Why are parents stupid?
- Thread starter Hilltrot
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Derr... One headline break isn't the same as the whole passage...
Oh, it's not my idea. It's God's idea.
He's the one who instituted marriage and all it's rules, after all.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, considering you've stated that a woman isn't obliged to get married then one with a child isn't obliged to do so either, is she?
Right Divider
Body part
Did JR say that she was obligated?
As was said:
- It's better if she has a husband to share the load.
- It's better for the child to have a mother and a father.
Last edited:
As RD just said: A woman with a child/children is better off being married, so that the husband can provide for her, as she provides for her children, so that her children have the best odds of not being utter losers when they grow up.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's only "better" if that's what a woman wants. Otherwise, is that hard for you to handle?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, not necessarily at all. Your paradigm isn't one that would suit all women and your latter is just arrogant bunk.
Right Divider
Body part
You really think that it's better not to share the load with someone else?
You really think that it's better for a child to have only a mother instead of a mother and a father?
You have very wrong ideas.
Red herring.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No, it's better, objectively, because the man can provide for her and her children, while she takes care of her children.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
The fact remains, it is, objectively speaking, better for the woman with a child/children to be supported by a man, rather than trying to do all the work herself.
A fact, that children who have lack either their father and mother present throughout their childhood are statistically more likely to be losers
A Christian doesn't care what the woman wants or what the man wants.
Something you and Anna may never understand.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
There's plenty of women who can take care of themselves and as before, if a woman wants to get married and have as you describe, then absolutely fine.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
As before, a woman can have support elsewhere without needing to seek a husband or a partner even.
Your latter is just the 'height' of arrogance. Who do you get to determine as "losers"?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yeah, that was...something.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, nope, didn't say any of that if you read back and with some understanding of context.
Of course.
Yet it's better, if she has children, for her to have a husband to provide for her and her children.
Loser: a person who fails frequently or is generally unsuccessful in life
A woman, with a child/children, who does not have a husband, or a man, with a child/children, who does not have a wife, is setting her/his child/ren up to fail, simply by not having both parents around. Why anyone would want that for their children is beyond me, though unfortunately, it may just be the case that such has become so commonplace that it's taken for granted.
Of course there are.
Of course.
Yet it's better, if she has children, to have a husband to provide for her and her children, so that she can focus on the children and give them the best possible chance at succeeding in life.