On 10/3/2017 6:37 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
>> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
>> married. You hail from the 50s.
>
> It this relevant to this discussion? I think not. As far as my hailing from the 50's - that's probably true. That's not relevant either. Mostly, it shows that you have to center everything around me and every move I make. That's my job, not yours fool!
>
<GUFFAW!>

On 10/3/2017 6:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
> You said "marriage is a useful, perhaps vital,
> institution if one is raising kids". I disagreed and said why.

And, as always, you were dead wrong.

On 10/3/2017 6:59 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents.

That does not mean they are getting an optimal childhood experience or
proper pair bonding modeling.

On 10/3/2017 7:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
> This newsgroup is very conservative, for instance.

Bullshit lie!

It's split down the middle to leaning somewhat left.

You are such an uneducated twit!

On 10/3/2017 7:19 PM, Bruce wrote:
> It all depends on the kind of people the parents are, not on whether
> they're married.

WRONG!

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:34:33 -0600, Casa lo pensa >
wrote:

>On 10/3/2017 7:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> This newsgroup is very conservative, for instance.
>
>Bullshit lie!
>
>It's split down the middle to leaning somewhat left.
>
>You are such an uneducated twit!

You're so right-wing you'd make Hitler blush, so I don't think you're
a good judge of this.

On 10/3/2017 7:37 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:34:33 -0600, Casa lo pensa >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/2017 7:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> This newsgroup is very conservative, for instance.
>>
>> Bullshit lie!
>>
>> It's split down the middle to leaning somewhat left.
>>
>> You are such an uneducated twit!
>
> You're so right-wing you'd make Hitler blush, so I don't think you're
> a good judge of this.
>

Godwins law.

I'm right where it matters, left where it won't hurt others, center of
the road when there's no oncoming traffic.

You otoh, are a hatebag balloon-full of knee jerk grade rhetoric and
leftarded misconceptions.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:40:31 -0600, Casa lo pensa >
wrote:

>On 10/3/2017 7:37 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:34:33 -0600, Casa lo pensa >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2017 7:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> This newsgroup is very conservative, for instance.
>>>
>>> Bullshit lie!
>>>
>>> It's split down the middle to leaning somewhat left.
>>>
>>> You are such an uneducated twit!
>>
>> You're so right-wing you'd make Hitler blush, so I don't think you're
>> a good judge of this.
>>
>
>Godwins law.
>
>I'm right where it matters, left where it won't hurt others, center of
>the road when there's no oncoming traffic.
>
>You otoh, are a hatebag balloon-full of knee jerk grade rhetoric and
>leftarded misconceptions.

Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?

On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:

>
> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>

Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew
its venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the
filters it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an
admission that one knows he is a complete loser.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
>> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
>> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
>> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>>
>
> Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew its
> venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the filters
> it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an admission that
> one knows he is a complete loser.


What's your excuse?

Cheri

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:25:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
>> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
>> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
>> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>>
>
>Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew
>its venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the
>filters it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an
>admission that one knows he is a complete loser.

Yes, pathetic. The whole idea of wishing people dead because you
disagree with them is severely psychiatric. People who are chummy with
a character like that, have their own problems to deal with. I know
Ted Bundy had fans too. Mainly female ones, but one confused man from
Hawaii too, I bet.

On 10/3/2017 7:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:40:31 -0600, Casa lo pensa >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/2017 7:37 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:34:33 -0600, Casa lo pensa >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/3/2017 7:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> This newsgroup is very conservative, for instance.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit lie!
>>>>
>>>> It's split down the middle to leaning somewhat left.
>>>>
>>>> You are such an uneducated twit!
>>>
>>> You're so right-wing you'd make Hitler blush, so I don't think you're
>>> a good judge of this.
>>>
>>
>> Godwins law.
>>
>> I'm right where it matters, left where it won't hurt others, center of
>> the road when there's no oncoming traffic.
>>
>> You otoh, are a hatebag balloon-full of knee jerk grade rhetoric and
>> leftarded misconceptions.
>
> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness.

Right...

As opposed to your demonstrable intolerance for any viewpoint right of
far left...

> It must
> be a very unpleasant way to live.

And yet you seem to.

> Good luck getting better.

Generally speaking a respite from this sewer will do the trick!

> There has
> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
> newsgroup,

Iow, you still get what you earn here.

Inflation adjusted of course.

> but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?

I have marine 12 volt and some jumper cables, which armpit shall I affix
the negative clamp to?

On 10/3/2017 8:25 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
>> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
>> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
>> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>>
>
> Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew
> its venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the
> filters it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an
> admission that one knows he is a complete loser.

Creative writing, even in a clay forest such a this, mandates fresh
characterization on a regular basis.

What a shame you are so stolid as to confuse an obvious naming
convention tell with something as prosaic and trite as filter evasion.

Suffice to say those who hide behind such fictional firewalls reveal
only their own mental cowardice as opposed to any deficits in their
detractors.

On 10/3/2017 8:59 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
>>> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
>>> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
>>> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew
>> its venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the
>> filters it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an
>> admission that one knows he is a complete loser.
>
>
> What's your excuse?
>
> Cheri

A brutal childhood?

On 10/3/2017 9:28 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:25:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
>>> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
>>> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
>>> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew
>> its venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the
>> filters it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an
>> admission that one knows he is a complete loser.
>
> Yes, pathetic. The whole idea of wishing people dead because you
> disagree with them is severely psychiatric.

Not at all, in fact it's rather an prime human directive from time
immemorial!

> People who are chummy with
> a character like that, have their own problems to deal with.

Is that why you've so few "chums"?

> I know
> Ted Bundy had fans too. Mainly female ones, but one confused man from
> Hawaii too, I bet.

Ah the sidelong swipe at a party not present nor involved.

Leave it to hateful Bwuthie to drag as many of his targets through the
ringer as possible.

You really are a weapons grade arsehole, Bwuthie.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:59:15 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.
>>
>> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
>> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
>> married. You hail from the 50s.
>>
>
>Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents. There
>is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids pretty much
>doomed to a life of poverty.

Perhaps they are those women who are grasping money from the men who
fathered the children? Mostly they are kids with dead beat fathers.

"Cheri" wrote in message news
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2017-10-03 9:55 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> Hatred and anger are clearly keywords of your mental illness. It must
>> be a very unpleasant way to live. Good luck getting better. There has
>> been no progress in your condition since you started haunting this
>> newsgroup, but who knows. Electroshock perhaps?
>>
>
> Yep. It is a pathetic excuse for a person who is so desperate to spew its
> venom that it has to keep altering its user name to get past the filters
> it knows it is in. Constant nymshifting is pretty much an admission that
> one knows he is a complete loser.


What's your excuse?

Cheri

==

Good question!



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:53:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>
> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.

Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It
might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids.
Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being
able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human
race.

OTOH, my daughter's boyfriend recently did a most anachronistic thing: he
took her to a restaurant, got down on one knee, presented her with a ring,
and asked her to marry him. I thought that was a little nutty myself.

No, it wasn't a McDonald's.

==

Aww lovely. Did she say yes? I assume she did)



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
>
> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.

It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
the right to determine what happens to the body after death.

That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >
>> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
>> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
>> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
>> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
>> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
>> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
>>
>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>
>It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
>parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
>the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
>
>That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.

Lots of couples with children in the Netherlands are doing fine
without being married. Also legally. Even though I'm married myself, I
do find it rather bourgeois in this day and age.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >
>> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
>> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
>> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
>> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
>> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
>> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
>>
>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>
>It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
>parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
>the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
>
>That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 21:50:25 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
>>> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
>>> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
>>> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
>>> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
>>> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
>>>
>>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>>
>>It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
>>parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
>>the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
>>
>>That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
>
>Lots of couples with children in the Netherlands are doing fine
>without being married. Also legally. Even though I'm married myself, I
>do find it rather bourgeois in this day and age.

I agree, if I were young today and starting out, marriage would be
very low on my priorities.

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:54:06 -0300, wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
>>> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
>>> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
>>> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
>>> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
>>> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
>>>
>>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>>
>>It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
>>parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
>>the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
>>
>>That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
>>
>>Cindy Hamilton
>
>Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.

Yes, I think the legal side is covered in most western countries or
you can get it covered without actually getting married. I would have
thought the US has that too.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:54:06 -0300, wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
> >>> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
> >>> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
> >>> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
> >>> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
> >>> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
> >>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
> >>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
> >>
> >>It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
> >>parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
> >>the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
> >>
> >>That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
> >>
> >>Cindy Hamilton
> >
> >Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.
>
> Yes, I think the legal side is covered in most western countries or
> you can get it covered without actually getting married. I would have
> thought the US has that too.

Not throughout the U.S. Marriage is a matter left to the states.
Some states have common-law marriage; others don't. I'm not sure
where the Feds sit on common-law marriage vis a vis Social Security.
We don't have common-law marriage here in Michigan, so I've never
investigated that.

We do have no-fault divorce, which is a boon to people without
children or real estate.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2017-10-04 6:02 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:59:15 -0400, Dave Smith

>> Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents.
>> There is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids
>> pretty much doomed to a life of poverty.
>
> Perhaps they are those women who are grasping money from the men who
> fathered the children? Mostly they are kids with dead beat fathers.

There seems to be no shortage of dead beat fathers, but women still get
themselves impregnated by these guys. The mothers end up saddled with
kids they have to care for and try to hold down a job. It's kind of sad
to see that there are women who actually aspire to a life of a welfare
mother. I am glad that there is the occasional success story, but too
many of them end up stuck in that cycle of poverty. It is interesting
to see that so many successful people can maintain careers and limit
their family size to what they figure they can afford while those unable
to support themselves don't seem as concerned about that little problem.

On 2017-10-04 6:50 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> Lots of couples with children in the Netherlands are doing fine
> without being married. Also legally. Even though I'm married myself, I
> do find it rather bourgeois in this day and age.
>

I don't have any issues with unmarried couples having children. They are
likely as capable of raising kids as any married couple, and maybe more
than some. I do have concerns about single young women having children
and no means to support them. The cost and hassle of day care makes it
difficult for them to finish their education and to get and keep a
decent job. I have to admit that there are the odd exceptional cases
where the do better themselves and the kids do well, but far too many of
them get stuck in a cycle of poverty.

On 2017-10-04 7:38 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:54:06 -0300, wrote:
>

>> Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.
>
> Yes, I think the legal side is covered in most western countries or
> you can get it covered without actually getting married. I would have
> thought the US has that too.


I really don't get that. When people get married they make a formal
commitment as a couple and assume the duties and the responsibilities
that go with it. If people opt to live together without making that
commitment it should not be thrust upon them.

wrote:
>
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
> >parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
> >the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
> >
> >That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
> >
> >Cindy Hamilton
>
> Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.

Some of the USain states have "common law" marriage after living
together for 7 years. Seems that Virginia doesn't have that
though.

On 10/3/2017 7:17 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:38:22 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 5:56 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:54:55 -0400, Dave Smith
>>
>>>> Funny how it works in real life. Marriage was a social institution that
>>>> formalized a commitment between two people. It wasn't perfect, but it
>>>> did make it difficult to get out of the commitment. One thing that it
>>>> did ensure was alimony. Nowadays people want to live together without
>>>> that commitment, but they still expect the alimony. I realize there are
>>>> different circumstances in marital breakups, but my take on it is that I
>>>> do not think that a person's financial responsibility in a relationship
>>>> should have to continue after the relationship ends. Just because on of
>>>> the people in the relationship was financially dependent on the other
>>>> does not mean it should continue after the relationship has ended.
>>>
>>> In the traditional situation, the man has the career and the woman
>>> looks after the children and the household. Then they divorce after 30
>>> years. Do you now want the man to be rich and the woman to be poor?
>>
>>
>> Should that not depend on the situation? Some women choose to give up
>> work and stay home with the kids. It beats going out to work.
>
> I don't know it it beats going out to work. It depends on the job.
> She's stuck at home with housework and children.
>
> Anyway, these days both partners often work and the children are
> looked after by strangers during the day. That changes everything, I
> think.
>

To a woman that wants kids, she does not look at it as being "stuck" at
home. She is there to take care of her children.

IMO, if you are going to have kids, a parent should stay home to raise
them, not put them in a warehouse for the day. Yes, I'm old fashioned
that way, but I think you get better kids in the long run.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> There seems to be no shortage of dead beat fathers, but women still get
> themselves impregnated by these guys. The mothers end up saddled with
> kids they have to care for and try to hold down a job.

There are dead beat mothers too. I raised my daughter by myself
from when she was age 7 to adult. I quit a good job to start my
own business (risky) just to have more flexible time. Had to quit
going to college too. It worked but we never had much money.
Still....never had to resort to welfare or food stamps either.
Never a penny in child support ever offered for all those years.

People always talk about the poor single mothers but never a care
about single fathers. It really does work both ways sometimes.
Raising a child without child support is a challenge with time
and money to anyone.

I'm not complaining either. My daughter had a good life and is
fine now married with children. If I could do it all over again,
I would do the same thing. It worked. And hey...I had a good trip
too. Doing what I did was much better than not raising her and
only visiting once a week. I was the rare lucky dad back then.

On 10/3/2017 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:01:36 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:53:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>>
>> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.
>
> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
> married. You hail from the 50s.
>

You can find all types these days. When you say unmarried raising
children well, it may be both parents living as a family compared to the
woman with 6 kids by 6 fathers.

Marriage is a commitment and if it does not work out, there are many
potential legal problems getting out of it. Though I've been happily
married over 50 years, it is not for everyone. As an adult with assets
I'd probably not marry and get tangled up with anyone. Unless she is a
billionaire, of course.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> IMO, if you are going to have kids, a parent should stay home to raise
> them, not put them in a warehouse for the day. Yes, I'm old fashioned
> that way, but I think you get better kids in the long run.

I completely agree. When I was married, I worked and the wife
stayed home with the kids. When I got divorced, I started my own
business so I could be home before and after school. I worked 6.5
hours a day with no lunch. That worked well for the school year
but I did have find a babysitter for the summer months. Found
several nice ones though and it all came together nicely.

On 10/3/2017 9:19 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:59:15 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.
>>>
>>> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
>>> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
>>> married. You hail from the 50s.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents. There
>> is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids pretty much
>> doomed to a life of poverty.
>
> It all depends on the kind of people the parents are, not on whether
> they're married.
>

Also depends on who is really raising the kids. In the case of a single
parent or working parents, it is often the grandmother as the main
influence.

On 10/4/2017 6:02 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:59:15 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.
>>>
>>> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
>>> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
>>> married. You hail from the 50s.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents. There
>> is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids pretty much
>> doomed to a life of poverty.
>
> Perhaps they are those women who are grasping money from the men who
> fathered the children? Mostly they are kids with dead beat fathers.
>

Depends on what assumptions you are making. It is possible for two
people to live together, have children and raise them like a family, all
living together happily but not married. That is probably the minority
though.

Between family, friends, and neighbors, I've seen most every type of
situation, some good, some less so. Some people (both men and women)
should be sterilized at age 12 or so.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Marriage is a commitment and if it does not work out, there are many
> potential legal problems getting out of it. Though I've been happily
> married over 50 years, it is not for everyone.

I've always admired the long marriages. You know they weren't
without issues but they stayed together and really stuck to the
marriage vows - for better or worse. I would have stuck to it too
if given the chance.

My parents were married for 68 years and 3 months when my dad
died last year. Mom is still trying to adjust.

On 2017-10-04 7:25 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-10-04 6:02 AM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:59:15 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>> Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents.
>>> There is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids
>>> pretty much doomed to a life of poverty.
>>
>> Perhaps they are those women who are grasping money from the men who
>> fathered the children?Â* Mostly they are kids with dead beat fathers.
>
> There seems to be no shortage of dead beat fathers, but women still get
> themselves impregnated by these guys. The mothers end up saddled with
> kids they have to care for and try to hold down a job. It's kind of sad
> to see that there are women who actually aspire to a life of a welfare
> mother.Â* I am glad that there is the occasional success story, but too
> many of them end up stuck in that cycle of poverty.Â* It is interesting
> to see that so many successful people can maintain careers and limit
> their family size to what they figure they can afford while those unable
> to support themselves don't seem as concerned about that little problem.

Such wisdom coming from someone who spent his career living off the
public purse!

On 10/4/2017 9:30 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-10-04 6:50 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Lots of couples with children in the Netherlands are doing fine
>> without being married. Also legally. Even though I'm married myself, I
>> do find it rather bourgeois in this day and age.
>>
>
> I don't have any issues with unmarried couples having children. They are
> likely as capable of raising kids as any married couple, and maybe more
> than some.Â* I do have concerns about single young women having children
> and no means to support them.Â* The cost and hassle of day care makes it
> difficult for them to finish their education and to get and keep a
> decent job. I have to admit that there are the odd exceptional cases
> where the do better themselves and the kids do well, but far too many of
> them get stuck in a cycle of poverty.
>

Yes, that is where problems occur. The tax payer is often paying for
both kid and parent.

OTOH, I know of one young lady that has a child and has a good job and
can easily pay her way. The kid though, is really spending most of his
time with grandparents. Not easy for a 75 year old woman chasing a 3
year old.

Now you may be wondering about the age difference. Fact is, the
daughter is actually the granddaughter, adopted when her son got a woman
pregnant.

On 10/4/2017 7:08 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> We do have no-fault divorce, which is a boon to people without
> children or real estate.
>
> Cindy Hamilton


Oh goody!

It's as free of any moral entanglement as simple car wreck!

How NICE of the Godless state to step in and erase any accountability.

On 10/4/2017 7:32 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> If people opt to live together without making that commitment it should
> not be thrust upon them.
>

Oh good grief!

Get over your moral paucity!

On 10/4/2017 7:34 AM, Gary wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
>>> parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
>>> the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
>>>
>>> That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.
>
> Some of the USain states have "common law" marriage after living
> together for 7 years. Seems that Virginia doesn't have that
> though.
>


Pity.

At some point playing house ought to have some consequences, period.