Is the primary purpose of couples to breed? ( Archived) (43)

Jul 29, 2009 9:45 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
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!"

hmmm laugh confused smile
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:47 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Fallingman
FallingmanFallingmanDublin, Ireland29 Threads 12 Polls 11,436 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!"


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! laugh ) wave
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:49 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
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. laugh blushing head banger
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:55 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
tainogirl
tainogirltainogirlTrincity,West Indies,, Trinidad and Tobago215 Threads 2 Polls 3,777 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!"


Tis sad but second place it is.head banger
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:55 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Zellarrone1
Zellarrone1Zellarrone1Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, England UK33 Threads 4 Polls 7,644 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!"
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 professor But, I'm eccentric anyway smile
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:57 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
sassy49senior
sassy49seniorsassy49seniorItty Bitty, Nebraska USA274 Threads 4,632 Posts
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. hug
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:58 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
avecaim
avecaimavecaimSan Jose, California USA9 Threads 1 Polls 4,084 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!"


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. teddybear
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 9:58 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
Ambrose2007: Well, my love did by BUY me new "runners" (as they call them in Canada) for my birthday, and that certainly was a great help in securing our relationship.


roll eyes
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:00 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
tainogirl: Tis sad but second place it is.


Then you wouldn't be bothered if your man thought of your primary value as being a "baby machine," Taino?

Just wanting to make sure...confused dunno wave
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:01 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 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.


head banger hug bouquet
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:01 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
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... dunno wave
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:02 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
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


laugh Jeez, I guess it's a good thing you don't have cats...dunno bouquet
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:03 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
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!"



Both would be important to me.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:03 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Fallingman
FallingmanFallingmanDublin, Ireland29 Threads 12 Polls 11,436 Posts
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
Nothing eccentric about that! laugh
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:08 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007
Ambrose2007Ambrose2007BFE, South Dakota USA67 Threads 10 Polls 8,881 Posts
somechick: Both would be important to me.


"Equally" important, Anna?conversing confused wave
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:10 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Zellarrone1
Zellarrone1Zellarrone1Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, England UK33 Threads 4 Polls 7,644 Posts
Fallingman: Nothing eccentric about that!
laugh At least I'm honest laugh wave
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:12 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Ambrose2007: "Equally" important, Anna?



Of course not noone is equally loved in any relationship.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:12 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
Brian67
Brian67Brian67Aurora, Ontario Canada7 Threads 295 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!"



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.professor rolling on the floor laughing rolling on the floor laughing
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:16 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
rodolpho
rodolphorodolphoamsterdam, North Holland Netherlands30 Threads 3,401 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.


cool
------ This thread is Archived ------
Jul 29, 2009 10:19 AM CST Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?
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
------ This thread is Archived ------
Post Comment - Post a comment on this Forum Thread

This Thread is Archived

This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.

« Go back to All Threads
Message #318

Stats for this Thread

1,205 Views
42 Comments
by Ambrose2007 (67 Threads)
Created: Jul 2009
Last Viewed: Mar 26
Last Commented: Jul 2009

Share this Thread

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here