[flamesabers]

Bryony,

I think my viewpoint on parental responsibilities is the result of my ability to compartmentalize rather than anything that happened or didn't happen in my childhood. It's like my perspective on free speech. I very much believe in the freedom of speech, but I don't necessarily agree with how some may choose to exercise that freedom. I don't doubt that some parents are exactly like you: willing to die for your children or wife if necessary. However, other parents even though they love their children very much, wouldn't make the decision to be a parent again if they knew what they know now. Worse yet, other groups of parents may never have wanted to have children anyway, but it was an accident or they felt pressured to do so. It's not unheard of for individuals to use children to trap their partner into a marriage or to use the children to manipulate their significant other.

The reason I say what I said is I realize not all parents are like you. Regardless of how parents privately feel towards their children, I think they should bear a responsibility towards caring for them to the age of majority. However, not all parents can (or are willing to) provide an agape form of love towards their children. As I said earlier, love and devotion cannot be coerced from someone, hence why I say if parents can't raise their kids, they should provide child support and place the kids in a foster home.

It's also true to say, in my opinion, for any couple who divorce, at least one of has never truly loved the other.

I think it's a cop-out to say couples who divorce never truly loved each other. It reminds me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I think it like saying Christians who become atheists were never real Christians in the first place.

Without some kind of safeguard in terms of law, who ensures that a wayward spouse, usually the husband, running off and leaving the other to care for the kids, contributes to their upbringing?

What about paternity fraud? Men do get court-ordered to pay for child support for children he isn't the biological father of. Do you think this is just?

Speaking of wayward spouses, if I'm not mistaken, it's women who initiate 70%+ of divorces. Coincidentally, it's women who almost always get full custody of the children and alimony. Isn't it strange how the ones who officially end the marriage are favoured by the courts?

Have you never promised a friend that you would do something for them? That is a contract, though most of them are trivial and not enforceable by law.

Yes, I do make promises for friends, but I consider my word to be my honor.

But if "the best part of one's life" has been wasted on a cheat and a liar, and you have lost significant potential earned income, then a contract for amends is a good idea in my opinion.

I think the problem with having a contract for amends for a relationship is it reduces the urgency for both parties to do due diligence of their part. Let's say all producers of NBE herbs are required to fully reimburse customers who do not achieve a certain level of development after a specified period of time. Nobody would have much incentive to do their homework on the reliability of a particular NBE herb if your money would always be reimbursed if things don't work out in the end. The same goes with marriage. Women (or men when applicable) have less motive to ensure without a shadow of a doubt that their significant other is Mr. Right when they have the recourse of cleaning out their husband in alimony and child support if things don't work out.

Does your home have fire insurance? Why? Do you hope it will never be used? Of course you do. But you still have it, right?

Yes, I do buy insurance. However, I think your analogy is flawed because houses don't set themselves on fire. I buy insurance to protect myself against natural disaster or arson, not because I think my home is secretly a pyromaniac.

Nobody wants to have to enforce a marriage contract in a court of law, except possibly a gold-digging prostitute married to a 90-year old Texan billionaire... but I'm sure there are a large number of young idealists who thought like you did who are regretting their ideology now.

What do you mean there are a large number of young idealists who thought like me and are regretting their ideology? If I'm not mistaken, more and more males in my age group are opting out of marriage because they don't want to get screwed over in the divorce courts.

Also, you are betraying your male side somewhat here, Flame. Humans evolved specific roles as men and women.

You mean I'm betraying my male side in ways other than NBE? What do you mean? Are you talking about my male duty to get married, have children and raise a family?