I happen to run across this article just now --

****************

[blog.lewrockwell.com]

****************

Talk Radio Catechism
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken

"I could be mistaken, but I thought I heard this from Dennis Prager the other day: Prager was talking about how Sheehan's husband divorced her. In his comments he said that if Sheehan was saying that "her son died for nothing" then the husband had a "moral obligation" to divorce her for sullying the memory of their son.

I know that Prager sells himself as a moral traditionalist, but if this is what he meant to say, then Prager has shown himself to be willing to dump the moral foundations of marriage for the sake of his war ideology. You see, there's this portion of scripture known as the "New Testament" in which the authors note that if one divorces and remarries, then he or she commits adultery, and that "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." Indeed, there are no exceptions to this as stated several times by Christ and in the Epistles (7 times in fact) except in the one case in Matthew (but not stated in the other 6 condemnations of divorce) which Protestants interpret as adultery and Catholics interpret as incest.

Either way, trying to turn certain political statements about a war into grounds for dissolving a marriage is absolutely ludicrous and abhorrent. The first responsibility of a married person is to the marriage and to his or her spouse. Responsibility to children is always secondary to the marriage and the spouse. Prager might want to consult Genesis in case he forgot that a man and his wife are one flesh. Not a man and his son."

**********

I don't care about all the religious mumbo-jumbo -- I just want to discuss the parent/child relationship.

Quote

"The first responsibility of a married person is to the marriage and to his or her spouse. Responsibility to children is always secondary to the marriage and the spouse. Prager might want to consult Genesis in case he forgot that a man and his wife are one flesh. Not a man and his son.

**********

Years ago, I read Dear Abby where she said the same thing -- a person's spouse comes first, and the child comes second.

I totally disagree -- to me, there is no love or bond on earth like a parent and child. Your flesh and blood. Blood is thicker than water.
The spouse is secondary, no bonds, just a person that you get emotionally involved with for a few years. Could be anybody.

Do you agree?

Lois

From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd say it depends.

Is the wife still fertile, can the children be replaced by new children? maybe the spouse is more important.

But is the wife unfertile and the husband shooting blanks, then the children are more important. It's all about passing on your genes.

But from a human standpoint, well I don't know, I don't have any kids.

LOL -- "shooting blanks"

Children come first to both parents and it is understood by both parents. In a healthy family this is a natural instinct and there is no confusion.

I think in the case of the general make-up of a family, it would be parents first, then children.

In the case of life or death, then I think nature would dictate putting the chilren first ahead of the spouse.

Think what kind of chaos it would create if the chilren ran the household (which many seem to do) lording it over the parents. Not a good situation.

But if you were on a sinking ship you would want to safeguard the children and then the other parent.

Love,
Prism

When I say 'who comes first', I mean who is bonded to your heart - your spouse or your children - who comes first in your heart. Who is more precious.

the chicken ! ..no wait the egg ! ...

gah ! wrong thread !

hehe

my spouse ..then my doggie i have no children

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Chidren running the house is being lazy about putting them first. In order to put children first you have to PARENT them. As soon as you get pregnant the choice has been made. Until they are grown they should be your top priority. It is human nature. We have gone against human nature when it comes to our kids. We created milk for them from cows, we put them in a cage in the next room to sleep, we drop them off with strangers while we go to work to earn money to pay the strangers. How can we possibly be in tune with what is natural when it comes to our kids. Get back to the cave! When you get back to what is natural it all comes back to you and instinct takes over.

If you are asking this question you are already COMMUNITY DEPRIVED. You need more people. There just isn't enough. You can't choose like that. The question should be: "who should I neglect, my spouse or my children?" becuase that's what happens. My parents chose each other and they still have a good marriage. That's that. I am just saying...I would have liked my mom to stop and put my bandaid on. I would have liked more in my lunch than a single repeated tuna sandwhich, and I would have liked to have been remembered after camp and school more times...I am who I am and I like that person...but love is love and it's really quite important.

I mean damn...we still don't have toothpaste in our house at the moment.

And another thing: if you can't take the time to love your kids, don't have them...just help some one else love theirs...becuase that's what kids need...more than one example...more than one role model: community.

pakd4fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chidren running the house is being lazy about
> putting them first. In order to put children
> first you have to PARENT them. As soon as you get
> pregnant the choice has been made. Until they are
> grown they should be your top priority. It is
> human nature. We have gone against human nature
> when it comes to our kids. We created milk for
> them from cows, we put them in a cage in the next
> room to sleep, we drop them off with strangers
> while we go to work to earn money to pay the
> strangers. How can we possibly be in tune with
> what is natural when it comes to our kids. Get
> back to the cave! When you get back to what is
> natural it all comes back to you and instinct
> takes over.


That's exactly how I feel! Well put! Happy to know other ppl feel this way, too!

spouse comes last
children comes first

hmmm... i question it completely
without hestitation

i don't even need to have kids to know that will not have a happy ending

i think that it is not only possible but should be MANDATORY

that the parents put equal value on taking care of themselves and each other as they do the kids

otherwise it is like saying the plants are more important than the soil

that is RIDICULOUS

the soil IS the parents

the soil IS the caretaker

you take care of the caretaker FIRST and then what is nourished from that soil

will turn out beautifully

you neglect the soil ( parent) and it doesn't matter HOW MUCH TIME, ENERGY, WHATEVER... you expend on the child

if the soil is suffering, neglected, in bad condition

forget it

the child will be ditto

to me, it just seems like common sense

take care from bottom up

the parents are the ones that provide everything so they are the foundation and the soil


what should one tend to FIRST?

its a no brainer to me

put equal value on the soil as you do on what grows from it

in fact put MORE value on the soil

that is what i say

so shoot me

i don't care

i can't even IMAGINE the alternative

rainbowgrl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are asking this question you are already
> COMMUNITY DEPRIVED. You need more people. There
> just isn't enough. You can't choose like that. The
> question should be: "who should I neglect, my
> spouse or my children?" becuase that's what
> happens. My parents chose each other and they
> still have a good marriage. That's that. I am just
> saying...I would have liked my mom to stop and put
> my bandaid on. I would have liked more in my lunch
> than a single repeated tuna sandwhich, and I would
> have liked to have been remembered after camp and
> school more times...I am who I am and I like that
> person...but love is love and it's really quite
> important.
>
> I mean damn...we still don't have toothpaste in
> our house at the moment.
>
> And another thing: if you can't take the time to
> love your kids, don't have them...just help some
> one else love theirs...becuase that's what kids
> need...more than one example...more than one role
> model: community.


All so true. Community is important. And so many parents don't know how to love their kids - some mean well ,but don't know. Leaves rips and tears in ppl.

LaV, to put your children first never means you have to neglect yourself or your spouse. In fact if you neglect yourself and/or your spouse you are NOT putting your children first. If you don't have children I don't see any reason why you even need to stay with your spouse other than out of pure want and happiness, but if you have kids it is important to feed the relationship and keep it healthy for the kids. With that in mind, the most important job of a parent is picking the other parent.

And few things are more satisfying than loving and nurturing your kids........it fuels a kind of energy in the parent that I have never experienced elsewhere. Though it looks like it's a one-sided effort, like raw food, it's a reciprocal relationship.

Yes, aquadecoco, you can't really explain it. I tried to imagine it was like my relationship with my beloved sheltie, for whom I would have fought to the death for, before I had kids but it is far beyond anything I could imagine.

pakd4fun

nicely put