On another post, it's been said that quick divorce is better-for-the-children than the turmoil of a relationship in an as-yet-unresolved disagreement. I was among those who brought up the fact that marriage was a contract-agreement: "... have and hold, love and cherish ... as long as you both shall live."

The writer inferred that I was a non-"child of divorce," neverminding the fact that I am not a non-'child of divorce.' So that ad hominem doesn't work on me. I said so, but the writer apparently wanted an conflict and so responded with cacophony. This is my response to that:

I'm sorry that your experience with divorce was so unpleasant, but I have never tried to argue that divorce is never unpleasant for the children. Instead, I've been refuting this absolutist idea that it's ALWAYS bad for the kids and never in their best interest. So your bad experience does nothing to refute my point, while the other poster's experience of divorce as the right choice for her family proves it. Sorry.

Maybe I'm not trying to refute your point; maybe I'm helping you strengthen it (gotta look up "refute" too lol) as you help me strengthen mine: DON'T 'GET MARRIED,' JUST '"BE" MARRIED.'

i.e. start living together---if that doesn't work out, stop; if it does, then people will start assuming you and your 'roommate' are married (just like JimRa and his ... his ... Barb)! From there, you can either validate the claim officially, unofficially, or not at all ... Free World.

And look up the definition of "ad-hominem." Pointing out that other people are avoiding the argument doesn't qualify.

I learned "ad hominem" by reading jdubhub here, but '... ever since Eve fed Adam'; so I went ahead and looked it up

New Latin, literally, to the person; appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You seemed to be playing a 'I'm different'-card; those things only work when you ACTUALLY ARE DIFFERENT, and are pointing out differences that are actually there. I wasn't saying you were 'avoiding the battle,' just that you were 'aiming badly.'

How your parents handled their divorce, and you, is your business. How other people handle their relationships is not. Anti-divorce sentiment is standard authoritarianism and has its roots in theocracy and patriarchy.

Maybe. Murder IS justified as the extreme-last option of self-defense, yes; but it's the option that flows most-directly against peace. (And yes, divorce ~is~ murder ... I explain here.)