I completely agree with the idea that kids lives go much better when both parents participate. I paid/bribed my ex to participate, but I felt it was important for the kids to have a relationship with their father, and it was the only way.
Interestingly, I had a conversation last night with a guy who grew up in the Catholic tradition who told me that the reason the church made the decision that their priests had to be celibate had at the root of it little to do with serving God. They wanted to maintain control of the assets and not deal with inheritance by the wife - all about wealth and power. ________________________________ From: authfriend <jst...@panix.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 7:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can an Enlightened Person Have Lust? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > You are still hung up on marriage aren't you John. > > That you place so much importance in an institution that was > created to make women a possession like property That's one way to look at it. Another way is that it was created as a means to get the man to provide for the children he fathered. Basically, marriage had advantages for both the man and the woman; it wasn't all one way. And obviously it was highly advantageous for the offspring. Now that we have effective contraception, and now that women can be providers as well, the importance of marriage for the welfare of children is breaking down. But still, some kind of formal, socially recognized commitment between parents does facilitate nurturing and raising children.
