Please help settle an argument.

[libby]

I believe that the marriage relationship DOES come first -

but, like I said about the oxygen mask - I think that it's the only way that children can be happy.  It's the best example for a child.

When parents put the children first, give them what they want vs what they need - many, many problems arise.

I think putting the children first is a great disservice to the marriage, but even more so to the child.

That said, putting the marriage first doesn't mean ignoring your children at all. And parents know when to put their children first - noone I know that's a decent parent is going to leave their 3 month old with grandparents for a weekend just so that they can go to a motorcycle rally.

When the children are adolescents and below, generally more time is spent with the child than with each other - so the very few times when decent parents can have a little time together is a necessary thing.... necessary for each other as well as the children, because it's true - Happy husband and wife= happy children. I've seen it time and time again.

I'm confused. What do you mean by putting the marriage first? I NEVER said you should put the children first; I said there's no reason to put either one first, you just do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. When you have little babies, that will mean that both parents generally have to put their needs and wants on hold."


Exactly!



"When the kids move out, it is completely different."


But I think the marriage needs to be nurtured and respected along the way, so that when the children are gone, they won't be left blinking at a stranger in an empty house.



"I never suggested, nor would I, that the children's wants should come first, especially since children often want what is not good for them. "

we're saying the exact same thing , then.



"I recently listened to a tape of a lecture by a Christian author who said that the marriage must come first -- that it's part of being a good parent -- and gave as an example the time that her husband wanted her to go alone with him on a two-week trip, and she went, leaving behind a two-year-old even though she had thought she couldn't be separated from such a young child for that long. I thought that was preposterous."


I agree - but no one is saying that. That's ridiculous - and the father shouldn't have asked the wife to do that. That's not putting the marriage first - that's putting HIMSELF first - not what we're talking about......at ALL.


"This situation is different, I realize, but I would be wary of using this kind of reasoning in this situation, although that doesn't mean it would be wrong to go to the wedding without the kids. I have always said that if you really love your children, one of the best things you can do for them is to love and support their other parent, but that's quite different from placing the other parent's desires up on some sort of pedestal."

Again, I think we're saying the same thing... 

While I think the wife should give the gift of the wedding , and what he wants, to the husband - I believe she should do this out of love, and respect........... and, it's HIS thing - HIS high school friends, HIS hometown.

If it was the other way around - HER reunion wedding, HER hometown - I would expect him to do the same for HER.

[Satori]

You haven't said anything I disagree with, and I still don't understand what you mean. How is that putting the marriage "first"? And if the main purpose of marriage is to have and raise godly children, isn't it ridiculous to put the marriage first when by this reckoning the marriage is just a vehicle rather than a good in itself?

I don't mean to be contentious, and if I'm dragging this too much off the subject, feel free to PM me and enlighten me.

[libby]

You haven't said anything I disagree with, and I still don't understand what you mean. How is that putting the marriage "first"? And if the main purpose of marriage is to have and raise godly children, isn't it ridiculous to put the marriage first when by this reckoning the marriage is just a vehicle rather than a good in itself?


I see what you mean.

First, the Church tells us that the spouse comes first.

Having children may be the main purpose of marriage, but it's not the only one.The spouses must put themselves first, to form a union FOR the children as well as each other - not a united front AGAINST them.

Second -As far as it being the vehicle - if one believes that, then I suppose one could say that the vehicle for vanilla ice cream is eggs, cream, sugar....all very necessary things, because otherwise there wouldn't be ice cream - there would just be a couple of thin  tablespoons of vanilla that would be so easily spilled and destroyed in a heartbeat. The vanilla needs the ice cream - the ice cream may want the vanilla, but it doesn't need it to exist.... it just needs it's other parts.

.....what a stupid analogy - anyway, I hope you know what I mean.

I don't mean to be contentious, and if I'm dragging this too much off the subject, feel free to PM me and enlighten me.

Oh hell, no - this is fun.



By the way - my little brother has the very relationship that I am describing - they've been together over twenty years, and my little brother STILL will stare at his wife across a crowded room and just melt.

They have 5 kids, and I've never seen a tighter family ( ALL of them, not just the parents).

Some of us can actually have that. Some of us don't, but not through our own fault.

But it doesn't mean that it can't actually happen.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Like the saying goes: The best thing a parent can do for a child is to love his mother/father.

This means putting the needs of the other spouse first, which could come about in one of two ways:
1. The husband in this case respects the feelings of his wife and brings the kids to the wedding.
2. The wife in this case respects the feelings of her husband and leaves the kids with MIL.

Whatever they decide, they are putting the marriage first. There are no losers in this scenario.

- Lisa

[Satori]

Hmm ... Do you mean that the marriage comes "first" in the sense that it is "primary" and the source of the family? Kind of the same way the husband is supposed to be the "head" of the wife while at the same time she is his equal and his headship is supposed to serve her, not dominate her?

If you mean that, then I will agree. I don't think this is what EVERYONE means when they say the marriage comes first. Of course, if you question them, it usually comes out that they put THEMSELVES first!

[libby]

oh -  

....and I think some other examples of putting the marriage first:

- actually sleeping with your husband in the same bed ( not talking about a sick child, or young kids in a family bed - I mean establishing a pattern where Mom and Dad actually sleep together).

- praying together as a couple - not only as a family -

- the occasional date

- proper bedtimes for kids, so that parents have essential Mom and Dad time for themselves - it's necessary.

- The dads showing their boys how to be men by treating their mom like a queen.

- The moms teaching their daughters how to be women by treating their husband like a king.

[libby]

Hmm ... Do you mean that the marriage comes "first" in the sense that it is "primary" and the source of the family? Kind of the same way the husband is supposed to be the "head" of the wife while at the same time she is his equal and his headship is supposed to serve her, not dominate her?

yep.

Mutual love and respect, manifested in different ways.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Hmm ... Do you mean that the marriage comes "first" in the sense that it is "primary" and the source of the family? Kind of the same way the husband is supposed to be the "head" of the wife while at the same time she is his equal and his headship is supposed to serve her, not dominate her?

If you mean that, then I will agree.

Yes..When I say the "marriage comes first" I am including the children. They are part of the marriage. It seems that HE wants to be alone with his wife. It seems that SHE is worried about leaving her children alone. Both the husband and wife have legitimate needs and desires - and whatever they decide will be okay. But what is really best for the children in this case? That's the question they should both be asking themselves.

- Lisa

[Satori]

oh -  

....and I think some other examples of putting the marriage first:

- actually sleeping with your husband in the same bed ( not talking about a sick child, or young kids in a family bed - I mean establishing a pattern where Mom and Dad actually sleep together).

- praying together as a couple - not only as a family -

- the occasional date

- proper bedtimes for kids, so that parents have essential Mom and Dad time for themselves - it's necessary.

- The dads showing their boys how to be men by treating their mom like a queen.

- The moms teaching their daughters how to be women by treating their husband like a king.

I agree with all of  those except the bed. Not that I'm against husbands and wives sleeping alone together -- I hope someday to do it again myself (siiiiigh) -- but there are all sorts of reasons for people to have the sleeping arrangements they do -- it tends to be situational and cultural -- so I wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

[ErinIsNice]

Okay this has spiraled away from the original topic, but personally, I hate taking kids to weddings, especially toddlers.  I would have a miserable time, trying to keep my toddler from causing a disaster, my two food allergy kids from eating irresistible desserts, etc etc etc.  The last wedding we went to was no kids allowed, and it was the most fun I've had in a long time  

On the other hand, I would skip it if I didn't trust whoever was babysitting.  And I don't mean little things like the kids would watch a lot of movies and eat all the cookies.