Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:53 am

JP Cusick wrote:
As to "visitation" I see that as a dirty word, as both parents are to have an unrestricted joint custody as the child's birth right.

JP, you’re in the ballpark, but a bit off course. It is the birthright of every child to be raised by a father and a mother if at all possible.

There are sperm donor that are not fathers, and there are egg producers/incubators that are not mothers; fathers are those who father, and mothers are those who mother.

I abhor the mindset and consequent terminology that focuses on parents’ rights. As far as I’m concerned, the only parents’ right that parents possess is the “right” to be the father or mother that God expects, period. In fact, “parents’ rights” should be replaced by “parents’ responsibilities” in our cultural terminology; perhaps if that were so, there would be fewer sperm donors and egg producers/incubators using their sons and daughters as footballs in games of one-upmanship.

Insofar as your conclusion that the child custody culture in America USV is dysfunctional, you are absolutely correct. No one speaks for the children, and they are the only ones for whom anyone should speak in custody situations.

by oftenwrong Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:40 pm

What appears to be required is an apology from the former Colonial Powers e.g. someone like Tony Blair.

Oh, he HAS apologised. That's the end of it then.

by JP Cusick Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:04 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:

JP, you’re in the ballpark, but a bit off course. It is the birthright of every child to be raised by a father and a mother if at all possible.

There are sperm donor that are not fathers, and there are egg producers/incubators that are not mothers; fathers are those who father, and mothers are those who mother.

I abhor the mindset and consequent terminology that focuses on parents’ rights. As far as I’m concerned, the only parents’ right that parents possess is the “right” to be the father or mother that God expects, period. In fact, “parents’ rights” should be replaced by “parents’ responsibilities” in our cultural terminology; perhaps if that were so, there would be fewer sperm donors and egg producers/incubators using their sons and daughters as footballs in games of one-upmanship.

Insofar as your conclusion that the child custody culture in America USV is dysfunctional, you are absolutely correct. No one speaks for the children, and they are the only ones for whom anyone should speak in custody situations.

I say it is the unnatural and inhuman Child Support and Custody laws which has created the ignorant perspective of viewing parents as sperm donors and egg producers instead of our society having respect for parents and for parenting.

Your claim of replacing "parents' rights" with "parents' responsibilities" is in fact the root of the problem, where as our intrusive society is taking away the role and duty of parents and of parenting and replacing them with outside demands and orders and laws which violate the parents and their parenting.

As to speaking for the children - that is the parents' job and place and no one else has any business speaking for the parents' children.

Our society, as like the poster quoted above, have violated the normal human boundaries of parents and of parenting, and it amazes me that people can dream themselves as so high and mighty that they enforce such immoral and inhuman authority.

If it were not for the brute force of the law enforcement then those ignorant and vile laws would not be sustainable.

by jackthelad Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:57 pm

JP say's
As to speaking for the children - that is the parents' job and place and no one else has any business speaking for the parents' children.

On occasions the child needs to speak for itself, the parent is not always right, there are abusive parents, and a child should have the right to speak for itself.

Rock say's,
In fact, “parents’ rights” should be replaced by “parents’ responsibilities” in our cultural terminology;

In this, i must say i agree with Rock, there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:29 pm

Not that I expect an answer other than "I just didn't like what you said", isn't it customary to give an explanation of the "why" for suspending a poster?

This incident just seems petulant.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:39 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
True Blue wrote:

You are so terribly concerned about the non custodial parent having to pay child support as though it should not be a duty of that parent. Why is that?

Raising their own children is a pride and joy of every parent (even for those who fail to realize it), but paying the Child Support is NOT a parental duty.

It would be as if I took your car away from you, and then I demand for you to pay me the money for gas and insurance and upkeep of your car which I took from you.

Of course it would be absurd to expect you to pay me if I take away your car, but under the Child Support and Custody laws the children are taken away from their parents and then claiming those parents must pay the ones who took the children - and that is also absurd and ridiculous.

When the Custodial parents wants help with raising their child then the Custodial needs to get married to the other parents as that is how a family is formed.

Any parent who takes the child(ren) away from the other parent as in taking "Custody" then they have no claim nor do they deserve one cent in Child Support.

To pay the unjust and inhuman Child Support is NOT the parent's duty - hell no, the true moral and ethical duty is to use every means reasonable to defy such evil laws.

If that does not explain it then please do ask for any further clarification as I am happy to explain, but I say this is very easy to understand as it is simply right from wrong.

You, regardless of Ivan's affinity for you, are a crackpot. I would not personally attack you otherwise, but you introduced yourself as a candidate for public office and this issue as your platform; you and your policies should be PUBLICLY repudiated. The idea that you, as a father, should no longer be compelled to provide for your children because you got divorced and don't have custody of them is an absolutely morally repugnant philosophy and you, sir, have no business among decent folks.

I can't imagine anyone but another deadbeat parent coming to your defense or commiserating with you. I may be a message board troll, but you are one in real life.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:44 pm

Before I am banned, I'd just like to say thanks to Shirina for the many wonderful debates over the years. I wish you nothing but the absolute best life has to offer and hope that you find some abatement to your suffering. You've my email address....if you'd like to keep in touch, I'd certainly be the better for it. The world is better for having your in it...to be sure.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:14 pm

"Insofar as your conclusion that the child custody culture in America USV is dysfunctional, you are absolutely correct. No one speaks for the children, and they are the only ones for whom anyone should speak in custody situations." ~ ROB

wrong. most, if not all, family courts appoint a guardian ad litem in contested divorces to represent the child(rens) interest(s) during the divorce proceedings. the guardian makes recommendations to the judge as to whether the settlement is in the best interest of the minor child(ren)

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:32 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
"Insofar as your conclusion that the child custody culture in America USV is dysfunctional, you are absolutely correct. No one speaks for the children, and they are the only ones for whom anyone should speak in custody situations." ~ ROB

wrong.

Nope.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:44 pm

Rather than post a link, I'd suggest just googling "family court guardian ad litem" and sorting through the thousands of individual court programs listed.

Not wrong.

Either party in a divorce can petition for a guardian ad litem; additionally, in contested divorces, not only does the judge have the authority to appoint one...it is mandated that the judge appoint one in most family courts.

You couldn't be MORE wrong, ROB.

by JP Cusick Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:46 pm

jackthelad wrote:

On occasions the child needs to speak for itself, the parent is not always right, there are abusive parents, and a child should have the right to speak for itself.

In this, i must say i agree with Rock, there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.

The thing is that the Child Support and Custody laws are for normal healthy parents and their children

You and others who inject cases or claims about child abuse are injecting a falsehood into the Child Support and custody laws.

Child abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence are completely separate and different subjects.

It is a sad reality that most people really do equate child abuse into the issues of Child Support and Custody laws, and that is just another dishonest injustice on top of the other dishonest injustices of the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

It is a cheap way of making one self and the laws to appear righteous.

by JP Cusick Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:03 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

You, regardless of Ivan's affinity for you, are a crackpot. I would not personally attack you otherwise, but you introduced yourself as a candidate for public office and this issue as your platform; you and your policies should be PUBLICLY repudiated. The idea that you, as a father, should no longer be compelled to provide for your children because you got divorced and don't have custody of them is an absolutely morally repugnant philosophy and you, sir, have no business among decent folks.

I can't imagine anyone but another deadbeat parent coming to your defense or commiserating with you. I may be a message board troll, but you are one in real life.

It is okay with me that you or anyone gets offended at my postings and I am happy to be viewed as a crackpot or insane or a deadbeat as I do know that I am provocative and I do provoke other people in realistic ways.

I am happy that you are back online, and I am glad that the banning was short, and it shows again that this forum does have some high quality principles and Moderation too.

Here in my Maryland I have been publicly repudiated on many occasions with an example linked here = Washington Post 2008, but in 2010 the election got me 46,411 votes, see link HERE, so what one might think is not quite the reality.

I can envision many people besides those slandered as "deadbeats" turning to this cause of reforming the evil Child Support and Custody laws because I say every decent person of every kind has a rightful interest in stopping those evil laws from continuing.

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:13 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
You couldn't be MORE wrong, ROB.

I couldn't be more right.

by True Blue Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:35 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
True Blue wrote:

And yet it is a parental duty of the custodial parent?

Bad analogy... your children have not been taken from you. It is your partner that has separated from you. The children still exist and still need funds for their upkeep. Your argument seems to justify the financial abuse of children because the parents could not live together.

That would promote an unhealthy environment for the children since it is clear that one the parents does not want to be living with the other.

Does the non custodial parent in your eyes, have a right to visitation. Does the non custodial parent still have a duty to provide emotionally and spiritually for that child?

It is the Custodial parent's duty to provide everything the child(ren) needs, and if any child goes without then that is a failure of the custody.

No. It is the parents' duty to provide for their children, financially, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and physically. If you acknowledge yourself as a parent, then that means it is your responsibility as much as it is the other parents.

You are confusing custody with parenting. Custody is about assigning a legal residence and primary guardian to the child to ensure their need for stability and security has a good chance of being satisfied. That is the intent of the law. Parenting is more than that.

That the mother most often gets the greater custody has more to do with her past role as the primary care giver. Why disrupt what the child knows and what is working when doing so destabilizes their sense of stability and security? Once a child is older however, the primary care can be shared between the parents and, in Australia at least, it is shared.

Often the first custody outcome is not the only custody outcome because circumstances change.

The whole point of having custody is that the Custodial must provide the custody in full, and if the Custodial is not capable of providing the full custody then they have no business having the custody of any child.

Your thoughts show no consideration for the child.

As to "visitation" I see that as a dirty word, as both parents are to have an unrestricted joint custody as the child's birth right.

Not whilst the child is young and needs a stable and secure residence. From school age on wards, changes to the primary care arrangements should and could be renegotiated.

And even more important is that providing custody means that it is a part of the job of custody that the children do grow up with a respectful and functional relationship with the other parent, so that if any child grows up bitter or resentful against the separated parent then that too is a failure of the job of custody.

Again, it is the role of both parents to ensure healthy attitudes to life and people. Your argument is seeking to shirk that responsibility. You are out of step with prevailing morality on this and so presenting as very offensive.

The custodial parent is the one who has taken the child(ren) away from the other parent, so the job of custody includes providing the custody in full.

There are parents who will use their children as a pawn in their game of revenge against the other parent due to the hurt of the relationship breakdown. This is tragic. Nonetheless, it does not justify in any way the parent affected by this, opting to shirk their responsibilities. In acting as you do, you feed into the game of hate and revenge... to the detriment of your children.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:35 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
You couldn't be MORE wrong, ROB.

I couldn't be more right.

lol. and Herman Cain didn't cheat on his wife either...

by JP Cusick Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:38 pm

True Blue wrote:

No. It is the parents' duty to provide for their children, financially, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and physically. If you acknowledge yourself as a parent, then that means it is your responsibility as much as it is the other parents.

That would be true because that is what we mean by marriage or as a parental partnership, but when one parent takes the child away from the other parent (as in Custody) then the parenting is violated.

One parent taking the child away from the other parent is violating the family unit, and it is equivalent to a physical divorce, and it is the same as kidnapping, and the other parent owes nothing to the thief of their child.

If the Custodial parents want assistance with raising their own child then they could go discuss the issue nicely with the other parent, or they could seek marriage, or give the child to the other parent, but it is none of the proper business for a Court.

True Blue wrote:

You are confusing custody with parenting. Custody is about assigning a legal residence and primary guardian to the child to ensure their need for stability and security has a good chance of being satisfied. That is the intent of the law. Parenting is more than that.

It is the Custody laws which violate the parenting.

The intent of the law means nothing when the reality of the law is fundamentally evil.

When one parent takes the child away from the other parent then they have no rightful demand for money or anything else.

True Blue wrote:

Again, it is the role of both parents to ensure healthy attitudes to life and people. Your argument is seeking to shirk that responsibility. You are out of step with prevailing morality on this and so presenting as very offensive.

When one parent takes the child away from the other parent (Custody) then the parenting rules are violated and thereby changed.

You say I am "shirking that responsibility" but in fact the Custody laws have completely violated that parental responsibility.

Plus - the prevailing morality is misguided and wrong.

True Blue wrote:

There are parents who will use their children as a pawn in their game of revenge against the other parent due to the hurt of the relationship breakdown. This is tragic. Nonetheless, it does not justify in any way the parent affected by this, opting to shirk their responsibilities. In acting as you do, you feed into the game of hate and revenge... to the detriment of your children.

It is NOT the parents who do wrong - it is the evil laws which are wrong.

Not the Custodial parent nor the alienated parent has done anything wrong, because the overwhelming wrong is done by those evil laws which violate the parenting.

by astra Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:56 pm

JP, hello,

I take it you are NOT saying that child/children should stay with abusive parent/parents for the kids sake - could lead to more harm than good!
I take it you are not saying that a partner - female/male should continue to abide with a wife beater/husband beater for the kids sake - could lead to more harm than good!
I take it that you are not saying that a partner should stay with a criminal partner against her/his will, for the kids sake - could lead to more harm than good!

THEREFORE

Are you saying that the United States Legal System treat EVERY couple as if any/all of the above tennets are active? That a simple parting of the ways/agreeable sepatation is treated in the above manner without discourse or research and reasons proffered are not taken into account?

Is there a socio economic level where divorce is granted and all is hunky dory (happy ending)??? Shocked

by JP Cusick Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:25 pm

astra wrote:

JP, hello,

I take it you are NOT saying that child/children should stay with abusive parent/parents for the kids sake - could lead to more harm than good!
I take it you are not saying that a partner - female/male should continue to abide with a wife beater/husband beater for the kids sake - could lead to more harm than good!
I take it that you are not saying that a partner should stay with a criminal partner against her/his will, for the kids sake - could lead to more harm than good!

That is correct that I do not want any person being a child or spouse or significant other to be harmed, and in such violent cases the police must intervene.

But the Child Support and Custody laws are not based on any impropriety, as they are based on two parents and their child(ren) being legally divided without any form of abuse included.

And even if the law orders Custody of the children away from one or from both the parents based on their violent abuse of the child(ren) then the claims for any Child Support is unjustified. I would say in some cases where the parent is rich or the abuser is not incarcerated that there could be an order for punitive damages but not Child Support.

astra wrote:

THEREFORE

Are you saying that the United States Legal System treat EVERY couple as if any/all of the above tenets are active? That a simple parting of the ways/agreeable separation is treated in the above manner without discourse or research and reasons proffered are not taken into account?

I am not certain what you mean by the way you worded that, but I say the system now does treat the parents as if there is active child abuse going on in every case under review for Child Support or Custody orders.

And I do not find that such a perspective is reported or discussed in the Courts for every case, as it more often goes unsaid and unreported while that negative perspective is still being done and applied in every case against the parents.

astra wrote:

Is there a socio economic level where divorce is granted and all is hunky dory (happy ending)???

A lot of people do claim a "happy ending" going on now, and I figure such claims to be pretentious frauds to try to cover over negative feelings.

I do say that any social economic level makes no difference and the immoral games of the richer upper class must not be used to determine the morality of the majority population.

The very notion of "divorce" is a hostile condition because the word "divorce" means a hostile and unfriendly action.

To give a divorce (any separation) a happy ending is like declaring the happy ending of a world war, so yes people are happy that it is over and done, but the ending does not really justify the means even when it is a happy ending. Of course it is more pointed when there is a child involved, and less important when the couple does not have any children.

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:43 pm

Get the wording of the Pre-Nup right, and everyone can live happily ever after.

by Guest Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:44 am

One who needs a pre-nup is fated to live unhappily ever after.

by JP Cusick Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:59 pm

oftenwrong wrote:

Get the wording of the Pre-Nup right, and everyone can live happily ever after.

Given the legalities of the Divorce Industry today then I see why many people do get prenuptial agreements today, because otherwise marriage can ruin the persons involved.

The thing which I want to point out is that the prenuptial agreements is a legal attempt to protect the persons from the evil divorce laws, especially including the Child Support and Custody laws which threaten everyone who considers getting married.

The prenuptial makes so that those marriages are in fact only a "civil union" or a legal contract being called as a "marriage" when it is not a real marriage.

The Gov laws have violated marriage and empower divorces and overruled parenting and the civilian population are trying to find ways of protecting them selves from the evil barbaric laws, and the prenuptial agreement is the product of defending against the evil laws.

And it is severely wrong to view the prenuptial as being beneficial for the Men or for the Women or for their children because what the laws have done is turned everyone into legalized chattel.

by oftenwrong Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:38 pm

" a legal contract being called as a "marriage" when it is not a real marriage."

This may be the right moment to explain what a "real marriage" is, if it is not a contract.

by Shirina Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:16 pm

One who needs a pre-nup is fated to live unhappily ever after.

Let's put 100 couples in a room. Each of these 200 people are thinking the same thing - that no one else could possibly even fathom how "in love" they are, that their love is special, everlasting, perhaps even fated. Now, if you've had just two relationships in your entire life, your failure rate is 50%. The average number of relationships women have before marriage is 8.6 (men probably report higher numbers). However, 8.6 makes the math complicated, so I'll use the nice round number of 90% (which is actually less than the true number). This means that 90 of those 100 couples won't even make it to the altar; they will all break up before they do any knot tying. That leaves just 10 couples. Taken from the last census data, the divorce rate in the US was 57%, but again that is complicated math, so rounding up we have 60%. So of the 10 couples that do get married, 6 of them will end in divorce, bringing us down to just 4 couples remaining from the 100 we started with.

Those are some pretty long odds. If people want to pretend that divorce will never happen to them or that their love is somehow superior to everyone else's, then by all means spin that wheel. I suppose that matters little if you marry young when you have few, if any, valuable assets like homes, properties, businesses, stocks and bonds, etc. However, if you marry later in life (which is the current trend), placing everything you own on the roulette table may not be the best bet. While some argue that a pre-nup is entering into the marriage on a negative note, love is blind and causes smart people to do stupid things. Reality and that "floating on Cloud 9" feeling rarely ever hold hands as they skip through the land of marital bliss. The younger the couple is, the less likely they will answer the door when reality knocks, but luckily for them, they usually have a lot less to lose.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:57 pm

22nd wedding anniversary is in 4 months....Imma 4%'er yeah!

the problem, as I see it, with "love" is that people are conditioned to think it's an emotion. it's not. love is an act of will....demonstrated by behavior.

the mindless masses seem to equate love with sexual attraction...which is just stupid

by Guest Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:18 pm

Shirina wrote:

One who needs a pre-nup is fated to live unhappily ever after.
So of the 10 couples that do get married, 6 of them will end in divorce, bringing us down to just 4 couples remaining from the 100 we started with.

Those are some pretty long odds.

Nonetheless, if you need a pre-nup, you’re dead in the water before you start. The problem that “in love” has an opposite, “out of love”, and people that “fall in love” also can and do “fall out of love.”

Agapao, to love, the strongest love mentioned din the Greek Bible, cannot be “fallen into” or “fallen out of.” Unless agapao is at the core of one’s love for a person with whom one is contemplating marriage, which is “union”, or “one” (e pluribus unum), one ought not contemplate, much less consummate, marriage with that person.

If agapao is the core, a pre-nup is an insult to both parties. If agapao is not the core, there should be no marriage, and pre-nup is moot.

by Shirina Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:33 pm

If agapao is the core, a pre-nup is an insult to both parties. If agapao is not the core, there should be no marriage, and pre-nup is moot.

Then most people probably wouldn't be - or ever get - married. Few people in this world find someone THAT special. Most people have to "make do" with spouses that fall well below expectations. Many people get married just to avoid being alone, others marry for the money, and others marry to have kids (the husband is inconsequential). Some still marry for political clout and convenience, some marry due to pressure from family, and still others marry simply because they believe that's what you're supposed to do.

And while there may be love there, it is often not strong enough to carry them through a lifetime of trials and tribulations. The divorce rate speaks for itself, and of those that stay married, a significant percentage of those couples stay together for reasons other than love - or agapao.

Of course, in the beginning, it's easy to believe every new relationship is all about "agapao," and how easy it is to delude oneself into thinking it is. As I said, people do all kinds of stupid things in the name of love, including murder and start wars. Love has a dark side, too, just ask any abused spouse.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:44 pm

Herman Cain is likely looking to be interested in this topic soon enough...

lol

by Guest Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:55 pm

Shirina wrote:

If agapao is the core, a pre-nup is an insult to both parties. If agapao is not the core, there should be no marriage, and pre-nup is moot.
Then most people probably wouldn't be - or ever get - married. Few people in this world find someone THAT special.

If most people do not agapao, then most people shouldn’t get married.

Shirina wrote:
And while there may be love there, it is often not strong enough to carry them through a lifetime of trials and tribulations.

If it’s “not strong enough to carry them through a lifetime of trials and tribulations”, it’s not agapao, and they shouldn’t be married in he first place.

by dimsum Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:30 pm

Congrats GPO on you long marriage. I am close to 37 years..

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:44 am

dimsum wrote:Congrats GPO on you long marriage. I am close to 37 years..

Congrats to you, as well...keep the faith

by Guest Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:53 am

Shirina wrote:

If agapao is the core, a pre-nup is an insult to both parties. If agapao is not the core, there should be no marriage, and pre-nup is moot.
Then most people probably wouldn't be - or ever get - married. Few people in this world find someone THAT special.

More on this line of thinking…

Shirina,

Having never been a woman, I cannot address from core understanding, the type of understanding that surpasses and defies articulation, how agapao within a woman for her husband/man (aner) is exhibited by a woman.

Having been a man my entire adult life, and a boy prior to that, I can address from that core understanding how agapao within a man for his wife/woman (gune) is exhibited by a woman. The Spinners and Phillipe Wynn address agapao in these songs. They do so better than I.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:24 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/showbiz/music/love-songs/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

There's no love in "black" music any more because blacks don't know what love is....

The decline of "love" in the black community documented through their popular music

Oz. Your account has been suspended as you have once again posted racist remarks.
Ivan

by oftenwrong Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:03 pm

The future is coffee-coloured. 80% of Americans over the age of sixty would describe themselves as White.

Only 50% of Americans under the age of 30 would do the same.

Pew Research Center

by JP Cusick Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:26 pm

oftenwrong wrote:

This may be the right moment to explain what a "real marriage" is, if it is not a contract.

What is marriage? = traditionally throughout humanity the Institution of "marriage" has been under religious authority, as in a Hindu marriage, Islamic marriage, Jewish and Christian and etc marriages.

In the old USA people would get married when a preacher came into town, and the Churches gave a blessing to every marriage, and then came the State who created the marriage license as a tax which included keeping the record which thereby gave the State control over who was recognized as being married and who could get married, then of course the State also provided the infamous writ of divorce under its superior authority.

It was in that way that the State took over the religious authority regarding marriage and undermined the authority of the Church, so even the Churches that tried to protect marriage and tried to stop divorces the Churches were overruled by the State laws which granted divorce.

The old idea of a "common law marriage" meant that the couple were married under God without any official State law governing the marriage.

The only laws of marriage that the State actually had was only a legal contract or a "civil union" because marriage was an institution of religion and defined by religious standards - but now the religion authority has been violated by the State laws.

So the question of - What is marriage? or a real marriage? = Then in years ago "marriage" was a respected religious observance, but now today under the State authority then being married means only a temporary legal contract without any moral basis or any ethical foundation.

by JP Cusick Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:56 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:

If it’s “not strong enough to carry them through a lifetime of trials and tribulations”, it’s not agapao, and they shouldn’t be married in he first place.

If the couple has a baby then the union is viewed as blessed or as anointed or as legally bound by the child, while no one can define whether their love was true enough or not.

And if we define it by "agape love" then agape love grows, where it might be weak and slim at first but then over the course of years it increases.

So whether their union is respected as a "marriage" or not - the couple having a baby would not be in dispute.

And I agree with "Shirina" that people do all kinds of crazy and stupid things because of love and because of their relationships, so that Men and Women have fought and feuded and kill each other ever since the beginning of time.

It is senseless to view two parents having a child as if they must get along most of the time without fussing and fighting as that would be unnatural and inhuman.

So we know that Moms and Dads have horrific disputes and it is insanity to input laws that govern male and female relationships as if the laws know best when no one knows best.

When parents dispute then the child naturally brings the parents back together, and the parents are compelled by the child to reach a solution, but the Divorce Industry along with the Child Support and Custody laws violate this family dynamic, and this intervention by the unnatural laws are destroying the families and dividing the parents and alienating the children, while the laws do not belong in the middle of normal human relationships.

With Men and Women / Moms and Dads then they will break up and reunite later, sometime one day or several years or any time, but as soon as the Courts and the laws become involved then the family unit is doomed and trashed.

by Charlatan Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:24 pm

The children and charities could be supported with an ambitious advertisement campaign. The sponsors could advertise that they will pledge so much money for every product they sell or something. Of course the church could use some of it's money to float the children and mentally impaired people. Let's see how much the church makes in a country?

In America there are sixty eight thousand churches in, and there are at least twenty people in each service, being four services in a month. That means, taking five dollars a service from each person would lead to twenty dollars a month, and twenty times twenty equals four hundred. This means they should have sixty thousand churches with four hundred going through monthly, leading us to the figure of twenty four million coming through the coffers alone. Now what do they use it on? Isn;t the churches people paid by the state?

I suggest a saturday service too. It is not about the sabbath anymore, it is about being with god whener you can, giving a minor amount to help a lot of people out. What do you say, saturday service for the children and charities?

by Shirina Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:37 pm

Then in years ago "marriage" was a respected religious observance, but now today under the State authority then being married means only a temporary legal contract without any moral basis or any ethical foundation.

I think the emancipation of women had more to do with higher divorce rates than the "evil" government. During WWII, when women had to go to work, brought home the bacon, and managed the domestic finances, many of them said, "I'm not going back to traditional ways."

by oftenwrong Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:44 pm

During WWII, when women had to go to work, brought home the bacon, and managed the domestic finances, many of them said, "I'm not going back to traditional ways." .

Coincidentally, WWII proved the watershed where old attitudes of deference started to be challenged.

by jstnay Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:21 pm

Coincidentally, WWII proved the watershed where old attitudes of deference started to be challenged.

The old attitudes that a widow got a Cow a Calf and a feather bed when her husband died was gone, another one of the oldies was their children inherited the estate she got little to nothing. If she got anything someone managed that.

Women were chattel not equals, that was gone also.
Divorce was more common than most people think back in the day, and I'm talking way back.
I have done a lot of genealogy and when I first started and found some of these things out I was amazed.
If they were traveling in a covered wagon usually going west, they just shacked up until they came to a town they could get the deed done legally. No one thought a thing about it. Weddings were mostly for the wealthy, if a traveling minister came through they may have had a religious ceremony or not. Most religious ceremonies were done in populated cities and towns.
There are still countries where you get a civil license and ceremony, then if you choose and the minister/priest agrees to marry you, you have a religious ceremony.
I for one think this is the best way to go.

by JP Cusick Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:59 pm

Shirina wrote:

I think the emancipation of women had more to do with higher divorce rates than the "evil" government. During WWII, when women had to go to work, brought home the bacon, and managed the domestic finances, many of them said, "I'm not going back to traditional ways."

It is true that both the World Wars damaged our society in very many ways, but the World Wars were actions of our Government as was the putting of Women to work in factories.

I see it as extremely self-centered selfishness for women to claim that they needed "liberating" from their husbands and including "liberating" their children away from their fathers, but then to demand cash money as Child Support to pay for that "liberation" is just outrageous.

And the reason Women get away with their offensive claims and demands is because the Men do not fight back against Women.

The Women truly do not win as they simply trample down everything in their path and then cheer themselves as WINNERS.

As if the "traditional marriages" were mean horrible husbands against the innocent defenseless Wives - which it was NOT.

by dimsum Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:09 am

Sounds good Jst and then people could stop harping about gay marriages. If people want a religious ceremony too that is up to them. But you would be married already legally the other would be for you and your church. End of problems.. Very Happy

by Sponsored content