He did not trick you at all I suggest you view the recording, you were very quick on the draw behaving like a mintoffian

It’s called voting to have freedom of choice. Now you go and cry or laugh all you want – you don’t know any better.

Pat Zahra:

A new man in the house can create tension, but with the right man it can be of great benefit. Children do well in having a father figure around. Of course if the guy’s an arse then it’s a different story, but then the problem isn’t having a guy around – it’s having the wrong guy around.

In Sweden having what we call a “plastic dad” (no idea why it’s called that) – namely another man who steps in after a divorce/separation – has become normative and I can assure you this is in many cases a positive thing for the family.

You are trying to present a moulded version of a family where everyone has to fit in and when they don’t you prefer to collectively punish. Every family unit is different and the law has to cater for all versions, while still protecting the individuals inside that family unit.

You voting “no” in a few days inhibits those alternative family units simply because they have chosen a pattern which doesn’t fit your view. That is, in every aspect of the word, intolerant.

In my head the mother should remain single. Children often don’t react well to having a new man in the house. Do you know how often we have cases of girls who have been pestered by their mother’s boyfriend? And how often the mother takes his side against the daughter?

The loss of the father is hard enough to cope with (and the mother’s as well – it’s not just men who run out on the family you know). For the spouse who becomes the children’s sole guardian, a new partner is a complication that rarely does the children any good.

Ah, such wisdom!

@ Innocent Bystander:

You’re not fooling anyone here.

@ Pat Zahra:

What if you want to stay with your spouse for the sake of the children, and the other doesn’t?

@ Reuben Scicluna:

Now here’s a first! Declarations of nullity are bad? Please explain.

@ Michael Falzon

I wouldn’t put it exactly like that.

I’d say he exposed you for what you really are i.e. a clueless amateur defending the indefensible.

You didn’t answer to the case in point. IF the husband runs off, why do you want the woman to remain married? I heard you the first time, you know.

I was talking about marital break up in all its forms. Put simply, if you have children stay together – if you don’t have children do as you please.

The fact of their parents refusing to live together destroys children. This is a fact I live with every single day.

It suits some people to pretend that children get over it. They don’t.

As for the vote for divorce. . . to people with children it shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. Childless couples might (only might, mind you) find it useful.