 | | Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | Here's one that's sure to get the blood boiling. Any thoughts? (URL) Dave! (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | Blood boiling because the "fathers" rightly think they owe nothing, or that the courts still force them to pay? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) Or blood boiling because these fathers find it so easy to suddenly detach themselves from children they've thought of as their own for years with little regard for their emotional and financial well-being? Maggie C. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | Note the one father did NOT want to disconnect from the child, he simply wanted the biological father to rightly shoulder the financial burden. That being said, I DO agree with something else in the article - if the "fathers" DO get out of support, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) At the same time, though, what if the alleged father has biological children of his own, and the financial burden of providing for someone else's child has an adverse impact on the man's own children? You refer to these men as "these fathers," (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) little (...) Maybe he shouldn't plant the seed if he can't tend the garden. No really, the same could be said for the biological father of the child in question. He may not even know he is the father to this child and may have a family of his (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | (...) But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter. This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the article). It is not considered wrong because (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) It isn't. (...) It needn't. (...) Well, I think that your main point here is that they should be prepared for the results. And I agree. But that doesn't mean that people have to get hurt. (...) Disagree. Most people, most of the time, are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Why not? Bill gave reasons for why it is morally wrong - as a debate reader and sometime participant, I prefer well-reasoned rebuttals to "that's just the way it is" statements. Granted, something may fundamentally just Be, but tell me why. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I can't speak for Chris, but I will point out that as a human invention (and in the form we're discussing, a Modern Western Invention at that), marriage does not determine the moral correctness of anything. That is, of course, unless morality (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Current "Western" ([American, Western European, Canadian, Australian) as a functional (as opposed to formal) culture and economic region]) society may have it's own particular flavor, it's own particular "style" of marriage, but I think that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) The fact that you suggest the self-evidence of marriage indicates that you and I have two fundamentally divergent worldviews. That's fine, of course, but we need to recognize that certain issues are therefore insoluble between us, and this may (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Granted, but i'd be suprised if anything is ever solved in debate. Personally, I prow around here because I enjoy a gentlemanly clash of arms and because I think that it's fundamentally important to speak up about certain things. For instance, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) to (...) faithfullness, (...) It sounds like you are saying that the crux of the moral status of marriage comes from: fidelity, duty, and commitment. How does fidelity work in a culture which accepts polygamous marriage as the norm? Is the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) The crux of marriage is indeed fidelity, duty, and commitment...but fidelity, duty and commitment are not owed by the betrothed merely to oneanother, but also to the moral absolutes which have pressing claim on their conduct. If you do not (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Bill doesn't give supportable or reasonable reasons. He said it's wrong "Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels...[and] because innocent people get hurt." And the entirety of the rest of my note addressed exactly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Actually Bill, I agree with you to a greater extent than you might imagine. Which is why I made the flippant (hence the "no, really", meaning, "seriously") statement in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly that "intimacy should be shared by (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) You're far too kind. It's just that I just get my jollies by trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about! Dave! But in any case, thank you for the nice compliment! (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Bill, I agree with you that sex outside of marriage is immoral, but I want to make a distinction as to its primary wrongfulness. It is not - as I understand the problem - primarily wrong because of any contingent circumstances that may or may (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | | | | | | "Steve Thomas" <steve_thomas_2000_n...tmail.com> wrote in message news:G6nK8M.5ny@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) daughter (...) I'll add that if the consequence and the initial action are teleologically related (as are sex and procreation), then the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I've been waiting to see the new thread. Did I need to respond to get it? If so, then shoot. (Bad choice of words given the other thread :-) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | | | | | | "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G6t0JK.3Jw@lugnet.com... (...) or (...) Weeks (...) thread), (...) If (...) Chris, I just saw your note and will try to post something tomorrow. Take care, Steve (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | | | | | "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G6t0JK.3Jw@lugnet.com... (...) or (...) Weeks (...) thread), (...) If (...) Chris, Before we begin, could I ask you to be a little more explicit as to your position as regards sexual (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Mostly. You may also have contractually obligated yourself to other limitations of behavior. If I agree with my wife that we won't sleep around, then violating that agreement is bad. Chris (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | Your case is not relevant - your mother and step-father obviously understood you were not "his". There was no fraud involved. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Agreed, but in the case above he's required to tend both his own garden and the garden of some other, deadbeat gardener. That's where I have the problem. (...) I wasn't very precise in my statement. Of course fatherhood isn't simply a matter (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And what's much worse in this case is that one poor fellow is being forced to shoulder the responsibility for a child that is not his- and that the same courts give him no rights to see or have a hand in raising. That makes absolutely no sense (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) This statement.... (...) And this statement... Conflict. So you're saying the NON-biological father SHOULD support the child, strictly from a legal marriage contract (that generally assumes fidelity), he should support them because he's been (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) I certainly don't believe that infidelity should be rewarded. The conflict arises because while people SHOULD act responsibly, unfortunately that doesn't always happen. And if we are dealing with consequences of an act of irresponsibility that (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Why? Chris (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) More specifically, why should the child be given greater consideration than a more-or-less arbitrarily chosen man? Remember--in this thought experiment we're not discussing a man who has agreed knowingly to act as the father-figure for the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think that something we've been forgetting is that the "deadbeat" might very well be the victim too. There is no knowing that he knows there is a child in the world of his genetic lineage. Just a point, Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | He's not much of a victim - it was HIS choice to take the risk of causing a pregnancy (even IF birth control methods were used) - no sympathy from me there. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) there. So you wouldn't feel victimized if you found out that you had a ten year old son that had been kept from you? I would. Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | I meant he wouldn't be much of a victim to be forced to pay child support due to his previous action. I thought that was obvious. I KNOW *I* don't have any children in the world, and never will. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If he wasn't informed about the pregnancy in a timely manner and if he would have willingly taken on the responsiblility had he known, I think it's fair to say he's a victim in all this too. Maggie C. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | So the only one that isn't a victim is the non-biological father forced to pay child support? That's the largest pile of bovine dung I've ever heard! (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, I agree he's a victim too. If anyone is not a victim in all this it would be the mother, who should have informed both of her partners of the possibility that either of them could be the father at the very beginning. Maggie C. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) pay (...) possibility (...) I don't usually do this, but... Yeah! What she said. I certainly never meant to imply that the false-father wasn't a vicitim. He's the worst one. Chris (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) Once the man is known as Dad in the child's eyes, he is no longer just another man. As to why the child should be given greater consideration, even if you don't believe it is the right thing to do, from a pragmatic standpoint it is better for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (snipped, but I don't think unduely so) (...) At the same time, society has already invested a great deal of resources into the adult and almost none into the kid. From the point of view of "society," doesn't it make more sense to value the adult? (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) It's kind of like being convicted of manslaughter and given 18 in prison, and upon being found not guilty, still having to serve the term. The woman is not punished for fraud. The real father does not carry the burden of his actions. AND the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | (...) Well let me see. Woman gets pregnant. Lies (or isn't forthcoming with the truth) about who the father is. Damn right he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's called Fraud. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) In cases involving a minor's well-being, not just the letter but the spirit of the law must be weighed. Fraud or no, if the functioning father has demonstrated a commitment of care, love, involvement, etc. to his non-biological child, then he (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) No one here is saying that the man, having established his role as caring father, can just turn away when he pleases. The issue is that in cases involving deception, the decieved man should not be required to support the child of another man (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | (...) While I agree that he is a low down goodfernuthin if he just ditches the kid that he was taking responsibility for up to X point, I don't agree that it makes him legally responisble for someone else's kid... especially if he was duped into (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Again, the spirit of the law versus the mere letter. Were we discussing his obligation to his wife's bad credit in some wierd scenario of marriage under false pretenses, for example, then she's up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But if (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) So someone's money should be stolen from them for up to 18 years because of another's (and THEIR PARTNER'S) deception. Nice world you live in - take everyone else's money, whether they need it or not. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
