Some species of animals have fidelity in their genes, I don't think human being have. As strong as they might be today, fidelity and sexual exclusivity are quite modern concepts. They were created mainly to preserve families wealth when human civilizations switched from nomadism to stable farming, and finally understood what led women to get pregnant. Our "natural" way of sharing sexual partners is actually closer from the apes way of living than the one you suggest. That is, dominent male having dominent females, and others taking their chance from time to time.
That being said, I can already hear your answer "but we're no monkeys !". Fine by me and fine for you if you've got values and believes you want to respect. But please don't present your normative visions as the truth, it's all I'm asking you.
Global Forums > General > In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Only members can see names and photos
In don't think human being were created to live in couples
May 15, 2007 @ 14:04
The text you are quoting:
Some species of animals have fidelity in their genes, I don't think human being have. As strong as they might be today, fidelity and sexual exclusivity are quite modern concepts. They were created mainly to preserve families wealth when human civilizations switched from nomadism to stable farming, and finally understood what led women to get pregnant. Our "natural" way of sharing sexual partners is actually closer from the apes way of living than the one you suggest. That is, dominent male having dominent females, and others taking their chance from time to time.
That being said, I can already hear your answer "but we're no monkeys !". Fine by me and fine for you if you've got values and believes you want to respect. But please don't present your normative visions as the truth, it's all I'm asking you.
HobbesMay 15, 2007 @ 14:04
That being said, I can already hear your answer "but we're no monkeys !". Fine by me and fine for you if you've got values and believes you want to respect. But please don't present your normative visions as the truth, it's all I'm asking you.
HobbesMay 15, 2007 @ 14:04
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 1
May 15, 2007 @ 12:42
... given the ferocious atheist I am!
I believe there is no God to make miracles and there's no fairies with their magic wands, nor Cupid shooting arrows.
There is only us, with our own strength, our own value (and values) and our own choices.
And if we want something bigger and better we can only build it and earn it ourselves.
Useless to look for somebody else's fault if it doesn't work.
"If you want you find ways. If you don't you find excuses".
I love you lots grandchild. Hope to see you soon.
I believe there is no God to make miracles and there's no fairies with their magic wands, nor Cupid shooting arrows.
There is only us, with our own strength, our own value (and values) and our own choices.
And if we want something bigger and better we can only build it and earn it ourselves.
Useless to look for somebody else's fault if it doesn't work.
"If you want you find ways. If you don't you find excuses".
I love you lots grandchild. Hope to see you soon.
The text you are quoting:
... given the ferocious atheist I am!
I believe there is no God to make miracles and there's no fairies with their magic wands, nor Cupid shooting arrows.
There is only us, with our own strength, our own value (and values) and our own choices.
And if we want something bigger and better we can only build it and earn it ourselves.
Useless to look for somebody else's fault if it doesn't work.
"If you want you find ways. If you don't you find excuses".
I love you lots grandchild. Hope to see you soon.
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 12:42
I believe there is no God to make miracles and there's no fairies with their magic wands, nor Cupid shooting arrows.
There is only us, with our own strength, our own value (and values) and our own choices.
And if we want something bigger and better we can only build it and earn it ourselves.
Useless to look for somebody else's fault if it doesn't work.
"If you want you find ways. If you don't you find excuses".
I love you lots grandchild. Hope to see you soon.
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 12:42
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 2
May 15, 2007 @ 14:40
You have summed it all Sarah.Our choices can make or destroy us, and only God can provide the right guidance, not only in relationships but id our daily life..
The text you are quoting:
You have summed it all Sarah.Our choices can make or destroy us, and only God can provide the right guidance, not only in relationships but id our daily life..
Molula_M, May 15, 2007 @ 14:40
Molula_M, May 15, 2007 @ 14:40
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 3
May 15, 2007 @ 14:48
If your point is that you are not interested in making it work... what are you doing here, my friend? :-)
Anyway I said: "When it involves two persons"...
I don't think building a couple is the only respectable choice in life. I'm only happy I could do it and I can experience the worth of it, but I'm equally happy for my "happily single" friends.
Last but not least...
I think we ARE monkeys, but an evolved race of monkeys with a wider range of choices than monkeys. Only... once you have chosen, you have to work for it!
Anyway I said: "When it involves two persons"...
I don't think building a couple is the only respectable choice in life. I'm only happy I could do it and I can experience the worth of it, but I'm equally happy for my "happily single" friends.
Last but not least...
I think we ARE monkeys, but an evolved race of monkeys with a wider range of choices than monkeys. Only... once you have chosen, you have to work for it!
The text you are quoting:
If your point is that you are not interested in making it work... what are you doing here, my friend? :-)
Anyway I said: "When it involves two persons"...
I don't think building a couple is the only respectable choice in life. I'm only happy I could do it and I can experience the worth of it, but I'm equally happy for my "happily single" friends.
Last but not least...
I think we ARE monkeys, but an evolved race of monkeys with a wider range of choices than monkeys. Only... once you have chosen, you have to work for it!
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 14:48
Anyway I said: "When it involves two persons"...
I don't think building a couple is the only respectable choice in life. I'm only happy I could do it and I can experience the worth of it, but I'm equally happy for my "happily single" friends.
Last but not least...
I think we ARE monkeys, but an evolved race of monkeys with a wider range of choices than monkeys. Only... once you have chosen, you have to work for it!
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 14:48
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 4
May 15, 2007 @ 14:50
You'd better move rather than wait for anybody's guidance!
The text you are quoting:
You'd better move rather than wait for anybody's guidance!
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 14:50
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 14:50
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 5
May 15, 2007 @ 14:58
I don't think human beings "were created" at all!
Useful to repeat it in these years when creationism is sometimes coming back into school books!!! ;-)
Useful to repeat it in these years when creationism is sometimes coming back into school books!!! ;-)
The text you are quoting:
I don't think human beings "were created" at all!
Useful to repeat it in these years when creationism is sometimes coming back into school books!!! ;-)
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 14:58
Useful to repeat it in these years when creationism is sometimes coming back into school books!!! ;-)
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 14:58
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 6
May 15, 2007 @ 15:39
...my answer should have appeared bellow CndSarah's one, not your beloved amd wise Granny
The text you are quoting:
...my answer should have appeared bellow CndSarah's one, not your beloved amd wise Granny
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 15:39
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 15:39
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 7
May 15, 2007 @ 15:41
And I am for once not jocking at all ! Is this website politically, ethnicaly and religiously neutral or some kind of missonary christian propaganda tool !?!
The text you are quoting:
And I am for once not jocking at all ! Is this website politically, ethnicaly and religiously neutral or some kind of missonary christian propaganda tool !?!
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 15:41
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 15:41
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 8
May 15, 2007 @ 16:03
people cannot say what they think or they beleive in. My religious view are quite far away from the ones in the message, but still, it's ONE message, stating someone's view, and not really trying to convince anyone ...
We used to have the world affairs forum and there were political views in there ...
I don't see it as propagande, where do all ur beleivies in freedom of speech go?
Ok with being neutral but that doesn't mean censorhip, or avoiding topics.
Vale.
We used to have the world affairs forum and there were political views in there ...
I don't see it as propagande, where do all ur beleivies in freedom of speech go?
Ok with being neutral but that doesn't mean censorhip, or avoiding topics.
Vale.
The text you are quoting:
people cannot say what they think or they beleive in. My religious view are quite far away from the ones in the message, but still, it's ONE message, stating someone's view, and not really trying to convince anyone ...
We used to have the world affairs forum and there were political views in there ...
I don't see it as propagande, where do all ur beleivies in freedom of speech go?
Ok with being neutral but that doesn't mean censorhip, or avoiding topics.
Vale.
Hoiling, May 15, 2007 @ 16:03
We used to have the world affairs forum and there were political views in there ...
I don't see it as propagande, where do all ur beleivies in freedom of speech go?
Ok with being neutral but that doesn't mean censorhip, or avoiding topics.
Vale.
Hoiling, May 15, 2007 @ 16:03
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 9
May 15, 2007 @ 16:26
I should have guessed buddy! :-)
The text you are quoting:
I should have guessed buddy! :-)
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 16:26
Stef__Granny, May 15, 2007 @ 16:26
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 10
May 15, 2007 @ 17:12
why is it Christian missionary propaganda? There is more than one monotheistic religion in the world.
The text you are quoting:
why is it Christian missionary propaganda? There is more than one monotheistic religion in the world.
misskate, May 15, 2007 @ 17:12
misskate, May 15, 2007 @ 17:12
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 11
May 15, 2007 @ 17:26
...looks to me as an affirmative statement. This statement clearly implies that other guidance (like friends, therapists, etc) don't have the same quality, or even no quality at all. It may then also imply that believers deal with their troubles better than others, and that non believers are "doomed" to fail. For all that, this is, to my understanding, a missionary statement.
Comparing "I'm an atheist" with "only God can provide the right guidance" doesn't make sense. "I'm an atheist" should be compared with "I believe in God", which is more than fine to me. But the equivalent to "only God can provide the right guidance" would be, for me "belivers should go and get a shrink, if they wanted real good guidance"... and I guess than most of them would feel offended by such a sentence.
For all that, I respect everyone's belief or disbelief, as long as no one pretends to be more "right" or "enlightenend" than others. That's it. Starting the sentence with "to my understanding..." or "I do believe that..." would have heavily changed my perception of it, and I wouldn't have felt it as abusive. Maybe it's what was meant I must admit. But I prefer to clarify.
Comparing "I'm an atheist" with "only God can provide the right guidance" doesn't make sense. "I'm an atheist" should be compared with "I believe in God", which is more than fine to me. But the equivalent to "only God can provide the right guidance" would be, for me "belivers should go and get a shrink, if they wanted real good guidance"... and I guess than most of them would feel offended by such a sentence.
For all that, I respect everyone's belief or disbelief, as long as no one pretends to be more "right" or "enlightenend" than others. That's it. Starting the sentence with "to my understanding..." or "I do believe that..." would have heavily changed my perception of it, and I wouldn't have felt it as abusive. Maybe it's what was meant I must admit. But I prefer to clarify.
The text you are quoting:
...looks to me as an affirmative statement. This statement clearly implies that other guidance (like friends, therapists, etc) don't have the same quality, or even no quality at all. It may then also imply that believers deal with their troubles better than others, and that non believers are "doomed" to fail. For all that, this is, to my understanding, a missionary statement.
Comparing "I'm an atheist" with "only God can provide the right guidance" doesn't make sense. "I'm an atheist" should be compared with "I believe in God", which is more than fine to me. But the equivalent to "only God can provide the right guidance" would be, for me "belivers should go and get a shrink, if they wanted real good guidance"... and I guess than most of them would feel offended by such a sentence.
For all that, I respect everyone's belief or disbelief, as long as no one pretends to be more "right" or "enlightenend" than others. That's it. Starting the sentence with "to my understanding..." or "I do believe that..." would have heavily changed my perception of it, and I wouldn't have felt it as abusive. Maybe it's what was meant I must admit. But I prefer to clarify.
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 17:26
Comparing "I'm an atheist" with "only God can provide the right guidance" doesn't make sense. "I'm an atheist" should be compared with "I believe in God", which is more than fine to me. But the equivalent to "only God can provide the right guidance" would be, for me "belivers should go and get a shrink, if they wanted real good guidance"... and I guess than most of them would feel offended by such a sentence.
For all that, I respect everyone's belief or disbelief, as long as no one pretends to be more "right" or "enlightenend" than others. That's it. Starting the sentence with "to my understanding..." or "I do believe that..." would have heavily changed my perception of it, and I wouldn't have felt it as abusive. Maybe it's what was meant I must admit. But I prefer to clarify.
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 17:26
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 12
May 15, 2007 @ 18:04
Affirmative Statement: a declaration or remark
a presentation of opinion or position
Propaganda: a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or use fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, etc etc etc
a presentation of opinion or position
Propaganda: a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or use fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, etc etc etc
The text you are quoting:
Affirmative Statement: a declaration or remark
a presentation of opinion or position
Propaganda: a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or use fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, etc etc etc
Hoiling, May 15, 2007 @ 18:04
a presentation of opinion or position
Propaganda: a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or use fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, etc etc etc
Hoiling, May 15, 2007 @ 18:04
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 13
May 15, 2007 @ 18:05
his is what I think of the above post (Hobbes post on Men are not made to be in a relationship)
From Wikipedia: Red Herring or Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.
Vale
From Wikipedia: Red Herring or Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.
Vale
The text you are quoting:
his is what I think of the above post (Hobbes post on Men are not made to be in a relationship)
From Wikipedia: Red Herring or Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.
Vale
Hoiling, May 15, 2007 @ 18:05
From Wikipedia: Red Herring or Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.
Vale
Hoiling, May 15, 2007 @ 18:05
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 14
May 15, 2007 @ 18:24
"the equivalent to "only God can provide the right guidance" would be, for me "belivers should go and get a shrink, if they wanted real good guidance"... and I guess than most of them would feel offended by such a sentence."
Agreed, if the first sentence is taken literally your sentence would be pretty much its equivalent and both to my mind would be equally contemptible in their close-mindedness and disrespect for other people's convictions. However, somehow I don't think that was what was meant by the original poster.
Agreed, if the first sentence is taken literally your sentence would be pretty much its equivalent and both to my mind would be equally contemptible in their close-mindedness and disrespect for other people's convictions. However, somehow I don't think that was what was meant by the original poster.
The text you are quoting:
"the equivalent to "only God can provide the right guidance" would be, for me "belivers should go and get a shrink, if they wanted real good guidance"... and I guess than most of them would feel offended by such a sentence."
Agreed, if the first sentence is taken literally your sentence would be pretty much its equivalent and both to my mind would be equally contemptible in their close-mindedness and disrespect for other people's convictions. However, somehow I don't think that was what was meant by the original poster.
Katri, May 15, 2007 @ 18:24
Agreed, if the first sentence is taken literally your sentence would be pretty much its equivalent and both to my mind would be equally contemptible in their close-mindedness and disrespect for other people's convictions. However, somehow I don't think that was what was meant by the original poster.
Katri, May 15, 2007 @ 18:24
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 15
May 15, 2007 @ 19:52
...this says all. And that's the end of the argument for me, which has been carried out way to far by some... to my sole individual and biaised vision ;-)
The text you are quoting:
...this says all. And that's the end of the argument for me, which has been carried out way to far by some... to my sole individual and biaised vision ;-)
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 19:52
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 19:52
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 16
May 15, 2007 @ 20:02
We could have an endless epistemologic argument about the fact that historical facts are seen through non neutral cultural eyes. But to me, the existence of Louis XVI and dynosaurs have been better demonstrated than the ones of god, Noa's arch or life after death so far. In general, science has proven itself more approriate to demonstrate the way things work - and that many religious believes were wrong - than the other way around. So I'll stick to this approach whenever any rational explanation is requested. But I'm fine with anyone prefering believes... as long as they don't tell me that the world is flat and human being were made out of mud without any proper argument to demonstrate it.
The text you are quoting:
We could have an endless epistemologic argument about the fact that historical facts are seen through non neutral cultural eyes. But to me, the existence of Louis XVI and dynosaurs have been better demonstrated than the ones of god, Noa's arch or life after death so far. In general, science has proven itself more approriate to demonstrate the way things work - and that many religious believes were wrong - than the other way around. So I'll stick to this approach whenever any rational explanation is requested. But I'm fine with anyone prefering believes... as long as they don't tell me that the world is flat and human being were made out of mud without any proper argument to demonstrate it.
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 20:02
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 20:02
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 17
May 15, 2007 @ 20:04
"only psychologist can provide the right guidance". Better ?
And for your last point... I said it before you. Cool down your horses girls !
And for your last point... I said it before you. Cool down your horses girls !
The text you are quoting:
"only psychologist can provide the right guidance". Better ?
And for your last point... I said it before you. Cool down your horses girls !
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 20:04
And for your last point... I said it before you. Cool down your horses girls !
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 20:04
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 18
May 15, 2007 @ 20:10
Yet from history you can only see how things have been; this doesn't tell you how they SHOULD be. Like existence of Louis XIV you can prove the existence of marriage, polygamy, monogamy, cheating... but cannot say anything about whether these are moral, good, bad or the like.
Yet what you refer to as scientific facts are in fact to a large part hypotheses that may be contested with counter-hypotheses. Yes, I believe in science, too, but not in its infallibility or even necessarily always neutrality, at least not when we start to talk about what men were like as monkeys before the dawn of civilization... there's not as much documentation as of modern times so our knowledge has to be based to a certain extent on educated guessing.
Yet what you refer to as scientific facts are in fact to a large part hypotheses that may be contested with counter-hypotheses. Yes, I believe in science, too, but not in its infallibility or even necessarily always neutrality, at least not when we start to talk about what men were like as monkeys before the dawn of civilization... there's not as much documentation as of modern times so our knowledge has to be based to a certain extent on educated guessing.
The text you are quoting:
Yet from history you can only see how things have been; this doesn't tell you how they SHOULD be. Like existence of Louis XIV you can prove the existence of marriage, polygamy, monogamy, cheating... but cannot say anything about whether these are moral, good, bad or the like.
Yet what you refer to as scientific facts are in fact to a large part hypotheses that may be contested with counter-hypotheses. Yes, I believe in science, too, but not in its infallibility or even necessarily always neutrality, at least not when we start to talk about what men were like as monkeys before the dawn of civilization... there's not as much documentation as of modern times so our knowledge has to be based to a certain extent on educated guessing.
Katri, May 15, 2007 @ 20:10
Yet what you refer to as scientific facts are in fact to a large part hypotheses that may be contested with counter-hypotheses. Yes, I believe in science, too, but not in its infallibility or even necessarily always neutrality, at least not when we start to talk about what men were like as monkeys before the dawn of civilization... there's not as much documentation as of modern times so our knowledge has to be based to a certain extent on educated guessing.
Katri, May 15, 2007 @ 20:10
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 19
May 15, 2007 @ 20:12
...and the one used by self proclaimed believers, I'm wondering where love and respect of others lies most ? :-S
The text you are quoting:
...and the one used by self proclaimed believers, I'm wondering where love and respect of others lies most ? :-S
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 20:12
Hobbes, May 15, 2007 @ 20:12
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 20
May 15, 2007 @ 20:49
We deleted some messages on this thread cos they started going into God and Religion, and starting to get hot.
Stay cool (and on topic) guys...
Thanks.
Stay cool (and on topic) guys...
Thanks.
The text you are quoting:
We deleted some messages on this thread cos they started going into God and Religion, and starting to get hot.
Stay cool (and on topic) guys...
Thanks.
Nir Ofek, May 15, 2007 @ 20:49
Stay cool (and on topic) guys...
Thanks.
Nir Ofek, May 15, 2007 @ 20:49
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 21
May 16, 2007 @ 18:10
(And far away from me the idea of being polemical. If I am myself an atheist, I don't think that religious beliefs are uncompatible with the practice of science)
The text you are quoting:
(And far away from me the idea of being polemical. If I am myself an atheist, I don't think that religious beliefs are uncompatible with the practice of science)
Syd_Brown, May 16, 2007 @ 18:10
Syd_Brown, May 16, 2007 @ 18:10
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 22
May 16, 2007 @ 18:13
But under Granny's "By the way" post. Me monkey should go back up me tree.
Syd
Syd
The text you are quoting:
But under Granny's "By the way" post. Me monkey should go back up me tree.
Syd
Syd_Brown, May 16, 2007 @ 18:13
Syd
Syd_Brown, May 16, 2007 @ 18:13
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 23
May 16, 2007 @ 20:45
weolcome in the pack
Only members can see names and photos
Re: In don't think human being were created to live in couples
Post 24
May 21, 2007 @ 15:33
one thing i ve been thinking of, in the end, when faced with a potential partner, one may get more attracted to someone who is sth like a soulmate even if it implies that he/she shares some of one's character features that are not so compatible with building a stable relationship. this person may just "click" with you but there might be no future whatsoever together. Then, at times, you meet people who complement your downsides and that u complement personnally as well. in my case, i have happened to find it less exciting but i have to admit that i feel it has more potential to go in the right direction. i could not even say what is more fulfilling in the end. does on choose the easy way when choosing the impossible "twin"? what, the future husband or the soulmate? hopefully, u guys have found both in one.
The text you are quoting:
one thing i ve been thinking of, in the end, when faced with a potential partner, one may get more attracted to someone who is sth like a soulmate even if it implies that he/she shares some of one's character features that are not so compatible with building a stable relationship. this person may just "click" with you but there might be no future whatsoever together. Then, at times, you meet people who complement your downsides and that u complement personnally as well. in my case, i have happened to find it less exciting but i have to admit that i feel it has more potential to go in the right direction. i could not even say what is more fulfilling in the end. does on choose the easy way when choosing the impossible "twin"? what, the future husband or the soulmate? hopefully, u guys have found both in one.
videlme, May 21, 2007 @ 15:33
videlme, May 21, 2007 @ 15:33
Your Reply:
