Law and Order.

[Ken King]

I like all of those versions of the Bible and each one says the same thing, IMO. You are simply trying to blame the family member only and excluding the outsider that violated the family unit by committing adultery with a married person. That outsider adulterer is the one that hurts society by breaking up a family so there is the BIGGEST of offence.
You error is in your perspective. You are telling the way the law is now and I am saying to improve and change the law to make it better. So you are correct but you have no vision for making the system better as I am suggesting. That is the difference between a leader and a follower.

What's to make better, asshat? Consensual sex is allowed. How is someone to know the person they are having sex with is married or not? Is it your vision to make sex against the law for everyone but married folk?

The present laws like especially child support promote and subsidize divorcing and help to break up families and gives reward to adultery.

I am saying to change the old divorce laws and improve our system by making it family friendly and protect the family from the home wrecker adulterers and use the law to defend the family unit and stop providing assistanc for divorces.

The laws do not promote divorce, I doubt you can verify that with a single fact not developed in your mind.

Is it your desire to become the Ayatollah of America?

 

[Midnightrider]

What's to make better, asshat? Consensual sex is allowed. How is someone to know the person they are having sex with is married or not? Is it your vision to make sex against the law for everyone but married folk?


The laws do not promote divorce, I doubt you can verify that with a single fact not developed in your mind.

Is it your desire to become the Ayatollah of America?

KK is right, if the laws promoted divorce, it wouyld be easier than getting married. As it stands, it takes only a few days in most states to get everything together for a marrige, but it takes YEARS to get to a final divorce.

so which one is being favored?

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Preacher!

Tell it like it is brother. They just do not want to see it because most of them are spending the child support at the local pub or getting their fake nails filled in.

Amen,

plus I am the King of red karma while others are just plain green!!!!

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Preacher!

So what if the home owner knows that a robber is checking out his house and he leaves a door unlocked on purpose?

The robber is still guilty, pending their right to a trial, of course.

 

[2ndAmendment]

In adultery there's only ONE vicitm: The faithful spouse. There's also some collateral damage if there are children.

But that is contrary to the "victim mentality" he has. After all, he is a Democrat. Move over Dean.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Here's what I do know. We, as civilized human beings, are more than capable of rising above our base instincts - one of which is indiscriminate humping.

Barring rape, there is not one person alive who is incapable of rejecting a bedmate.

When they introduce "mind control devices" into the marketplace, (no, alcohol does not qualify as a mind-control device) then you people might have something there. Until then, all you're doing is validating and condoning simple weakness of character and ethical turpitude.

When someone gets drunk, seldom does it involve someone sitting on a person's chest putting a funnel in their mouth and pouring the booze in.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Preacher!

What's to make better? Consensual sex is allowed.

That is the unjust claim for the home wreckers that commit adultery with a married person - that the sex was consensual - and that is the way our system is now, our law protects the home wrecking adulterers and does not protect the family from those unethical and immoral attacks by outsiders. To change this would be to improve the laws and help defend our society's families against the filthy attacks. I like the idea.

How is someone to know the person they are having sex with is married or not?

There would need to be degrees like first degree adultery predator, and second degree adultery opportunist, and third degree adultery xxxxxxx, then a not guilty by reason of ignorance.

These are only hypothetical ideas just to reply to the question.

Is it your vision to make sex against the law for everyone but married folk?

That is the way that God intended it and it would be an ideal reality but I would not want it as law in the USA or MD. Single people of age can fraternize at their own risk but they need to stay away from adultery against married persons.

The laws do not promote divorce, I doubt you can verify that with a single fact not developed in your mind.

I do not know of any statistic facts but from a sound mind we can see and deduct that the child support laws subsidizes divorce. Plus we know that many families break up because of adultery and the outsider that violated those families are protected by law from any retaliation. So the present system does not protect families or marriages and it does help people in getting a divorce.

Is it your desire to become the Ayatollah of America?

No, but I do understand that it sounds like imposing a religious political set of laws but that is not correct. The government does have a vested interest in protecting the families and in keeping order in society and the government has a duty to enact laws against perpetrators that hurt others and hurts the community and the outsider adulterer is a real adversary in this today's immoral society. So such an adultery would not be imposing a morality but rather it would be defending families from immorality. Plus the married person would be free of any charges except in that the other married partner could seek a divorce. I like the concept.

 

[Midnightrider]

So such an adultery would not be imposing a morality but rather it would be defending families from immorality. Plus the married person would be free of any charges except in that the other married partner could seek a divorce. I like the concept.

your most retarded idea since your child support theories.

why would the nonmarried person have any guilt, they didn't take a vow before god swearing to anything.
Just because you couldn't keep your wife satisfied doesn't mean that the real man that did make her happy was guilty of anything.

The fault lies with the cheating spouse and the spouse who drove them to it.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Preacher!

KK is right, if the laws promoted divorce, it wouyld be easier than getting married.

The law might not directly promote divorce but the law does accommodate divorce so it goes real nice and easy. That one gets full custody and that one pays $xxxx per month and then bring in the next marriage break - next - next - next..... And if the spouse says there was adultery then get a divorce because the law will do nothing to the home wrecker - not in the USA - where any one can attack our families and screw the married persons and boast about it on TV.

As it stands, it takes only a few days in most states to get everything together for a marrige, but it takes YEARS to get to a final divorce.

so which one is being favored?

I agree that the American people do not like and do not want divorces but our laws are out of line. The sad reality is that child support subsidizes divorce and the outsider adulterer that wrecks people's families is free to do the dirty deed again. Saying we promote marriage and promote family needs to become real and not just vain empty words.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Preacher!

your most retarded idea since your child support theories.

why would the nonmarried person have any guilt, they didn't take a vow before god swearing to anything.
Just because you couldn't keep your wife satisfied doesn't mean that the real man that did make her happy was guilty of anything.

The fault lies with the cheating spouse and the spouse who drove them to it.

That above is the horrible way it is now, so I am suggesting that we improve our system and make it right. Start with laws that actually protect the family unit by making the married couple protected by law.

 

[Ponytail]

"victim mentality" is a huge understatement. I truly believe JPC is a textbook pychopath, or more accurately known as having "Antisocial Personality Disorder".

It's typical for these people to deny responsibility for ANY wrong doing, constantly blame others, look for folks who might feel sorry for him and believe such things as he was put in jail by his wife and her conspiracy advocates. They truly believe EVERY word that comes out of their own mouths and hold themselves higher than anyone. And it is that thought of them being of higher IQ than anyone else that they are able to play any counselors or any counseling that they may have been forced to go thru and will always believe that the better part of the population is wrong in their common belief that "conforming" to society and it's rules is the doomed mans way. JPC will never see that he is wrong now, ever was wrong, and will never believe that his mind just is not wired properly. it is common for people with this disorder, to pass it on to their sons/daughters, the same reason it was developed in him...by denying responsibility, care and the raising of his kids and thus never establishing a bond with his kids. This is where it starts.

I've been reading alot lately on this disorder, and it is absolutely fascinating. There are so many levels of this disorder, criminal vs not, functional vs not, smart vs not. Many of our CEO's and elected officials are clinical, functioning pychopaths, not caring about who they hurt or what damaged was caused to get to the positions that they hold or want to hold, and not having the ability to care, or even know that they did anything wrong, ever.

Imagine having the feeling of being capable of anything. Anything at all. And the only thing that can keep you from it, are the people around you. You have no feelings of regret, can't tell the difference between right and wrong, only think that the laws/rules that specify right vs wrong, are restrictive and meant to keep you down. This is only the tip of the iceberg for understanding this disorder.

JPC, I used to have you on ignore. Not anymore. You fascinate me. Don't get me wrong. I never want to meet you face to face. God help me should that ever happen. But now I understand where your thinking and poor understanding of the law as it is written as well as your twisted interpretation of the Bible comes from.

It's not your fault. You are this way because your father never hugged you, and your mother was probably too scared to do or say anything about it. It's typical. They turned you into the idiot that you are today.

 

[Ponytail]

That above is the horrible way it is now, so I am suggesting that we improve our system and make it right. Start with laws that actually protect the family unit by making the married couple protected by law.

Make the married couple protected by law? You are assuming every person out there that commits adultery is innocent 'cept for the person outside the marriage?

You mean that one married person has never committed adultery with another? Or that a single person has never been lied to by a married person?
Fascinating. I would have thought otherwise. But I haven't done much research compared to you. Who knew?

 

[Midnightrider]

That above is the horrible way it is now, so I am suggesting that we improve our system and make it right. Start with laws that actually protect the family unit by making the married couple protected by law.

its amazing that someone as retarded as you can remember to breath.

THE LAW IS RIGHT, if you want further protection, try treating you wife better next time, otherwise there are plenty out there who would be willing to.

If your ex was happy she would have never been unfaithful, but in reality, she had already probably decided that your relationship was over (at least in her eyes) and the other guy was just a way for her to get away from YOU.

THE SYSTEM ISN'T BROKEN, you are just a complete looser!

 

[2ndAmendment]

your most retarded idea since your child support theories.

why would the nonmarried person have any guilt, they didn't take a vow before god swearing to anything.
Just because you couldn't keep your wife satisfied doesn't mean that the real man that did make her happy was guilty of anything.

The fault lies with the cheating spouse and the spouse who drove them to it.

You must have missed the Bible verses I posted. In God's eyes, both parties are equally guilty.

 

[Midnightrider]

You must have ignored the Bible verses I posted. In God's eyes, both parties are equally guilty.

"you can't run a country by a book of religion" FZ

If we wanted the biblical interpretation we would be in the religion forum, not politics.

 

[Tonio]

Didn't JPC appear on "Law and Order" as a deadbeat dad being led away in handcuffs by Jerry Orbach? Obvious example of typecasting.

 

[2ndAmendment]

"you can't run a country by a book of religion" FZ

If we wanted the biblical interpretation we would be in the religion forum, not politics.

Were you not the one that posted

they didn't take a vow before god swearing to anything.

thereby indicating that the vow to God is part of the relationship? Why yes. I think you did.

 

[hvp05]

The law might not directly promote divorce but the law does accommodate divorce so it goes real nice and easy.

The idea of free will was brought up earlier, and I think it is applicable again. You resent the fact that your ex-wife had the free will to choose to leave you, along with the legal ability to effectuate her plan. No wonder you would like to see marriage police interject in bad marriages and say, "Despite the fact that your spouse is a loser (for whatever reason), you must remain in this marriage."

Your personal vendetta has again been exposed to show the true intent and weakness on which your campaign is founded.

If a husband is an alcoholic are the marriage police to prevent the wife from filing for divorce and, instead, encourage suing the liquor store owner for "breaking up" that marriage?

What if the husband is a compulsive gambler, do the marriage police encourage suing the casino?

The fact is, whatever problems may be occurring - alcoholism, gambling or adultery - they are not the fault of "the other guy". And, often times those activities are the result, not the cause, of a marriage that has already failed. What would be more painful is the law attempting to dictate how much two people love each other and overriding the individual's free will and personal judgment.

 

[MMDad]

This is an interesting glimpse into your psychosis. You see yourself as acting on God's behalf, and you tie your success to God's will.

Is that why you feel justified in your dereliction in your own child support case? You feel that God struck down your ex because she would dare to bring the enforcement police down on you, and that meant God was on your side.

Ponder this: what if God was on her side, but was striking you down? What if he wanted you to pay the support you owed, and when you didn't, his will was that you go to jail? What if he was so displeased by your vandalism that he disabled you to the point that you cannot hold a paint can any more?

If you are going to tie your success to God's will, you have to tie your failures to god's will. Never forget that you failed as a husband, you failed as a father, and you failed to be a productive member of society. When you fail in the primary, remember to give credit where credit is due. God must not like you.

Jimmy, you never replied to this. Tell me, do you really think God likes you?

 

[Tonio]

We don't have roving masses of "violaters" running the streets looking for innocent couples to break up.

Only in trashy novels, soap operas, and songs like Janie Frickie's "She's Single Again" where the villainesses are scheming man-stealers.

I wonder what JPC would sound like in a televised debate with his opponent.