Judge Blocks Woman From Living With Lesbian Partner
And if she was legally married to him, Jesus himself would have appeared and defended the child?
Thats exactly what I mean with, you need to know if a person is able to take care of a child and cant simply marry him. If you have a partner and you see that he isnt able to handle it, you simply throw him out and it is done. If you are already married, you cant do so. So if your partner (married or not) kills the child, you cant change anything anymore, but in any other case of violance or abuse, as long as you are not married, you simply can call the police and tell them to throw the person out and forbid him/her to ever enter your ground again. Done in a minute.
By your twisted logic, it's a good thing that they were living together, then. Now that she knows he's a murderer, she won't make the mistake of marrying him.
I dont know what you are always thinking. Let me compare it.
You meet a guy for a certain time. - I meet a guy for a certain time. After a year you decide to marry him. - After a year I decide to try living with him to see if living together works.
Now there are different possibilities:
1) Everythings works fine for you and you and your married partner live happily together. Everythings works fine for me and I and my yet not married partner decide to marry.
2) It doesnt work fine for you, you see that your partner is unable to understand that he married a family, and that he is unable to understand that you must share the time and energy you have on him AND your kids. You need to divorce, but as long as its not done your partner, who will not be happy with the divorce and blame you and the kids, will live together with you and so able to terrorize you and your kids. - It doesnt work fine for me, I see that my partner is unable to understand that he married a family, and that he is unable to understand that I must share my time and energy I have on him AND my kids. He leaves and its done.
3) Your married partner freaks out without giving you any warning before, and kills your kid. - My nonmarried partner freaks out without giving me any warning before, and kills the kid.
So I simply do not see the advantage for my kids, of marrying someone, before knowing him. And I wouldnt know why I should agree to live together with someone, that I dont want to have a partnership with. An additional person in the house always is additional work. I dont know how its around your area, but people here rarely want to invite strangers into their houses, so they have more work to do.
As i have already written twice, in the case of murder, nothing helps. If a person you know for two years freaks out and kills your kid without giving you any warning before, a piece of paper wont protect your child. So in case of murder your f*****g marriage helps you nothing, there are enough fathers who kill their children, so please stop telling that a dumb piece of paper would prevent that. For the few people that simply tick out, without giving you any warning in behaviour before, sadly nothing helps.
But in any other "normal" case, when you normally see before that your partner has trouble with your kids, it is much easier to get rid of him, to prevent that the aggressions gets more.
How my kids are brought up and whether or not my former partner decides to pursue romantic relationships are not the same thing. Morality is not universal, and I don't believe anyone, but especially the state, has the right to impose theirs on others, children or no children.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
So divorced parents should remain single until the kids are grown up? A party house with people coming and going is not the same as two people in a relationship.
Trying to put words in my mouth? Attempting to create a strawman argument?
Did I ever say that they should remain single?
I'm sorry but perhaps I misunderstood your bolded quote above. You said that, and I quote, "If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses". Saying that you would prefer the other parent to not live with a romantic partner, even if the kids are living in the same house as them, is tantamount to saying that you would prefer them to remain single.
I seriously doubt that the clauses rule out marriage.
Only allowing it if they're married is completely arbitrary. An unmarried couple living in the same house is no different from a married couple. Also just to add to that, the couple spoken about in the article is a homosexual couple and from what I understand, homosexual marriages aren't recognised in that state.
They are quite different. A married couple has made a commitment for the long term. A couple merely living together has made no such commitment.
I think that kids need is a safe and dependable home environment and I don't see them as getting that when their single parent is bringing home temporary partners on a regular basis.
Then they can work toward legalizing gay marriage.
People live together to see if they wish to make a long-term commitment. Or would you prefer that people just say "Ok, that's it, we'll get married" without even seeing if they can live with each other without killing each other? Because I can see that working out really well.
_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I
From http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21838575/ns/health-childrens_health/t/children-higher-risk-nontraditional-homes/:
In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child's mother — men thrust into father-like roles which they tragically failed to embrace.
Every family is different. Some single mothers bring men into their lives who lovingly help raise children when the biological father is gone for good.
Nonetheless, many scholars and social workers who monitor America's families see the abusive-boyfriend syndrome as part of a broader, deeply worrisome trend. They note an ever-increasing share of America's children grow up in homes without both biological parents, and say the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures.
“This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation,” said Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia sociologist. “Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children.''
...
* 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 data 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 face significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.
...
Census data makes clear that family patterns have changed dramatically in recent decades as cohabitation and single-parenthood became common. Thirty years ago, nearly 80 percent of America's children lived with both parents. Now, only two-thirds of them do. Of all families with children, nearly 29 percent are now one-parent families, up from 17 percent in 1977.
No biological connection
The net result is a sharp increase in households with a statistically greater potential for instability, along with the likelihood that adults and children will reside in them who have no biological connection.
“I've seen many cases of physical and sexual abuse that come up with boyfriends, stepparents,” said Eliana Gil, clinical director for the national abuse-prevention group Child help.
“It comes down to the fact they don't have a relationship established with these kids,” she said. “Their primary interest is really the adult partner, and they may find themselves more irritated when there's a problem with the children.''
...
The slaying of toddler Devon Shackleford was premeditated. Derek Chappell, who was sentenced to death this month, considered Devon an obstacle to an on-again, off-again relationship with the boy's mother, and drowned him in an apartment complex swimming pool in Mesa, Ariz.
From http://hdnews.net/society/community/caprez052013:
Another trend in cohabitation impacting children is only 44 percent of cohabiting mothers eventually marry the fathers of their children. The majority of children in cohabiting households were not born to the couples with whom they reside. The children are from previous unions, generally former relationships of the mothers. Thus, the males in the cohabiting households are usually stepfathers or boyfriends.
Child abuse is a significant social problem. Studies looking at abuse prevention have found stepparents show much higher levels of abuse both in married and unmarried households. Boyfriends also are more likely to be abusive whether they cohabit with or date mothers.
A study in Great Britain examined the relationship between child abuse, family structure and the parental marital background. Children who live with cohabiting biological parents were 20 times more likely to be abused than children living with married biological parents. Children living in cohabiting households with a mother and a boyfriend not the father have a 33 times higher risk of abuse than children in intact families. The risk of abuse for children is only 14 times as great for single mothers living alone than for intact families. Unfortunately, the majority of cohabiting mothers with children live with someone who is not the biological father.
From http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1997/05/bg1115-the-child-abuse-crisis:
Correlation does not equal causation. If you are cohabiting someone who is abusive, they are not suddenly going to become nice when you marry them nor is it the case that a decent partner would be turned abusive if are cohabiting instead getting married. It may be the case that some women may be more likely to try out cohabitation with men who show warning signs of abusive behaviour than they are to marry them, however the solution then is to be more wary of those warning signs, not to promote marriage over cohabitation.
I never claimed that correlation and causation are the same.
But one fact is quite clear -- people will move in with others who they would never consider marrying.
You must have missed this:
This is a perfect example of wrong statistics.
When you make a statistics as this, you must consider always the same group, and then change the variable. Cohabititing families is a variable for broken and dysfunctional families (unless we're talking about widows, but this a negligible amount). And broken families don't happen by chance. If you want to make a statistics, then take broken families with a new cohabitating member, and broken families without, and then compare.
This sentences are comparing broken families with a new cohabitating member with the whole group of families, including happily married ones. And this kind of statisctics is, in the better case, bad done. In the worst, it's directly a manipulation.
Using this same kind of manipulative statistics I coud say, for example, that people that are treated with chemotherapy are 500 times more likely to die of cancer that people that aren't.
_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)
Kraichgauer
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9448b/9448bad1a14a481e19228f10f77575947453353d" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,733
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Because it's no longer my business, and certainly not the state's business?
Absolutely AMEN!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I never claimed that correlation and causation are the same.
But one fact is quite clear -- people will move in with others who they would never consider marrying.
So, then how does banning cohabitation altogether help matters? Shouldn't people just be more careful about who they shack up with?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9448b/9448bad1a14a481e19228f10f77575947453353d" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,733
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Judge blocks Trump from terminating DEI-related grants |
Yesterday, 8:17 pm |
federal judge temporarily blocks plan to pause federal aid |
28 Jan 2025, 7:02 pm |
Judge gives go-ahead for Trump administration to gut USAID |
Yesterday, 8:22 pm |
Judge denies states' bid to curtail DOGE's powers for now |
18 Feb 2025, 5:55 pm |