Tackling No-Fault Divorce Next Up For Texas Wing-Nuts

[Nbadan]

Texas social conservatives want to translate their resounding victory on a gay marriage ban into broader results: reducing the state's divorce rate and passing a nationwide amendment to prevent same-sex unions.

Rep. Warren Chisum, who wrote the amendment, Proposition 2, endorsed by Texas voters by a ratio of more than 3-1, said Wednesday that it's too easy for spouses to split up. The state should consider repealing or modifying its no-fault divorce law, the Pampa Republican said.

"Gee whiz, our divorce rate's higher than New York," Mr. Chisum said. He proposed that between now and their next regular session in 2007, lawmakers study ways "to make marriage thrive more in our state."

<snip>

She endorsed Mr. Chisum's call for a review of the no-fault divorce law, which took effect in 1974. "It is a system that is broken," Ms. Adams said. "Men, women and children are getting hurt with that current law, with revolving-door marriages."

Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/111005dntexprop2.7a85398.html)

Yeah, but it's the liberals who want to lecture to you about how to live your lives. What a bunch of wing-nuts.


:hat

[SpursWoman]

I don't have a problem with re-visiting no-fault divorce ... it is too easy to get one. When I filed for mine no one even asked any specific reason why I wanted it. I was expecting to at least be asked.....'cuz I was ready to unload. :fro

I think that's a waaaay bigger reason for any alleged devaluation of marriage than same-sex marriages ever could be.

[blaze89]

I don't have a problem with re-visiting no-fault divorce ... it is too easy to get one. When I filed for mine no one even asked any specific reason why I wanted it. I was expecting to at least be asked.....'cuz I was ready to unload. :fro


Would they have bought the reasoning or the performance?

[SpursWoman]

The facts were indisputable, despite that being one of the happiest moments of my life. :)

[Spurminator]

"Get the Government out of Marriage 101" Part CXVIII.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Too many repubs have multiple marriages and divorces for this to get very far.

[Marcus Bryant]

"Get the Government out of Marriage 101" Part CXVIII.


Yep. The problem most seem to have is that their definition of marriage is not the one being imposed on everyone else.

[SpursWoman]

"Get the Government out of Marriage 101" Part CXVIII.


Divorce is a legal, contractual issue that usually involves assets, debt and/or children. How do you get them out of this one? :wtf

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't have a problem with re-visiting no-fault divorce ... it is too easy to get one. When I filed for mine no one even asked any specific reason why I wanted it. I was expecting to at least be asked.....'cuz I was ready to unload. :fro

I think that's a waaaay bigger reason for any alleged devaluation of marriage than same-sex marriages ever could be.

Why should you need a reason to get a divorce other than the fact that you no longer want to be married?
________
Wiki vaporizer (http://vaporizerwiki.com)

[Marcus Bryant]

Divorce is a legal, contractual issue that usually involves assets, debt and/or children. How do you get them out of this one? :wtf


On the definitional end as well as regulatory. Let it be a contract like any other.

[DarkReign]

I am little surprised with this. Even the most argent conservative cant explain the proper reasons why two people cant split from one another by their own volition.

Which leads to more problems?

2 people loathe one another.

a) keep them in the same household with a legal binding agreement between the 2 that forces them to discuss issues they will never see eye to eye on.

b) let those 2 people go their seperate ways without ever having to deal with the subtle nuances of making a life together.

Tough choice. Maybe the government should step in and tell us what to do.

[SpursWoman]

Why should you need a reason to get a divorce other than the fact that you no longer want to be married?


True. It's purely an emotional opinion based on my own personal experience on how children react to divorce. I wouldn't mind it being a little more difficult to obtain for the sole reason that it might make people think a little harder about getting married within a month of knowing each other and popping out a few kids before they even decide if they really, truly like each other or not.

I'm sure that's an opinion that probably tramples on EVERYONES GOTDAMN CIVIL RIGHTS, but it's mine. So there. :)

[Oh, Gee!!]

It should be harder to get married

[SpursWoman]

It should be harder to get married


Actually, that's a better idea. I got lost in that feeling of euphoria that seems to overcome me when I think back to that day when the Judge signed my papers...and didn't think about that alternative. But still, the only thing I had to go through was this 4 hour class on helping kids deal with divorce.

Other than that is was a piece of cake. :fro

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm sure that's an opinion that probably tramples on EVERYONES GOTDAMN CIVIL RIGHTS, but it's mine. So there. :)

A little touchy are we? :lol
________
HotCarmell (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/HotCarmell/)

[Extra Stout]

It should be harder to get married
:tu

[SpursWoman]

A little touchy are we? :lol


Actually, yes....he just showed up last week out of the blue after being God knows where for the last 4 years....it's been pretty fucked up. :wow :lol

[DarkReign]

It should be harder to get married

Ahhhhhh....now that is friggin brilliant!

That...is....genius. I am NOT being sarcastic.

Then we would have politicians on both sides complaining that we have too many couples living together out of wed-lock.

But I completely concur with you. Simple, elegant and ultimately, truthful.

[SpursWoman]

So, were you being sarcastic or not. Just 'cuz you said it doesn't make it so. :lol

[Spurminator]

What would be the criteria for making marriage more difficult? Would the couple need to prove their love before a judge? Would they need to prove some kind of financial stability?

[Mr. Peabody]

It should be harder to get married

I think we should do away with the concept of marriage. It is outdated and treats both parties like pieces of property property. Why can't two people just spend their lives together without entering into a contract? Are we really that afraid that the other person will leave that we have to contract to stay with one another?
________
AVANDIA CLASS ACTION (http://classactionsettlements.org/)

[Mr. Peabody]

What would be the criteria for making marriage more difficult? Would the couple need to prove their love before a judge? Would they need to prove some kind of financial stability?

You would have to take classes. And you couldn't get married if the bride is pregnant, which here in San Antonio would reduce marriages by 50%.
________
Wellbutrin Injury Lawyer (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Spurminator]

I wouldn't go that far, I just think we need a clear separation of legal unions and spiritual/religious unions.

If you want to share assets, children, joint insurance, change your name, etc., go to City Hall and fill out the appropriate paperwork. If you change your mind later, do it again.

If you want to be married, go to a church or wherever else they perform the type of ceremony you prefer.

[Mr. Peabody]

Seriously though, what the hell do we need marriages for? What purpose do they serve?
________
Sexyvioleta live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Sexyvioleta)

[DarkReign]

What would be the criteria for making marriage more difficult? Would the couple need to prove their love before a judge? Would they need to prove some kind of financial stability?

Hmmm, dont truly know actually. Let me think...

These are totally random thoughts. Shoot down as necessary, their now well-thought out by any means.

1) Minimum time spent together (I dunno...at least 6 months? A year?)

2) Minimum time living together (again, I say year, but thats me)

3) Minimum time spent financially living together (yes, that is different than living together, money problems = 99% of marriage problems)

4) A trial-period. Whereby, the 2 can seperate indefiantely with no palimony/alimony problems (unless children are involved, then criteria change dramatically)

I cant think of any more. And honestly, its never going to happen. The religous people of our country find my living condition to be wrong anyway. They believe you should be married if living with another person.

They want all the things you could think of with little to no thought. All you need to do is increase arrogance and paranoia proportionately to the decrease in open-mindedness and altruistic virtue.

Simple stuff.

[Mr. Peabody]

And honestly, its never going to happen. The religous people of our country find my living condition to be wrong anyway. They believe you should be married if living with another person.



Once again, religion gets in the way of a great idea.
________
Volcano Vaporizers (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

[Spurminator]

The religous people of our country find my living condition to be wrong anyway. They believe you should be married if living with another person.

Not necessarily. Religious people aren't against roommates. This is WHY "marriage" and "civil unions" need to be separated and simplified. Religious people can still impose their morals on others, but they can do that where it belongs: in the Church.

[SpursWoman]

Hmmm, dont truly know actually. Let me think...

These are totally random thoughts. Shoot down as necessary, their now well-thought out by any means.

1) Minimum time spent together (I dunno...at least 6 months? A year?)

2) Minimum time living together (again, I say year, but thats me)

3) Minimum time spent financially living together (yes, that is different than living together, money problems = 99% of marriage problems)

4) A trial-period. Whereby, the 2 can seperate indefiantely with no palimony/alimony problems (unless children are involved, then criteria change dramatically)

I cant think of any more. And honestly, its never going to happen. The religous people of our country find my living condition to be wrong anyway. They believe you should be married if living with another person.

They want all the things you could think of with little to no thought. All you need to do is increase arrogance and paranoia proportionately to the decrease in open-mindedness and altruistic virtue.

Simple stuff.


....add a 30 year age requirement in there somewhere..... :angel :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

I still need to hear what Gtownspur thinks. Otherwise, I won't be able to reach an informed decision.

[spurster]

Seriously though, what the hell do we need marriages for? What purpose do they serve?
To legitimize children, or more precisely, provide a legal framework so that people producing children have made a commitment to take care of them.

[Spurminator]

Then maybe we need to make it more difficult to have children.

Of course, that's getting into some "Brave New World" type stuff...

[Oh, Gee!!]

mandatory sterilizations after your 5th illegitimate child.

[DarkReign]

Just as a post-thought...

I made a typo in my previous post...I meant to say that the ideas where "not well thought out".

Moreover, this was completely random. If I was put to a vote about this subject with the criteria I laid out, I have absolutely no idea which way I would go.

I detest marriage in general. I detest many things. Doesnt make me right, just makes me another monkey with an asshole.

[DarkReign]

I still need to hear what Gtownspur thinks. Otherwise, I won't be able to reach an informed decision.

Forum gold boulion.

[Mr. Peabody]

To legitimize children, or more precisely, provide a legal framework so that people producing children have made a commitment to take care of them.

To legitimize children?

Marriage means nothing when it comes to your commitment to taking care of your kids. If your are not committed to taking care of your kids, being married is not going to change that and vice-versa.

Not only that, but if that is it's sole purpose, we can accomplish it by other, more effective, means.
________
ClickForSQUIRT (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/ClickForSQUIRT/)

[Mr. Peabody]

I still need to hear what Gtownspur thinks. Otherwise, I won't be able to reach an informed decision.

He is probably researching the issue right now, so he can come in with a well-informed and well-thought perspective.
________
Ocean View Condominium (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[SWC Bonfire]

Make all parties sign a prenumptual agreement of their choosing. Mandatory topics/minimums will include custody rights, ownership of property, and child support arrangements in different scenarios.

[Mr. Peabody]

Make all parties sign a prenumptual agreement of their choosing. Mandatory topics/minimums will include custody rights, ownership of property, and child support arrangements in different scenarios.

But how would that solve the escalating number of divorces? It might make the entire process a little less messy, but it wouldn't reduce the number.
________
KIDS WELLBUTRIN (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Spurminator]

Escalating divorces should only be something that concerns the government where children are involved... and even then it's not easy to argue how MUCH concern they should show and why...

Which leads us back to the possible solution of making it more difficult to have children. And that opens up a whole new can of worms.

[Shelly]

How long does it take to get divorced in TX and how much does it cost?

In CA, it costs $200 to file and takes six months before it's final (it used to be a year!).

[Oh, Gee!!]

How long does it take to get divorced in TX and how much does it cost?

In CA, it costs $200 to file and takes six months before it's final (it used to be a year!).


two or three months would be a quick divorce in TX

[Mr. Peabody]

How long does it take to get divorced in TX and how much does it cost?

In CA, it costs $200 to file and takes six months before it's final (it used to be a year!).

You have to wait 90 days to finalize a divorce in Texas and the waiting period has it's desired effect. People often reconcile during this time.
________
Washington medical marijuana dispensaries (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[Oh, Gee!!]

You have to wait 90 days to finalize a divorce in Texas and the waiting period has it's desired effect. People often reconcile during this time.

the cooling period is 60 days if memory serves me right

[SpursWoman]

60 days


And if your spouse won't sign the papers, there's something else you have to file...then wait another 45 days.

:fro

[Shelly]

Is there a filing fee?

[jochhejaam]

It should be harder to get married
The same thought went through my mind before reading your post but as I'm typing I see that as a major trampling of our rights.

Maybe a significant waiting period after getting the marriage license?

[SpursWoman]

Don't know for sure...I paid $600 for the attorney, the actual fee was buried in there somewhere ... but that was pretty cheap because there wasn't a lot of property involved.


WHY??? :spin

[Oh, Gee!!]

Is there a filing fee?


a couple hundo, maybe less. varies from county to county

[Shelly]

Don't know for sure...I paid $600 for the attorney, the actual fee was buried in there somewhere ... but that was pretty cheap because there wasn't a lot of property involved.


WHY??? :spin

:lmao

No, I'm not looking to get dee-vorced!

I was just curious. A friend of ours got divorced a few years agos and I remember that it didn't take long but couldn't remember how long he said it took.

[jochhejaam]

Seriously though, what the hell do we need marriages for? What purpose do they serve?

It's symbolic of a life long commitment and it's optional. It wouldn't make sense to outlaw marriage anymore than it would to force people to marry if they wish to co-habitate.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's symbolic of a life long commitment and it's optional. It wouldn't make sense to outlaw marriage anymore than it would to force people to marry if they wish to co-habitate.

I think the question is why marriage has to be an institution recognized by government.

Baptism is likewise symbolic of a commitment to certain principles, but government doesn't deal in baptismal licenses or define the availability of certain benefits based on whether someone is baptized.

Why is a religious affirmation (if one desires such) not enough when it comes to marriage?

[spurster]

Marriage means nothing when it comes to your commitment to taking care of your kids. If your are not committed to taking care of your kids, being married is not going to change that and vice-versa.

Marriage provides a legal framework. Emotional, financial, and whatever else is needed has to be delivered by the parents.


Not only that, but if that is it's sole purpose, we can accomplish it by other, more effective, means.
I didn't say or imply that was the sole purpose. I can't wait to hear your more effective solution, which would be voted down by 75% of Texans and 60% or so most everywhere else.

[gtownspur]

To legitimize children?

Marriage means nothing when it comes to your commitment to taking care of your kids. If your are not committed to taking care of your kids, being married is not going to change that and vice-versa.

Not only that, but if that is it's sole purpose, we can accomplish it by other, more effective, means.


Marriage means alot!!! It just doesn't mean much for some people.

I'll give you another example.

A man's word means alot!!! It just doesn't mean much for some.

Marriage is the ultimate example of one's love for another in an emotional and sexual sense.

The problem is that our society is degrading itself. Funny how the rise of a subtle sense of moral relativity in our society,(the justification for lying and cheating and other umbrella items) has also increased the divorce rate. It's like Reagan used to say, I rising tide lifts all boats.

Living together without marriage is an unwise thing to do, if it's not done for dire circumstances. All though it is true of the saying, "better test drive the car before buying it", living together w/o a commitment can muddy ones view on how one is happy with another, as well as it can help reinforce the idea. Commitment itself is what is lacking in the trial experiment. With out the vital tool you cannot accurately predict ones happines with another for a lifetime. Thus, Shacking up is not an accurate indicator of how one will live after the act of matrimony. You have no commitment, thus you have a lack of incentive for one party to try more to please another, therefore creating rift.


BUt back to my main point.
Govt should have an interest in the raising of it's future. Children are our biggest asset in this country. Our future depends on them.

Part of the reason for marriage is also to protect children. Although one can still effectively raise a child single handedly, not everyone is blessed with the same gift. Having the law have lesser reason's to have a house broken is unjust to the children.


Sometimes divorce is the only resort for happiness, but many a times it is compromise. Our children deserve their parents to be more commited to stick together than to have them easily flee for no reason.

[BronxCowboy]

Marriage has always been a cultural and religious institution, and the the fact that we have reduced it to a legal contract has devalued its significance for many couples. I say the government should get out of the marriage/divorce business altogether. If we want people to have healthy families and to care for their children better, we should focus our efforts toward what we really want: childcare training, family counseling, and public awareness initiatives/ad campaigns focused on getting fathers/mothers (especially fathers in light of the social climate) to take responsibility. We support add campaigns to quit smoking, stay off drugs, etc., why not give this a try? Offering marriage licenses clearly doesn't work. People are no more likely to stay together and build a strong family because they have a legal document than they would be if they just decided between themselves, their family, and God or whatever they believe in that they were going to be committed and be a family.

[RandomGuy]

Oh yes, we definitely need the government to tell us how to be moral people.

[Vashner]

I have an idea.. Dan why don't you move to San Fransico or New Jersey?

[DarkReign]

BUt back to my main point.
Govt should have an interest in the raising of it's future. Children are our biggest asset in this country. Our future depends on them.


*cue the infomercial*

"Do it for the children! For the children!"

Pfffffft...children and the political usage of their position in society is one of the most over-wrought piles of stinking shit in the history of this country.

Compelled by guilt. Is that how easily you are subdued? All someone has to do to get you to agree is make you feel some spiritual guilt and you roll over?

What a trivial existence. So much of your life depends on the whims of the people you respect/ worship.

Here's a new one...respect yourself first. All the other bullshit will take care of its self.

But the children...HA! *spit*

[gtownspur]

^^^I didnt think it was an infomercial. Many laws are written to protect children at all cost, like the ones that force the father to pay child support even though the father is not related to the child.

But now i see your thinking. You don't view marriage as a tool that fosters a good environment for children. That's fine. I'm not judging anyone in particular. If you got offended, sorry. My words are not a divine edict on anyone. I know people are mature enough to dissect an oppinion from a condemnation.

[gtownspur]

*cue the infomercial*

"Do it for the children! For the children!"

Pfffffft...children and the political usage of their position in society is one of the most over-wrought piles of stinking shit in the history of this country.

Compelled by guilt. Is that how easily you are subdued? All someone has to do to get you to agree is make you feel some spiritual guilt and you roll over?

What a trivial existence. So much of your life depends on the whims of the people you respect/ worship.

Here's a new one...respect yourself first. All the other bullshit will take care of its self.

But the children...HA! *spit*

I don't think guilt is the issue here. Talk to any child that's been through a broken home! GEt real and quit being facetious.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Many laws are written to protect children at all cost, like the ones that force the father to pay child support even though the father is not related to the child.


:lol :lol :lol

[DarkReign]

^^^I didnt think it was an infomercial. Many laws are written to protect children at all cost, like the ones that force the father to pay child support even though the father is not related to the child.

But now i see your thinking. You don't view marriage as a tool that fosters a good environment for children. That's fine. I'm not judging anyone in particular. If you got offended, sorry. My words are not a divine edict on anyone. I know people are mature enough to dissect an oppinion from a condemnation.

Okay. You seem to assume many things based on perceived conotations in my posts.

Let me clarify...

1) Bringing children into a politcal forum usually represents the attempt of the user to pull a "heart string" of the listeners. Its a sympathy call. A spiritual guilt. Its an attempt at convincing the person who may or may not agree with you that they should because its about "the children" thereby disarming them on the basis that they dont want to look like the guy who doesnt care about "the children". *spit*

2) I am NEVER offended by a dissenting opinion, my man. You and I may disagree on just about everything, but that doesnt mean I am unwilling to listen. Heck, my primary source for news is the FoxNews channel...doesnt mean I agree with anything they say, it just gives me a good indication of what the other side thinks (which is more valuable, IMO...I can predict what a typical whiney liberal would say on just about anything).

3) This is the most important... We are on an Internet forum. If I were reeeeeeal committed to changing the world and the opinions of its denizens, this is not the place I would start (nor finish...actually, I wouldnt be on the internet in general...nvm). Whatever is said here means little to nothing for me. Its just fun at work.

[SpursWoman]

Living together without marriage is an unwise thing to do, if it's not done for dire circumstances....

Huh? What would be "dire"?


Living together w/o a commitment can muddy ones view on how one is happy with another, as well as it can help reinforce the idea. Commitment itself is what is lacking in the trial experiment. With out the vital tool you cannot accurately predict ones happines with another for a lifetime.

Where do you get the idea that there is no commitment involved? That's crap. Living together and sharing the responsibilies of a household is a 100% finite indicator of whether or not you can stand...living together and sharing the responsibilities of a household. :lmao



Thus, Shacking up is not an accurate indicator of how one will live after the act of matrimony. You have no commitment, thus you have a lack of incentive for one party to try more to please another, therefore creating rift.

I can't speak for everyone, but we have a ton of incentive to please each other ... and we are committed to doing so. A lot. :smokin :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

^^^I didnt think it was an infomercial. Many laws are written to protect children at all cost, like the ones that force the father to pay child support even though the father is not related to the child.

What law is that?

(p.s. -- if he's not related to the child, he's not "the father" of the child)

[SpursWoman]

(p.s. -- if he's not related to the child, he's not "the father" of the child)


Yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out....there are DNA tests if paternity is in question....

:wtf :lol

[Spurminator]

I think he may be referring to the all-too-common Virgin Births.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What law is that?

(p.s. -- if he's not related to the child, he's not "the father" of the child)


well you're obviously illogical and ignorant and know nothing about checks and balances.

Sorry, that was the best gtown impression I could come up with on short notice

[FromWayDowntown]

I think he may be referring to the all-too-common Virgin Births.

:lol

Well, yes, I hadn't taken that into account; the societal prevalence of the "Joseph Syndrome."

[Mr. Peabody]

What law is that?

(p.s. -- if he's not related to the child, he's not "the father" of the child)

Well, there is case law that says that if a man has been involved in the upbringing of the child and then leaves the mother, he may have to still pay child support even if he is not the biological father of the child.
________
new condos in Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[jochhejaam]

What law is that?

(p.s. -- if he's not related to the child, he's not "the father" of the child)
I'm not sure what he meant by "many" laws but he may be referring to paying child support to those that the court would call "your" children by law as opposed to being your biological children.
My wife had 2 children when we married and we had 3 more shortly after, if we had divorced I would have had to pay child support for all 5 children even though 2 were mine by marriage only.
I'm not even sure if that's correct FWD, perhaps you know?

[Mr. Peabody]

Think of the children. Won't somebody please think of the children!

http://springfield-shopper.de/Information/whoiswho2/68.gif
________
PROBLEMS FROM AVANDIA (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, there is case law that says that if a man has been involved in the upbringing of the child and then leaves the mother, he may have to still pay child support even if he is not the biological father of the child.

it's more like a bar to the alleged father's defense of non-paternity when certain facts (such as the ones you listed) are present

[Mr. Peabody]

it's more like a bar to the alleged father's defense of non-paternity when certain facts (such as the ones you listed) are present

You say tomato. I say tomato.

It really doesn't work on a messageboard.
________
Nature's holistic caregivers 14000 crenshaw blvd (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

[Oh, Gee!!]

You say tomato. I say tomato.

It really doesn't work on a messageboard.


Don't get mad b/c I schooled you in front of all your friends. :owned

[Mr. Peabody]

Don't get mad b/c I schooled you in front of all your friends. :owned

You know what.

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/yougotserved/site/downloads/ygs_wp6_800.jpg
________
Volcano vaporizer (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.think-strange.de/stuff/images/owned.jpg

[Mr. Peabody]

http://youngestofone.typepad.com/main/files/served.jpg
________
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.starterupsteve.com/funny12/owned-kid.jpg

[Ocotillo]

In a free society (such as ours, sort of) people are free to marry, divorce and procreate without interference from the government.

Thing is, there are a lot of people having kids that have no business having kids. Kids need two parent involvement and the best way to be involved is living under the same roof as your children. I don't and it bothers me everyday. I am involved with my children, I see them, i counsel them, I meet their teachers, I take care of them but it still falls short of what it ideally should be. As far as kids of divorced parents go, I think my kids are luckier than most who have absent fathers, parents who use the kids to fight their battles or denigrate the other parent to the children. But like I said, it still falls short what I am doing.

Likely most people would be ok with the way I have conducted myself as a divorced father. But kids have it rough today.

My wife is a kindergarten teacher and she sees first hand the effects of not just divorce but the effects of kids growing up in a home where there is drugs, alcohol abuse, abuse, loose morality, you name it. The little buggers talk at that age.

The school system has to take all kids no matter the problem. More and more learning disabled kids are enrolling each year. I am not just talking about ADD or ADHD here either but extreme cases of problem children.

Last year she had a student who had Prader-Willys syndrome. That is a condition whereby the child's brain does not sense fullness in the stomach so they always want to eat. Other symptoms are mild retardation, sleeping and tantrums. This child was one of the lucky ones because he came from a two parent family that loved him very much and came to school often fighting the district for their son. They fed him only low calorie foods because he would become morbidly obese otherwise.

The loser is really the taxpayers. Because of his special needs, the school district had to hire a full time assistant to work in my wife's classroom and be with this kid all the time.

His condition was no fault of his parents, it was just an unfortunate luck of the draw situation.

On the other hand, there are numerous kids who have problems because they are from a mother who was using drugs while she was pregnant. Or they come from single family homes from women who are completely overwhelmed and don't know how to raise a child (or are being raised by grandparents). Sometimes the mother has remarried and the step father is not the best guy and doesn't care about the kids. Some of the kids have parents in jail.

It is unfortunate that these parents can't be made to understand how big of a deal it is when an unplanned pregnancy happens. I wish there was a way to "compel" some of these folks to use birth control. I don't know how you can do that in a system such as ours.

I know this is off subject regarding no fault divorce but the thread looks like it got sidelined talking about the children anyway.

[Ocotillo]

^^ not terribly coherent, sorry.

[Mr. Peabody]

It is unfortunate that these parents can't be made to understand how big of a deal it is when an unplanned pregnancy happens. I wish there was a way to "compel" some of these folks to use birth control. I don't know how you can do that in a system such as ours.



We should have them all sterilized. Three generations of imbeciles is enough!
________
WEB SHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Nbadan]

Some say bad parenting, but I say...

http://www.comiccaptions.com/images/tl.jpg

[gtownspur]

You don't have to be blood linked to a child to be forced to pay child support. Living with the child and his family for a certain period is long enough. Don't you guys ever hear of daytime talk shows? THey always cover this dilemna. The Law is screwed up to where the Father has no rights or priveleges when it comes to custody laws. All the custody laws are biased towards women and the so called "sake of the children".

I don't take this forum seriously. I like to diss a lot and act a fool just for giggles. But marriage is a serious topic, atleast to me.

I saw some random poster laugh at my suggestion that "shacking up" as having has no commitment to it. If you consider splitting bills, waking up together, sharing the same soap, and smelling each other's shit equal to a true commitment like marriage, then your delusional. Not saying that one isn't committed unless their married. But what i'm saying is that marriage comes with more responsibility, more commitment to comprimise since more is a stake, and children. Like it or not. Children are important. THis is no infomercial. Once you have children in a marriage, there is even greater responsibility on behalf of both parties to make it work. I don't care if I get called an ultraconservative. People who just view marriage as a onesided outcome are not fit to be.

.. there are even liberals like Gloria Alred who say the same thing when it comes to children in a marriage. It's not a red state/blue state issue.


If shacking up is truly committmet, why is it that you have the token case of one party only sticking around because of the benifet the other provides instead of true love.

There is that saying that one truly never gets to know someone totally. When you give one person a deal with no commitment on each behalf to stick around, "shacking", you run the risk of that person using you. Many a times the one party just stuck with the other because it benefitted them financially and emotionally. YOu then get the classic case of a man leaving his woman of 8yrs with two kids cuz he "finally" realized he wasn't in love. And you wonder sometimes... one also wonders why we have 45 yr old bachelors still looking for that "special someone".

Nothing in life comes w/o consequences. Believing that shacking up has less consequences than marriage is foolish. It's not morality in so much that it is common sense.

If you get offended. So be it. It's just a forum. Grow balls!!