FINALLY!! Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Lj7Rf.555$5F1.545@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to
prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage
with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy"
become
NOT the definition of family?

Why on earth would that be a "better question"?

Try to answer it and you will see........... or maybe YOU won't.


Please try to follow along, Chris.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition
of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live with sexy Suzie while the
family struggles to put food on the table?

The above comment represents what many people think typically happens
in
divorce. However, it is based on a completely mistaken assumption.

The vast majority of divorces in the U.S. today (roughly 75 percent,
by
averaging the results of various studies) are initiated by wives.
Furthermore, that doesn't just mean that the wives filed the papers. What
it means is that the wives wanted the divorces and the husbands didn't.
In
addition, interviews with divorced people, by Sanford Braver and others,
indicate that wives typically initiate divorces, not because of the
traditional fault causes for divorce, like adultery or desertion, but
because of touchy-feely considerations by the wife, such as "we just grew
apart."

There's a far stronger case to be made for saying that the so-called
"child support" system ultimately is part of the overall trend of the last
30-40 years to find ways of enlarging women's options. Where necessary,
the
process of enlarging women's options has been accomplished at the expense
of
men and children. The primary role of CS is to enable mothers to have the
option of breaking up two-parent families without suffering the financial
consequences of their own actions.

It actually REWARDS her financially!


Correspondingly, one of the strongest arguments for reform of the
"child
support" system is to remove the incentives for family breakups initiated
by
wives.

"Chris" wrote in message news:OTmRf.591$5F1.474@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Lj7Rf.555$5F1.545@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to
prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage
with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy"
become
NOT the definition of family?

Why on earth would that be a "better question"?

Try to answer it and you will see........... or maybe YOU won't.

There are any number of families of people who have chosen to not have children.

Are you saying they're not a family because "a planned pregnancy" isn't part of the equation?



Please try to follow along, Chris.

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition
of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent
Daddy
from dumping his 3 kid family to go live with sexy Suzie while the family
struggles to put food on the table?

The current CS laws are in place to counter the failures of the great
societal experiments foisted on the American public by feminists and liberal
political thinking that was rooted in the 60's and 70's. Two major changes
occurred during that time frame that altered how we look at marriage - the
wide-spread availability of birth control and the more liberalized used of
abortion.

Women had previously gotten assurances of marriage in the event of an
unplanned pregnancy in exchange for engaging in sexual relations with their
partners. What changed is birth control and abortion availability changed
women's attitudes toward sex. Women who used birth control reliably or were
willing to get abortions stopped seeking assurances of marriage and just had
sex with men. Women who used birth control unreliably or were unwilling to
get abortions discovered if they pressed men about marriage they would lose
their partners. As this latter class of women started getting pregnant the
out of wedlock birth rate accelerated.

Men discovered they no longer had to promise marriage to get a woman to
engage in sex with him. In fact, the choice for men became marriage versus
child support. When CS awards were low, poorly enforced, or non-existent,
men had a low-cost, low-risk alternative to marriage. This reasoning is
backed by the significant decline in shotgun marriages running concurrently
with the increase in out of wedlock births.

To counter the changes in both women's and men's thinking about out of
wedlock children, the government has increased CS awards, increased CS
enforcement practices, and attempted to remedy the problems created by the
social experiments through punishing men only. Women are given the safety
nets of welfare, CS, tax credits, and other public assistance programs under
the "For the children" concept. Those solutions do not address the
underlying problem of the increasing trend of out of wedlock births.

Men are starting to realize the choice of marriage versus child support is
no longer such an attractive option. The trend is that certain segments of
male society are now revolting against the one-sided nature of the
government solutions that blame men for how society changed and men are
demanding more equitable solutions. One possibility is to give men the
choice between fatherhood and child support versus not being a father figure
and no child support.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:OTmRf.591$5F1.474@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Lj7Rf.555$5F1.545@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to
prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the
table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage
with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy"
become
NOT the definition of family?

Why on earth would that be a "better question"?

Try to answer it and you will see........... or maybe YOU won't.

There are any number of families of people who have chosen to not have
children.

As there are families of people who have chosen TO have children.


Are you saying they're not a family because "a planned pregnancy" isn't
part of the equation?



Please try to follow along, Chris.

"Chris" wrote in message news:aQDRf.625$5F1.187@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:OTmRf.591$5F1.474@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Lj7Rf.555$5F1.545@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to
prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the
table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage
with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy"
become
NOT the definition of family?

Why on earth would that be a "better question"?

Try to answer it and you will see........... or maybe YOU won't.

There are any number of families of people who have chosen to not have
children.

As there are families of people who have chosen TO have children.

Nice bob and weave. But... as pointless as many of your posts.

Now.... perhaps you'd like to answer the question - Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?



Are you saying they're not a family because "a planned pregnancy" isn't
part of the equation?



Please try to follow along, Chris.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Now.... perhaps you'd like to answer the question - Since when did
"marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition of family?

Look up marriage licenses and who qualifies to get one!

"DB" wrote in message . com...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Now.... perhaps you'd like to answer the question - Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Look up marriage licenses and who qualifies to get one!

Neither marriage, nor pregnancy, is a requirement to being a family.

And that was your claim - the definition of a family.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:aQDRf.625$5F1.187@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:OTmRf.591$5F1.474@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Lj7Rf.555$5F1.545@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to
prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the
table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did
"marriage
with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned
pregnancy"
become
NOT the definition of family?

Why on earth would that be a "better question"?

Try to answer it and you will see........... or maybe YOU won't.

There are any number of families of people who have chosen to not have
children.

As there are families of people who have chosen TO have children.

Nice bob and weave.

What makes my statement of fact a "bob and weave"?

But... as pointless as many of your posts.

That a point evades you makes it no less a point.


Now.... perhaps you'd like to answer the question - Since when did
"marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?



Are you saying they're not a family because "a planned pregnancy" isn't
part of the equation?



Please try to follow along, Chris.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Look up marriage licenses and who qualifies to get one!

Neither marriage, nor pregnancy, is a requirement to being a family.

And that was your claim - the definition of a family.

I'm talking about the legal definition of a family, not a liberal version of
family!