italics):
1) Heterosexual monogamy would be most adults being in opposite sex marriage like relationships with very few to no divorces or infidelity.
2) Homosexual monogamy is the same thing with the same sex.


#2 could be rewritten as (my emphasis): Homosexual monogamy is most adults being in same-sex marriage like relationships with very few to no divorces or infidelity.

You read something in RK's words that was not there which caused you to you misinterpret Ziggarut's post. Mistakes happen. No sense compounding them by blaming it on others.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, it could be read that way, if you go back and reread it with the specific intention of reading it that way. Most "normal" people rolleyes would read it the other way, and the response was appropriate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, it could be read that way, if you go back and reread it with the specific intention of reading it that way. Most "normal" people rolleyes would read it the other way, and the response was appropriate.

Yes, indeed: if you go back and reread it (or even read it the first time) with the specific intention of taking the meaning of the text as it actually appears, then that is indeed how you will read it.

I will not dispute your assertion that "normal" people don't pay close attention to the meaning of text when they read, you may be quite correct about that. Certainly Upchurch didn't, nor apparently did you, so you've got me outnumbered.

 

[Ziggurat]

No sense compounding them by blaming it on others.

But that is the entire point of Upchurch posting here. How can he not blame me when he has no other reason for participation?

 

[Upchurch]

But that is the entire point of Upchurch posting here. How can he not blame me when he has no other reason for participation?

I was asking for clarification on what, on its face, was a ridiculous statement.

What would I be blaming you for?

 

[HTTR]

Yes, it could be read that way, if you go back and reread it with the specific intention of reading it that way. Most "normal" people rolleyes would read it the other way, and the response was appropriate.

I merely substituted her actual words ("most adults being") for her actual words ("the same thing"). There is nothing ambiguous there. You and Upchurch are adding your own interpretations that don't match her words. There's nothing inherently wrong with that except in this case you've made no case for doing so and the context of the discussion is in agreement with her actual words.

The latter (context) is the key. She explicitly stated, "A hypothetical human society like the US. Interest of the individuals, society, and any resulting children." If we're going to discuss what's best for a society in terms of having sex, that carries with it a strong implication for "most adults". It certainly doesn't imply a minority. And if she had intended to switch from majority to minority in her meaning, why use "the same thing" instead?

Sorry, your interpretation is not based on anything RK wrote or the context. It is, however, consistent with a pattern of perceiving prejudice where none exists.

 

[arthwollipot]

I merely substituted her actual words ("most adults being") for her actual words ("the same thing"). There is nothing ambiguous there. You and Upchurch are adding your own interpretations that don't match her words. There's nothing inherently wrong with that except in this case you've made no case for doing so and the context of the discussion is in agreement with her actual words.

To see anything other than the obvious intent, and to therefore come to anything but the obvious conclusion about its meaning, requires a level of grammatical nitpickishness that borders on the obsessive.

It was very clear and very obvious what RogueKitten meant. Who on earth would intend the alternative meaning? It would be utterly unbelievable for her to have suggested such a thing. Do you honestly believe that she intended to imply that all people would be in monogamous homosexual relationships? Why on earth would you come to that ridiculous conclusion unless you were being needlessly argumentative?

You can either read it with the obvious interpretation, under the perfectly reasonable assumption that anyone who would ask such a question intended for it to be interpreted in that way, or you can obsess over the literal but self-evidently unintended interpretation for the sake of making an argument, and thus appear narrow-mindedly disagreeable.

 

[SteveL]

Do you honestly believe that she intended to imply that all people would be in monogamous homosexual relationships?

Well, since that's what she said, then, yes, I do, too.

Why don't we ask her?

RogueKitten?

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, since that's what she said, then, yes, I do, too.

So to you, the idea that she seriously proposed all people in monogamous homosexual relationships is more believable than the idea that she just had a minor brain fart and failed to express her thoughts accurately?

Sorry, but that is, as I said, utterly ridiculous.