If I was at a stage of my life where a child would not be disastrous, I might make a go at it with a pro-lifer if she wasn't also opposed to contraception.
And didn't do things like poking holes in condoms/whatever in order to have a baby without consulting me. That's just wrong.
I'd say that the world views would be way to different. How could I marry someone if I needed to tip-toe around the many, many issues that we both have strong yet opposing opinions about?
My hypothetical future wife doesn't have to vote for the same political party as I do, but we should at least agree on what we tell our kids when they come to us asking important questions.
I wouldn't kick them out of the house if you are wondering but I won't aprove of their sexuality but I will love them regardless.The only reason I would kick them out if I find out they have been partcipating in acts of terrorism.
Why terrorism, specifically?
Be not afraid...Violence begets violence?
This one is not going to comment about that in itself - not in this thread. What this one meant is the conflicts that would arise if one's spouse holds an opposite opinion. If one parent is seeing homosexuality as wrong and tries to impress it on kid while the other considers it normal and wants to encourage the child to accept themselves as they are? Even more important, both parents would see the other's policy as actively harming the child - either causing suffering and psychological troubles that might impede them later in life or placing their soul in danger and causing psychological troubles that might impede them later in life.
This one is absolutely sure that she would not be content to allow her spouse to damage (for in her mind, it's damage) her child by guilt-tripping and shaming them about being gay. Would you honestly be content with your spouse telling your child that there is nothing wrong with being gay and acting on it, and encouraging your child to accept themselves as such?
Again, who would be right is not the topic of this thread. What this one wants to say is that there are some disagreements upon which compromise is more than difficult to make.
What kind of love would enable a parent to stand aside and see their child harmed?
edited 1st Sep '11 9:34:44 PM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commoni would be okay if my child turned out gay.
I would how ever be more then a little piss if he turned out black.
edited 2nd Sep '11 12:27:32 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidEven a conservative should realize that trying to change a gay child does more harm than good.
Leave your dignity at the door.Again, that is not a question of who should do what. This one is not even implying that all conservatives share any particular position about that - just like not all liberals do. Only that, if couple's positions about it are different and this difference is not resolved somehow, it might one day turn into a stumbling block in relationship.
Note that position on homosexuality is not the only nor the main one that might lead to such problems. It was just an example.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonNobody sane would ever marry a Sassy Black Woman, is the thing, because it grates on the ears.
But political views are secondary to personality. I probably couldn't live with a religious spouse because I'd be constantly starting arguments about it. I guess to the extent that committed "conservatism" (I'm going with both social/cultural and fiscal here) says anything about the personality, probably not. But then, the same for a "liberal". Gimme an apolitical woman.
edited 2nd Sep '11 10:56:10 AM by ekuseruekuseru
a true apolitical woman would be one devoid of any free thought.
edited 2nd Sep '11 11:29:24 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidThe same goes for man too
Anyway, agreed. Having no interest in "high politics" or political parties is reasonable. But even "live and let live" is a statement.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonWhen you were young and your heart was an open book. You used to say live and let live.
You know you did.
But if this ever changin' world in which we live in Makes you give in and cry...
Say live and let die!
Pa-ba-da, pa-da-da, pa-pa!
edited 2nd Sep '11 12:11:22 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid... Whut.
am i the only wings fan here?
Well, the rain exploded with a mighty crash as we fell into the sun, and the first one said to the second one there I hope you're having fun...
hashtagsarestupidIn retrospect, I could probably end up dating anyone if the sex was good enough, but the relationship definitely wouldn't last :/
joey, can you hear me applauding you? I'm clapping as hard as I can.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.A one-off bop in a nearby hotel on siesta rates? Sure.
A date? I'm fine with that too, but a second date probably won't be in the cards.
Marriage? Fuck no. I'm cynical and apprehensive enough about marriage even when a fellow left-wing sympathizer is concerned.
Sassy black women? Sure, why not?
"People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient, then repent." - Bob Dylan@Joeyjojo: Lennon was better than Mc Cartney.
- FLEEE*
For the most part yes, except if they hold conservative beliefs about sex.
So, no pro-lifers, nobody who thinks kink is sinful, and so on. Obviously anti-contraceptive and anti-normal sex is right out.
I would also not date a really hardcore fiscal conservative, but besides that I don't really care what she thinks about economics.
OH, and I wouldn't get into a LTR with anyone with a firm belief in any kind of woo. Astrology, homeopathy, anti-vax people, any of that stuff. I wouldn't terribly mind sleeping with them but I don't want to spend any significant amount of time around them.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1