Posted on 05/12/2017 4:42:19 AM PDT by C19fan
Any mention of children and what it may do to them?
Disgusting
If you ever figure it out, and start to understand it, let me know. I’ll give you a good swat upside the head. That’s what FRiends are for. :)
They want to destroy marriage, pure and simple. Fidelity is especially important when you are talking about kids. If a man is going to support kids for 18+ years, they had better be his (unless he agrees otherwise).
That is not to say a lot of supposedly happily married people don’t fool around. A substantial percentage do. But they keep it discrete. Once the other partner finds out about it, the marriage is effectively over. No one wants an SO that is sleeping around. [Which is why gay marriage is a total sham]
The marriage is over once one person steps out of it. Even if the other doesn’t know.
These are empty and superficial people.
The Slimes sides with the slimes.
What you said was spot on, but I could not help notice the self absorption of this person along with the great value she places on her "feelings".
“When my lovely wife turned 40, I teased her that I was thinking about trading her in on two 20’s. “
Mine said I wasn’t wired for 220. You electricians will get that!
Try the veal, ill be here all week.
“When my lovely wife turned 40, I teased her that I was thinking about trading her in on two 20’s. “
Mine said I wasn’t wired for 220. You electricians will get that!
Try the veal, ill be here all week.
Two sentences. Two "I's" and two "my's". I think that says it all. There was a basic unwillingness to sacrifice anything to marry the one he supposedly loved. Unfettered selfishness dooms marriage.
But the stability of a marriage that lasted for more than a hundred years, and survived the death of a spouse - it was so stable. I'd gone through my parents' divorce and the death of my father.
Now I know. It wouldn't be like that. A generational line marriage would be a lot harder to keep stable than a pair marriage, and that's already hard for a lot of people.
History does record some stable threesomes but they're the exception and most relationships fail the introduction of a third.
But yes, redefining marriage does keep going down the tracks, picking up new passengers, and keeping pretty much to schedule. When they tell you the next station is the end of the line, they're lying. There's a lot more to come.
The premise was that people would act rationally: that they would live in a businesslike arrangement with structure, financial stability, companionate affection ... and mix'n'match sex.
It's a nice idea, on paper ... the common good, and all that ... but any fiction that requires rationality regarding sex is unrealistic.
For generations, the left has been pushing the idea that life would be great if everyone simply maximized their sexual gratification in a rational, civilized, healthy way. It has always been totally dead wrong.
The concept breaks down as soon as Person A wants to have sex with Person B, but Person B doesn't want to have sex with Person A, and then it breaks down in a dozen other predictable ways within the first three days.
A Canadian longitudinal study found that children of 2 homosexual parents of the same gender come out about as bad as those raised by single mothers, while children raised by homosexual pairs of the opposite gender as the child have WORSE outcomes than when raised by single mothers.
In short, it is worse for a boy to be raised by two lesbians than a single mother.
I believe it was called the Regernus study. It stood out as being based on their census data, versus the self-selected cases of happy upper class lesbians with the most well-adjusted children coming out to say “we’re just as good!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.