OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 07:51:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Acceptance of Adultery  (Read 3289 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CCM08
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« on: June 25, 2007, 02:30:35 PM »

We don't have 'people with two arms and two legs rights groups' either...what's the point? 95% of the population has premarital sex, society already approves of this activity (or at least 95% of society has demonstrated by their actions that they approve of it, of those 95% who feign not to, they're hypocrites).

You've simply made the silly mistake of associating non-punishment with approval.

Quote
Only in backwards states dominated by evangelical protestants where it's still acceptable to marry your first cousin. Here in California (as in much of the west) we have community property, in case of divorce everyone gets half of all community property, it's a simple matter of civil (as opposed to common) law.

There are only 9 CP states in the entire country.  Even in CP states if a fault divorce is started and adultery is proved in court the judge has the authority to divide the property as he/she fits for the situation.  Not to mention that even in a CP state adultery will result in spousal support and will certainly affect how a judge sets child support and awards custody.  Adultery is certainly punished in this country.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 06:27:07 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

When man declares there is no God he establishes himself as God and man is a terrible god.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2007, 02:42:50 PM »

There are only 9 CP states in the entire country.  Even in CP states if a fault divorce is started and adultery is proved in court the judge has the authority to divide the property as he/she fits for the situation.  Not to mention that even in a CP state adultery will result in spousal support and will certainly affect how a judge sets child support and awards custody.  Adultery is certainly punished in this country.

Not so.  In Texas, at least, even when a fault divorce is proven, the division of all community property is a "just and right division," not however the judge sees fit.  Additionally, the fault is one of several factors to be taken into consideration by the court.  Regarding spousal support, given the strong presumptions against it in Texas law, it is available only under extremely limited circumstances, which do not include adultery.  Finally, when it comes to child support and custody, there are statutory guidelines which the court must follow except under specific circumstances.  Adultery wouldn't be likely to enter into the mix there.  It is quite possible to get away with adultery with no punishment at all.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 06:27:26 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2007, 06:57:26 PM »

I can't understood why marriage is not viewed as a legally binding contract, which includes the requirement for monogamy.
I have a friend whose wife left hm with their two children for another man with whom she had an affair, and my friend is required to pay maintainence for the children, even though her new husband earns nearly twice his salary!
Shouldn't adultery be considered "breach of contract"?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 06:58:01 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2007, 04:41:39 AM »

Quote
I can't understood why marriage is not viewed as a legally binding contract, which includes the requirement for monogamy.

I dunno, when I went to Orthodox pre-marriage classes, they seemed to say that in the Orthodox Church marriage was not a contract, thus the reason that Orthodox do not do things like exchange vows. On the other hand, seeing marriage as a contract (something akin to a business agreement) would be more in line with traditional practice.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2007, 05:07:45 AM »

I dunno, when I went to Orthodox pre-marriage classes, they seemed to say that in the Orthodox Church marriage was not a contract, thus the reason that Orthodox do not do things like exchange vows. On the other hand, seeing marriage as a contract (something akin to a business agreement) would be more in line with traditional practice.
I'm not talking about the Orthodox Christian view, but rather the Civil view. Since there is no such thing as a Sacrament in the Civil Law, the only possible view of marriage I can see the judiciary as taking is that it is a legally binding contract.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2007, 09:40:45 AM »

I can't understood why marriage is not viewed as a legally binding contract, which includes the requirement for monogamy.
I have a friend whose wife left hm with their two children for another man with whom she had an affair, and my friend is required to pay maintainence for the children, even though her new husband earns nearly twice his salary!
Shouldn't adultery be considered "breach of contract"?

Marriage is a legally binding contract in most states in the US. But it is under tort (civil) law and seeking recourse for breach of contract is at the option of the aggrieved party. The various states have different laws. It's been about 25 years since I "read for the bar" in VA, so I'm fuzzy on a lot of this.
In VA, a spouse may sue for divorce (the only recourse) under a few prescribed circumstance (of which I only remember a few).
1) Separation, non-interrupted for two years.
2) Separation due to legal incarceration (with a 'reasonable time' definition applied)
3) Desertion - grounds for immediate divorce. This is proved by 'intent' - "Did he/she take his toothbrush when he left?" sort of thing. Problem: If he/she comes back.
4) Abuse
5 & 6) I forget
7) Adultery - the biggie. Grounds for immediate divorce. Problem: Adultery must be WITNESSED (the actual act) by a third party or documented (photos) by the wounded party. Interesting qualifier:
Checking into a hotel/motel in same room with another person not one's spouse presumes the sex act and proves adultery. This reason is so hard to prove; most of the two-year separations are really caused by adultery. 
All well and good...Ecclesiastical Permission to remarry: Adultery is the ONLY grounds specifically mentioned as allowable. Ekonomia is employed, however. (As I posted elsewhere - this is NOT a fun route).
I foresee a time coming when our priest's no longer perform a legally binding wedding. And when all married couple will be civilly married first. I see this coming as an outgrowth of the 'same-sex' agenda and its impact on our system as it exists today.
Somehow, the future scenario I see does not bother me. As a recognized Sacrament, Holy Matrimony came somewhat later in the Church. It doesn't have to go away. Civilly married couple, if they wish to be in the Church will still have the blessing of their union.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2007, 10:20:01 AM »

That's interesting. Under Australian law, adultery is actually not recognised as "direct" grounds for divorce, it is only considered to be part of the evidence for marriage breakdown. There is still the requirement that the couple have been separated for 12 months, even in the case of adultery. So even adultery is not grounds for immediate divorce. The couple are also required to attend counselling approved by the Family Law Court. It is also near impossible to be granted a divorce before two years of marriage here, so technically, if your spouse cheats on you and moves in with their new partner after six months of marriage to you, you still have to wait 18 months in most cases to get a divorce and are still required attend counselling with them! It's ridiculous!
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 10:23:20 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2007, 11:25:20 AM »

Would insanity/mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia) be included under 4 or 5?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2007, 02:29:09 PM »

Would insanity/mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia) be included under 4 or 5?

Not that I recall. I imagine states vary a lot on these.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2007, 12:16:56 PM »

I was present at my parents divorce 11 years ago today as a matter of fact, I was in early labor with my oldest son who turns 11 tomorrow.  My mother finally left my abusive father and it was considered no fault here in the state of VA despite proven adultery.  The man was even fired from the ministry (can you guess which one?) for being caught with two unclothed co ed's.  I myself at 13 witnessed the adultery with one of his "Cathy's" (seems to have a thing for that name and mildly toothless women...)  and was called as a witness to the divorce proceedings.  It was never mentioned as just cause, though it was brought up.  The details are even worse that what I have written here, so I was shocked and nearly 26 at the time, that none of his illegal breaches were duly noted.  My mother's lawyer said it's the way divorce has "progressed" over the years.  Blatant adultery didn't help her at all, despite it SHE still had to pay child support for my minor brother for two more years-simply because she left an abusive situation. (and it was, let me tell ya!)
If we had more stringent laws in place, like I understand we used to, and the system actually enforced them, there might be a deterrent for adultery like their used to be.  Rumor has it that many judges themselves fall victim to adultery so it's hardly likely that they punish adulterers.   Honor among cheats and all.  If you really want to get down to brass tacks, anything (ANYTHING) outside of the marital bed is considered adultery by the scriptures.  Yet our society fondly allows and endorses everything from simple porn magazines to strip clubs and worse.  What did we think would happen to marriage with inventions like the pill, legalization of pornography and abortion...?  NOw even the courts dont' respect it and frequently hang the innocents in the matter.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2007, 01:36:42 PM »

I was present at my parents divorce 11 years ago today as a matter of fact, I was in early labor with my oldest son who turns 11 tomorrow.  My mother finally left my abusive father and it was considered no fault here in the state of VA despite proven adultery.  The man was even fired from the ministry (can you guess which one?) for being caught with two unclothed co ed's.  I myself at 13 witnessed the adultery with one of his "Cathy's" (seems to have a thing for that name and mildly toothless women...)  and was called as a witness to the divorce proceedings.  It was never mentioned as just cause, though it was brought up.  The details are even worse that what I have written here, so I was shocked and nearly 26 at the time, that none of his illegal breaches were duly noted.  My mother's lawyer said it's the way divorce has "progressed" over the years.  Blatant adultery didn't help her at all, despite it SHE still had to pay child support for my minor brother for two more years-simply because she left an abusive situation. (and it was, let me tell ya!)

The person who doesn't have custody, and thus doesn't have to pay for day to day support, pays their half through child support. This is perfectly fair, what is unfair is that in many states the courts give the woman an advnatage in custody matters, but this is slowly being rectified.

Quote
If we had more stringent laws in place, like I understand we used to, and the system actually enforced them, there might be a deterrent for adultery like their used to be.  Rumor has it that many judges themselves fall victim to adultery so it's hardly likely that they punish adulterers.   Honor among cheats and all.  If you really want to get down to brass tacks, anything (ANYTHING) outside of the marital bed is considered adultery by the scriptures.  Yet our society fondly allows and endorses everything from simple porn magazines to strip clubs and worse.  What did we think would happen to marriage with inventions like the pill, legalization of pornography and abortion...?  NOw even the courts dont' respect it and frequently hang the innocents in the matter.

Back when the courts did that, divorce proceedings made a mockery out of the justice system, with perjury and courtroom dramas being commonplace. Arranged adultery by mutual consent, feigned abuse, and other such shows were daily occurances. The real solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Eliminate marriage from the tax code (with the exception of penalizing those who formally redistribute money within a marriage in community property states, perhaps thourgh double taxation in this instance alone, inorder to prevent this abuse), eliminate it from contract law, etc. If a married couple want to make a legal contract, they should go about it in the same way non-married people do. Marriage is a religious issue, the state has no business being involved.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2007, 02:38:34 PM »

I can't understood why marriage is not viewed as a legally binding contract, which includes the requirement for monogamy.
I have a friend whose wife left hm with their two children for another man with whom she had an affair, and my friend is required to pay maintainence for the children, even though her new husband earns nearly twice his salary!
Shouldn't adultery be considered "breach of contract"?

George,

Marriage is a contract, HOWEVER, in the example you gave, the husband is STILL required to pay for maintenance of the children because they are STILL HIS children.  They did NOT breach any contract with him and they are (and should be) entitled to everything they got when their parents were together.  His legal obligations to his children are NOT impacted by the actions of his wife.

This is not to say that their mother shouldn't be responsible for paying for their care as well, but I don't see why the father should be "off the hook" so to speak, because his ex married money.  As a practical matter, the fact that they live with her full time, means she probably pays a lot for their care, whether it be for simple things like an ice cream cone to gas and electric bills.

In New York State, we use a "best interest of the child" standard in such situations.
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2007, 04:38:59 PM »

"The person who doesn't have custody, and thus doesn't have to pay for day to day support, pays their half through child support. This is perfectly fair, what is unfair is that in many states the courts give the woman an advnatage in custody matters, but this is slowly being rectified."

Greek, that sounds a bit sexist. First, child support is a joke in this country, and rarely enforced anyway.  Plus, you have parents pulling the guilt trip and telling a child to live with them simply to force the other parent to have to pay child support.  for the sheer pleasure of jerking their chain.
Secondly, and more historically, it's the mother that has provided the lion's share of nurturing and care.  It's what we do.  Are there exceptions?  Yep, but it's not the standard that men are the nurturers in our society.  It is the standard that more men run off and abandon their families than women do, though the inverse happens.  And, it's typical for the woman to be less equipped to provide for her children despite education, due to employers not promoting mothers to high paying positions.  You have a lot you left out of your scenario.
As far as courts go, they are run by humans.  Frequently humans that have the same weaknesses as the people they preside over.  There has been, and always will be (in this age) corruption.  I know all about judicial corruption, try finding out your child has been molested by a family member...and the father that knowingly allowed it still got visitation. 
If the government isn't going to stop legislating car seat laws that change every year, costing us money to fund the manufacturers, then they aren't likely to get out of the marriage business.  It strikes me a bit odd that a single person whines about a tax credit for married folks, when it's a bloody heck of a lot harder to be married than single.  Throw in a few children, and you need all the tax breaks you can find, probably to fund those idiotic car seat laws that place  children in car seats at 12.  we just got word on that one, so it's sticking in my craw.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2007, 04:52:20 PM »

Greek, that sounds a bit sexist. First, child support is a joke in this country, and rarely enforced anyway.  Plus, you have parents pulling the guilt trip and telling a child to live with them simply to force the other parent to have to pay child support.  for the sheer pleasure of jerking their chain.
Secondly, and more historically, it's the mother that has provided the lion's share of nurturing and care.  It's what we do.  Are there exceptions?  Yep, but it's not the standard that men are the nurturers in our society.  It is the standard that more men run off and abandon their families than women do, though the inverse happens.  And, it's typical for the woman to be less equipped to provide for her children despite education, due to employers not promoting mothers to high paying positions.  You have a lot you left out of your scenario.

Actually, in many states the child support enforcement system is quite effective.  The money is often withheld from the obligor's pay and remitted to the state, which then sends the check to the custodial parent.  On top of that, there are often state offices dedicated to tracking down deadbeats and garnishing their wages to obtain the ordered support.  Also, since the child doesn't get to determine where he or she lives, that's a moot point; the court decides.

Finally, the way GiC described the child support system is exactly how it is intended to work.  Both parents are obligated to finacially support the child.  The custodial parent does so by providing housing and utilities; the non-custodial parent pays child support to contribute to the costs of doing that.

The child suport system may not work perfectly and it might even be broken in some areas, but to describe it as a joke in the whole country is an outright falsehood.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2007, 01:56:10 AM »

Greek, that sounds a bit sexist.

Well, I'm general a rather radical feminist...but my belief in equal treatment under the law trumps even that.

Quote
First, child support is a joke in this country, and rarely enforced anyway.

Apparently it worked well enough that your mother had to pay it.

Quote
Plus, you have parents pulling the guilt trip and telling a child to live with them simply to force the other parent to have to pay child support.  for the sheer pleasure of jerking their chain.

Well, as part of my belief that the courts need to be more equitable in giving custody, I believe this can be fixed. If one is willing to care for the child without child support and is financially capable of doing so, they should have a preference in custody over one who does not fulfill this requirement.

Quote
Secondly, and more historically, it's the mother that has provided the lion's share of nurturing and care.  It's what we do.  Are there exceptions?  Yep, but it's not the standard that men are the nurturers in our society.

We need not encode the failings of our society into our system of jurispurdence which should be blind to such matters as gender...again I assert, equal treatment under the law. It is in large part the failure of the family court system to achieve this equality that I believe we would be better served by eradicating marriage and allowing the standard civil court system to deal with the proceedings.

Quote
It is the standard that more men run off and abandon their families than women do, though the inverse happens.

That's utter non-sense, infact an out-right lie, not supported by any facts, and if you do have any I ask you present them. Three relevant studies are referenced on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce (footnotes 11 to 13) and they reveil that the overwhelming majority of divorces are filed by women, between 2/3rds and 95% infact. It seems that the norm is that it's women who do the abandoning.

Quote
And, it's typical for the woman to be less equipped to provide for her children despite education, due to employers not promoting mothers to high paying positions.  You have a lot you left out of your scenario.

I'll admit that there are difficulities in the system today in the United States, though the situation has improved substantially over the last 40 years and continues to improve rapidly. However, in the case of women who has taken off time to raise kids, her position is of her own creation and there I will express no sympathy. If one wants to be a social reactionary and can find a benefactor to support them in this endeavour, that is their right in this Republic, but they must accept the consequences of their actions if their benefactor decides to cease supporting their social reaction. Perhaps this risk will serve as a warning to future generations, will reduce the number of women who leave the workforce when they have children, which in turn would actually reduce the amount of discrimination in the workplace (much of this discrimination is based on the assumption that many women will leave when they have children, thus it's not worth spending the financial resources to promote them and train them for a new position that they are less likely to remain in than a man...reduce the influence of the social reaction, you remove this cause of discrimination and advance the cause of equality), and it would help our economy by increasing the number of people contributing to it while not increasing the strain in the form of the number of people it must support. Fortunately this particular reactionary movement is decreasing due to the economic realities of the day and it's dangerour effects will hopefully be minimized in the next generation.

Quote
As far as courts go, they are run by humans.  Frequently humans that have the same weaknesses as the people they preside over.  There has been, and always will be (in this age) corruption.  I know all about judicial corruption, try finding out your child has been molested by a family member...and the father that knowingly allowed it still got visitation. 

Umm, there are many details that have been left out, so I can hardly start shouting along side you about judicial corruption. Had there been a criminal conviction in this case (yes, we do have a real standard of evidence, and the concept of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers is amongst the most important principles in this republic, and yes defending this principle is more important than defending a given child, the court MUST act according to the requirements of due process or else it is nothing but a kangaroo court. Then was this particulary man convicted before a jury of his peers of some form of neglect? If not, there are not grounds on which the court could justly deny his visitation. Our courts must be governed by the law and the overarching principle of due process, they can not rule on rumors, hunches, whims, and feelings.

Quote
If the government isn't going to stop legislating car seat laws that change every year, costing us money to fund the manufacturers, then they aren't likely to get out of the marriage business.  It strikes me a bit odd that a single person whines about a tax credit for married folks, when it's a bloody heck of a lot harder to be married than single.

When the tax burden is inequitable it is certainly within my right to object. And it's not just single people who are harmed by the current tax code, also harmed are those who are married but both spouses work and contribut to our country's economic well-being, infact they are hurt worse than we who are single (if I was in that situation I'd see no reason to marry civilly, it would only be an economic disadvantage). The only people who are advantaged are those where only one spouse works, the other being a detriment to our economy and often a threat to our egalitarian principles. Furthermore, the current tax code encourages this social reaction by discouraging the second spouse from working if the first spouse has a good job. So, quite frankly, I believe I have good cause to 'whine' when these social reactionaries are failing to hold up their portion of the tax burden, thus shifting it to the more responsible members of society, thus essentially asking us to fund their assault on the egalitarian ideals of western civilization. Quite frankly, they are free to live their lives as they wish, but I object to them having their social ideology subsidized by my hard earned tax dollars...so this has to be one of the better absurd governmental policies to protest...errr, how did you refer to exercising first amendment right in matters of public policy? 'whine' about. Roll Eyes

Quote
Throw in a few children, and you need all the tax breaks you can find, probably to fund those idiotic car seat laws that place  children in car seats at 12.  we just got word on that one, so it's sticking in my craw.

Again, it was your choice to have a large number of kids...while that is your right according to the laws and principles of our Republic, it is not your right to have them subsidized by our tax dollars. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2007, 01:57:01 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
CCM08
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2007, 11:28:29 PM »

Child support is rarely enforced?  Where did you come up with that nonsense?  The federal government is currently spending 5 billion dollars a year for mom's collection services.  It is easily the most draconian of any government agency with a total lack of over sight and complete with debtor's prisons for those who have fallen on hard times and cannot pay.

I agree with Greek, it's time for people to be responsible for themselves and their own choices.  Burdening those of us that don't have children with the bill for collecting your child support, maintaining divorce courts because people can't make good choices in their spouses, and every other aspect of marriage socially financed is an affront to the values of personal freedom and responsiblity that this republic was founded on.
Logged

When man declares there is no God he establishes himself as God and man is a terrible god.
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2007, 03:41:32 PM »

First of all, in most states a child over the age of 12 (usually) is allowed to have a voice in where they would like to live.  Sadly, this voice could easily have been manipulated and commonly is.  Personally, I don't think marriage should be invaded by the government, but they have every other record of what you do with your personal life already.  It's not surprising when you think how much information they already have on all of us.  However, when I get a tax credit for marriage or children, it's just more of what my dh made by WORKING that is returned to it's rightful owner.   Kvetching about married folk or folks with children getting YOUR tax dollars is crap.  My dh makes a modest salary and works his butt off to get it, plus works on the side to make up for a disabled child's needs, and gets taxed even higher as self employed.  We get medical disablity services, but they come out of our taxes. Those services don't even account for our yearly tax burden as we pay out of pocket.  Again, you aren't being hurt. We pay for the public school system out of our taxes, and we dont' use a whit of it.  Taxes aren't "fair and just" no matter which side of the marriage issue you stand on.  My children are NOT subsidized one bit by your taxes, that is left wing propoganda if I ever heard it.  I have no idea why you two have such an issue with raising human life.  It's not hurting you in the least no matter what tripe you subscribe to.
Child support is a joke, even though they have tried to make great strides in recovery. That was my field, and the turn over/burnout rate in any human services agency is astounding. (might have to do with the "entitlment" theories that clients carry on their shoulders)  The simple fact that any caseworker has a lifespan of approximately 12 mo or less is part of the problem.  Men who would run off on their duty are still men who have no moral code, and chasing them doesn't produce sudden funds all of the time.  It took 11 years to even get a review on an existing case here, 11 years of the father getting pay raises, job changes and insurance/benefit changes he didn't report.  What sucks for him is he will have to pay longer if his dd remains a full times student, which I know troubles you guys.  Tough bovine effluent.

As far as filing for divorce, that is only a last resort of a woman who has found her lover unfaithful.  A woman doesn't make her spouse cheat, and he could have started out the marriage with the best of intentions.  Once a man commits adultery, HE has broken the convenant between him and his wife at THAT point, not when she has said "enough" and files for divorce. The abandonment started in his heart long before she set foot in the court offices. I'd say that was a bit of bassackwards thinking.

I confess I don't understand why you guys are so deeply troubled by marriage and family.  It is, other than the monastic pursuit, the highest calling which one can embark upon.  To blindly believe that all of us married couples are somehow getting fat and rich off your taxes is entirely asinine.  While it's a civil matter in that regard, it is a moral matter and of greater importance in the spiritual realm. In fact, while I don't support taking from the single to financially support the married, you should do everything in your power to support traditional families values in action. Which of you has volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center, a teens in crisis center, a teen drug intervention, an orphanage.  How many of you support a women's abuse shelter? (how many men's shelter's have you ever heard of?) In reality, I am doing nothing immoral by raising my own children, without your help I might add, instead of handing them to the government you have spent post after post lamenting. It wasn't that long ago that it wouldn't have been questioned that I was giving back to society by raising children.  it's only since the late 40's that ideas began to shift, and I am now lambasted for doing what has been done since creation.  My current calling has a longer track record than most all of the common professions of the day.  These are personal values, human life??  remember?? 
Logged
Tags: adultery 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.088 seconds with 44 queries.