Their words and actions. If someone tells you they will kill you and how or if they are physically abusive, that's a pretty good sign.
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Their words and actions. If someone tells you they will kill you and how or if they are physically abusive, that's a pretty good sign.
I agree that it is not reasonable to stay with someone you think may kill you
:noid:
Well I have good news for you then. You can cheer up because no one is denying the importance of that, nor are they risking children being raised in a bad environment. If I recall correctly, a while back you admitted that gay marriage doesn't put any children in danger.
It would be interesting to know how many marriages are "saved" because the couple doesn't want to go through the trouble of getting a divorce.
Somewhat relevant.....I heard that divorce is down recently and it is being attributed to the bad economy. People want to pool resources.
Well, I can give you a number of examples of people who salvaged marriages in the long run after being held in place by the idea of the process of divorce.
To which I'd add that the ceremony invests us in a way that the absence of one cannot, which I meant to have as part of my "we are creatures of" set out in the last. Rites have gravitas and alter our valuation of things. That's why they're historically observable tools of nearly any institution that desires stability and longevity.
it already has
you may have noticed how many here do not think the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
and
many do not even think it does
Another point you haven't established beyond the breath needed to make the claim.
Rather, it demonstrably, rationally isn't and for the actual reasons and reasoning set out prior.
I don't equate the ceremony with the contract.
you might consider the fact that you are not talking to other lawyers
Actually, here the one doesn't exist without the other. It's only a matter of degree. Even a purely civil affair takes place before a magistrate and has a certain amount of ceremony/rite.
You don't have to be an attorney to be rational...but it helps.
I don't completely agree. Certain homosexual couples couple have ceremonies with no legal recognition. Anyone can do so.
Children are part of the purpose, not its entirety.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You might consider the fact that everyone else has pointed out that your assertion is incorrect on this thread in addition to TH.
if there are no children involved and two people agree that they should be divorced,
can you give me one reason why they should stay together?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why? It's blatantly not true as has been repeatedly pointed out.
do you understand the significance of a woman staying home with her child?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How about marriages where there's no children involved and the couples in question remain happily wed? Can you give me one good reason as to how they've not fulfilled their wedding vows? If not then your assertion that the purpose of marriage is to protect the child is once again sunk.
Get over it Chrys. You're on a sinking ship and you're running out of liferafts.
lain:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Which has to do with your assertion how exactly?
- Status