Spurs' Richard Jefferson Calls Off $2 Million-Dollar Wedding

And what if one partner is abusive, neglectful or otherwise harmful to their partner or the children? To me, the notion of staying together "for the kids" is antiquated and far too black and white for today's society. Just because two people doesn't get divorced does not mean they will be neglecting their children or failing in their duties as a parent. I would suggest that someone who stays with their partner despite frequent domestic violence or child abuse, or creating a hostile environment that is full of arguments and shouting is doing a much greater disservice to their children than removing them from that situation.

I don't want to have kids either.

I would rather live my life instead of being bogged down with a few kids.

Marriage is ok for me, but having kids would put me on the edge.

Can't make a ho a housewife mirite?

Fair Call Andrew.

And what if one partner is abusive, neglectful or otherwise harmful to their partner or the children? To me, the notion of staying together "for the kids" is antiquated and far too black and white for today's society. Just because two people doesn't get divorced does not mean they will be neglecting their children or failing in their duties as a parent. I would suggest that someone who stays with their partner despite frequent domestic violence or child abuse, or creating a hostile environment that is full of arguments and shouting is doing a much greater disservice to their children than removing them from that situation.

Divorce rate is over 50%, and those who don't divorce probably a large portion of them only stay together so the kids have foundation. In fact, my belief is, if you do marry and you have kids then you owe it to the kids to stay together (unless of course there is domestic violence)

And what if one partner is abusive, neglectful or otherwise harmful to their partner or the children? To me, the notion of staying together "for the kids" is antiquated and far too black and white for today's society. Just because two people doesn't get divorced does not mean they will be neglecting their children or failing in their duties as a parent. I would suggest that someone who stays with their partner despite frequent domestic violence or child abuse, or creating a hostile environment that is full of arguments and shouting is doing a much greater disservice to their children than removing them from that situation.

Divorce rate is over 50%, and those who don't divorce probably a large portion of them only stay together so the kids have foundation. In fact, my belief is, if you do marry and you have kids then you owe it to the kids to stay together (unless of course there is domestic violence)

so you're applauding domestic violence now?!?

yay! rape!

And what if one partner is abusive, neglectful or otherwise harmful to their partner or the children? To me, the notion of staying together "for the kids" is antiquated and far too black and white for today's society. Just because two people doesn't get divorced does not mean they will be neglecting their children or failing in their duties as a parent. I would suggest that someone who stays with their partner despite frequent domestic violence or child abuse, or creating a hostile environment that is full of arguments and shouting is doing a much greater disservice to their children than removing them from that situation.

Divorce rate is over 50%, and those who don't divorce probably a large portion of them only stay together so the kids have foundation. In fact, my belief is, if you do marry and you have kids then you owe it to the kids to stay together (unless of course there is domestic violence)

Fair enough, you've acknowledged domestic violence there. But that's just one example of why a marriage might fall apart and why it might be better for couples to split rather than stay together "for the kids". Even if there's no domestic violence, there's still the matter of unhappy marriages creating a poor home life for the children.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You see marriage as unnecessary and somewhat of a bad thing, I see it as something that can work out. But when it comes to celebrities, the importance of a pre-nup seemingly can't be overstated.

Hey fellas, check this out. It's not often I agree with Jason Whitlock, but this article is the stone cold truth.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9815 ... ever-marry

Fair enough, you've acknowledged domestic violence there. But that's just one example of why a marriage might fall apart and why it might be better for couples to split rather than stay together "for the kids". Even if there's no domestic violence, there's still the matter of unhappy marriages creating a poor home life for the children.

Yep, it's not the divorcing that's tough on the kids, it's the hostility between the parents and the pressure to pick sides that makes it tough on the kids.

This really doesn't help those "Jefferson is gay" rumors. By the way, how did that start anyway?

And what if one partner is abusive, neglectful or otherwise harmful to their partner or the children? To me, the notion of staying together "for the kids" is antiquated and far too black and white for today's society. Just because two people doesn't get divorced does not mean they will be neglecting their children or failing in their duties as a parent. I would suggest that someone who stays with their partner despite frequent domestic violence or child abuse, or creating a hostile environment that is full of arguments and shouting is doing a much greater disservice to their children than removing them from that situation.

Divorce rate is over 50%, and those who don't divorce probably a large portion of them only stay together so the kids have foundation. In fact, my belief is, if you do marry and you have kids then you owe it to the kids to stay together (unless of course there is domestic violence)

Fair enough, you've acknowledged domestic violence there. But that's just one example of why a marriage might fall apart and why it might be better for couples to split rather than stay together "for the kids". Even if there's no domestic violence, there's still the matter of unhappy marriages creating a poor home life for the children.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You see marriage as unnecessary and somewhat of a bad thing, I see it as something that can work out. But when it comes to celebrities, the importance of a pre-nup seemingly can't be overstated.

I see marriage as essential when children are involved (barring domestic violence). I see children as unnecessary (for me).

But when children are in the picture they deserve a proper upbringing even if it means the parents are having to put on an act. They screwed it up and have to face the consequences rather than leaving a kid without balanced family-life. The consequences of the broken home are not good according to research.

This is why the decision to have children should never be taken lightly. Don't just have kids for your amusement, they aren't toys. Have them because you and your partner are willing to provide the upbringing, regardless of whether you love the partner in 5 years. Do the time for the crime.

But when children are in the picture they deserve a proper upbringing even if it means the parents are having to put on an act.

I'm pretty sure that any mental health professional worth their salt would agree that this is a monumentally bad idea.

The consequences of the broken home are not good according to research.

The consequences of an unhappy and stressful home life are not good according to "research" either.

This is why the decision to have children should never be taken lightly. Don't just have kids for your amusement, they aren't toys. Have them because you and your partner are willing to provide the upbringing, regardless of whether you love the partner in 5 years. Do the time for the crime.

Who's to say people are taking the decision lightly or having kids "for (their) amusement"? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as pretty judgmental and narrow-minded blanket statement. I would suggest that unless you've been married and had kids, or are a competent mental health professional that has treated a lot of people in this situation and done extensive research on case histories in that area, you shouldn't be pointing fingers and making these bold declarations. It's pretty easy to sit up on our high horse and say things like "Do the time for the crime" and "Stay together for the children", but the world doesn't work like that.

Who would you rather, a stressed couple or a permanently damaged childhood? Our childhood makes us, and a single-parent upbringing isn't advised (single-mother struggling for work and having to leave their kid with the babysitter everynight). Most couples have their stresses, but they do well to hide it from the children. If there is domestic violence or other volatile behavior then of course divorce, but you'd be surprised how many kids have no idea that their parents fell out of love 10 years ago. With some personal sacrifice these couples can give their kids a traditional, sound and biological upbringing. Its really not that difficult when both parents love the kids.

The "world doesn't work like that" because people are selfish. Surely a child's welfare comes first. I've known women who just want children, they don't care about the father figure aspect, so they find a man, have 2 kids, leave him because they only wanted him so they could have kids, and thats that. They are raising 2 kids on their own, all because they "wanted" kids. This isn't a good enough reason. Whereas a woman who "wants a family", entirely different.

Who would you rather, a stressed couple or a permanently damaged childhood?

Since when are those things mutually exclusive? You don't think a stressed, unhappy couple is going to create a negative environment for children?

a single-parent upbringing isn't advised

Prove this.

Most couples have their stresses, but they do well to hide it from the children.

And anyone who knows anything about psychology will tell you how unhealthy and volatile that is, because children are very perceptive.

but you'd be surprised how many kids have no idea that their parents fell out of love 10 years ago

Prove this.

With some personal sacrifice these couples can give their kids a traditional, sound and biological upbringing. Its really not that difficult when both parents love the kids

So you're saying by being completely miserable, parents are doing their kids a favour? And the notion of a "traditional, sound and biological upbringing" is laughable rhetoric. What's normal these days? What's traditional? And speaking of traditions, you criticise the institution of marriage as a "prison", yet laud it as a noble tradition that must be preserved and honour...which is it?

The "world doesn't work like that" because people are selfish

It is not selfish to be want to be happy. A failed marriage does not make you selfish and anyone who claims otherwise should get their nose out of the air and come down off their high horse. The simplistic "It's not your kid's fault you don't love each anymore" is a laughably shallow assessment of why people get divorced. Domestic violence is not the only "reasonable" excuse for divorce and it's not my place, yours, or anyone else's to point fingers, get on our high horses and criticise people for getting divorced when we have absolutely no idea about what goes on in anyone's relationship.

Since when are those things mutually exclusive? You don't think a stressed, unhappy couple is going to create a negative environment for children?

You'd be surprised how many kids have no idea that their parents fell out of love 10 years ago, I've seen far more cases of this than I have of those who are genuinely "in love". It's called being "selfless", and it is common because a lot of people put their children first. It is the only noble thing to do, and this is coming from someone who doesn't want children.

a single-parent upbringing isn't advised
Prove this.

Common logic, a single-mother working 2 jobs has little time to bond with their child, and when they do it is a last gasp/rushed effort brought on by being over-worked/stressed. And a child without a father is lacking a father figure duh. I've seen first-hand several cases of this in my extended family and friends, it is a terrible way to 'raise' (or bury) kids. These kids don't function with a great deal of trust when they reach adulthood, generally very closed-off people often lacking in self-esteem. No statistics can reliably tell you this, you need to see it first-hand.

And anyone who knows anything about psychology will tell you how unhealthy and volatile that is, because children are very perceptive.

Children in this case would perceive that both parents love them. This is the way couples deal with their inner-conflict is emphasising the love they have for their children as being the bond they share. This is honesty, it is not an act. The only 'act' a disillusioned couple would have to present is simply not to argue in front of the children. You probably would have heard of this.

but you'd be surprised how many kids have no idea that their parents fell out of love 10 years ago
Prove this.

First-hand experience from extended family and friends, I've seen this revealed when the kids are older, they are told how their parents stayed together for them. Often the parents divorce when the kids are 18 and it comes as a shock to the kids and they ask 'Why?' and the answer is always the same, parents did it for them. Again, you have to see this in reality rather than looking at a statistic and I'd never seek a case study to prove this because I've seen it already.

So you're saying by being completely miserable, parents are doing their kids a favour? And the notion of a "traditional, sound and biological upbringing" is laughable rhetoric. What's normal these days? What's traditional? And speaking of traditions, you criticise the institution of marriage as a "prison", yet laud it as a noble tradition that must be preserved and honour...which is it?

Marriage is a man made prison, no doubt about that. That is why I'd never marry, and I'd never have kids. Kids deserve parents however, simple as that. Biological parents if possible, with mutual and natural love for their children. It isn't hard to love one of your own children, it isn't asking much. I don't see why asking people to stay together for their own children is a big deal. I don't like marriage, but marriage for the benefit of my own off-spring is a given.

It is not selfish to be want to be happy. A failed marriage does not make you selfish and anyone who claims otherwise should get their nose out of the air and come down off their high horse. The simplistic "It's not your kid's fault you don't love each anymore" is a laughably shallow assessment of why people get divorced. Domestic violence is not the only "reasonable" excuse for divorce and it's not my place, yours, or anyone else's to point fingers, get on our high horses and criticise people for getting divorced when we have absolutely no idea about what goes on in anyone's relationship.

It is selfish to want to be happy if it comes at the expense of your children having a sound upbringing. I study criminology and I know there are several forms of violence that are not physical, and they still fall under the heading of 'domestic violence'.

My parents split up when I was 12 when my mum left my dad for another guy. My older brother, old sister & myself lived with my Dad here in Australia & New Zealand. My younger sister lived with my mum & now step-dad.

The situation wasn't ideal, & my wife still can't understand how a mother can desert her own children, but such is life. What happened made me the person I am today. My dad raised us on a single income, which was low at that time (maybe $25,000). We went without private schooling, doctors, new clothes, etc, but we had a roof over our head & food on the table, & he did what had to be done. Not ideal, but it's unbelievable what my dad went through for us kids, working shithouse jobs & whatnot.

Whereas my wife's parents stayed together rather than splitting up, just for the sake of the kids. They stayed together for 15 years longer than they should have. They fought in front of kids (not physical violence, just screaming/shouting matches etc) & had a frosty relationship. My wife commonly says that she wishes they had of broken up rather than staying together, as the emotional scarring on her & her siblings from being subject to that is worse in long run than if they had split & stayed amicable.

So there's a lot of grey in this situation, which I think Andrew's trying to say. Of course in my situation I wish my parents had of stayed together because they didn't fight & bicker like my wife's did & they "seemed" like the perfect couple/family, & my dad would be setup for retirement now rather than likely having to live on a piddly Government pension. But in the end you can't force somebody to stay together.

My last example is my older brother. He left his wife of 5 years. He didn't cheat on her. He didn't abuse her. He didn't beat her. It was just never that good a relationship from the start. She has Italian blood, a bad temper, & always berated my brother for not earning enough money, even though he was the primary bread earner. Eventually enough was enough. He split with her 2 years prior but got back with her for the sake of his son. He has an 8 (almost 9) year old son, whom he loves to death. He didn't want to leave, but he had no choice. I always believed he only got married to his ex-wife because he felt it was the right thing to do, having a kid & all. I'm sure there was love there, but yep. So I think in his case, much better to leave than live another 10 year with the bitch as an emasculated husband.

There you go. Thanks for sharing, X.

I certainly do think there is a grey area here. To me, saying "You've got kids, you have to stay together for life and if you don't you're selfish" is far too black and white. There are ideals and there are selfless acts of sacrifice, but there's also cold reality. It's all well and good to plan, but since our lives have no scriptwriters, sometimes we have to improvise. That's a terribly corny thing to say, I know, but it's true.

I suppose if nothing else, I'd argue that "Divorce + Kids = Messed-up Kids/Future Messed-up Adults" (to use a very simplistic summary) is not correct all of the time, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Adversity comes in many different forms and we all respond differently. There are people who come from broken homes who do wonderful things and there are people from "normal" homes that commit terrible atrocities so again, it's just not that black and white. Divorce certainly can mess up kids, but it depends how the seperation is handled, the reasons for the seperation and what happens as far as raising the children.

You certainly present the worst case scenarios and I won't deny those. However, you can't just dismiss the statistics and talk about your first-hand experiences as incontestable proof, especially when others have first-hand experiences that show a very different perspective. I'd also point out that you brought up a statistic of your own (50% of marriages end in divorce); you can't pick and choose when statistics are relevant, you can't use them to make your point and then dismiss them when someone else uses them in their argument.

Taking your examples into consideration:

a single-mother working 2 jobs has little time to bond with their child

Says who? Are you saying this happens in 100% of divorces? If so, you a very much mistaken because I too have seen the result of divorce (not me personally, but certainly with people close to me) and in none of the cases has the single mother been forced to work any more hours than she would if she were married. One job, same hours, kids have lived a pretty comfortable life...with more luxuries than I did despite the fact my parents had a "normal" marriage and are still together today.

This also assumes that there are no couples who are together who have no time for their children because of their jobs, because of the hours they have to work or because they have to take multiple jobs to make ends meet. Isn't that just as bad, if not worse? That's two parents who are in the same house that can't find time for their kids. I can't imagine that would be too good for a kid's development and self-esteem.

And a child without a father is lacking a father figure duh.

Who says they will be without a father figure?!? Again, you are talking about the absolute worst case scenarios where the father clears off and has nothing to do with their kids. Of course that is going to cause problems. But it doesn't necessarily have to happen.

And again, a kid could conceivably have a very poor father figure with two parents in the house.

Children in this case would perceive that both parents love them. This is the way couples deal with their inner-conflict is emphasising the love they have for their children as being the bond they share. This is honesty, it is not an act. The only 'act' a disillusioned couple would have to present is simply not to argue in front of the children. You probably would have heard of this.

Here we actually have a best case scenario. That's all well and good, if the kid doesn't pick up on any tension or overhear arguments or other people talking about how bad things are. You say it's selfish for people to divorce. I say it's selfish to expect people to act like nothing is wrong when something clearly is very wrong, and it dehumanises them immensely.

Think for a minute if you were asked not to feel a particular way, for some reason that someone had almost arbitrarily picked as being noble. You're not allowed to feel upset or angry and you're definitely not allowed to show it. What kind of freedom is that? How healthy is that? I doubt you would enjoy being placed in such a situation, so why expect it of other people because of their particular situation? That's being selfish.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I think anyone who gets married owes it to themselves and their partner to try and make it work and that goes double if there are kids involved. But sometimes, it's just too much to ask of people and that doesn't make them bad people per se. It just makes them human, because we are very flawed beings. First-hand accounts reveal very different results. You have witnessed the bad, so you're taking a more pessimistic view and I won't deny that the worst case scenarios can be downright awful. I have seen more positive outcomes, so my view isn't so dim. I would say that X's story about his wife's childhood is a good example of parents staying together not necessarily being the best thing for the kids.

There may be mothers who have to work two jobs, father figures being absent and so on and so forth as the result of divorce, but not in every single case. Even if you want to throw statistics out and simply go by our observations, yours are not the only observations on this planet and there are accounts that greatly differ from what you've seen. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's the worst case scenario. From what you've witnessed, divorce is almost always a destructive and terrible thing. My observations have led me to believe that while that certainly can be the case, it doesn't have to be.

And so we're back to the grey area. There's too much of it for blanket statements and incontestible proof either way. At best, it's a case-by-case matter.

That is silly Andrew, why would you say "Are you saying this happens in 100% of divorces?"

Did I say 100%?

As for a lack of father figure, it isn't just a worst case scenario it is a common scenario. Single-mothers are extremely common I'm sure you've noticed....

You ask "how healthy" is hiding your feelings for the good of the child? It isn't very hard, all a couple would need to do is not argue in front of the child. It is a very common concept and obviously they can have their disputes while the kid is at kindergarten etc. All couples have disputes, and they know it isn't good to argue in front of their kids. This isn't a new way of life.

Again in your last paragraph you say "but not in every single case" (regarding single-mothers taking 2 jobs and not seeing their kid enough).....and again I didn't say 100%

I'm hardly being silly. Granted, you did not say 100%. But you seemed to be suggesting that those things were the inevitable results of divorce, which is a generalisation. Thus, I challenged you with a percentage. If nothing else, you present these outcomes as "common" (your own words) but none of the single mothers I know have to work two jobs and their children are not lacking in a father figure, as the father is still very much on the scene. So yes, the worst case scenario is that divorce leads to an over-worked mother and an absent father. But it doesn't have to be the case.

But since you claim that these things are "common", but also dismiss statistics as irrelevant...how do you support your claim that these things are "common" without cold, objective statistics? It may be common to the people you have seen affected by divorce, but I somehow doubt that selection of people is close to being a majority of people who are divorced and children who may be affected. So again I ask, how can you claim these things as common with such a small sampling? At best, you can say it's common with people you have encountered or perhaps within a certain area or percentage of the population. Without statistics, you can't make that claim about the world at large.

You ask "how healthy" is hiding your feelings for the good of the child? It isn't very hard, all a couple would need to do is not argue in front of the child.

How on earth would you know how hard it is, having never been in that situation? How can you speak for people, having never walked a mile in their shoes? Again, you are completely dehumanising these people and treating them like robots who can switch feelings on and off. So again I ask you, how would you react if someone told you how to feel? I'm sure you'd feel it was an unfair request and a clear violation of your freedoms and rights as a human being, the same as any of us would. Why should other people be subjected to standards you wouldn't impost upon yourself? What makes you so special that you can adopt such a holier-than-thou attitude and waggle a scolding finger at people who dare to be human and less than perfect?

It is a very common concept and obviously they can have their disputes while the kid is at kindergarten etc. All couples have disputes, and they know it isn't good to argue in front of their kids. This isn't a new way of life.

Disputes are one thing. Unhealthy relationships and hostile environments are something else entirely.

I also noticed that you very conveniently ignored X's post. Might that have something to do with a first-hand account that is contrary to your claims?

If you want to use statistics to "prove me wrong" if that is important to you then why don't you show the statistics? I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong personally, so I have no need to "come up with" statistics.

I've had enough personal experience to know how hard marriage is, nearly every adult in my circle is married.

I "ignored" X's post? He didn't ask me a question nor quote any of my post, what is there to reply to? There are first-hand accounts contrary to everything, because as I keep telling you, I never said "100% of cases". One account is one account. That is why I don't go into details about my experiences with all my friend's marriages and family's marriages, there are millions of different accounts.

Forgive me, but by countering my posts it would seem you're trying to prove me wrong and argue your point. That is the whole purpose of a discussion, after all. You're the one making claims about things being commonplace, so I would think you would have to produce statistics to back up that claim when it's challenged. It's like the whole "Player X is the best ever and if you don't think so you're just a hater" rhetoric, it's almost saying "I'm right because I say so".

I've had enough personal experience to know how hard marriage is, nearly every adult in my circle is married.

But you are not married yourself, so you can't really speak empirically on how difficult it is.

I "ignored" X's post? He didn't ask me a question nor quote any of my post, what is there to reply to? There are first-hand accounts contrary to everything, because as I keep telling you, I never said "100% of cases". One account is one account. That is why I don't go into details about my experiences with all my friend's marriages and family's marriages, there are millions of different accounts.

No, you never said 100%. I already acknowledged that. But in response to my claims that divorce was not always harmful to children and that parents staying together wasn't always the best thing, you proceeded to claim that divorce resulted in absent father figures and mothers working two jobs. Your quote:

Common logic, a single-mother working 2 jobs has little time to bond with their child, and when they do it is a last gasp/rushed effort brought on by being over-worked/stressed. And a child without a father is lacking a father figure duh.

That's what you said about single mothers. You did not say 100% of single mothers, but at the same time you didn't clarify your position by saying "in some cases" or anything of that nature so you basically said that divorce is a bad thing because it leads to single mothers who have to work two jobs and absent father figures. You didn't say 100%, but it certainly seemed to be implied from your post, which is why I challenged it. Thank you for clarifying, but that's really the first time you'd conceded that situations differ. For the most part, your other posts seem to suggest these outcomes as inevitable.

In any case, we've strayed a long way off topic (and as an admin, I should know better than that) and we seem to be arguing in circles here. I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one as we obviously have very different observations and experiences in this matter, none of which has much to do with Richard Jefferson since he won't be in a position to get divorced anytime soon.

There is no right or wrong, we all have opinions and my only argument here is that you are telling me my opinion is wrong. I’m not telling you that you are wrong in your analysis of divorcees (which isn't really an analysis anymore, its an attack against my opinion at all costs of rationale).

I talk personally to those who are/were married (and their kids, my cousins), so obviously I do have personal insight. This is a case of you telling me I am wrong without knowing exactly what I know and have seen in my circle.

Of course divorce is linked to absent father figures and mothers working two jobs. But I never said “every” divorce. In fact I didn’t even use the word “result in” if you look at the quote you made.

You are looking for arguments that aren’t there. I don’t know what your history is but it looks too close to the bone for you to make a logical argument. A lot of the arguments you have against me are a play on words which I did not say. Yes you should know better

IMHO & from personal experience, I think the majority of divorces are linked to two people who were once in love falling out of love over time, mostly due to lack of communication (i.e. communicating everyday & making it a priority). If you don't communicate all the time, then the common ground that was there when you first met/got married often isn't there in 10-15 years time.

Obviously some are as a result of physical or domestic violence, & those often can't be resolved by communication because either the man or the woman (or both) have serious issues before even entering the relationship.

Richard Jefferson averted the problem. An NBA player is on the road & unless they are talking to their wives/girlfriends every single day then there are major problems ahead.

There is no right or wrong, we all have opinions and my only argument here is that you are telling me my opinion is wrong. I’m not telling you that you are wrong in your analysis of divorcees (which isn't really an analysis anymore, its an attack against my opinion at all costs of rationale).

I am not telling you that your opinion is wrong. I am countering your opinion. Do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that you were not countering mine, even suggesting that my view is wrong. And to say that I'm "attacking" you "a all costs of rationale" is pure nonsense.

I talk personally to those who are/were married (and their kids, my cousins), so obviously I do have personal insight. This is a case of you telling me I am wrong without knowing exactly what I know and have seen in my circle.

I never said you were wrong. You're the one suggesting I'm wrong by constantly touting your personal experiences, whereas I'm simply pointing out an alternative view.

Of course divorce is linked to absent father figures and mothers working two jobs. But I never said “every” divorce. In fact I didn’t even use the word “result in” if you look at the quote you made.

To me, it seemed heavily implied. But you've already clarified your position.

You are looking for arguments that aren’t there.

I am not arguing that you have made good points about divorce. But I do think you're being tremendously judgemental of people in general. You say that people should stick together when they have kids, no matter what, and that it's an easy thing to do. I say that's too high a standard to place on another human being.

I don’t know what your history is but it looks too close to the bone for you to make a logical argument.

Oh, get off your high horse. Just because you believe you know everything does not make everyone else's point of view illogical. I have challenged some of the things you've said to get clarity on your position and I do see that more clearly now. But I still think your stance is awfully jugdemental and takes some liberties with some generalisations.

And for the record, it's not close to the bone at all. My parents are still together to this day and I certainly could not claim to have a turbulent upbringing.

A lot of the arguments you have against me are a play on words which I did not say.

Um...no. I'm not twisting words here, but you certainly seem to be engaging in a little of that, claiming my arguments to be an "attack" on your opinion. Maybe this issue is a little too close to the bone for you?

Yes you should know better

Knock off the attitude.