My live in girlfriend of 7 years not invited to join family potrait

So what's a family wrote:

My dad saved the day!

That's so nice that Da wootle babyee's daddy made a decision for him.

You said it, Da wottle babyee! Whew! The OP just barely scraped by on that one! Almost forced to stand up for his relationship and proclaim his undying love for his girlfriend in front of the whole family!

So glad that's over, but it was a close one!!

OP, do us a favor and check in in a couple of years for posterity's sake. We'd like to know how you & your live-in girlfriend have got on and whether or not you're glad she's in the family photo.

Reading between the lines, but now I see where your lack of respect for women comes from.

This thread is 100% made up.

Yesquestion wrote:

You're an idiot. It's not YOUR family portrait. It's your MOM's. You consider her to be a member of YOUR family but that doesn't necessarily make her a member of your mother's. It's not an insult to think that way especially if there is no blood relationship. Grow up.

A family is not simply defined by "blood" or by a piece of paper. In fact I know many blood relatives and many married folks who are not real families. My point is that my girlfriend and I have a deep loving relationship and we are family. There is no doubt about this point.

Those who only understand family as a narrow concrete concept of course would not understand this and would think like you do.

Fortunately my dad is a smart guy who understood what family means.

godisfakejustlikemoney wrote:

This thread is 100% made up.

If you are so smart what's the difference between a crisp, crumble, cobbler, slump and buckle?

Where is ggilder when you need him?

If he doesn't post soon, pick this up from amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Marriage-George-Gilder/dp/0882899465

If your dad is so smart, why did get marry an idiot (your word)?

Say wha? wrote:

If your dad is so smart, why did get marry an idiot (your word)?

I said it but I was annoyed. She's not so bad.

logician wrote:

No.

I'm pointing out that his claim was mistaken.

Marriage is not an "absolute and permanent commitment" when the marriage ends in divorce the majority of the time (though only one instance of divorce would be needed to make the claim "marriage is an absolute and permanent commitment" false).

It's not your logic that's faulty, it's your understanding of language. When we talk about a "permanent commitment," an "eternal vow," an "everlasting covenant," etc., what we mean is that the force of the promise never ends--not that we always keep our promises. We choose to bind ourselves (either before the law, before our god, before our own sense of honor, or whatever), and even if we later break our vow, we are still under the force of the vow, meaning that we suffer consequences. Some people might view those consequences in religious terms (living in a state of sin), others in terms of secular honor. Heck, even if you don't buy any of that crap, you still suffer the social consequences of being known as one who breaks his unconditional promises.

The argument that marriage isn't a permanent commitment because in contemporary society marriages often end in divorce is a straw man. Surely, as soon as any prehistoric society conceived of an institution of marriage, they just as soon became familiar with the fact that many spouses do not honor their commitments. Our earliest texts are full of stories spousal abandonment or unfaithful spouses. Yet over the millennia, societies continued to view marriage as a permanent commitment. It's not because they were willfully ignorant of the ways that people fail to honor their commitments. It's because their understanding was focused on the meaning of the promise rather than the subsequent failings of the promisors. Even if EVERY marriage ended in divorce, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the commitments weren't permanent.

Of course, none of this applies if the argument is that the commitment, at the moment it's made, isn't really permanent and unconditional. One might reasonably argue that in the context of widespread divorce, many couples understand that the unconditional language that they use during their ceremonies is really just ceremonial, and that their commitments need not be honored under a range of circumstances. I don't think this is generally true, but it probably is in at least some cases. In any event, that wasn't your argument.