Just for fun!
Posted on 11/26/2007 10:26:35 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
As a general rule, plaintiffs who file for "no-fault" divorce should be found unfit to gain custody of their children. This should be done for the protection of the children involved. But most importantly it should be done to restrain the growth rate of the scourge known as "no-fault" divorce.
Radical homosexual activists have been bold in their attempt to redefine the basic make-up of the family by assaulting the God ordained institution of marriage with whatever creative sexual union could be devised. Yet the damage they've inflicted upon children to date is miniscule compared to the arrogance, selfishness, and defiance that the plaintiffs of "no-fault" divorce have unleashed upon child after child.
Particularly dangerous has been the growing effect of women seeking no-fault divorce only to then seek casual cohabitation with replacement men. According to this Associated Press story out last week "abusive-boyfriend" syndrome is increasingly putting children into not just emotional, spiritual, and mental jeopardy - but now sadly - increasing physical risk of life and limb.
Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005. Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center. Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University. The problem in large measure is that plaintiffs in "No-Fault" cases are living in such denial and total and complete selfishness that they don't truly care about the welfare of their children - not truly.
Oh they may say they do - especially when their guilty conscience comes to the custody portion of the divorce proceeding. Overcome by the guilt they know in their hearts as to how immoral their "no-fault" claim is that in order to compensate for a failed marriage - they publicly verbalize their propaganda to being all that much better of a parental unit. Yet in reality this argument is disingenuous given the fact that they are saying before the court that they are willing to destabilize the life of their children for literally "no reason."
I am not arguing that possible legitimate reasons for marital dissolution should be eliminated in custody concerns. Infidelity, abuse, and addictive behaviors should serve as distinct considerations when evaluating the decision-making ability, integrity, and trustworthiness of the potential parents who seek custody. But the idea that one can come before a judge and say "there is no legitimate reason" for us to crack up the stability of the universe that I committed to providing for the children I was given responsibility for seems a stretch in logic.
Prior to the emergence of "no-fault" divorces faith and legal communities both helped restrain people's willingness to divorce. In forcing the plaintiff to cite a cause as to why such a tragic measure should be taken the message to society was strong. Adultery jeopardizes the welfare of children, because it jeopardized the welfare of the marriage that created those children. Physical abuse was seen as a criminal aberration in marriage - one that was carried out by a minority of those who engaged in the institution and certainly one that puts the welfare of spouse and children in physical risk of injury and life. Addictive behaviors and abandonment are all also easily understandable risks to the health of the family unit.
Yet here is the fowl smelling stench of the truth behind "no fault" divorce. Sinful humans grew tired of having to live up to the vows they took before God, and the responsibilities they committed to before man.
Wanting to fornicate without consequence wasn't enough - now we wanted a guilt free way to make it happen. So as a result people are "finding themselves", "trying to figure things out", or stating that "they are not ready for the responsibilities" that marriage brings with it and just need an amicable way of exiting the situation.
Yet they were "responsible" enough to form a legal union, create children, and begin the act of attempting to parent them?
Many decades ago the average age at which people got married was younger, even in the teens in many cases - and the maturation process of the persons involved in these unions was something that grew as the commitments of life multiplied.
Today it is our pathetic desire to extend adolescence to later and later into adulthood coupled with the sin of envy that is more often than not the root cause of the whole demonic lie of why "no fault" divorce is so "necessary."
This scourge has brought with it some additional unforeseen secondary problems as well. Violence against the non-blood-related children by the new man is just one example. (In nature the new lion will often eat the cubs of the previous male when mating with a previously mated lioness.) Men who cruise women with children is a phenomenon now that we can track statistically. And then there is the Woody Allen syndrome of the individual who is drawn toward sexual acting out with the blooming daughters of the formerly married woman.
Put bluntly there is NO benefit to the children of a society that makes marriage as easy to escape from as choosing which store to shop at.
And the price of doing so is killing our children.
We should return to the day of accountability and responsibility as a culture - particularly when it comes to the welfare of children.
And plaintiffs who file for "no-fault" divorces should be ready to lose their children in the process of doing so.
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
I can remember 7 years ago when I would carry her to bed after she fell asleep eating ice cream.
This is the daughter of my girlfriend and we, GASP!, LIVE TOGETHER!!!! By the cardinal rules set place by some of the people here I am still waiting for her to start smoking crack and prostituting herself. And she is still waiting for me to assault her.....
Yes,
I am a presumed woman. :)
And you are a misandrist.
There. Now don’t we both feel better for calling each other names?
Erm,
make your case first please, because all you’ve done so far is slam the double X’s and assume we are all in cahoots.
So far, knowing her for years and you for a short while.
She’s right and you’re wrong.
But I will give you lots of opportunity to change my opinion.
You’re one of the best fathers I know, and one of the reasons I believe conservative men (in RL, not here) are good guys.
Yes. By all means leave your children with this mentally disturbed woman.
I read every word you said. And I can’t say what I would do if I were you. But are you thinking this through?
Will leaving her make you happy? Will your children be better off without you?
You think you’re an ATM now. Just wait till the divorce lawyers get through with you. Hoo boy!
Please. I know you have it bad. And maybe divorce is your solution. Just know it will be the worst thing you’ve ever done.
Just for fun!
If you consider single motherhood "winning". I don't. It's not an easy life either.
I don't think anyone "advocates" for divorce. I think most of us just think it should be fair, and IMHO, should not have it's own societal engineering motive that implies citizens need government to make very personal decisions, like whether they should stay married or not, for them.
Same right it has to fine people for not keeping their ad valorem tax tag up to date, using their concealed weapon license in a reckless manner. It's called the police power of the state and it's purpose is to regulate the exercise of rights so that they don't threaten the health, welfare and safety of the people of the state.
The option ofno-fault divorce is destroying the integrity of the basic unit of society, simply because that option is available and easy in comparison to actually working out problems.
It's purpose may be warm and fuzzy, but it is not used that way. It's proper use depends totally and completely on the fair heartedness, integrity, honesty and sense of self governance of the user, with no oversight thereof.
It's like putting a loaded gun for public use at every street corner. 
No. . .just do away with the no fault divorce laws.
You said an absolute mouthful here. I can't tell you how many families I know that would have been better off parting in the interest of the children.
Good grief man, do you not understand the original reason for the concept of the no-fault divorce laws?????
Men always had the upper hand in divorces and custody because they controlle the money. What a woman had to go through to get a divorce, let alone custody or support of any sort was utterly horrendous.
I'm no femininazi, and actually despise those type, but for crying out loud you can't actually believe that women got a fair shake in divorce.
I don't think it's ever been easier to tell the good from the bad. Particularly if you can follow their postings on internet forums and tell what kind of personality they have when they think no one is watching ;~)
Who said anything about moping? I'm taking action to deal with 'the system' as it is.
What action? What do you actually propose to fix this, and how do you think it will be made better?
AMEN
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“Yes, it is painful, and it is terrible, and I pray God I may never have to endure such a trial. But if I do, I hope I remember that God allowed it for a reason, and if I turn it to good use, it can be an immensely powerful force for my own sanctification and the sanctification of everyone around me.”
No offence but you should read the bible cover to cover and follow the example of the character of God. Christ may have died on that cross for all mankind but Christ came to the Jews first in His mission. They rejected Him guaranteeing Daniel’s prophecy of Israel being trampled on by the nations until 1948. In Catecism do they teach about the Jewish Tabernacle being torn assunder by that earthquake the moment Christ died on the cross? Seems like a shredding of a legal or binding covenant to me.
So, there are two sides to this story. Read the old testament again and see what happened to Israel when they rejected His benevolent blessing and decided to be selfish and destructive instead. You want to tell me that God continued to bless Israel no matter what and continue to take abuse for providing blessing?
Not all lessons taught to our species come from blessing friend. Sometimes we CHOOSE to be abusive and your spouse has every right to follow the character of God and break the covenant. Now, I am not Jesus and don’t know all or see all. But I do know abuse and if as a husband or wife you are abusing your spouse you are breaking your covenant, marriage vows and probable ignoring God as well. The covenant can and should end. If your mentally ill there are now medications that can help, but not all people can stop there behavior and no, I myself don’t feel like getting a hatchet in my head (literally).
Definately have to agree. My ex was nuttier then a fruitcake and I she relinquished custody. Her support (she was a nurse) was a joke $100 per month. She never paid it but I didn’t care as long as she stayed out of my hair. Well, the court caught up to her. She filed a bogus charge and I had to defend against it while the court gave her immediate custody. While she had temporary custody, she would file for child support and because I make a substantial living, it would erase 2-3 years of non-support. She did this four times until my son was 13 and could speak for himself about this supposed ‘abuse’. I got custody every time. That is MY SON!!! I didn’t just leave it to a lawyer either. I collected massive amounts of evidence the attorneys were too lazy to collect. She lost every time, even though she basically erased our son’s college funding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.