Saying sorry to our kids....do you think it is important to do? chat & forums.

I never approach a debate in terms of proving someone wrong...

I started to respond to OpenHeart's comments about vaccination and intended to cut and paste from the net symptoms of the illnesses we vaccinate against and I stopped after researching two of them because honestly.....the treatment for the two I researched are readily available and the illnesses only seem to result in death in children when those children are also malnourished...kinda made me wonder actually just how important it was....and made me wonder if the extinction of those illnesses through vaccination might not have caused more problems that science yet realizes.

.....I think I just figured out why debates are supposed to be void of emotion and based on facts only.......not bad, only took 43 years on the planet to have the value of debating on facts shown to me. Thanks you guys! I doubt it will change much for me in how I debate though...I'm an emotional talker and an emotional thinker. Lord knows how my life would be easier if I wasn't, but it is who I am and I think the world needs emotional talkers too.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.

Do you want to honestly tell me that under no circumstances could you ever be turned on and satisified by a man? If so, I say you're not being completely honest. You choose to be with a woman, or with women. But the right man could surely light your fire if you were actually open to it. But your choice precludes that option, right?

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse.

Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

QUESTION: If I agree to support "gay" marriage, now that your latest tactic is so incredibly persuasive, will you agree to support blood relatives getting married as long as one of them is unable to produce offspring, and to reduce the legal age limit to oh, say, 15, and then to agree that we must allow those relationships to also "marry" and that we also need to allow one man to have up to 10 wives and one woman to have up to 10 husbands -- as well as group marriages that can involve up to 14 people? The bans on those practices are all just old retarded religious concepts that need to go, too. What do you say, CS?

I'll inform Tiger Woods, Mariah Carey, the spirits of Mother Theresa and Ghandi, crack whores, drug-addicted gang bangers who murder for a living, and all serial killers. They'll be happy to know they are all equal.

I still do not have the power or the authority to prevent two men or two women from marrying.

Some people enjoy having sex with animals. Others, with children. Some people enjoy bringing new inductees into sado-masochism practices that include whipping, beating, forced submission, etc. Where do you draw that line in forcing society to say, "oh, well, as long as they 'enjoy' it, let's call that marriage, too." ?

Do you actually believe men and women are equal in all ways?

Do you actually believe that ALL people ARE equal in all ways, too?

This is a fun thread...you gotta admit that...even if we are violating the rules by participating in it....wonder who will notify the mods and report us all getting our posting rights suspended for a time......

I wish more Christians would do so, rather than bash what they haven't even investigated

Teaching kids to question everything is good.

My 15 year old can't seem to grasp it!!!!!

Great question, ConsciousSoul.

People who do not respect the right of an individual human being to protect his or her own person/body tend to be lost in a variety of other ways.

At the base of a person's beliefs about freedom is how they truly view the right of an individual to defend him/herself from the physical harm of another.

I have learned that people who grow up in, develop in and/or live inside a social agreement that you are bad/wrong for protecting your own body tend to live in a hive mentality, with a "collective" Borg-like belief system that says it's okay to trample innocent people under the boot of tyranny for the "greater good."

George Orwell exposed the corruption of this mindset in Animal Farm. But we have many historical examples of how it doesn't work in reality, so the book isn't necessary to explore the concept

We DO have that right here in the States. It's the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even the Supreme Court finally recognized what constitutionalists have known for centuries.

You cannot guarantee against misuse, by bad people, of anything. But the worst a bad person "could" do should not preclude good, decent, free people from having access for legal purposes.

Does a man just spontaneously suddenly find himself, by no choice of his own, in bed with another man? It just "happens"? Come on.

You choose who you bed.

My own moral compass is not determined by a group

And in my worldview, the rights of an individual are virtually absolute, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

But for the militant homosexual community, nothing will ever been good enough. They are the types who would sue to force a Baptist minister to marry two men, alleging discrimination if he refused, regardless of the fact that their desire to be wed absolutely goes deeply against the grain of his core beliefs and regardless of the fact that they could find a "gay" minister up the street who'd love to perform the service. At that point, it's not about quality of life as much as forcing other people to accept something they will never accept just to prove a point. That goes beyond "rude" and into abusive.

I think there are people that are not necessarily opposed to homosexuality believing that whatever people do in their own homes is their business but they still see homosexuality as a choice, deviance, rather than something that is biologically determined so to allow marriage in the homosexual community would make them as good as heterosexuals, and people do for whatever reason, wish to prevent that

Amen, Sister.

The thugs who believe they have a true and righteous authority to ban a plant created by God/nature but peddle whiskey and tequila by the truckload are, at best, complete liars. Their concern is not about people's well being -- obviously, as hard liquor is certainly more dangerous than weed. Their "war on drugs" is about control and money.

The marijuana de-criminalization issue is another litmus test on how much someone really believes in freedom. People who oppose de-criminalization oppose freedom, plain and simple.

And, no, I do not smoke pot. But I find the abusive enforcement against the right of a free individual to do so to be an abomination against the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You mean like saying I compared dudes doing dudes to dudes doing animals when I didn't?

A gay I know calls his partner his "husband" although they are not married, as its still not legal in UK (yet).

Now I understand your mindset. You live in a country where the government has banned you from using force to protect your own person, in your own home, from a violent intruder. If a man gets out of prison and comes to your home to harm you, be careful not to injure him while he's having his way with you, or it is YOU who'll be going to jail. Expecting you to understand freedom is folly when you do not even have the basic freedom to defend your own person.

So who cares about folks under seige and defenseless, as long as it's not happening to you?

Yet you really care, so very deeply, about people whose rights are trampled -- as long as the right is merely to "marry" versus the basic right of physical self-preservation.

That's why I learned to avoid political discussions with subjects of crowns.

I have no ability to deny anyone a marriage license (licenses being granted by the government).

My belief that men should not be granted the privilege of being called "husband and husband" and socially accepted as such has nothing to do with religion.

YOU, ConsciousSoul, are a bigot by definition. You adamantly refuse to respect my belief, which differs from your own. If you believe two men have a "right" to get married, why is it that you do not believe that one man has a right to believe differently? Answer: you're a bigot. And a hypocritical one at that.

A woman cannot choose to be a man very easily, nor can a black man make himself white (no offense to Michael Jackson). But I do understand your analogy.

In America, there are many, many millions of people who do not see that as a move toward a greater good, but away from it.

Nobody is saying homosexuals have to sit in the back of the bus. Nobody is denying them the vote. Nobody is trying to sell them, or beat them and force them into slavery. Etc.

Are you saying that no married couple are practicing sodomy in the privacy of their own bedroom? Should they also be prevented from marrying?

Fascists, socialists, communists -- all cut from the same cloth, which is a worship of the State

Calling a homosexual civil union a "marriage" would -- to millions of people in an actual marriage -- sully the very concept of marriage. That is why we've seen such a harsh backlash. Radical conflict in ideologies.

Why does there have to be God? and why is the Flying Spagetti Monster any less real then so called God?

The truth is, neither conservatives nor liberals have their basis in religious beliefs, but rather the almighty dollar.

Hmmmm... so who's seen Zeitgeist?

If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain

You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.

it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S. O. B.! You did this to me!"

Conservatives think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals

When people are truly hurting an in need, there's absolutely nothing wrong with temporary social programs -- with voluntarily donated monies -- to give people a boost back onto their own feet. But the general notion of being "entitled" to permanent largesse merely because you breathe is not only unrealistic, it's impractical and unsustainable over time -- because more and more freeloaders will come to the trough until the producers in a society get discouraged and stop producing.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a goat, etc. Man + woman = marriage. Man + man = civil union. My answer has not changed and is not going to change.

Ooops. Now you're a "bigot" too -- for stating the plain truth.

You vote how you please. I will do the same.

Now I understand your mindset. You live in a country where the government has banned you from using force to protect your own person, in your own home, from a violent intruder

I already said it - if it can be proven that homosexuality is a choice, then there is no reason to make something a 'right' when it seems most everyone believes the behavior is aberrant. We could simply say 'oh that behavior is a choice? Well make the right choice (heterosexuality) and we don't have to worry about. We don't have to worry about giving rights to the 'wrong choice' (homosexuality) when most of us believe it is wrong.' Those who fight for marital and civil equality for homosexuals always ask this question and fail to see why heterosexuals always use this argument about 'choice' or chosen sexuality. And it's exactly for the reason I stated. If you don't know about your enemies weapons and why or how they use them, then how do you plan to defeat them? Or at the very least, get them to change their mind or open their mind?

Homosexualty is an anomaly and not an accepted norm for the human species

What if, furthermore, nature is regulating its own procreation rate through the use of mechanism like homosexuality, in order to slow down the pace of reproduction when too many people are burning the resources?

Gay parents would certainly raise their kid in a lot more respect for diversity and LGBTQ issues; besides, a kid raised by gay parents has a constant example of gay love and will most likely find it perfectly normal, a great way to stop the cycle of intolerance.

You'll have to do better than Deuteronomy, Leviticus and texts many thousands of years old to prove to me that the actual doctrine Christ came to share is bad

BUT, what if He does exist? What harm is there to not believe in him? Well, you get to spend eternity in Hell.

I know, some will joke and say, "well at least I will be surrounded by my friends and we will have a big ole' party." I dont quite think it works that way.

I find it cowardly for someone to say " I dont believe in God because my father died and I'm in pain. How can there be a God if he allows me to be in pain?" Or for someone to say, "God doesnt exist because if He did, I wouldnt have killed all those people on a drunken rampage because He would have stopped me."

For "priests" who rape little boys, I do believe we need to bring back burnings at the stake

Probably not much different than Christians being compared to Satanists, don't you think?

BTW, any true Christian who has studied the Bible and explored many denominations of Christianity does not consider Catholicism to be a Christian religion. Furthermore, there is at least one Christian religion that believes the Pope of the day will be the anti-Christ. I am quite serious about that. Many Catholics are good, decent people. But their religion is rather confused to say the very least -- and many of their practices are absolutely non-Biblical.

We can recognize their alternative lifestyle choices via a civil union. They are trying to force people to sacrifice thousands of years of understanding about the very meaning of marriage.

Right. Their "principles" are more important than the principles of those who oppose "gay" marriage, even though their principles are in the gross minority and fly in the face of the principles of the majority and clash harshly with the majority's belief systems, values and morals.

Even in that very liberal land you cannot get a simple majority vote to support "gay" marriage. That's a clue

What you do in your bedroom is a choice.

So is trying to force everyone else in the world to think about what you do in your bedroom.

if homosexuality is a choice, why in God's name would anyone choose to be gay?

Brilliant. The majority even in liberal California want to protect marriage as between a man and a woman, and that means they want to own humans as slaves. Excellent deductive reasoning once again, ConsciousSoul.

Disagreeing with a minority means you are a close-minded bigot

But you wouldn't see him as "normal" now would you ? a freak maybe ?

normal parent wants a child to grow up to be LBGTQS&MPDQBFEXD. You want a normal child, like every other normal parent.

Now if you are talking about what gets someone sexually aroused, riddle me this, Monkey: If queers "have no choice, because that is what turns them on," then where do you stop using that excuse for behavior? Pedaphiles allege the same thing. Adults don't do it for them, they claim.

Quoting them to me is like me quoting Jesus Christ to you -- a waste of time.

Furthermore, their organization openly and adamantly opposes some of the bedrock principles upon which America was founded and which made America great.

I am really OK with you believing I am a fool for knowing my Creator intimately, and a really mean and selfish person because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. You are welcome to believe that about me. Your life will go on, and so will mine. I do not wish to try to change your beliefs and would fight to defend your right to believe as you do. I have been a very, very open man in my life to all possibilities surrounding my convictions and have arrived at them by choice and experience, not coercion.

Paul, when he was Saul, slaughtered Christians like diseased cattle. But he had an Experience that turned him around. So did I. I have seen miraculous things that had you experienced them, you would feel differently. I know that. But you do not, and that's cool.

Everyone should ALWAYS support what the UN stands for regardless of its limitations, regardless of its shortcommings.

4. Increase the timeouts. Explain the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of both good behaviors and bad behaviors.

5. when they are playing together doing ANYTHING.. Tell them ALL that the privilege ENDS if there is any trouble. Even if ONE is doing the trouble.. they ALL lose out.

6. Use less words when you talk to them.. Be abrupt, to the point, and firm.. then DONT give them MORE verbal engagement attention. They are seeking reassurance in their attentiongetting.. BAD behavior is getting them a LOT more of your focus and time.. THAT behavior is normal.

7. Silent treatment WILL work. They will start to CRAVE a kind word.

I can't stress enough how important it is for you to avoid making your kids stressed out over loyalty issues. They need to get along well with dad and his gf and they should not feel guilty about this. If they know you dont approve of her, dont want them to go, etc, they will be far more stressed. either way, it takes tim,e for the kids to get used to dealing with 2 homes.

And it didn't help when I brought this subject up with my ex that he starts bragging about how they are so well behaved over there.

I am still not sure how I am going to handle this.

A Woman or Man should only work if they HAVE to

I've heard that if you leave the workforce for 5 years, and don't keep up with education, your skills diminish.

Heck, I apologize to my CAT when I accidentally step on his tail!

...spanking is a fear response form of love which the lesser communicative/knowledgeable ab use to....protect .. nurture .. guide .. control .. etc.

I love how so many perfect people, who have never had to apologize for the same thing twice, happened to find their way to POF

I would just like to know who all here has shared parenting and how it's working out for you. The reason I ask is because I am considering it with the ex and just wanted to see peoples experiences it with it. I really don't see how it's very much different than me being the custodial parent and him having visitation. I would be the residential parent if we agree to 50/50 custody.
The only concern I have is if we have shared custody, doesn't that mean he could technically keep my son (since he has 50% custody) and not return him?

Because of my son's age, I would not be willing to do a one week with him/one week with me type deal. We have agreed Dad should have him by himself maybe one or two days a week for a few hours (no overnights) and the rest of the vists will be done with me present until my son gets older

Redefining home as a split thing to suit the parents is possible but what usually works best for kids is to have a home be one place. From their perspective, a single home represents much greater stability as a framework for development than does shuttling to and fro for the purpose of maintaining an abstract sense of equity they can't enjoy and that serves only the parents. Things get even more comical after there is remarriage and subsequent divorce, putting the kids on a schedule that moves them in and out of three or four or even eight households. In the case of a single home, the home remains intact while one parent leaves it. In the case of two homes, the home has split along with the marriage. Then the kids need to maintain two separate lives, and constantly transition between them, each week or so being a ritual of realignment of loyalties, roles, and expectations.

My son would primarily live with me, and go to his dad's for visitation. Which is why I said I didn't understand the difference between 50/50 custody and me being the residential parent instead of me being the custodial parent with him having visits.

If you were married to him, are you saying he cant be trusted with your son when you go to the store? Something's fishy here with your story.

does no one pay child support in all 50/50 cases? If that's the case than I cannot do it even if I wanted to. I get medical from the state and anytime you get help from the state you HAVE to file for child support otherwise u don't get help.

One problem I am having is that I feel like he is going to treat my son different than his other two kids. For instance he told me he expects me to send over clothes, bottles, and diapers for our son. He does not do that to his ex wife, his kids have their own set of clothes at his house and their own toys and everything that stays at his house. If they have their own things there, then so should my son. It shouldn't be on me to constantly have to run to different stores and spend extra money so that he can have his own things at both of our homes.
I understand that he will be paying child support soon, but he pays child support for his other kids and they still have their own things at his home that he purchased with his own money.

One night sit down in your living room...no T.V. with some cheese and crackers and gapes and some great sparkling cider or beverage of choice

When she asks you which one do you believe in...tell her Christianity...and then say "and your grandmother belives is this one"...pointing to the Jewish book.... with a big ole smile on your face so that she will know there is nothing wrong with her choice.

You said "quickly get something from the other house" a 30 min round trip walk isnt "quickly" at all.

It seems this difference of opinion is at the heart of why you two are divorced.

Just remember, it isnt about winning or "right fighting" it's about making well-rounded adult offspring out of your two children.

A moment of my time is worth a lifetime of safety for my daughter.

Yes you can be to cautious.

you need to respect his concerns as they are valid

the world is a wicked place

I'm curious... what are his reasons for not letting them walk?

What differance does it make to you maybe you need to worry bout you and quit looking down your nose at what some women have done, if it was a good idea great! if not oh well who cares its none of your business

I kept my photos until I realized that they were as much a lie as the marriage. The silly smiling images of me thinking I was in a happy relationship with a faithful husband were a farce. They made me gag and feel like a fool. They didn't tell a true story so I burned them on a bonfire in my back yard. One at a time. I looked at each one and remembered and.......flick!

Maybe theres other reasons, and only he can answer those. I can ask him to sign up for the POF forums so he can fully explain himself.

I just feel badly for the other little one who doesn't have anyone coming to visit.

Yet my daughter knows she was adopted by my husband (her little brothers father), and my son knows that "that guy" that picks uo my daughter on occasion for an outing is not HIS father.

This has got to be tough on the innocent child.

I ended up resenting my mom. I think she just wanted what she wanted when she wanted it...

My daughter thinks im old.

Sweetness, I don't see why you feel the need to categorize yourself into the single mother category. You are a widowed mother, which is very different.

Why would anyone stereotype you? You wouldn't be single if it weren't for his illness.

Marriage has existed in some form for thousands of years. It is human nature to mate with one partner for life. Governments and religious figures did not invent families.

I find it weird that women can have out of wedlock children. I cannot even begin to tell you how strongly I felt about NEVER doing that.

I would never, ever shame my father that way. It would have killed him.

a woman who has a child by the hound around town

Self-esteem cannot be gauged by how you feel about other people, and whether or not you vocalize those thoughts

I wouldn't even know that my dad said that if he hadn't told me as an adult and how awful he feels for saying those things.

I'm flattered that you took the time out of your busy schedule to check my posting history. There are thousands of people posting on POF...Do you check all of their posting history? Or just people who post things you disagree with? What is your posting history full of? Can you tell me? Because I don't have a clue.

Yes...I feel that if a woman has a child/children, and things do not work out with the father of that child, she should just concentrate and raise the child to her best ability and think strongly about how having a child by another father can create complications

The children grew up coming over our house everyday, eating our food and taking trips with us etc. If my brothers ex had decide to have a 4th child by another man, that child would not be related to us at all. Should then, would you think it would have been appropiate for the 4th child to act like a full sibling with our family and join the other 3 children with their frequent visits to our home?