What's up with people in their 40s with no kids ?

thejeff wrote:

2. If we are talking true psychosis, then at best we go "case by case basis", but "in sickness and in health" is still part of most marriage vows.

wedding vows have nothing to do with marriage. they're a social/religious construct, not a legal construct.

go all the way wrote:

Lmb wrote:

Many people should not be allowed to have kids.

Most people should not be allowed to have kids. A ssholes and retards will breed a ssholes and retards, in most cases. World could be a paradise.

Yup, but they will keep breeding and we will be watering plants with electrolyte drinks in about 500 years. It's what they crave.

financer wrote:

thejeff wrote:

2. If we are talking true psychosis, then at best we go "case by case basis", but "in sickness and in health" is still part of most marriage vows.

wedding vows have nothing to do with marriage. they're a social/religious construct, not a legal construct.

So, you only keep your word if legally bound to do so? Good to know.

What makes you think that because he is divorced, he was a bad husband or dad? Women are the ones who file for divorce in 80 or 90% of cases, and you can bet that their dissatisfaction or attraction to someone else is very often not because the men were philandering or not taking care of their children. One thing is that women typically have much more of the housework and child-raising to do and get sick of it. Their solution doesn't help, though.

Another thing you get wrong is that you think that having children does not specifically impact the relationship and cause a greater chance of divorce. Raising kids can be very stressful and certainly causes many fights and just basic exhaustion for many couples, particularly if they are not on the same page with how to raise the children.

All that being said, having children was one of the greatest things--probably the greatest--ever to happen to me and it was intentional, to the extent that it can be intentional, like most cases.

financer wrote:

John utah wrote:

I would estimate that 70% of our prison population would not be there if they can from supportive and stable homes. That might be a conservative guess.

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Many consider direct abortion, though legal, a crime. I do.

WoodEyePegLeg wrote:

financer wrote:

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Many consider direct abortion, though legal, a crime. I do.

Not if done properly with a coathanger.

All of the problems that you mention are mormal and surmountable if both parties have the understanding that marriage is forever. Honestly, you make a lot of assumptions about gender roles and worldviews that I would worry (I am no psychologist) could contribute to an unhealthy relationship.

One thing I CAN say is that well grounded marriages VERY rarely end with a one-sided separation. Even when one cheats, the other usually drives them to it, through commissions or omissions.

His divorce doesn't make him an unfit father, but his worldview might.

Thank you for making my point for me. You said that women have much more of the housework and child-raising to do. Why is that the case, why is it that the husband does not respect the wife enough to help out around the house? Why is it that the two are not talking this out? If one of the people is unhappy in the marriage due to the nature of their "work load", there needs to be a discussion. But at the same time, I believe that the husband should know his wife enough to know if she is unhappy or dissatisfied. Yes, marriage takes constant communication and sacrifice to make it work, kind of like raising a child. Yet, when raising a child there really is not give and take, the child will just take and the parent is the one who gives all the time. So if the OP could not manage to support his wife, or to create a loving environment where each is equally supported. What makes him a good father?

I understand that having children does put extra stress on the relationship, that is why it is important to put your marriage first and your kids second. To many times people think it is the other way around. So therefore, if the OP was not able to put the marriage first and keep it together. How is it that he thinks he is going to be able to be a loving father when his child disappoints him over and over again?

Go to Hell you killer of babies.

financer wrote:

John utah wrote:

I would estimate that 70% of our prison population would not be there if they can from supportive and stable homes. That might be a conservative guess.

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Being a good Dad and a husband are not the same.Understand that please!

financer wrote:

John utah wrote:

I would estimate that 70% of our prison population would not be there if they can from supportive and stable homes. That might be a conservative guess.

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Yeah of course there is a positive correlation with this. Crime rate went down in the 90's because there were less babies born out of wedlock and into one family homes in the 70's. Just because these two things are correlated does not make it a good thing. We should want to keep families together where children can be raised in homes with both parents.

They are also not mutually exclusive either.

They are also not mutually exclusive either. Please acknowledge that!

thejeff wrote:

financer wrote:

wedding vows have nothing to do with marriage. they're a social/religious construct, not a legal construct.

So, you only keep your word if legally bound to do so? Good to know.

What "word: are you even talking about?

I find it incredibly stupid that you associate archaic wedding crap with marriage. You can have a wonderful marriage without any need for churches, pastors, vows, etc.

Your devotion to your spouse should come from you, not from some rote, regurgitated nonsense you feel compelled to recite because everyone else does.

Phoniness!

your mom swallowed all mine and after seeing what happened with you, your wife only takes delivery in the rear-- i love it but i get to go home afterwards & sleep it off. enjoy my creampie, bruh

Hell you wrote:

Go to Hell you killer of babies.

financer wrote:

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Hell? What are you, like 12? Do people actually still believe in hell?

Hilarious.

WoodEyePegLeg wrote:

financer wrote:

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Many consider direct abortion, though legal, a crime. I do.

You should go hang around some inner-city kids more.

Seriously.

You have no idea what a crime is until you see what a lot of these kids go through. And they'll do little more than perpetuate the cycle with their own ill-conceived offspring.

family values wrote:

financer wrote:

The number one cause of a declining crime rate in the early 90s?

Legalized abortion in the 70s.

Yeah of course there is a positive correlation with this. Crime rate went down in the 90's because there were less babies born out of wedlock and into one family homes in the 70's. Just because these two things are correlated does not make it a good thing. We should want to keep families together where children can be raised in homes with both parents.

It is a good thing. Most people shouldn't be breeding. I fear many of you live in some imiginary utopia that isn't commensurate with the real world.

And guess what? The people doing the most breeding are precisely the people that should be doing the least. 25 year olds with 3 and 4 kids and then just keep having them.

One perfect example: Heard an 8 year old say last year that her mom was having another baby (8th one). Someone asked, another one? Girl said, yes, because she needed more money.

Not an isolated incident. When children are born for the welfare check... christ. It's so far beyond cringe-worthy

financer wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So, you only keep your word if legally bound to do so? Good to know.

What "word: are you even talking about?

I find it incredibly stupid that you associate archaic wedding crap with marriage. You can have a wonderful marriage without any need for churches, pastors, vows, etc.

Your devotion to your spouse should come from you, not from some rote, regurgitated nonsense you feel compelled to recite because everyone else does.

Phoniness!

So, do you think my devotion to my wife comes from a sentence I uttered at our wedding? Or, do you think a few sentences I uttered at our wedding were symbolic of the underlying commitment I was making?

Nowhere did I mention churches or religion.

thejeff wrote:

financer wrote:

What "word: are you even talking about?

I find it incredibly stupid that you associate archaic wedding crap with marriage. You can have a wonderful marriage without any need for churches, pastors, vows, etc.

Your devotion to your spouse should come from you, not from some rote, regurgitated nonsense you feel compelled to recite because everyone else does.

Phoniness!

So, do you think my devotion to my wife comes from a sentence I uttered at our wedding? Or, do you think a few sentences I uttered at our wedding were symbolic of the underlying commitment I was making?

Nowhere did I mention churches or religion.

I have no idea where your devotion comes from, nor do I care.

I simply find it asinine you equated a vow with devotion or marriage in the first place.

That was your entire initial premise.