Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Monogamy? (was Re: PCUSA report on human sexuality) Message-ID: Date: 23 May 91 00:49:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA Lines: 27 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article The Moderator wrote: >[I make no assumption about levels of promiscuity among homosexuals or >hetersexuals. Indeed all of the homosexuals that I have known >anything about (and it isn't a large number) were living in long-term >monogamous relationships. ... I'm not trying to start a linquistic war here, but isn't it better to use monandrous (one-man) than monogamous (one-woman) to describe homosexual relationships? Or would it be better still to just say one-with-one and ignore the sex-of-the-partner implication? Or has it become common practice to ignore the root meaning of monogamous and use it for all one-with-one relationships? Note: I'm not trying to make a statement here both for or against the PCUSA report. (Although I AM against -- in fact I, an ordained elder, left the PCUSA partially over this issue and partially over its misuse of mission funds.) I'm just trying to understand the appropriate wording. Tim -- Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509) [My impression is that monogamous is now used symmetrically. Technically of course polygamy and polyandry are separate things, but I believe calling a marriage monogamous implies to most people only one husband and one wife. --clh]