Posted on 12/26/2002 8:34:04 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
Patrick McCarthy was floored to learn after his divorce that his 14-year-old daughter had been fathered by another man. He was even more stunned to find out that he would still have to pay $280 a month in child support.
"You have to be a stone not to react emotionally to something like that," said McCarthy, 41, a delivery service driver from Hillsborough, N.J. "The thing I found more disturbing was the way they treat you in court."
In New Jersey, as in most other states, children born during a marriage are the legal responsibility of the husband - even if he isn't the biological father.
Now some of these "duped dads," as they call themselves, are waging state-by-state battles to institute "paternity fraud" laws. Fueled by anger and raw emotion, they are forming grassroots groups and pressing for the right to use DNA evidence in court to be free of making support payments for children they didn't father.
New Jersey Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, which McCarthy founded, recently paid $50,000 for nine billboards along highways (and other ads) that show a pregnant woman and read "Is It Yours? If Not, You Still Have to Pay!"
"Why does a man who is not the father have to bear the financial responsibility for fraud?" asked New Jersey Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D., Union), who sponsored legislation allowing men to use DNA tests to disprove paternity and end financial support. The bill recently came out of committee and faces a vote from the Assembly.
But women's groups and child advocates are alarmed by a trend that they say could harm children.
"It's not as simple as, 'This isn't fair, I have to pay for somebody else's kid,' " said Valerie Ackerman, staff lawyer at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif. "Families are much more than biology."
It is not known how many men would try to disprove paternity in court, even if they could. An American Association of Blood Bank survey in 2000 of 30,626 paternity tests showed that 30 percent of those taking the tests were not the real fathers.
What is clear is that the law is not on their side. Most states require nonbiological fathers to keep paying child support even if they were deceived by their spouses, based on the 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband's.
For unmarried fathers, if the paternity is not challenged at birth, they generally do not get a second chance to raise the issue.
But more and more states are reshaping these laws. Men have won the right by legislation or case law to use genetic testing to disprove paternity in 12 states. Three more, including New Jersey, have pending legislation that let nonbiological fathers off the hook.
Since 1999, Pennsylvania lawmakers twice turned down similar legislation, introduced after a Reading man, Gerald Miscovich, sought relief from the $537 a month he was paying for a child who was not his. He lost the case and ended all contact with the then-4-year-old boy. Sen. Michael A. O'Pake (D., Reading) plans to reintroduce the bill next month.
Carnell Smith of Decatur, Ga., is one of two men who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after lower courts ruled against them. Smith is trying to recoup more than $40,000 from his ex-girlfriend after learning three years ago that her 13-year-old girl is not his. But the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, meaning he must continue to pay $750 a month in child support.
"It's not a gender war from my perspective. It's about truth," said Smith, who founded U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. His group - whose slogan is "If the genes don't fit, you must acquit" - lobbied for the law that Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes signed in May.
Others have not been swayed. In October, California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a paternity fraud bill, saying the measure would only delay child support collection and let some biological fathers wriggle out of parental responsibility.
Child advocates agree. They worry that children will be traumatized by losing the emotional and financial support of the person they know as "Dad."
"I would think if there's a close parent-child relationship, then the matter of whose DNA the child is carrying wouldn't matter that much," said Laura Morgan, chairwoman of the American Bar Association's Child Support Committee. "It's too easily reducing parentage to dollars and DNA."
In many cases, a man suspects a child is not his and chooses to raise the child anyway, said Paula Roberts, a lawyer at the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington. But after a divorce "he has a new wife and she's saying, 'Why are we paying for this kid?' Now he wants out," she said.
"What kind of damage have we done to the kids if the person they know as their father wants out?"
Some of the new statutes give fathers two years to contest paternity. Men say such deadlines are unfair because women can sue to establish paternity at any time in a child's life.
But Ackerman, with the youth law center, said "you give a person unlimited time to establish paternity, it leaves a child in limbo their entire lives."
Those pressing for the new laws say they do not anticipate wide-scale child abandonment. Cohen, a lawyer who has represented both men and women in these types of cases, said that "when [fathers] have a relationship with their son or daughter, they don't necessarily walk away from the child. They just don't want to have the financial responsibility."
But he has also seen men who were "so angry and upset over being lied to, they walk away," he said.
These non-dads, who network via e-mail and compare hard-luck stories, say the issue goes beyond monthly child support checks.
"To not allow DNA testing is not allowing the truth to come forward," said McCarthy, who would like to see every child's DNA tested at birth to prevent mix-ups. "My contention is every child has a right to know who their biological parents are."
Even though McCarthy's daughter looked nothing like him, he never suspected she was not his until his ex-wife blurted it out during an argument, he said. He used a home DNA kit and a cheek swab to confirm there was virtually no chance the girl was his.
With no legal standing, he continued supporting her and began lobbying for a change in the law. Though their relationship is strained, the girl, now 19, still calls him "Dad," said McCarthy, who lives with his second wife and their two children.
What really galls these men "is the fact that you have to pay support to an ex-wife who lied to you and deceived you," McCarthy said. (Like some other men in the movement, he declined to provide information about his ex-wife.)
One man who would greatly benefit from the new laws is Morgan Wise, of Big Spring, Texas. A train engineer, he was married for 13 years to a woman who had four children. The youngest had cystic fibrosis. After he divorced in 1996, he said, he took a test to see which cystic fibrosis gene he carried.
No such gene was found. DNA testing showed that three of the four children were not his.
"I cried. I got angry, not toward the children but toward my wife," he said.
His wife, Wanda Scroggins, said that he knew "there was a possibility" the children weren't his. She said they both had affairs during their marriage and he agreed to raise the children as his own.
They also agreed to keep the truth to themselves, but Wise told the children one day while they were at school. It cost him visitation rights for two years.
In another blow, a Texas court ruled that he still had to pay $1,100 a month in child support. In January, the U.S Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal.
Recently, Wise began spending time again with the children, but the relationship is rocky.
"If it's your kid, no matter who the biological father is, how does that matter?" Scroggins asked. "He was there when they were born, he changed their diapers, saw their first steps, kissed their boo-boos. How do you just stop that?"
Scripture?
* Does the bible authorize the state to enforce decency on the airwaves? On State Property. Any property-owner (including the State) may Biblically set usage rules for his own property -- but not for anyone else's property.
Scripture?
* Does the bible authorize the state to enforce fair advertising? -- Yes. "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness , Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Scripture that applies to the office of the magistrate? (note that you have quoted Romans 13:9 which doesn't fall under the magistrate section but does fall under our individual duties according to my own reading as supported by 9 commentaries such as John Gill and Matthew Henry)
* Does the bible authorize the state to enable education? -- Not if "ENABLE" means GOVERNMENT SCHOOLING of any sort. It isn't listed among the Magistrate's duties in Romans 13, and is therefore UnBiblical Theft and a Crime against God. Do you think it is MORALLY RIGHT to steal bread from the table of homeschooled children??
The magistrates duties aren't listed in Romans 13. In fact I can find no commentary that goes so far as to interpret what those explicit duties are (John Gill, Matthew Henry, and 7 others). The command God gives is obey those in authority over you because ALL authority comes from God. All of these commentaries, as well as my own reading, see the magistrate section ending at verse 6 and a section on love and justice to our brethren starting in verse 7.
Please expound, with scriptural reference just how the magistrates duties are limited and to what. If we are going to be literal about this we had better have the scripture to back it up.
Read John Gill's and Matthew Henry's full commentaries on this chapter. You may find it educational.
* Does the bible authorize the state to enforce product liability laws? -- Yes. (Romans 13:9 again)
So how does this authorize the gov to enforce product liability? This info is from verse 9 which applies to us as individuals, not to the magistrate as an office.
* Does the bible authorize the state to enforce private contracts at all? -- No.
* Does the bible authorize the state to free slaves? ~~ Actually, with the exception of negotiated Indenture Contracts (common in early America), Slavery is enforced by threat of Death, and is a Theft of Labor, thus giving the Magistrate two separate Romans 13 grounds (commandments VI & VIII) for abolition.
(Romans 13:9 again, no magesterial requirement)
Contrast this with the rest of the bible which exhorts slaves to be good servants to their masters and masters to be good masters to their slaves. No where does it command the master to free his slaves or the slave to rebel against his master. (Romans 14:4 refers to a 'servant' using the greek word 'oiketes' meaning domestic servant or household slave. (strongs 3610. (see strongs 5928 for further discussion)) Ephesians 6:5-9 talks about the relationship between a slave and his master using the word 'servant' translated from the greek 'doulos' meaning slave or bond servant. (strongs 1401). Colossians 4:1 uses the same term (strongs 1401) in directing masters to give to their servants what is right. No where however are masters commanded to free their servants.
[Exo 21:1-6 talks about the Hebrew bond servant going free after 7 years if he chooses not to stay a slave. Deut 23:15 talks about not returning an escaped slave to his master. Lev 25:44-46 talks about how non-Hebrews are slaves forever once enslaved. They are not released in the jubile year.
Government has no explicit biblical Authority to free slaves. The authority our gov does have came about because WE THE PEOPLE decided to make slavery illegal in this country. Just like WE THE PEOPLE decided to regulate what is, and isn't a marriage]
OP, you spend an awful amount of time lambasting anyone who disagrees with you but an apparently minimal amount of time defending your 'biblical' ideas with scripture. Perhaps if you would tone down your personnal attacks and ratchet up your scriptural evidence people could take you more seriously.
GSA(P)
Sorry. Missed this in my prior reply. I'm still waiting for what scriptures tell us explicitly what the gov can and connat do and for the scripture that counteracts Romans 13:1.
GSA(P)
As an example.
If I see someone doing something that will kill them in an unsaved state and do not warn them of it then I am guilty of their blood (see Ezekiel 33:1-9). So, in some circumstances it is the Christ-like thing to do to stop them from performing a fatal action until they have a chance to hear the gospel. Preventing suicide is a Godly action. This is where the guidance of the Holy Spirit becomes so critically important. We must be able to decide when to intervene and if to intervene at all.
GSA(P)
Uh huh.
Tell you what: Read the following Essay (which establishes Romans 13:8-10 as the defining rule for Romans 13:1-7 by no less than five directly-Biblical arguments, each of which must be independently refuted or the Rule of Romans 13:8-10 over the Magistrate stands), and get back to me.
Contention I: The Authority of Scripture
Question: Does Scripture FULLY equip the Christian to all Good Works, including the Work of Good Governance?
Answer: Scripture does FULLY equip the Christian to all Good Works.
Contention II: The Scriptural Mandate for Government
Question: Since the Christian Magistrate MUST, under the terms of 2 Timothy 3: 16-17, turn to Scripture and SCRIPTURE ALONE for instructions on Government, what Scripture passages instruct the Magistrate on precisely how to Govern?
Answer: Among other passages, the Christian Magistrate may turn to the passage of Romans 13: 1-10 for instruction on how to govern.
Contention III: God's Grant of Authority to Government
Question: Is the Grant of Authority given to Government in Romans 13 unconditional, giving Moral Legitimacy to all exercises of State Power; or is it conditional, giving Moral Legitimacy only to certain specific exercises of State Power?
Answer: The Grant of Authority given to Government in Romans 13 is conditional, affirming Moral Legitimacy only for those specific exercises of State Power which the State is authorized by God to perform.
The whole quotation clearly refers to a good government and a good government only. The Apostle Paul recommends that we obey only a government promoting the good.
About twice as much space is used by Paul to make clear that he is talking about a good government only than he gives to the admonition to obey that government.
If men insist on reading Paul's rule out of context an obvious and grievous error of interpretation will result. Anyone reading the rule must read the reason for the rule. Paul says: Obey the powers that be because they reward good and restrain evil.
Other references in Scripture to obeying the "powers that be" have the same assumption underlying the requirement of obedience, namely, that the government is essentially good. There are no exceptions to this.
Authority, then, is something quite different from power. Authority involves the idea of rightness, and justice, and of being workable, and useful to all, and suitable to obtain the end sought. Now, if Scripture authorizes an authority which violates those ideas, then Scripture gives a stamp of approval to an evil government, a thought repulsive to every responsible and well-intentioned man. Scripture, of course, does nothing of the sort.
What is it then that gives a government genuine authority? And when is a person obligated to obey and when obligated to disobey a government? Is there anything in Scripture which unqualifiedly gives the answer to such questions? We believe that there is, but the statement does not appear in any of the writings of either Paul or John. The only simple and comprehensive statement regarding what is legitimate power, that is, what is authority, was stated by the Apostle Peter. His great principle, which we consider fundamental, was expressed when Peter was in a dangerous situation before the high priest and his party. That great principle is:
Acts 5:29b -- We must obey God rather than men.
When, then, preachers in various Reformed churches speaking in the pulpits of their own denomination, or member of the staff of a university which has the word "free" in its title, or a religious leader whose ideas are called neo-orthodox -- whether they or anyone else declares that it is required of Christians to obey a government regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and regardless whether it observes what is declared to be the revealed will of God, there can be only one conclusion, namely, those teachers are declaring a doctrine which sets human power above divine authority. Consequently, we hold that no government should be obeyed which does not operate according to the revealed will of God; the corollary is: every government should be disobeyed which does not operate according to the revealed will of God. We consider it to be as great a sin to obey an evil government as to disobey a good government.
Contention IV: The Conditionality of the Authority which God has Granted to Government
Question: If Government is empowered ONLY to punish Evil, and if those who do Good should therefore have no Fear of the Government, what Evil is the Government empowered to punish?
Answer: The State is empowered ONLY to punish those who violate the Second Table of the Law.
This exegesis is soundly supported by the mainstream of Reformation political theology (or "Theonomy") which provided the philosophical basis for our own American Revolution, and which holds that Paul clearly defined the Evils which the State was to punish in Romans 13: 8-10.
So long as Paul's readers abided by these Commandments, they should have no Fear of the State. It follows, then ,that any re-definition of "Evil" by the State, other than that which Paul has specifically authorized, is illegitimate and UnScriptural; for if the State could define as "Evil" anything it wanted to define as evil, then Paul could not offer his readers his assurance that, by upholding the Second Table of the Law, they had "fulfilled the law" and should therefore "not be afraid of the power". A few expository quotes will suffice to demonstrate this point:
According to the Bible, the state is a legitimate institution, but its scope is severely limited. In Romans 13, St. Paul makes clear that it exists to punish external evildoers. By what standard? By the standard of God's written law. In large measure, this reduces to a defense of what the early Americans considered that great trio of "rights," life, liberty, and property. -- "War, the Bible and the State", by P. Andrew Sandlin
Rutherford (Samuel Rutherford, author of Lex Rex, one of the principal foundations of American Founding thought) properly argued from passages such as Romans 13 that the king, as well as anyone else, was under God's law and not above it. -- "Christian View of Government and Law", Kerby Anderson
It was not until after the flood in the Noachic covenant that God first delegated such authority to civil magistrates acting as his ministers (Genesis 9, Romans 13). But he only delegated authority to suppress such second table offenses as murder (Genesis 9:6). Under the Noachic Covenant there is no authority given to the civil magistrate to enforce God's will in matters of religion. -- "The Scriptural Doctrine of the Civil Magistrate", Louis F. DeBoer
The so-called "authority from God" is neither a manifestation of bald power to act nor an automatic blessing from God because that power to act exists, but is based on obeying the revealed will of God, obeying the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. The authority of any government rests on its establishing laws based on and in conformity with the Decalogue, specifically the Second Table of the Decalogue (Commandments V through X). -- "The Powers that be are ordained of God", Frederick Nymeyer
Contention V: The Necessity of Romans 13: 8 - 10 for Godly Government
Question: What theological problems are created when we ignore the applicability of Romans 13: 8 - 10 in instructing the Christian Magistrate how he should Govern?
Answer: The following five major theological problems are created when Christians tell our Magistrates that they need "pay no heed" to the specific Authority granted them in Romans 13: 8 - 10:
The Biblical Rule of Morality is precisely the same for Men of State, as for Common Men.
In fact, if there were any text in Scripture of such a kind then the definition of brotherly love would be different for a group than for an individual. That, we believe, would be a damnable situation and an outrageous inconsistency.
We are confident that nothing in Scripture can be quoted as giving broad coercive power to any government over men, unless the definition of brotherly love has previously been improperly extended as by Nygren and by various sanctimonious and confused theologians, inside and outside the ranks of nominal Calvinists. By that device, namely an extended definition of brotherly love, a government or a sphere of sovereignty can appear to have a proper range of authority beyond what Scripture really has set.
One way to destroy the mythical power pipe lines from God to government and sphere sovereignties is:
1. To insist that brotherly love does not go beyond the exact definition given in Scripture.
2. To insist that no group, political or nonpolitical (government or sphere sovereignty), has any more power than an individual has. Proper group action then becomes brotherly love exercised collectively rather than individually (for economy of effort's sake).
If those two ideas are accepted then there is no inconsistency between the rules of Scripture for individuals and for groups (governments of sphere sovereignties).
A man, as an individual, may and should employ violence and coercion to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free.
Contention VI: The Authorized Powers which the Government may morally exercise
Question: The Christian must support the Biblical Mandate for Government, and not that which is Unbiblical. What Evils, then, does the Biblical Mandate require that the Government Punish?
Answer: The Christian should support that Government which restricts itself to the authority granted it in Romans 13: 1-10 -- punishing offenses against the Second Table of the Law.
These Five Laws represent the major components of the Specific Authority which God has Granted to Government; as to any other laws, let no Christians seek to go beyond that instruction which God has provided:
If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Contention VII: Powers which Government MAY NOT Morally Exercise
Question: What current Government policies, then, are out of conformity with God's Law for Government?<
Answer: The following list (by no means exhaustive) provides some examples which are out of conformity with the Authority which God has given to Government, and which Christians should therefore oppose:
Many more instances of Leviathan-State usurpation of authority could be offered, but these will serve as a start.
These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Not in My case. I simply realize that when you get together with someone, you also inherit their friends and family members in the process, if not their problems in toto. I choose to be quite a bit more selective in whose life I become involved in.
1. Agreed
2. A Christian magistrate must follow scripture but we don't have a theocracy here. You never establish vs 7-10 as applying to gov. All commentaries I've found list them as individual duties.
3. Agreed. (but still no specific duties listed)
I do however disagree with Frederick Nymeyer's contention that Paul was referring only to 'good' governments. Jesus commanded his followers to obey Roman law even though Rome was not a 'good' government.
4.Rom 13:8-10 is a list of individual duties, not a list of gov duties.
Additionally Rom 13:3-4 gives the power the authority to promote good.
Rom 13:3b "do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4a For he is the minister of God to thee for good."
5. Your contention is only toward the Christian magistrate. We don't have a Christian magistrate and won't until Jesus returns. I'll answer these issues anyway.
a. Paul is not limiting himself to just the last five commandments. Love fulfills the entire law. At no point in scripture is the law ever broken in pieces. When you violate one part of the law you break all of the law. It cannot be split.
b. We never need fear the state because God is on our side (or more correctly, we are on His side) and our salvation is assured in Jesus Christ. Scripture gives examples (Revelation as well as OT) of times when we may 'fear' the gov for what it can do to our bodies. We are commanded however not to fear it but to fear God for what He can do to our souls. We obey not out of fear of state but out of fear of God.
Remember that the state has only the power that God gives to it. We are to fear God's power given to the state only when we sin by breaking the law. So as long as we fear God (as commanded) we never need to fear the state. If the state is operating in accordance with God's laws then we have nothing to fear from it at all if we are also lawful. If the state is not operating according to God's laws (as it will in the end times or as it did during OT times) then we know that our soul is safe and the state can only temporarily discomfort us.
c.God never placed this requirement (to assure moral compliance) on any other gov that He set up (Babylon, Egypt,Rome,Greece, USA) Gov exists to keep civil order not to enforce moral compliance. Moral obedience has always been an individual duty. Of course God will use the gov to discipline us as detailed in Rom 13:1-6 for our failure to fulfill that individual duty as detailed in Rom 13:7-10.
Scripture tells us that Nebuchadnezzar was the servant of God (or at least the tool God used) to discipline Israel. Was the gov of Babylon righteous? It doesn't really matter, it's the tool God used at that time.
d. Disagree. You're assumption is invalid. You are assuming a perfect world where everyone is Christian. We don't have a Christian government and won't until Jesus returns. Scripture is totally sufficient for the Christian. Romans 13:1-6 tells the Christian how to relate to the gov which may or may not be Christian
e. Partially disagree. A Christian Magistrate is indeed bound by the individual duties listed in Rom 3:7-10. But a Christian citizen is bound by the requirements of Romans 13:1-10 regardless of whether that magistrate is Christian or not. We are to obey the gov as long as obeying the gov does not conflict with obeying God.
As a perfect example Daniel was required to follow all the ordinances of Babylon which did not conflict with his obedience of God. We live under the same commands.
This does not set up two moral codes. There is only one moral code. Scripture tells the Christian how to follow it in relation to any gov put over him. It does not instruct that gov in how to be moral.
[ A man, as an individual, may and should employ violence and coercion to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free.
Your quoted author here gives gov the right to enforce mandatory DNA testing in order to resist adultery. But on with our discussion. ]
6. Neglects Romans 13:3-4 the Authority to promote good.
7. Promotion of good may cover these IF AND ONLY IF we the people (as government of this land) consider these to be good things. We (as Christians) have failed to maintain control of our government and our culture and the result is some of these programs.
Jesus never protested against Rome, nor did He command his followers to rebel against it, even though Rome practiced abomination. He did command his followers to obey the law.
__________________________________________________________
Not too bad of a study but it does not address what we were discussing. A Christian magistrate is indeed bound by all of the scripture, but scripture does not address the specific duties of government. It addresses the specific duties of Christians.
For the record I am a firm believer that the fedgov should be limited to it's constitutional duties of defense, foreign relations, regulation of interstate trade and the courts. However your angle of attack on the issue doesn't really work. We are forced to use the gov to recapture our culture and turn this place around. This is why I support mandatory DNA testing. It avoids defrauding cuckolded husbands and forces women to remain faithful (as they will be found out). If you don't want to submit to that than accept total responsibility for any child someone accuses you of fathering.
Likewise if you can't recognize the legitimacy of government then you can move somewhere where you can. The government here will not conform exactly to scripture until Jesus returns. We can work to bring it into a better alignment but only by being active in it, therefore I'd rather have you here and working towards a Godly government.
I appreciate the lack of personal attack in your post. Thank you.
GSA(P)
Thanks for the response!! I'll return with my First Rebuttal shortly (God willing).
People dont want to say it, or even think it. But it is coming, because American women have alienated men from their natural role to the point where many of us have no use for them except as temporary sexual partners.
I think these people know instinctively, that when a man is forced through doubt to get biological and legal verification of parentage from his own spouse, the instinct that makes men want to care for women will be long gone.
Back then, a man could expect a wife to keep a clean house, full of clean and quiet children, and cook good meals without registering a complaint about her situation. Those women are long gone, replaced by today’s breeding machines, spitting out their screaming brood only to dump them in a day care center, in pursuit of their agenda of equal rights, without equal responsibilities.
Because it's still the best way (and, for a Christian, the only permissible way), to have children... or sex, for that matter. And, if you do find a good woman, it's a very nice state to be in. But that's MUCH harder than it used to be, because most women nowadays are utter scoundrels -- even the so-called "Christians".
Ironically, the ideological wing that has done the most to corrupt women, and thereby wreck marriage, is the very same one that justifies everything else it does "for the children". Maybe we should start a movement to bring back patriarchal traditional families, and laws supporting such, "for the children". How could they dare oppose us? /sarcasm>
Why do you assume they are well-meaning?
And, inevitably, someone else -- a culture WITH men -- will take over. To paraphrase a Russian saying, "In California, the optimists are learning Spanish, the pessimists are learning Arabic".
American women are getting very good at shooting themselves in the foot.
For all the bitter flames you get on this board for your sexual attitudes & behavior, I think that, deep down, you WISH you could be a nice guy, have an old fashioned marriage, etc., but you have decided that the character of modern women makes that too dangerous. It's ironic -- the howling banshees who condemn your ways, are the very reason WHY you adopted those ways! Just like Tom, your detractors do a great job of proving you right.
In my case, I chose to defy the culture and remain a nice, oldfashioned guy, despite the heavy punishment that modern women inflict on such a man. Somehow, by some miracle, at age 38 I finally landed a women who actually LIKED nice guys... otherwise I would be S.O.L. (The secret: find a girl whose Dad is a nice guy, yet strong enough not to inspire contempt. Girls with jerk fathers go for jerks, and so do girls whose fathers are too nice for their own good. The hierarchy is strength first, then niceness, and if forced to choose, they will always choose strength.)
But it is coming, because American women have alienated men from their natural role to the point where many of us have no use for them except as temporary sexual partners.
For those of us who religiously rule out casual sex, that means, we have no use for them AT ALL. (I was almost there before I found my wife -- if that courtship hadn't worked out, my next stop was overseas.) I'm afraid your conclusions are perfectly logical... which is not surprising for a 101 listener.
Thanks.
The flames I get are amusing to me. I have to admit a bit of satisfaction in the reactionary nature of it all. As you mentioned, much of it does prove exactly what I have been saying. Some calling me a woman-hater don't realize that it would be just as easy for me to carry on, without saying a word about just how easy it is to take advantage of women these days.
I would very much like to be considered a nice guy, but I know from experience and counsel that nice does not work for what I want from women today. Were I the slightest bit interested in marriage, I would look overseas as well before dealing with an American woman.
My 'religion' (Buddhism) has no problem with casual sex, as it isn’t really a religion in at all. When I started talking about these issues on this board, it was because I am just amazed at the plight for women today, having to choose between meaningless encounters, or men without backbone, without realizing that they are themselves responsible for their condition.
They don't want to hear that, because responsibility is something that most women avoid like the plague. I like to look at their situation as an outside observer, because it really is entertaining to observe, hence Tom’s popularity. Every night that I hit the town, is like a 101 fact-finding mission. The robotic responses that I observe from would fill a book.
Happy Holidays.
I think you've hit on something important. I've watched a lot of friends pick a lot of jerks (and vote for Clinton in their spare time). A good example to work with is much better than a bad example to avoid. My dad was great, and I'm telling my own daughter to "look for someone like Daddy" when she gets a little older.
It's a little easy to blame the feminists (and fun to do so as well) but I know so few gals with good fathering, and that's the serious answer. Maybe the men need to look in the mirror a little more often. Every lying slut had a father, sometime. And all these lying sluts who try to defraud these poor shnooks also have some guy in the background getting away with fraud.
Ah, but WHY do so few girls have good fathering? Because their *mothers* picked jerks! The question is, where did the cycle start?
I realize that men are part of the equation, but in my heart of hearts I'm sure it STARTED with the feminists. That's what my Mom told me, anyway.
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.