toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Town Heretic]

so who is taking care of your child now?

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.

 

[chrysostom]

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.

is there only one person taking care of your child?

 

[Town Heretic]

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:

 

[Rusha]

I didn't say that I had one

You didn't answer the question.

 

[chrysostom]

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:

does the person taking care of your child have another job besides that?

 

[rexlunae]

do you think two reasonable adults should be able to figure out a way to stay together for the sake of the children?

No, not necessarily. And who exactly is going to make sure that both parties are reasonable?

 

[Town Heretic]

does the person taking care of your child have another job besides that?

Why is this your business again? And how does it relate to the OP?

Your inner child needs changing. lain:

 

[Rusha]

so who is taking care of your child now?

Who is taking care of *your* child now?

I didn't say that I had one

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".

is there only one person taking care of your child?

You didn't answer the question.

does the person taking care of your child have another job besides that?

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]

I think you were already confused
and
what saddens me is that most here do not seem to appreciate the importance of bringing children into this world
and
providing them a decent home

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]

is there only one person taking care of your child?

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?

 

[Uberpod1]

chrysostom,

Did your father leave you and your mother?

 

[zoo22]

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

now why should two people living together take this vow?
just go your separate ways
if
things don't work out

the only reason a vow like this makes sense is because children are involved
they need you to stay together

that is common sense

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]

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.

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.

 

[chrysostom]

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.

what if two people decide to go their separate ways?

why shouldn't they?
if
there are no children involved

 

[Silent Hunter]

what if two people decide to go their separate ways?

why shouldn't they?
if
there are no children involved

:yawn:

 

[Silent Hunter]

:chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

what if two people decide to go their separate ways?

why shouldn't they?
if
there are no children involved

If children are involved, does that mean they should ALWAYS stay together?

 

[chrysostom]

If children are involved, does that mean they should ALWAYS stay together?

no but
at least one person is being unreasonable
if
they don't stay together

 

[Silent Hunter]

no but
at least one person is being unreasonable
if
they don't stay together

. . . definition of . . .

unreasonable (un·rea·son·a·ble)
-adjective
1. anyone who (anything that) disagrees with chrysostom's viewpoint.

:kookoo:

 

[chrysostom]

. . . definition of "unreasonable": anyone who (anything that) disagrees with chrysostom's viewpoint.

:kookoo:

we know what it looks like

it looks like you