Mindfulness:
It is the shared responsibility of parents and the society as a whole with parents having more responsibility.
Parents do their job as best as they can and the society provides free high quality education and laws that protect children from abuse and neglect.

If by "society" you mean state, I'm happy leave that for now. So,
1. what is the parents "job"
2. and what does "parents doing their job as best they can entail"

Mindfulness:
You don't have to be and remain married to raise your children in a decent way.

Please leave marriage out of this. I accept you don't consider a stable committed marriage of the childrens biological parents to be the best way. I want to understand what you think is.


TV

TV01:
If by "society" you mean state, I'm happy leave that for now. So,
1. what is the parents "job"
2. and what does "parents doing their job as best they can entail"

It goes without saying that their first and foremost job is to cater to their children's basic needs.
Children should be on a balanced diet without fizzy drinks, too much salt and sugar, for instance.
Children should get to sleep enough and have regular times.
Children should be taught to be friendly and polite.
Children should be taught to express themselves.
Children should feel loved and respected so that they can respect others.
Children should feel secure and that they can trust their parents.
Children should be allowed to play and get enough fresh air. They must move.
Children should be nurtured intellectually.
Children should be discouraged from spending too much time in front of the TV.
Children should be free to explore their talents.
Children should be supported in the development of a healthy self-esteem.
Children should learn not to do unto others as they don't want to ....

Please leave marriage out of this. I accept you don't consider a stable committed marriage of the childrens biological parents to be the best way. I want to understand what you think is.


TV

No no TV, I believe that a HEALTHY marriage is a VERY GOOD way to raise kids, not a marriage that is forced and a torture as a result.

Mindfulness:

It goes without saying that their first and foremost job is to cater to their children's basic needs.
Children should be on a balanced diet without fizzy drinks, too much salt and sugar, for instance.
Children should get to sleep enough and have regular times.
Children should be taught to be friendly and polite.
Children should be taught to express themselves.
Children should feel loved and respected so that they can respect others.
Children should feel secure and that they can trust their parents.
Children should be allowed to play and get enough fresh air. They must move.
Children should be nurtured intellectually.
Children should be discouraged from spending too much time in front of the TV.
Children should be free to explore their talents.
Children should be supported in the development of a healthy self-esteem.
Children should learn not to do unto others as they don't want to ....

None of what you wrote up there requires parents at all does it? A house-help or tutor could do all of this. Mindfulness, in lieu of marriage what is the best setting for raising children. I mean come on,before the advent of TV and fizzy drinks nko .

Mindfulness:
No no TV, I believe that a HEALTHY marriage is a VERY GOOD way to raise kids, not a marriage that is forced and a torture as a result.

Yes Mindfulness. I have clearly stated that marriage is the best way/model for raising kids. You clearly disagreed. Even here, claiming it's a very good way, not the best. Don't backtrack. What - in lieu of marriage - is the best model for raising kids. Outline it please.


TV

Mindfulness:


In the UK, which is not the entire West and not the rest of the world.

In some European countries the parents receive shared custody and the child lives 1/2 weeks with the father and 1/2 weeks with the mother.
They take turns.

I have just witnessed a case, in which the father received custody because the mother wanted to move away with the child - in fact she did but the authorities didn't let her and she had to return the child.

Not sure you grasped the point

There was a thread here about 2 gay men using a surrogate to get a daughter

Some females here said a man can parent as well as a woman so there is no difference in a woman's role and thus a woman is redundant in parenting

TV01:

None of what you wrote up there requires parents at all does it? A house-help or tutor could do all of this. Mindfulness, in lieu of marriage what is the best setting for raising children. I mean come on,before the advent of TV and fizzy drinks nko .


Yes Mindfulness. I have clearly stated that marriage is the best way/model for raising kids. You clearly disagreed. Even here, claiming it's a very good way, not the best. Don't backtrack. What - in lieu of marriage - is the best model for raising kids. Outline it please.


TV

There is no 'in lieu'. It's about options.

However, thank you very much TV, you have helped me make my point.
It is not that much about who as it is about the how.

In this sense, even Harry Potter can do this job if he can do it properly.

crackhaus:

Abi, stay for the kids till they're old enough to understand that daddy and mommy are only human and can fall out of love so there's no need for them to keep acting like it's all good.

TV01, you agree?

in reality, there's no happily ever after in any marriage... isn't that why clergies quote that "for poorer, for richer, for better, for worse, till death do us part" thingy....
the essence of getting married is to create a conducive environment to rear children.
Any one who breaks the marriage contract and puts the children's welfare in jeopardy should be sanctioned...
let the rules be clearly stated, if you cannot abide by them, then you shouldn't get married...

njokusboy:


in reality, there's no happily ever after in any marriage... isn't that why clergies quote that "for poorer, for richer, for better, for worse, till death do us part" thingy....
the essence of getting married is to create a conducive environment to rear children.
Any one who breaks the marriage contract and puts the children's welfare in jeopardy should be sanctioned...
let the rules be clearly stated, if you cannot abide by them, then you shouldn't get married...

simple


I am still trying to get crackhaus point

all he has said is I believe in marriage and that is good for society but please let me break my obligations which I know is good

back to the cult of 'self'

Mindfulness:
There is no 'in lieu'. It's about options.

You can dribble for days

Please answer the question. You have clearly stated that marriage on and of itself has no bearing on the well-being of a child. Fine, all we ask is that you show us which type of family setting - if any - is best for raising children.

Almost 24 hours now, and despite "coat tailing" and a tremendous amount of waffle you have made no in-roads into what should be an exceedingly simple question for you to answer.

Indeed your best answer has been "not too drink too much fizzy drink" . Just when I think you can't plumb any lower . What are these options that are, ATBE, as good as or better than marriage?

You have just the one trick; prating that the West is more technologically advanced than Nigeria, ergo, we should adopt and/or accept everything they do wholesale and without question.

Did you know that one of the reasons they were able to advance - as part of adopting Judeo-Christian morés - was monogamous marriage? Which helped establish, strong families, incentivised men, giving them a long-term stake in society' flourishing? Think about that as you keep shouting for Africa to "ape instead of emulate".

I could go on and on, but how has been shown repeatedly, despite your bombast, and ability to run at pace with the ball, there's nothing there really is there

Mindfulness:
However, thank you very much TV, you have helped me make my point.
It is not that much about who as it is about the how.

Mindfulness, you have no point, or at best,your point is always you . And in a way, no one actually cares. What saddens is the unthinking manner people like you are willing to willfully overturn societal norms and desecrate beneficial institutions just to make yourself happy.

Afterall, one of your cohort actually wanted me jailed, and just because I argued that the best setting for raising children was within the committed relationship of their biological parents. And the best form of committed relationship - backed by reams of data - is marriage

No loving and invested mother can ever say it's not about the "who". She'll always know it's about that primarily, as well as the "what", the "why", and the "how". But like I said earlier, it's all about your situation isn't it? I don't have to ask you any questions, it's writ large

Mindfulness:
In this sense, even Harry Potter can do this job if he can do it properly.

Like I said.


TV

raumdeuter:
Stillfire

I like/love you yesterday, I dont like or love you today. Why should I be punished for my feelings?

Would it be better to suppress my feelings and just continue in it even if I am sad everyday?

I think the problem here is that we have different definition of what marriage is.
Civilizations were built on marriage. Kingdoms and empires were/are strengthened through marriage. Marriage is greater than the fickleness we have ascribed to it.
Butterflies in your stomach under the definition of hollywood love (not bliblical love) in marriage is just an added bonus to the institution.
I am not getting married because of butterflies in my belly, but to build my empire and raise healthy, viable, well adjusted offspring under the auspices of mother and father.
Fortunately and unfortunately the world is now liberal to encourage 'cohabitation' and other forms of queer relationships.
My question now Must people with a tendency to be capricious and fickle get married?
If one is that fickle concerning their emotions, shouldn't one save himself/herself by not getting married at all?
See there will be the option of divorce, but you will be fined for it.
If you go against the tenets of what marriage predicate, you should be sanctioned and fined for it.
Or don't get married.

TV01:

You can dribble for days

Please answer the question. You have clearly stated that marriage on and of itself has no bearing on the well-being of a child. Fine, all we ask is that you show us which type of family setting - if any - is best for raising children.

Almost 24 hours now, and despite "coat tailing" and a tremendous amount of waffle you have made no in-roads into what should be an exceedingly simple question for you to answer.

Indeed your best answer has been "not too drink too much fizzy drink" . Just when I think you can't plumb any lower . What are these options that are, ATBE, as good as or better than marriage?

You have just the one trick; prating that the West is more technologically advanced than Nigeria, ergo, we should adopt and/or accept everything they do wholesale and without question.

Did you know that one of the reasons they were able to advance - as part of adopting Judeo-Christian morés - was monogamous marriage? Which helped establish, strong families, incentivised men, giving them a long-term stake in society' flourishing? Think about that as you keep shouting for Africa to "ape instead of emulate".

I could go on and on, but how has been shown repeatedly, despite your bombast, and ability to run at pace with the ball, there's nothing there really is there

Oh, the irony!

Here we have TV sitting comfortably behind his screen in his house IN LONDON lamenting over the moral decay in his chosen home country instead of moving to the country of his ancestors where people are morally superior.

With the horror scenarios you are predicting for the West as a result of what you term moral decay, you should BY NOW have relocated to Abuja instead of preaching from London and you should be shouting Sai Buhari and not God save the Queen.

Oh, the irony!


Yet, you are enjoying all the comforts life in the West has to offer while painting doomsday scenarios to those who are gullible enough to believe them.

I don't blame you. I know the psychology behind it. And if I were less selfish, I would try to help you.

Mindfulness, you have no point, or at best,your point is always you . And in a way, no one actually cares. What saddens is the unthinking manner people like you are willing to willfully overturn societal norms and desecrate beneficial institutions just to make yourself happy.

Afterall, one of your cohort actually wanted me jailed, and just because I argued that the best setting for raising children was within the committed relationship of their biological parents. And the best form of committed relationship - backed by reams of data - is marriage

No loving and invested mother can ever say it's not about the "who". She'll always know it's about that primarily, as well as the "what", the "why", and the "how". But like I said earlier, it's all about your situation isn't it? I don't have to ask you any questions, it's writ large


Like I said.

The societal norms that you hold in high esteem have LONG been overturned in the country OF YOUR CHOICE so what are you still doing there? Has the moral decay not led to Sodom and Gomorrah yet and destroyed the society you still CHOOSE to be a part of? Is life still better in the evil and morally corrupt country than it is in Nigeria where traditional values are still held in high esteem?

Oh, the irony!


Unbearably cruel parents who tortured their little Indian boy until he was physically deformed face jail

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181595/Shaurya-abuse-Monster-parents-tortured-little-boy-physically-deformed-face-jail.html#ixzz491YymEQO


Parents Charged with Child Abuse and Torture After Son Is Found in Basement

http://www.people.com/article/charlie-bothuell-parents-charged-torture-child-abuse

Parents from hell: Children tortured and raped by father and beaten by mother
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/parents-from-hell-children-tortured-and-raped-by-father-and-beaten-by-mother-26800415.html


All that matters is that there is a biological mother and father and healthy individuals are raised.
All other factors are irrelevant by comparison.

Oh, the irony!

crackhaus:

This is because the person who was cheated on is not disenfranchised until the marriage is dissolved and that person becomes unable to move on smoothly (financially) with his/her life - this is what the law seeks to protect.

While in the marriage however, you can't say that because someone was cheated on, then he/she has been disenfranchised.
No one has died from disappointment and heartbreak...no 'normal person' at least.

I am not arguing within the confines of today's laws. I am introducing a new bill to sanitize the marriage institution, that's all.
No one has died, but heartbreak raises stress levels and can give you high blood pressure.
No one has died, but the crime against a husband is the chief crime the majority of women in prisons committed.
No one has died, but this thread was spurred on by death and violence in marriage.
No one has died, but 30% of women who are murdered are killed by their spouses.
Don't you think it's time we put certain blocks like my suggested stipulated fines to prevent abnormal people from entering into the institution?

Stillfire:


I think the problem here is that we have different definition of what marriage is.
Civilizations were built on marriage. Kingdoms and empires were/are strengthened through marriage. Marriage is greater than the fickleness we have ascribed to it.
Butterflies in your stomach under the definition of hollywood love (not bliblical love) in marriage is just an added bonus to the institution.
I am not getting married because of butterflies in my belly, but to build my empire and raise healthy, viable, well adjusted offspring under the auspices of mother and father.
Fortunately and unfortunately the world is now liberal to encourage 'cohabitation' and other forms of queer relationships.
My question now Must people with a tendency to be capricious and fickle get married?
If one is that fickle concerning their emotions, shouldn't one save himself/herself by not getting married at all?
See there will be the option of divorce, but you will be fined for it.
If you go against the tenets of what marriage predicate, you should be sanctioned and fined for it.
Or don't get married.

Maybe the society should match male and female based on the characteristics they want the future generation to have and compel the 2 to stay together. This would remove any emotions involved and they would give stable families

Mindfulness:


Oh, the irony!

Here we have TV sitting comfortably behind his screen in his house IN LONDON lamenting over the moral decay in his chosen home country instead of moving to the country of his ancestors where people are morally superior.

With the horror scenarios you are predicting for the West as a result of what you term as moral decay, you should BY NOW have relocated to Abuja instead of preaching from London and you should be shouting Sai Buhari and not God save the Queen.

Oh, the irony!


Yet, you are enjoying all the comforts life in the West has to offer while painting doomsday scenarios to those who are gullible enough to believe them.

I don't blame you. I know the psychology behind it. And if I were less selfish, I would try to help you.





The societal norms that you hold in high esteem have LONG been overturned in the country OF YOUR CHOICE so what are you still doing there? Has the moral decay not led to Sodom and Gomorrah yet and destroyed the society you still CHOOSE to be a part of? Is life still better in the evil and morally corrupt country than it is in Nigeria where traditional values are still held in high esteem?

Oh, the irony!


Unbearably cruel parents who tortured their little Indian boy until he was physically deformed face jail

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181595/Shaurya-abuse-Monster-parents-tortured-little-boy-physically-deformed-face-jail.html#ixzz491YymEQO


Parents Charged with Child Abuse and Torture After Son Is Found in Basement

http://www.people.com/article/charlie-bothuell-parents-charged-torture-child-abuse

Parents from hell: Children tortured and raped by father and beaten by mother

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/parents-from-hell-children-tortured-and-raped-by-father-and-beaten-by-mother-26800415.html

shaybebaby:

edited

crackhaus:

The fickleness of human beings with respect to who they choose to love and have sex with cannot be policed and judged by man-made laws since no one is physically hurt, isn't this the American way?

Physically hurt? As I said, heartbreak raises the blood pressure and stress levels. This encompasses the term physically hurt.

[b]A marriage where there is 'cheating and adultery' is already on its way to being dissolved should it be so desired, which is why divorce laws take over thence to make sure no one is left disenfranchised coming out of it. [/b]

Many Nigerian married couples would disagree.

Only God has sole authority in penalizing an adulterer for breaking his/her vows.
Civil law and government cannot stop people from committing adultery entirely any more than it can stop people from breathing oxygen.

The government should be least bit interested in 'stopping' adultery, that is for religious houses to do. The government would be/is focused on making money in regards to Nigeria being currently broke. It would definitely make money from the 'adultery' industry. lmao!

What it can do is tell an adulterer "well now that you've done it, you or your spouse may get a divorce and we will see to it that the innocent party gets treated fairly".

That is not enough. Hence the fines to discourage people from entering the institution and make money off idiots who went into it on an emotional high.

TV01:

I am not implying anything, the question was clear - in lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Just a concise treatise please. Answer the question without recourse to marriage. Or as my day used to say when he was grilling me about my misdemeanors "tell me what happened, and don't mention anyone elses name" .

Like I said, no problem with anyone disdaining or eschewing marriage, but please tell us what you would replace it with. This point first. Surely it can't be that hard .


TV

Lol, now that I'm on the opposing side I seem to get why some of these females come down hard on you as regards arguments on marriage

This is what you're not getting - there isn't any in-lieu of anything...lol.
Marriage in its most pure and gracious form can raise well-adjusted productive citizens, this doesn't make it the only way to do so.
Does it mean that people who (through no fault of theirs) come from a broken home never turn out productive?

What you're doing here is taking the argument to another dimension altogether, a tangent of correlations that don't fit snugly into how this started between stilfire and I.

The argument is this:
People should be sanctioned for breaking their marital vows, and I say NO...people needn't be coerced into staying true to their marital vows.



Now the answer to your question in bold:
Marriage is indeed the bedrock of society - this statement while still true today, isn't quite encompassing.
Society has learnt that education, exposure, enlightenment, and even peaceful coexistence within a community are all capable of a whole lot of wonders, including but not limited to, raising well-adjusted and productive citizens.

Since you're a Christian, I guess I must also let you know that being full of grace and blessed by God is also a way to become well-adjusted, productive, and an all-round better person in society.

njokusboy:


in reality, there's no happily ever after in any marriage... isn't that why clergies quote that "for poorer, for richer, for better, for worse, till death do us part" thingy....
the essence of getting married is to create a conducive environment to rear children.
Any one who breaks the marriage contract and puts the children's welfare in jeopardy should be sanctioned...
let the rules be clearly stated, if you cannot abide by them, then you shouldn't get married...

Lol, I'm glad you mentioned clergies...I was going to add something of the sort to TV in my response to him.

So now that we all already know that those vows were made in a church an officiated by a clergy... when someone decides to cheat, whose laws have been broken?
The laws of the religion whose vows he/she took, or the laws of the state (who are also quoting the Christian vows)?

And since the laws "till death do us part" as prescribed by the church in adherence to the religious faith, under whose jurisdiction is an adulterer then subject to?
The church, or the state?


Anyone who breaks the contract of marriage should be sanctioned for putting the lives of the child(ren) in jeopardy... lol.
I guess a couple who have no kids yet are by consequence allowed to break their contract and not get sanctioned for it - after all, no lives have been put in jeopardy.

pickabeau1:


simple


I am still trying to get crackhaus point

all he has said is I believe in marriage and that is good for society but please let me break my obligations which I know is good

back to the cult of 'self'

Soon and very soon bro, you will get it.

All I have said is, "I believe in marriage and I believe that it is good, but don't create laws that will coerce/force me into remaining in one that no longer has a happy future". - I am not infallible, you are not infallible, TV01 is not infallible, Stillfire is not infallible... who died and made it a rule that all of us will love and stay true to the same person for the rest of our lives?

Do you all prefer staying married to someone who is only in it because he/she doesn't want to go to jail or pay a fine?

Yea, didn't think so.

crackhaus:
Lol, now that I'm on the opposing side I seem to get why some of these females come down hard on you as regards arguments on marriage

I am a marriage advocate , I don't argue people, I argue policy, and in a sex-blind manner. I go hard on silly, unsubstantiated, ill-thought out and incoherent positions, be they from male or female - although thinking about it ...anyway, we thank God for Stilly

crackhaus:
This is what you're not getting - there isn't any in-lieu of anything...lol.
Marriage in its most pure and gracious form can raise well-adjusted productive citizens, this doesn't make it the only way to do so.
Does it mean that people who (through no fault of theirs) come from a broken home never turn out productive?

You are almost there. The question was what is , ATBE, the optimal way to raise children. My position is that without doubt, no gainsaying, marriage as defined is.

That is no to say there are no other family types or domestic arrangements. Neither is it to say that well-adjusted and productive citizens can't be raised that way. However, drawing on good exceptions from non-marriages, or bad outcomes from marriages, does not change a thing.

The reason marriage has - across cultures and through time - has arisen, and endured, been accorded honour and status, and backed by legislative fiat is due to it's benefits. No other form comes close.

Unless you have anything to add, I'm willing to rest on that first point.

crackhaus:
What you're doing here is taking the argument to another dimension altogether, a tangent of correlations that don't fit snugly into how this started between stilfire and I.

The argument is this:
People should be sanctioned for breaking their marital vows, and I say NO...people needn't be coerced into staying true to their marital vows.

Your point here is a non sequitur, as I've explained. Even if we view marriage as purely a civil contract - which I do not, but will for the sake of the discussion - there is no contract where breaching the terms of the contract is non-actionable. Or to put it another way, a contract wherein it is illegal to sanction breaches, has to be an illegal contract ab initio.

Where there is no law, there is no transgression. If breaches (transgressions) are not actionable, then there is in truth no law (contract).
(more on coercion in another reply)

crackhaus:

Now the answer to your question in bold:
Marriage is indeed the bedrock of society - this statement while still true today, isn't quite encompassing.
Society has learnt that education, exposure, enlightenment, and even peaceful coexistence within a community are all capable of a whole lot of wonders, including but not limited to, raising well-adjusted and productive citizens.

And again, please explain how - outside marriage - all these virtues, ATBE, raise well-adjusted, productive citizens, at least as well as marriage.

crackhaus:
Since you're a Christian, I guess I must also let you know that being full of grace and blessed by God is also a way to become well-adjusted, productive, and an all-round better person in society.

Absolutely. I can personally testify to that. Nevertheless, not everyone is, or becomes, a Christian in or from their formative years. And the blessing of marriage are not restricted to Christians.


TV

Stillfire:


I am not arguing within the confines of today's laws. I am introducing a new bill to sanitize the marriage institution, that's all.
No one has died, but heartbreak raises stress levels and can give you high blood pressure.
No one has died, but the crime against a husband is the chief crime the majority of women in prisons committed.
No one has died, but this thread was spurred on by death and violence in marriage.
No one has died, but 30% of women who are murdered are killed by their spouses.
Don't you think it's time we put certain blocks like my suggested stipulated fines to prevent abnormal people from entering into the institution?

Now that you're now making jokes, I guess you've come to terms with the idealism in your proposition

Abnormal people will still get in regardless.

Stillfire:


I think the problem here is that we have different definition of what marriage is.
Civilizations were built on marriage. Kingdoms and empires were/are strengthened through marriage. Marriage is greater than the fickleness we have ascribed to it.
Butterflies in your stomach under the definition of hollywood love (not bliblical love) in marriage is just an added bonus to the institution.
I am not getting married because of butterflies in my belly, but to build my empire and raise healthy, viable, well adjusted offspring under the auspices of mother and father.
Fortunately and unfortunately the world is now liberal to encourage 'cohabitation' and other forms of queer relationships.
My question now Must people with a tendency to be capricious and fickle get married?
If one is that fickle concerning their emotions, shouldn't one save himself/herself by not getting married at all?
See there will be the option of divorce, but you will be fined for it.
If you go against the tenets of what marriage predicate, you should be sanctioned and fined for it.
Or don't get married.

School dem Stilly.

To think of marriage of primarily, or solely an articulation of ones emotion or feelings - whatever called and however articulated - is to totally misunderstand marriage. Especially when such feelings are at once romanticised and arbitrary (and fickle) in many instances.

Although in it's divine simplicity - I believe - it is also the best structure, for true and committed love between a man and a woman. And, and, it still of utmost relevance that the emotions of adults do not have to be structured via marriage. People are free to feel, or not feel without marriage.

Making a virtue of the feeling and not the institution is to put the cart before the horse. As feelings are at best arbitrary, then everyones feelings must be equally validated - voilá "gay marriage", and every other form of relationship one can imagine.

The institution is honoured, it's strictures and benefits understood, it's framework solid and unchanging. Peoples feeling can be whatever they want them to be, and they can do whatsoever they please with them. Not so marriage.


TV

crackhaus:
All I have said is, "I believe in marriage and I believe that it is good, but don't create laws that will coerce/force me into remaining in one that no longer has a happy future". - I am not infallible, you are not infallible, TV01 is not infallible, Stillfire is not infallible... who died and made it a rule that all of us will love and stay true to the same person for the rest of our lives?

Do you all prefer staying married to someone who is only in it because he/she doesn't want to go to jail or pay a fine?

Yea, didn't think so.

The law does not force anyone to do anything. Marriage is entered into voluntarily. And one is always made aware of the consequences of breaching the contract. And yes, we can discuss the detail of the consequences, but there must be sanctions.

So that brings us to this point; you believe in marriage, but not in sanctions for marriage. Please answer this question;

How would you structure marriage, so that it would deliver the same benefits, not have any "coercive" penalties for breaches, and at the same time retain it's honour and prestige, and be materially different from any other relationship type?


TV

TV01:

I am a marriage advocate , I don't argue people, I argue policy, and in a sex-blind manner. I go hard on silly, unsubstantiated, ill-thought out and incoherent positions, be they from male or female - although thinking about it...we thank God for Stilly

You are almost there. The question was what is , ATBE, the optimal way to raise children. My position is that without doubt, no gainsaying, marriage as defined is.

That is no to say there are no other family types or domestic arrangements. Neither is it to say that well-adjusted and productive citizens can't be raised that way. However, drawing on good exceptions from non-marriages, or bad outcomes from marriages, does not change a thing.

The reason marriage has - across cultures and through time - has arisen, and endured, been accorded honour and status, and backed by legislative fiat is due to it's benefits. No other form comes close.

Unless you have anything to add, I'm willing to rest on that first point.


Your point here is a non sequitur, as I've explained. Even if we view marriage as purely a civil contract - which I do not, but will for the sake of the discussion - there is no contract where breaching the terms of the contract is non-actionable. Or to put it another way, a contract wherein it is illegal to sanction breaches, has to be an illegal contract ab initio.

Where there is no law, there is no transgression. If breaches (transgressions) are not actionable, then there is in truth no law (contract).
(more on coercion in another reply)


And again, please explain how - outside marriage - all these virtues, ATBE, raise well-adjusted, productive citizens, at least as well as marriage.


Absolutely. I can personally testify to that. Nevertheless, not everyone is, or becomes, a Christian in or from their formative years. And the blessing of marriage are not restricted to Christians.


TV

Lol, you are like you would call Mindfulness, a dribbler of sorts...

First, you ask me to list another way by which well-adjusted productive individuals can be raised...I do (more than one no less.)
Now you're asking me to tell you which of them all is the optimal as regards to raising such individuals.

Well I'm gonna give an answer to this dribble, just so you don't turn that and use it as a basis for your next response.

There is no optimal way by which well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens will be raised.
There is no rule/law laid down or stated that satisfies a postulation to that fact, not even by God and most certainly not by man or alien as the case may be.

At best, what you have are pure subjective opinions - like you for example, who believes that marriage is optimal.
What you don't seem to grasp however is that everybody will not live by this same principle when it comes down to a choice between 'long-term peace of mind' and 'staying married just because someone believes it's the best way to raise well brought up productive children'.



And oh, I put something in bold up there in your quote for you.
Since you already knew and was willing to type that, I don't know why we're still having this argument or why there was even an argument on that account in the first place.

crackhaus:

Lol, I'm glad you mentioned clergies...I was going to add something of the sort to TV in my response to him.

So now that we all already know that those vows were made in a church an officiated by a clergy... when someone decides to cheat, whose laws have been broken?
The laws of the religion whose vows he/she took, or the laws of the state (who are also quoting the Christian vows)?

And since the laws "till death do us part" as prescribed by the church in adherence to the religious faith, under whose jurisdiction is an adulterer then subject to?
The church, or the state?

lol, I was merely pointing out the fact that even the church acknowledges the fact that there are bound to be challenges in the union but cheating shouldn't be an option... however, the church already sanctions people who renege on their vows... the state should wade in too...

Anyone who breaks the contract of marriage should be sanctioned for putting the lives of the child(ren) in jeopardy... lol.
I guess a couple who have no kids yet are by consequence allowed to break their contract and not get sanctioned for it - after all, no lives have been put in jeopardy.

A lot of efforts and sacrifices are rendered null when people decide to cheat, everything the couples may have put together becomes threatened... couples with children have a lot more at stake so their sanctions should be more severe... couples without children may receive lighter sanctions... one cannot just renege on a contract without consequences...

Mindfulness, really? Is that the best you can do !

So, because you can find examples of some children being treated horribly by their parents and within marriage, that means

1. marriage is a bad institution?
2. the same parents would not have acted thus if they weren't married?
3. children in other family types or relationship forms do not suffer at the hands of their parents?
4. that the data - tons of it - clearly showing that the optimal setting for children is marriage as defined is wrong?
5. you lack the intelligence to understand that you don't build case or make policy based on exceptions - this one is rhetorical

And one who hates epistles resorts to them, yet devoid of anything meaningful If you mean to be an epistleer, you need to bring content and depth.

Like I said


TV

TV01:
Mindfulness, really? Is that the best you can do !

So, because you can find examples of some children being treated horribly by their parents and within marriage, that means

1. marriage is a bad institution?
2. the same parents would not have acted thus if they weren't married?
3. children in other family types or relationship forms do not suffer at the hands of their parents?
4. that the data - tons of it - clearly showing that the optimal setting for children is marriage as defined is wrong?
5. you lack the intelligence to understand that you don't build case or make policy based on exceptions - this one is rhetorical

And one who hates epistles resorts to them, yet devoid of anything meaningful If you mean to be an epistleer, you need to bring content and depth.

Like I said


TV

What are you still doing in the country where moral decay is the order of the day and the society about to break down - according to your prophecy - when you are free to move to the country of your ancestors? I wouldn't expose my children to such an evil environment as a loving and caring parent.


And since you have said the following:

That is no to say there are no other family types or domestic arrangements. Neither is it to say that well-adjusted and productive citizens can't be raised that way.

We can agree to agree.

crackhaus:

Lol, now that I'm on the opposing side I seem to get why some of these females come down hard on you as regards arguments on marriage

This is what you're not getting - there isn't any in-lieu of anything...lol.
Marriage in its most pure and gracious form can raise well-adjusted productive citizens, this doesn't make it the only way to do so.
Does it mean that people who (through no fault of theirs) come from a broken home never turn out productive?

What you're doing here is taking the argument to another dimension altogether, a tangent of correlations that don't fit snugly into how this started between stilfire and I.

The argument is this:
People should be sanctioned for breaking their marital vows, and I say NO...people needn't be coerced into staying true to their marital vows.



Now the answer to your question in bold:
Marriage is indeed the bedrock of society - this statement while still true today, isn't quite encompassing.
Society has learnt that education, exposure, enlightenment, and even peaceful coexistence within a community are all capable of a whole lot of wonders, including but not limited to, raising well-adjusted and productive citizens.

Since you're a Christian, I guess I must also let you know that being full of grace and blessed by God is also a way to become well-adjusted, productive, and an all-round better person in society.

My thoughts exactly.

@bold
Very well said!

TV01:

The law does not force anyone to do anything. Marriage is entered into voluntarily. And one is always made aware of the consequences of breaching the contract. And yes, we can discuss the detail of the consequences, but there must be sanctions.

So that brings us to this point; you believe in marriage, but not in sanctions for marriage. Please answer this question;

How would you structure marriage, so that it would deliver the same benefits, not have any "coercive" penalties for breaches, and at the same time retain it's honour and prestige, and be materially different from any other relationship type?


TV

Lawd have mercy, on whose authority is it to structure marriage based on commitment level?
Religion or Government?

You agree that marriage is entered voluntarily, why then should anyone be sanctioned for voluntarily choosing to cheat on someone he/she voluntarily married?

You have the right to marry voluntarily but you have no right to cheat voluntarily - according to whom?

crackhaus:
Lol, you are like you would call Mindfulness, a dribbler of sorts...

Perhaps, but my mazy runs lead to end product. it's why Pappilo will always rank higher and won more than Jay-Jay.

crackhaus:
;DFirst, you ask me to list another way by which well-adjusted productive individuals can be raised...I do (more than one no less.) Now you're asking me to tell you which of them all is the optimal as regards to raising such individuals.

Listing virtues or attributes, is no the same as listing relationship types or family forms. The attributes can exist in any form or type, but the form or type make a difference - ATBE.

crackhaus:
Well I'm gonna give an answer to this dribble, just so you don't turn that and use it as a basis for your next response.

[b]There is no optimal way by which well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens will be raised.
[/b]There is no rule/law laid down or stated that satisfies a postulation to that fact, not even by God and most certainly not by man or alien as the case may be.

And here you are factually incorrect. Marriage is and remains the optimal way. Backed up in every which way, and from every perspective, with raw unassailable data. In absolute and comparative terms. Anything else is just gainsaying. And yes, I believe it was laid down by God, and if entered in,and adhered to as He commands, it won't be just optimal, or the simply the best, it will be perfect.

crackhaus:
At best, what you have are pure subjective opinions - like you for example, who believes that marriage is optimal. What you don't seem to grasp however is that everybody will not live by this same principle when it comes down to a choice between 'long-term peace of mind' and 'staying married just because someone believes it's the best way to raise well brought up productive children'.

Marriage (as defined) as the optimal form is not subjective, as stated above. That's no to say I don't appreciate that there are some who will not be able to understand or embrace it in it's fullness, or others that will enter into it and fall short.

crackhaus:
And oh, I put something in bold up there in your quote for you.
Since you already knew and was willing to type that, I don't know why we're still having this argument or why there was even an argument on that account in the first place.

I fully acknowledge other relationship forms and family types,and that they can raise well-adjusted and productive children. But as stated marriage and its outcomes remain superior.

To personalise it, someone would have to convince me that my children would be just as well - or better - off if I swapped their mother for another woman, or a man, and vice versa. Or or if both of us where out of the picture and they were raised by just anyone, in any combination, or family setting.

Does there have to be a reason . It was mostly because I wasn't even getting scraps from Mindfulness and her cohort. I hope whatever she has doesn't rub off.

TV

crackhaus:

Lawd have mercy, on whose authority is it to structure marriage based on commitment level?
Religion or Government?

You agree that marriage is entered voluntarily, why then should anyone be sanctioned for voluntarily choosing to cheat on someone he/she voluntarily married?

You have the right to marry voluntarily but you have no right to cheat voluntarily - according to whom?

The question please

TV

Mindfulness:

What are you still doing in the country where moral decay is the order of the day and the society about to break down - according to your prophecy - when you are free to move to the country of your ancestors? I wouldn't expose my children to such an evil environment as a loving and caring parent.
And since you have said the following:
We can agree to agree.

Like I said .


TV

TV01:

Like I said .


TV

Yeah, like you said:

"That is no to say there are no other family types or domestic arrangements. Neither is it to say that well-adjusted and productive citizens can't be raised that way."


But Osama Bin Laden was raised by a single mum and Hitler came from a polygamous home.