[bryony]

Bryony,

... 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.

Very likely true. It is a shame that such people have no hurdles to procreating, rather like the unfortunates who have to rely in IVF.

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.

ditto my previous.

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.

double ditto my previous.

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.

I disagree (obviously). Since Love is an abstract concept, unlike whether you are or are not Scots, clearly there can only be a philosophical definition. We can argue the qualities of love in another thread if you like, but I would question the value of a love that was otherwise than how I have defined it for myself. I would suggest that many disappointed partners went into marriage feeling the way that I do, only to suffer the devastation of lack of reciprocation. You may think that is ok, compartmentalised, whatever, but I can't.

As for your example about atheists and "real Christians", you'd need to give me a better definition of a Christian acceptable to the majority of Christians. At least one Christian of my acquaintance would agree that once you have brought Jesus into your heart it would be impossible to become an atheist. I wouldn't know, of course.

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?

Certainly not. I'd question the value of his lawyer, or the sanity of the judge that imposed it.

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?

This is way too anecdotal to have a meaningful opinion. It might be justified if the divorce was initiated because of the male having affairs, which is unfortunately all too common.

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.

The first contracts were done just that way. The motto of one of, if not the oldest insurance company, Lloyds of London is "my word is my bond" and all of their contracts were originally verbal. That's why the phrase "verbal contract" exists.

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.

Don't disagree - I'd make marriage harder and divorce harder - but it is what it is.

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.

Hah. Now you are copping out. If we stretch the analogy, I'll bet you have insurance against burglary for which there is a perpertrator and a victim as is the case with many, if not most, divorces.

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.

I was referring to the idealism of not getting married because it shouldn't be necessary - something you mentioned to which I responded. Perhaps this thread is getting a bit complicated to follow?

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?

You misunderstood me - you say you are androgynous, but in this matter you betray, to me, the fact that your male side appears to dominate your thinking and your feminine empathic side is taking a back seat. You chopped out the example to which it refers.

B.