On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Ambrose2007: On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Kids are not more important. There are plenty of them about. Good relationships require more than new shoes every six months (mind you that helps! )
Fallingman: Kids are not more important. There are plenty of them about. Good relationships require more than new shoes every six months (mind you that helps! )
Well, my love did by me new "runners" (as they call them in Canada) for my birthday, and that certainly was a great help in securing our relationship.
tainogirlTrincity,West Indies,, Trinidad and Tobago3,777 posts
Ambrose2007: On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Ambrose2007: On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Heck yeah, my kid is more important to me than any bloke, even love for my budgie and cockatiel comes before any bloke. Come to think of it, love for my cockatiel comes before any bloke and my kid But, I'm eccentric anyway
Good morning Ambrose. I did not read the other thread but this is my thought on this one. I loved my late husband unconditionally. Never went anywhere without sitting right next to him. After 5 kids I still was right next to him. I love my kids also but he was first in my life and beside him was my place.
Ambrose2007: On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Our hearts have plenty of love and room for our children, spouse, relatives, friends and more. I don't see a problem sharing our love. It doesn't diminish how much we care about our children. In fact, I think it sets a good example for them.
Ambrose2007: Well, my love did byBUY me new "runners" (as they call them in Canada) for my birthday, and that certainly was a great help in securing our relationship.
sassy49senior: Good morning Ambrose. I did not read the other thread but this is my thought on this one. I loved my late husband unconditionally. Never went anywhere without sitting right next to him. After 5 kids I still was right next to him. I love my kids also but he was first in my life and beside him was my place.
avecaim: Our hearts have plenty of love and room for our children, spouse, relatives, friends and more. I don't see a problem sharing our love. It doesn't diminish how much we care about our children. In fact, I think it sets a good example for them.
That's all very socially correct, Ave, but I notice you didn't actually answer any of my questions...
Zellarrone1: Heck yeah, my kid is more important to me than any bloke, even love for my budgie and cockatiel comes before any bloke. Come to think of it, love for my cockatiel comes before any bloke and my kid But, I'm eccentric anyway
Jeez, I guess it's a good thing you don't have cats...
Ambrose2007: On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Zellarrone1: Heck yeah, my kid is more important to me than any bloke, even love for my budgie and cockatiel comes before any bloke. Come to think of it, love for my cockatiel comes before any bloke and my kid But, I'm eccentric anyway
Ambrose2007: On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"
Humans breed? well your right we are animals.
The first Primal purpose of any women is to fined financial security with the man she chooses to bare her young.
rodolphoamsterdam, North Holland Netherlands3,401 posts
sassy49senior: Good morning Ambrose. I did not read the other thread but this is my thought on this one. I loved my late husband unconditionally. Never went anywhere without sitting right next to him. After 5 kids I still was right next to him. I love my kids also but he was first in my life and beside him was my place.
I like to think like this. Although I do understand single parents opinions. I will choose for my love, I cant choose what kinda of children come into my life. I want my first love to be my first always.
jmo if the kids are with their biological parents the husband has a first place as they work together, but if a person remarries their first concern is their flesh and blood, but as they children grow up they move on so it changes again where you have concern with the one you are with, your kids still take top place in your heart but you can devote your time to happiness
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?
And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."
My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.
Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"