Should married people be allowed to sleep with other people?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
http://www.answers.com/topic/love

I can't see that phrase as a definition on there. I can see words from that phrase used, as I've already stated.

No.
Unless you want to have HIV or herpes.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
No.
Unless you want to have HIV or herpes.

😕

Apparently a wedding ring dispels such things.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I can't see that phrase as a definition on there. I can see words from that phrase used, as I've already stated.

"affectionate emotional response" = "A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection"

"affectionate emotional response" = "A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person"

"affectionate emotional response" = "intense emotional attachment"

I would say, they all pretty much mean the same thing.

Love is, an emotion. It is affectionate. It is a response to someone. Thus, love is an affectionate emotional response. However, the degree of the affection can differ.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
"affectionate emotional response" = "A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection"

"affectionate emotional response" = "A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person"

"affectionate emotional response" = "intense emotional attachment"

I would say, they all pretty much mean the same thing.

Love is, an emotion. It is affectionate. It is a response to someone. Thus, love is an affectionate emotional response. However, the degree of the affection can differ.

You're missing my point completely. I wasn't arguing that such words weren't used in any definition, that would be silly.

Firstly, I was arguing that a definition of such a thing that differs depending on the individual is pointless. I also think it's rather arrogant to assume that your definition is a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

Secondly, my argument about the actual definition wasn't that those words need not be included, but that it is not a definition worthy of a credible source. For a start, the whole 'response' bit is completely needless - should a definition make clear what is a response to external stimuli and what isn't? Only in cases where it's needed, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
...I also think it's rather arrogant to assume that your definition...

With that sentence you lost the right to talk to me for the remainder of this thread.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
With that sentence you lost the right to talk to me for the remainder of this thread.

You realise I wasn't talking about you right?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You realise I wasn't talking about you right?

Ahh, apologies- I tend to switch off to people who call others arrogant or obstinate without warrant.

I suspect that Aster does not see love as a real thing but rather a learned behaviour with its basis in biology.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ahh, apologies- I tend to switch off to people who call others arrogant or obstinate without warrant.

I suspect that Aster does not see love as a real thing but rather a learned behaviour with its basis in biology.

That's quite alright, I see how it can have been taken that way. I should have probably phrased it differently.

Yes, perhaps Aster does feel that way - though he's very unwilling to actually give his own definition apart from a phrase that's rather lackluster. I also think the learned behaviour would be rather pointless in a biological sense, certainly from an evolutionary biology standpoint.

But whatever the case, I was mainly arguing of his point of language and how phrases can/should be understood.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I suspect that Aster does not see love as a real thing but rather a learned behaviour with its basis in biology.

Which wouldn't really make it less real.

I've had time to actually go and have sex and you guys are still on about this?

Take into account different time zones and also that not everyone goes by your scheme (something that you seem to fail at accepting).

Funny how you accuse others of trolling, as well.

I'm not but I answered the question and yet hours later you guys are still arguing over the answer.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I'm not but I answered the question and yet hours later you guys are still arguing over the answer.

Hint: your answer wasn't very good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hint: your answer wasn't very good.

Thats subjective.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Thats subjective.

In this case, not really, it's breached the bounds of logic and become an objective fact. Even if it were still subjective that would explain what has so terribly confused you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In this case, not really, it's breached the bounds of logic and become an objective fact. Even if it were still subjective that would explain what has so terribly confused you.

Nothing has confused me.

whats all this scientific talk?...umm their are such things as milfs...lol...im just blessed cause my old lady doesnt like people...LMAO!!! she doesnt even like me but she loves me so Im special....but back to the milf thing.............

has anybody seen that porn series 'screw my wife'? it's pretty great stuff. i saw an episode at my friends house and the wife's fantasy was to go on this show and get done by multiple guys, and as she's taking it in every hole from random porn stars her husbands just standing there nodding like "yep... this is fine..."

he even held her hand as she was being pounded at one point. it was beautiful.

personally i dont get it.. if i cared about a girl i wouldnt want other guys using her like a ****toy.. but shit maybe im just old fashioned. i guess if other people want to have a marriage without the inconvience of fidelity then that's on them.

as others have said i think the real solution is to just do away with legal marriage hence avoiding all of the decisions about which types are acceptable. that way gold diggers would have to get knocked up to steal rich guys' money. no excuse for allowing half assed gold diggers.