Fags Who Want To Be Girls Want To Join Service Too

The only thing Apustule is an expert on is growing cheese in his fat rolls. Ignore his dumb ass.

Another image I did not need running around my head.

Not really. The divorce rate in America is over 50 percent. So, most people aren't.

What's more, marriage is an obligation. It's a commitment. It's easily observed that many, many marriages end because people entered into the commitment not thinking that it would take work, and, at many points, be unpleasant. Lots of folks hit a rough patch in the road, and throw up their hands in surrender, and beat a path to an attorney.

Are there situations in which the couple discover that they're wholly incompatible and they shouldn't have been wed to begin with? Sure. Alarmingly, I'd daresay that a lot of people split because they thought marriage was going to be a fairy tale, not the often excruciating work that it really is.

This is a very good point. My nephew refuses to divorce his abusive, criminal wife, because his parents (my sister and her slimeball) divorced, and he doesn't want to put his children through that. Yet his 13-year-old son recently told my mother that even HE wished they split up and put and end to EVERYone's misery.

Another blindingly obvious testimony from someone who's never been married.

Still doesn't change the fact that Nova was and is willing to continue to work on her marriage, yet the other half of the equation refuses to adjust.

Both sides need to work together and if one side doesn't, the other side is under no obligation to remain stagnant. Life continues on. It evolves and changes. and both sides need to be willing to alter their lifestyle to adjust to the other.

I went through something similar. My mother didn't leave my father, not because he was abusive or even a bad person, they just were no longer in love and it was painful for ..., me at least. But the reason she didn't leave was because she couldn't afford to.


... on second thought ...

Over Thanksgiving this year, I learned alot about my mother and her relationship with her family. and I think my mother did love my father because I'm certain her family would have taken her and her 7 children in had she left my father.

So, we're back to the children do suffer when parents stay together when both parties are no longer in love.

While I won't comment on this particular situation, expecting a woman (or a man in the reverse situ) who married a man to work on s situation where her husband is trying to be a woman is a bit much. I cannot imagine more than 1% of marriages would survive gender chance of one of the spouses.

I think Nova knows and understands that too.

Exactly my point.

At this point in human evolution, obligation is no longer the main reason for staying married. Love and desire for one another should be.

Staying together out of obligation will ruin the lives of not just the two people married, but will seriously distort the lives of the children.

Whoa! Best to just leave it at irreconcilable differences.

Here's my take, if you marry the right woman, marriage is a greatness, it doesn't get much better.

Yet I recognize how the government has corrupted what should be a private commitment ceremony by ascribing legal benefits to personal unions. The state has no business rewarding or punishing anyone based on marital status, more than that they've no business defining the criteria for marriage.

You missed the point completely, but whatever.

The point is that a person has obligations beyond themselves. This is not about marriage. It is about the kids. How do you think kids will feel when their friends come by and their father is now wearing a dress and has tits? Do you not think they will suffer from the person who is their father now being a woman? This will happen whether they divorce or stay together.

Again, I must point out that not knowing Nova's situation I am making general comments, not targeting Nova.

Of course the kids are going to be embarrassed. Everything a parent does embarrasses their kids. Hell, I was embarrassed in the mid to late 70s and my dad insisted on driving around in a 1964 1/2 Mustang convertible. Kids who have a parent who "becomes" gay and leaves the marriage are embarrassed. Kids who have a parent who can't keep his pants on around other women embarrass their kids.

Like everything else in life, kids will learn to adapt and deal with the situation. That which doesn't kill them, will make them stronger.

Kids need to learn the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect or "correct" life, that they need to know how to roll with it and adapt, and that the fact that they don't have a perfect childhood is no excuse to act like a useless, parasitic criminal fuckstain as an adult.

Bulldog was (and still is) a pastor. Nova (i.e., Shep) never was a pastor, AFAIK.

As for the subject of marriage, I don't honestly know which is worse for children: To live in a home where the parents no longer love each other, or to have their parents split up. My guess, based on everything I have seen, is that it depends on the kid. Some will find one situation worse, some the other.

What kids really need is a home that is based on love, which produces security. I heard of one young person whose father asked him what he wanted most from him, as a father. The answer was: "I want you to love my mother." I don't know if it's a true story, but it certainly illustrates an important truth.

Love, unfortunately, is often reduced to pleasure derived from the other. "I love you" ultimately means the same thing as "I love chocolate cake." IOW, "I enjoy you." Well, there is nothing at all wrong with that; love should involve a lot of enjoyment. But when that's all there is to love, it won't last all that long because there inevitably come periods when you don't "enjoy" the other person all that much. The love that lasts is the unshakable commitment to putting the well-being of the other ahead of your own. (Which, paradoxically, produces the greatest well-being for the person who loves another that way.)

When kids grow up in a family where each parent loves the other in that way, they have huge advantages over those who don't. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there probably aren't more than about 10% of families, at most, that are really like that. Because there just aren't that many people (even among fundamentalist Christians, as Nova correctly pointed out) who are really willing to love in that sense.

None of which makes any of those things right. My argument is that by bringing a child into this world, you limit your freedoms and assume obligations you would otherwise not have. Your argument seems to be the hell with the kids, I'm more important. I guess we disagree on that.

There is some truth in this. I know that for me, marriage has been and still is wonderful. Nevertheless, I still stand by the principle I teach to kids and that has guided my own marriage: It is much more important to be the right partner than to find the right partner.

You will certainly discover that your partner, no matter who you are and no matter how much you "love" him or her, is not perfect in every way. You usually can't change them, and the attempt will almost always make things worse rather than better. But no matter what you discover about them that wasn't what you had hoped for, you can still choose to be the husband or wife they need. And that is actually what will have the greatest chance of "changing" them.

This is by no means a general rule. A lot of kids are not particularly embarrassed by their parents, and no kids are embarassed by everything their parents do.

Then I'm not making myself clear, but that is not my point at all. When I left my husband, I could have thought only of myself and taken my son with me. Instead, I left in the house my husband and I bought with our son in mind, left him in the neighborhood with his friends, left him in the school he'd already started in.

It's been very painful for me and my soon to be exhusband isn't making things any easier.

However, staying in that marriage, with a man who wasn't willing to give his 100% to that marriage was devastating to me and was already having a detrimental affect on my son's attitude toward me and to his classmates and friends.

At least this way, I can show him how to behave decently toward others if only part time.

I'm pretty sure at some point in every child's life, they are embarrassed by something their parents said or did.

Not always, but more often than not.

^^ I am not judging you, nor saying divorce is wrong (i am divorced and remarried with sole custody of my kids). There is a huge difference getting divorced and turning yourself into a different gender as a parent. One is common and kids deal all the time. The other much less so. Also, divorce to spare kids seeing horrible things is often for their benefit. A parent changing genders is not in any way for the children's benefit.

Being embarrassed by a car or a comment is worlds apart from being embarrassed by the fact the the person your friends knew as your dad now has tits and wears a dress. There are degrees to things in life.

Sure there are. There's also a world of difference between being embarrassed because your dad now has tits and wears a dress and being embarrassed and much worse, devestated because your dad committed suicide because his life was such a turmoil.

I don't know if it's right or wrong. I just know that people should be happy with their life and if they're not happy, they should make the necessary changes to be happy. and, when you're happy with your life - and involved in your kids life, that happiness is better for them than your being miserable.

On that, we agree. But there is a huge difference between that and "everything" a parent does embarrasses a child. It's like the difference between "Some things in a marriage will not be just what you want" and "Nothing in a marriage is good."

The obligation to the child does not mean that you must remain with the other parent of the child.
My brother-in-law divorced his first wife when their child was very young. Though he and his wife were no longer going to be together, they CHOSE to make their child's life as loving as possible. He remains obligated to the child - financially and emotionally.
So tell me, what more would you have had him do?

Re: your last paragraph. There are limits to that. If you want to shoot heroin and snort cocaine to make you happy that is bad for your kids. No if's and's or but's. So what we're really debating is where the line is drawn between what you want to do and your responsibility to your kids.

True.

So, why is shooting heroin and snorting cocain not good for the kids? Because, when you're high, you can't focus on the kids - might even hurt them.

I don't think dressing differently will alter Nova's ability to focus on her kids. But, will it hurt them? It might. My brother, who's older than I am, still has issues with my father because he drove a semi-truck cross country throughout our childhood and was seldom around. That hurt him.

Where do you draw the line?

Perhaps the line is drawn at necessity. If something is necessary for the children (driving a rig so you can feed your family) while not great it is okay. If on the other hand someone could have worked and been home every night for the same money being gone on a rig might be wrong.

I don't think it hurt him worse than going to bed hungry if dad didn't have a job. If that's what your dad had to do to put food on the table, what can you do?

You're probably right. To be honest I'm not even really looking as I couldn't care less - they're as free to live their lives as I am mine. It's certainly not worth getting all bent out of shape over like some people.

Jenee, you walked out obvious kid and husband? Because your feelings chained?

Hello! I'm 48 years old.....do moobs count as tits?