Parenting Police.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Ender

In my opinion, you're on the "right track" but without the right logic backing it up. No, enforcing child support isn't unholy or 'theft'. But your focus point of the rich getting money from the poor makes slightly more sense; that is, if the State of Maryland didn't weigh how much you should pay base on your income and contribution to the family prior to the relationship 'bust'.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do not really understand what is meant by that????

It means your persistant, disloyal, dishonorable, immoral belief that parents aren't morally obligated to support their own children is just plain wrong. However, Ender seems to believe there could be a more equitable split of the financial responsibilities of child rearing. Not that a parent can leave all of the responsibility on anyone else, just that there may be a better way. It's called being constructive.

Child support is a legal responsibility done by the Courts so it is the legal system telling parents how to raise their kids. That is the reality and saying not is a falsehood. Your contradiction is not accurate.

So, in your reality the courts make the laws? In the rest of the population's reality, the representatives of the people make the laws, the elected head executive enforces the laws, and the courts referee to a standard (like, say, a constitution). They ensure justice, as defined, is observed. For decades, virtually everyone sees child support as just, moral, and proper. You should take a class in government.

People can still separate without getting a divorce... If we are not going to promote marriage and the true parents staying with their own God given children then our society is truely doomed and the sooner it gets overthown the better.

So, you're simultaneously promoting that parents who can't deal with each other separate, and that they stay with their children. At least there're no flaws in your theories!

They can still separate without getting a divorce but that divorce still only comes from our family break-up laws by our immoral gov and that is what I want to change.

I thought you wanted to change the just and moral child support laws, not the divorce laws.

Originally Posted by Ender

For you to try to compare social classes between a relationship just confirms there is bias in your perception of things due to a bitter past experience. I'm not one to prey into someone's personal life - but this is one of those situations where your "personal life" affects your opinion on something that's politically justified and the only people who complain are those who are self-diagnosed "victims" of the scenarios that you're placing anyways.

That is a bunch of worthless crap - or slander more correctly.

Why? It sounds pretty accurate to most of us.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Even if a parents did that and was an unbeliever then that still gives no one the right to steal the unbeliever's money or to receive the unbeliever's stolen money.

The scriptures do not work against me because I am on the right side.

So, you're saying the Bible's wrong in this?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, you're saying the Bible's wrong in this?

No, I say the child support laws are wrong.

The Bible text quoted by "Ops" was taken way out of its meaning.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

No, I say the child support laws are wrong.

The Bible text quoted by "Ops" was taken way out of its meaning.

Unfortunately this a$$hat is right, the verses 1 Timothy 5:1 through 5:16 deal with Widows, and how they should be treated (5:17 and on deal with Elders).

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

No, I say the child support laws are wrong.

The Bible text quoted by "Ops" was taken way out of its meaning.

1 Timothy, Chapter 5:
1 Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers,
2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
3 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need.
4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.
5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help.
6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.
7 Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame.
8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

Certainly, this is somewhat about widows, but it also seems to be about whole families and how to treat people. I'm not sure how it's out of context. Could you offer me your biblical scholarly "wisdom"?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

1 Timothy, Chapter 5:
8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

Could you offer me your biblical scholarly "wisdom"?

I take issue with it saying the "especially for immediate family" because in child support the parents are separated from their children. So the custodials have the children in their "immediate family" and the separated parents do not have the children.

So a believer might provide for those they have but not those they do not have.

Plus as I posted before, even if a person is an infidel and unbeliever then it still gives us or the gov no right to steal their money and no right to receive the stolen money.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I take issue with it saying the "especially for immediate family" because in child support the parents are separated from their children. So the custodials have the children in their "immediate family" and the separated parents do not have the children. So a believer might provide for those they have but not those they do not have.

I missed where it says "especially for immediate family, unless they live somewhere else". Can you show me that? Or, are you justifying instead of learning?

It looks to me like, unless the family bonds break when a child lives in a different home, you're wrong per PsyOps excellent Biblical reference.

Is that your stance, the family bonds break when you're living in different houses?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

I missed where it says "especially for immediate family, unless they live somewhere else". Can you show me that? Or, are you justifying instead of learning?

It looks to me like, unless the family bonds break when a child lives in a different home, you're wrong per PsyOps excellent Biblical reference.

Is that your stance, the family bonds break when you're living in different houses?

It is not an immediate family when they live in somebody else's house under some other person's rule.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is not an immediate family when they live in somebody else's house under some other person's rule.

So THAT's your stance. Your son is no longer your son! I'm sure he'll be happy to read that.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Unfortunately this a$$hat is right, the verses 1 Timothy 5:1 through 5:16 deal with Widows, and how they should be treated (5:17 and on deal with Elders).

I disagree. Notice the operative word "anyone" in the verse I provided.