|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2007 : 18:44:17 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, my statement about Roma and Sparta were is response to this quote:
"You are horribly mistaken. In the absence of formal law, its predecessor, social conventions and norms, rears its – often ugly – head. Gay couples would most certainly not be treated equally if heretosexual couples had no access to legal civil unions."
The point I was making is that it is not certain what the outcome would be, as societies differ often. I was not making a direct comparison.
I think that most of the rights afforded to a married couple have to do with property rights. As such I think that if the state did not establish property rights to certain qualifing peoples we would not need state sponsored marriage. This would allow for right of property to reside with those in possession of said property. The state would only need to interfere in the case of fraud or force.
The point of the rhetorical questions were that there are many examples were people act badly towards others based on the "rights" given to them under law.
We have seen a steady decline of human freedom. Advances in science and medicine give us the quality of life we enjoy.
Your personal situation goes to my point. You admit that the state allows your husband to drive despite his inability to do so safely. I am arguing that the state should restrict people who are proven to not drive safely. You said the current standard the state applies does not stop unsafe drivers anyway.
I believe under the circumstance you describe with a roommate, that most people would freely make sure the possessions of the deceased when to the next of kin. If they chose to keep any property the law probably would not be able to prevent this anyway.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:24:29 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: I think that most of the rights afforded to a married couple have to do with property rights. As such I think that if the state did not establish property rights to certain qualifing peoples we would not need state sponsored marriage. This would allow for right of property to reside with those in possession of said property.
...
I believe under the circumstance you describe with a roommate, that most people would freely make sure the possessions of the deceased when to the next of kin. If they chose to keep any property the law probably would not be able to prevent this anyway.
|
So my roomate, not my parents, would have got my stuff 5 years ago, and unless he decided to give it all up to them freely, there is nothing my parents could have done about it. Got it.
| The point of the rhetorical questions were that there are many examples were people act badly towards others based on the "rights" given to them under law. |
And the point of my anecdotal answers was that there are many examples in which people act better toward others based on laws.
| We have seen a steady decline of human freedom. Advances in science and medicine give us the quality of life we enjoy. |
What utter bullshit. People in modern societies today have more social mobility than in centuries passed. They have more freedom of lifestyle. Slavery is abolished. Serfdom is long ended. And half the population (women) that used to be an underclass with many less rights than their counterparts are now regarded as equal. To say things are prefect would be false, but to say that we've seen a steady increase in human freedom with the advent and development of the modern world would be absolutely true. As a person who happens to have two X chromosomes, I'm incredibly thankful that I was born in this time, and not centuries or even decades passed. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/06/2007 08:25:07 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:32:27 [Permalink]
|
Marfknow, you said "Serfdom is long ended". Do you know how much of labor was due during sefdom? Have you compared this to the current amount of labor required of the modern worker?
Marfknox, you said "Slavery is abolished". Slavery is practiced around the world still today.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:34:59 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | We have seen a steady decline of human freedom. Advances in science and medicine give us the quality of life we enjoy. |
Something else I'd like to say about this, bringing it back to the original topic of same-sex marriage. The religious right is wrong when they argue that homosexuality today in America is new or more prevalent than it has been in the passed or in other human cultures. But what is new is the concept of long-term gay partnerships between social equals, gay couples being mainstreamed, and gay couples openly living together and raising children. These are huge freedoms of lifestyle that are only possible today because of a growing social tolerance, but the stage for that tolerance was set by love-based heterosexual marriages that were a fairly new and rare concept during the birth of the USA. Equal rights for women protected by law and formal social policies - the right to vote, no-fault divorce, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action have all played a role in helping gay rights because for gay relationships to be accepted, people need to let go of their preconceptions of male and female roles. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:46:35 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Slavery is practiced around the world still today. |
In the context of talking about slavery, I wrote: | People in modern societies today... |
| Do you know how much of labor was due during sefdom? Have you compared this to the current amount of labor required of the modern worker? |
Have you? If you posess such knowledge, please present it or shut up.
Did serfs have any opportunity for social mobility? Even the poorest people today in the modern world have at least have some chance of that - serfs had none. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/06/2007 08:47:13 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:50:38 [Permalink]
|
| Jerome, on the gay marriage issue and other social issues, you are an extremist. You think that the social norms and customs are entirely divorced from the law, and that the law is purely imposed on society. I would argue that social norms affect laws, but laws also affect social norms. The two influence each other because the two are both run by people within that society who are trying to get society to run the way they think works best. We all do it to some degree. We're doing it right now by having this conversation! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/06/2007 08:50:51 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 17:44:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The availability of SSM may encourage more adults to divorce their opposite-sex spouse and marry a person of the same sex. Divorce is known to have at least a temporary negative effect on children. So they would be harmed by their parents' divorce. Clear example of the fallacy of attributing causality due to correlation. Do any of these assholes every wonder why and how divorce harms children? If the divorce was caused by daddy hitting mommy, obviously staying married wouldn't have fixed a damn thing. It may very well be that the reason kids with divorced parents tend to fair more poorly than other children is because the kind of people who end up getting divorced also tend to be less fit parents. (And how insulting is this to parents who divorce responsibly and amicably, and whose children turn out perfectly well-adjusted, productive, and healthy members of society? Individuals aren't fucking statistics.) Pressuring people to stay married won't make people better parents, nor will it make a gay man or lesbian any less homosexual. |
Even if children turn out to be healthy and adjusted after their parents divorce there is no doubt that they had some issues during and after the divorce. Statistics bear out that there is a good chance that your parents divorced. If so, I doubt that it had no effect on you. In my case my parents divorced when I was 13. They just said that they did not love each other and could not stay married. They did not hit each other, were not mean to each other, no one was cheating and in fact I only heard them fight once. I had many problems in school and in life in general because of their divorce. Your claim that parents that get divorced are more likely to be "bad parents" anyway insults all parents whose divorces are amicable and result in children with problems. It is not only the parents in a divorce that cause problems for children it is the divorce itself. I have never met a person whose parents divorced that did not at one time or another have problems with it.
Children raised in families led by same-sex parents would be continually exposed to homosexuality. They may choose to become gay or lesbian at a higher rate than those raised by a father and mother.
Men and women have very different personalities, brain structure, talents, etc. They are designed to fit into very different roles within the family.
In order for children to be properly socialized, they need to be brought up by both a father and a mother. The long range effects on children who are brought up by two women or two men are unknown and can only be speculated upon
God may punish same-sex parents. This might adversely affect the children in their family.
God may also punish the nation as a whole if SSM is legalized. That would harm all children in the nation. See above.
Children of same-sex couples will be exposed to a great deal of ridicule and hatred by their fellow students. This could negatively affect their development.
Past changes in the family law have had unexpected adverse effects on society. "Legislative actions taken in the 1950's and 1960's in areas as widely arrayed as domestic relations law and welfare legislation have had significant unintended adverse consequences in subsequent decades including the dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock, and the destabilization of the institution of marriage." 6 No-fault divorce has been credited by some as causing a drastic increase in marital breakdown and subsequent divorce. In a |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
| Edited by - Robb on 06/06/2007 17:54:31 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 20:19:26 [Permalink]
|
| Statistics bear out that there is a good chance that your parents divorced. If so, I doubt that it had no effect on you. |
My parents never divorced.
| In my case my parents divorced when I was 13. They just said that they did not love each other and could not stay married. They did not hit each other, were not mean to each other, no one was cheating and in fact I only heard them fight once. I had many problems in school and in life in general because of their divorce. |
I appreciate your sharing such a personal story. It is rather similar to the story of my Uncle J's divorce from his first wife. They had two kids together, and after 11 years of marriage simply came to the realization that they were not happy, did not love each other that way anymore, and wanted to be apart. I would not deny that this decision on their part probably caused some pain and suffering on the part of their kids, but they handled their divorce incredibly maturely, and today their adult children have fulfilling careers and beautiful families of their own. And my Uncle J went on to marry my Aunt M, and have two more great kids, and today they are happily married. I understand that divorce causes pain for kids, but people don't turn into slaves to their children when they become parents. I very much believe in the right to the pursuit of happiness. Some couples don't try hard enough to stay together, but most with children really do make an effort, and if it isn't working, it isn't working. It isn't anyone's fault, it just is.
I would say the responsibility of a parent in a divorce is to treat their partner with respect and kindness, and to be always attentive to what they say and how they act toward the children while it is going on. The responsibility is NOT to stay in a marriage that makes one or both parents miserable.
| Your claim that parents that get divorced are more likely to be "bad parents" anyway insults all parents whose divorces are amicable and result in children with problems. |
Whoa – do NOT twist my words. I wrote (with emphasis in bold):
| It may very well be that the reason kids with divorced parents tend to fair more poorly than other children is because the kind of people who end up getting divorced also tend to be less fit parents. (And how insulting is this to parents who divorce responsibly and amicably, and whose children turn out perfectly well-adjusted, productive, and healthy members of society? Individuals aren't fucking statistics.) |
My point was that they were making an inappropriate interpretation of a statistic that in fact required more information to make with confidence.
| It is not only the parents in a divorce that cause problems for children it is the divorce itself. I have never met a person whose parents divorced that did not at one time or another have problems with it. |
Um, OK, but are you inclu |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 22:59:22 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
"The amount of serfdom required varied, for example in Poland in the 13th century it was few days a year; in the 14th century, one day per week; four days per week in the 17th century and six days per week in the 18th century, and early serfdom was most limited on the royal territories"
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/93.htm
"Americans will work longer to pay for government (120 days) than they will for food, clothing and housing combined (105 days)."
Serf any were from 5 days a year expanding over time to 300 days a year.
Current average American works 120 days a year to pay tax.
This number is derived from total income of Americans and taxes collected. This number of days is skewed by the fact of graduated income tax and the extreme high end income earners; thus making the number of days greater than 120 for the middle class worker.
The question becomes at what number of days do the serfs stop the system?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 03:36:33 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: "The amount of serfdom required varied, for example in Poland in the 13th century it was few days a year; in the 14th century, one day per week; four days per week in the 17th century and six days per week in the 18th century, and early serfdom was most limited on the royal territories"
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/93.htm
"Americans will work longer to pay for government (120 days) than they will for food, clothing and housing combined (105 days)."
Serf any were from 5 days a year expanding over time to 300 days a year.
Current average American works 120 days a year to pay tax.
This number is derived from total income of Americans and taxes collected. This number of days is skewed by the fact of graduated income tax and the extreme high end income earners; thus making the number of days greater than 120 for the middle class worker.
The question becomes at what number of days do the serfs stop the system? |
Wow, could this analysis be any more superficial?
First, the comparison does not take into account that in modern times, people under the poverty line pay no income tax and receive all the same services and more. And under a progressive tax, those who make the highest amount of money pay the highest tax, so those who are, as you say "working to pay for government" the most are the ones with the greatest luxuries and most income. Sounds pretty damn fair to me.
Next, four days a week is 208 days a year. Six days a week is 312 days a year. So in both the 17th and 18th centuries, serfs were working a heck of a lot more days "for the government" than a middle class worker. And a modern day middle class worker has more freedom of mobility and lifestyle.
Serfs were certainly less free than people today in modernized societies. So exactly when did this supposed trend of decreasing freedom begin?
I notice that again you failed to address several of my other points, including that at least in the modernized world (most of which is more socialist than the USA) women have far more freedom than in decades passed, and certainly a lot more than in centuries passed, slavery is abolished, and people have greater social mobility as well as geographic mobility. Oh, here's another: the death penalty today is only used sparingly by modernized states, but just over 200 years ago they were still hanging witches in the USA and Britain, and capital punishment was much more common for much lesser offenses. Is this not another increase in our freedom? Today's system is a far far superior and fairer economic system/power structure when compared to serfdom.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 07:43:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I understand that divorce causes pain for kids, but people don't turn into slaves to their children when they become parents. I very much believe in the right to the pursuit of happiness. Some couples don't try hard enough to stay together, but most with children really do make an effort, and if it isn't working, it isn't working. It isn't anyone's fault, it just is. |
I believe this is a cop out and one reason why the divorce rate is so high. It is someone's fault. Aren't the parents adults (most of the time). I find it hard to believe that two adults cannot reconcile their differences if they wish to and I think their kids is a good enough reason to want to. There was a reason they got married in the first place. It is the adult's responsibility to work it out and find a way to stay married (unless some kind of abuse is going on).
| I would say the responsibility of a parent in a divorce is to treat their partner with respect and kindness, and to be always attentive to what they say and how they act toward the children while it is going on. The responsibility is NOT to stay in a marriage that makes one or both parents miserable. |
I disagree. It is the parent's responsibility to to stay married.
| Your claim that parents that get divorced are more likely to be "bad parents" anyway insults all parents whose divorces are amicable and result in children with problems. |
Whoa – do NOT twist my words. I wrote (with emphasis in bold):
| It may very well be that the reason kids with divorced parents tend to fair more poorly than other children is because the kind of people who end up getting divorced also tend to be less fit parents. (And how insulting is this to parents who divorce responsibly and amicably, and whose children turn out perfectly well-adjusted, productive, and healthy members of society? Individuals aren't fucking statistics.) |
My point was that they were making an inappropriate interpretation of a statistic that in fact required more information to make with confidence. |
OK, I do not want to change your words. I see what you are saying.
| Um, OK, but are you including ANY kinds of problems? I mean, I have never met a person who didn't have issues with their parents, period. One of my girlfriends in HS threw herself at men because her parents were incredibly unaffectionate and no longer slept in the same room or seemed to love each other at all. They were probably only staying together out of habit or for the sake of the kids. One of the runners on the track team had a dad who put way too much pressure on her to be competitive, and as a result she became anemic. He was just doing what he thought |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 08:10:13 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | I believe this is a cop out and one reason why the divorce rate is so high. It is someone's fault. Aren't the parents adults (most of the time). I find it hard to believe that two adults cannot reconcile their differences if they wish to and I think their kids is a good enough reason to want to. There was a reason they got married in the first place. It is the adult's responsibility to work it out and find a way to stay married (unless some kind of abuse is going on). |
We're just going to have to agree to disagree then. I know far too many people who are happily married for the second time, or happily divorced. Divorce may be hard on kids, but it does not ruin them. Lots of things are hard, such as poverty, illness, deaths of loved-ones. I really do see divorce as one of those things that isn't always preventable, at least without causing even more harm.
| Yes, but to many tolerance is becoming the same as acceptance. |
Yeah, those people are jerks (or monists as my friend calls them, opposed to being pluralists) – the majority trying to push their lifestyle on the minorities. I've met people who would have Amish communities occupied and then forcibly dismantled by law enforcement. People who think that way always stop as soon as they are a minority.
Thankfully, I think the mainstream culture in America today actually supports real pluralism.
| I like to think of it as a Christian lifestyle. Are you referring to conservative as political ideology or adherence to the Bible? |
Small “c” conservative, as in taking a conservative theology, or if you please, adherence to the Bible. Nothin' to do with politics per say. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/07/2007 08:12:55 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 08:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I believe this is a cop out and one reason why the divorce rate is so high. It is someone's fault. Aren't the parents adults (most of the time). I find it hard to believe that two adults cannot reconcile their differences if they wish to and I think their kids is a good enough reason to want to. There was a reason they got married in the first place. It is the adult's responsibility to work it out and find a way to stay married (unless some kind of abuse is going on). |
As a divorcee, I find this to be an awfully naive way of looking at marriage and divorce.
My ex-wife and I are on amicable terms, and our daughter is the benefit of this. If more people would act like adults and divorce on civil or amicable terms, there wouldn't be as near many problems with children involved.
Is divorce a good thing? No. But neither is raising kids in a failed marriage. That's just the way it is in reality.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 10:18:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by marfknox
The availability of SSM may encourage more adults to divorce their opposite-sex spouse and marry a person of the same sex. Divorce is known to have at least a temporary negative effect on children. So they would be harmed by their parents' divorce. Clear example of the fallacy of attributing causality due to correlation. Do any of these assholes every wonder why and how divorce harms children? If the divorce was caused by daddy hitting mommy, obviously staying married wouldn't have fixed a damn thing. It may very well be that the reason kids with divorced parents tend to fair more poorly than other children is because the kind of people who end up getting divorced also tend to be less fit parents. (And how insulting is this to parents who divorce responsibly and amicably, and whose children turn out perfectly well-adjusted, productive, and healthy members of society? Individuals aren't fucking statistics.) Pressuring people to stay married won't make people better parents, nor will it make a gay man or lesbian any less homosexual. |
Even if children turn out to be healthy and adjusted after their parents divorce there is no doubt that they had some issues during and after the divorce. Statistics bear out that there is a good chance that your parents divorced. If so, I doubt that it had no effect on you. In my case my parents divorced when I was 13. They just said that they did not love each other and could not stay married. They did not hit each other, were not mean to each other, no one was cheating and in fact I only heard them fight once. I had many problems in school and in life in general because of their divorce. Your claim that parents that get divorced are more likely to be "bad parents" anyway insults all parents whose divorces are amicable and result in children with problems. It is not only the parents in a divorce that cause problems for children it is the divorce itself. I have never met a person whose parents divorced that did not at one time or another have problems with it.
|
On the other hand, when people force themselves to be together, it's just as harmful - so it's a matter of the lesser of two evils. My Aunt S., for instance, has no self-esteem and hates herself; her husband is not abusive (on a physical sense; one might say he is psychologically abusive), he clearly doesn't love her. The result is that she turned her three kids into wrecks (one died out of negligence, another was never able to get a job - and she's 40, the other doesn't speak with her parents). An early divorce could have fixed that, but that was not the case. She is married for over 40 years and thoroughly unhappy.
Being daughter of a single mother, twice divorced (well, mom never married in the first place; just lived together), in a third world country, who happens to be FAR more successful than the norm, regardless of whether I have one or two people educating me, I tend to disagree with your following posts. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 06/07/2007 10:25:21 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 10:46:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by marfknox
The availability of SSM may encourage more adults to divorce their opposite-sex spouse and marry a person of the same sex. Divorce is known to have at least a temporary negative effect on children. So they would be harmed by their parents' divorce. Clear example of the fallacy of attributing causality due to correlation. Do any of these assholes every wonder why and how divorce harms children? If the divorce was caused by daddy hitting mommy, obviously staying married wouldn't have fixed a damn thing. It may very well be that the reason kids with divorced parents tend to fair more poorly than other children is because the kind of people who end up getting divorced also tend to be less fit parents. (And how insulting is this to parents who divorce responsibly and amicably, and whose children turn out perfectly well-adjusted, productive, and healthy members of society? Individuals aren't fucking statistics.) Pressuring people to stay married won't make people better parents, nor will it make a gay man or lesbian any less homosexual. |
Even if children turn out to be healthy and adjusted after their parents divorce there is no doubt that they had some issues during and after the divorce. Statistics bear out that there is a good chance that your parents divorced. If so, I doubt that it had no effect on you. In my case my parents divorced when I was 13. They just said that they did not love each other and could not stay married. They did not hit each other, were not mean to each other, no one was cheating and in fact I only heard them fight once. I had many problems in school and in life in general because of their divorce. Your claim that parents that get divorced are more likely to be "bad parents" anyway insults all parents whose divorces are amicable and result in children with problems. It is not only the parents in a divorce that cause problems for children it is the divorce itself. I have never met a person whose parents divorced that did not at one time or another have problems with it.
|
On the other hand, when people force themselves to be together, it's just as harmful - so it's a matter of the lesser of two evils. My Aunt S., for instance, has no self-esteem and hates herself; her husband is not abusive (on a physical sense; one might say he is psychologically abusive), he clearly doesn't love her. The result is that she turned her three kids into wrecks (one died out of negligence, another was never able to get a job - and she's 40, the other doesn't speak with her parents). An early divorce could have fixed that, but that was not the case. She is married for over 40 years and thoroughly unhappy.
Being daughter of a single mother, twice divorced (well, mom never married in the first place; just lived together), in a third world country, who happens to be FAR more successful than the norm, regardless of whether I have one or two people educating me, I tend to disagree with your following posts.
|
I was not trying to say that the parents only have a responsibility to stay married but to stay married and cultivate a loving relationship and create a stable family for the children. If people are j |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Same-sex Marriage
Topic Locked
