Jump to content

First Cousin Relationships/Marriage


epicmemesbro

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Deadpool you realize a lot of us here have fairly terrible love lives right? You're pretty much asking the worse group of people for advise. 

 

The heart wants what it wants, follow that dude

How can my love life be terrible? I date a lot of people. If you call one night stands dates, and I don't see them after that night. My love life is great.

 

TBH, I still do dating better than most people here anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that this isn't the best site for getting this type of advice (considering the theme of it) but I lacked any options.

 

Its starting to become a point to where I dream about her the same day I see her...

I wonder if I do have a thing for my cousins.... When I was a kid I had a crush on another cousins and people found out that someone in my family did but didn't know it was me. I got over that though a looooong time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One true love does and has existed for certain people

It may exist superficially, but there is always more than 1 person out there in the world for those of us that are romantically inclined. If there were only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover, then they would most likely never meet them. Statistics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may exist superficially, but there is always more than 1 person out there in the world for those of us that are romantically inclined. If there were only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover, then they would most likely never meet them. Statistics!

 

Since one true love is derived from the perspective of fate, any two people who aren't fated to meet would be disqualified from being fated as lovers from the outset. Gnostics do not concern themselves with probabilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since one true love is derived from the perspective of fate, any two people who aren't fated to meet would be disqualified from being fated as lovers from the outset. Gnostics do not concern themselves with probabilities. 

Wouldn't this mean many many people don't have a one true love, then? Isn't that a terribly depressing idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Wouldn't this mean many many people don't have a one true love, then? Isn't that a terribly depressing idea?

 

Nah. It just means the pairings are concentrated amongst people who've crossed paths, there can still be just as many pairings as if they were randomly assigned between people across the world who "would most likely never meet", the difference is the pairings would have meaning because the one true lovers can actually fall in one true love with one another. 

 

If there were only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover, then they would most likely never meet them.

 

*This* is a terribly depressing idea. Luckily, it's fallacious, because if the "only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover" in question never meets the "someone" in question, then that "only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover" actually couldn't love that "someone" in question in the first place and they're not the one to begin with. If the aforementioned "someone" does have a one true love, their one true love will be drawn from the pool of people they cross paths with. A one true love you never meet is a one non-existent love, thus defeating the purpose.  

 

Hope that clarifies this, it's basically just a logical prerequisite thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Nah. It just means the pairings are concentrated amongst people who've crossed paths, there can still be just as many pairings as if they were randomly assigned between people across the world who "would most likely never meet", the difference is the pairings would have meaning because the one true lovers can actually fall in one true love with one another. 

 

 

*This* is a terribly depressing idea. Luckily, it's fallacious, because if the "only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover" in question never meets the "someone" in question, then that "only 1 person in the whole world who could be someone's lover" actually couldn't love that "someone" in question in the first place and they're not the one to begin with. If the aforementioned "someone" does have a one true love, their one true love will be drawn from the pool of people they cross paths with. A one true love you never meet is a one non-existent love, thus defeating the purpose.  

 

Hope that clarifies this, it's basically just a logical prerequisite thing. 

 

 

Yes, it is fallacious, but not for the reason you stated. I was talking about potential love; about similar personalities; about having a high "match %" with them. These things exist with or without love ever actually happening.

 

it is fallacious though, because it is simply not true that any person has one person out there that they could - potentially - fall in love with. Arguments from fate are unfalsifiable: "it happened, therefore it was always going to happen" cannot be tested, and it therefore loses meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all you scrubs going on and on about "one true loves" and "finding your soulmate" and sheet while i'm just here being polyamorus

 

tbh if you wanna talk strictly romantic relationships/marriage, i say who the funk cares if it's your cousin as long as it's genuine

 

if you wanna talk potential childbirth then that's something that requires a little more looking at due to the whole gene pool issue but as a general guideline i'd stay away just in case

no reason to put effort into making a life just for that life to suffer more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments from fate are unfalsifiable: "it happened, therefore it was always going to happen" cannot be tested, and it therefore loses meaning.

 

Fate doesn't argue, fate dictates.  

 

it is fallacious though, because it is simply not true that any person has one person out there that they could - potentially - fall in love with.

 

Here you violate your own epistemological criterion. Not that I mind (please do!), though I still happen to think you're wrong because there are countless examples of couples who've lived and died with their romantic interests vested exclusively in one another, and the reason for that is because of how ingrained belief in the symbolic importance of monogamy was.

 

 

I was talking about potential love; about similar personalities;

 

Others hold that "opposites attract".

 

about having a high "match %" with them.

 

What is this, eHarmony? 

 

 

These things exist with or without love ever actually happening.

 

Another breach in your reverence towards falsifiable knowledge. Very good, keep 'em coming. 

 

all you scrubs going on and on about "one true loves" and "finding your soulmate" and s*** while i'm just here being polyamorus

 

Your disposition towards polyamory does not a universal norm of it make. I too am polyamorous and so celebrated it that my name here was actually "~ P O L Y A M O R Y ~" at one point. That polyamory wasn't meant for everyone is, to me, a part of what makes it as gloriously self-affirming as it is. Just as others experience the same affirmation through loving and being loved by one person exclusively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you have 0 knowledge of what he was saying.

If I'm correct in how I interpreted it.

Which would be "Love is pure but people are not" kinda idea.

If I had no knowledge then I wouldn't say what I said.

 

You do have a tendency to wildly and zealously defend mindlessly enough that you would speak before any thought, so you ought to think about what is behind my words (I might have not spoken to you about this though, but you should note some repeated complaints about this). Romance is a western bastion of love and not a fair representation of love as it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had no knowledge then I wouldn't say what I said.

 

You do have a tendency to wildly and zealously defend mindlessly enough that you would speak before any thought, so you ought to think about what is behind my words (I might have not spoken to you about this though, but you should note some repeated complaints about this). Romance is a western bastion of love and not a fair representation of love as it really is.

I'm concerned if you believe that to be zealous. It's kinda funny, but you say I ought to think about what is behind your words, and yet, you jumped on them about not knowing what love is, when he didn't even bring up love directly. Sounds a bit like jumping the gun, but that's fine, everyone makes mistakes.

Like I could be mistaken with how I interpreted it, no reason to continue without their input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...