the same person who always does. And your inner child seems to have given you the slip. :shocked:
Also, you're still dead wrong on nearly every point related to the OP and for the reasons given.
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Also, you're still dead wrong on nearly every point related to the OP and for the reasons given.
is there only one person taking care of your child?
At a time? Sure.
And you're still not disciplining your interior toddler.
And you're dead wrong on the foundational principle of marriage to boot, for the reasons previously set out.
So that's bad.
lain:
You didn't answer the question.
At a time? Sure.
And you're still not disciplining your interior toddler.
And you're dead wrong on the foundational principle of marriage to boot, for the reasons previously set out.
So that's bad.
does the person taking care of your child have another job besides that?
No, not necessarily. And who exactly is going to make sure that both parties are reasonable?
Why is this your business again? And how does it relate to the OP?
Your inner child needs changing.
lain:
If you don't, then the correct answer would be "I don't have a child, so there is NO CHILD to be taken care of".
Chrys, why are you asking questions of others that you are unwilling to answer yourself?
WHO is taking care of your child right now? IF you do not have a child or have never been married, then what exactly qualifies YOU as an authority on this subject?
Quit being a coward and answer the questions.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Who, at any point on this thread, has devalued the importance of providing children with a decent home? Oh, that's right. Nobody.
lain:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
One of my friends is a single parent and does a damn good job. And it's none of your business as to who is taking care of TH's child. Are you married Chrys? Do you have kids?
zoo22
Well-known member
No, that's not "common sense," that's baloney.
You make a marriage commitment to your life partner.
To have and to hold. For better or for worse. For richer, for poorer. In sickness and in health. To love and to cherish. Til death do you part.
As wonderful as a child would, could, should be, a child isn't a necessary part of the commitment you've made to the one you're committing yourself to. The commitment holds the same either way.
MrRadish
New member
Quite. And conversely, if you do have a child, the commitment to act in his/her interests (by providing the best parenting possible) exists regardless of whether you're married or not and shouldn't result from being married, it should be the result of your love for the nipper in question.
Last edited:
what if two people decide to go their separate ways?
why shouldn't they?
if
there are no children involved
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:yawn:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:chuckle:
If children are involved, does that mean they should ALWAYS stay together?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . definition of . . .
unreasonable (un·rea·son·a·ble)
-adjective
1. anyone who (anything that) disagrees with chrysostom's viewpoint.
:kookoo:
- Status