Discussion:
Economics of abuse children and fathers
(too old to reply)
Borked Pseudo Mailed
2008-03-16 05:34:55 UTC
Permalink
<***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:87e2b651-82fb-4dc1-b765-***@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
While I am acquainted with a number of homosexuals, both women and
men, to harrass, assault and picket women who left their families,
parents, countries, and homes to come here, <snip>

The DV restraining orders go through the roof at family separation,
but I suggest it is not because men cannot handle the situation, it is
because women see the custody, property, child support, and Social
Security advantages in making false claims of DV (or abuse for that
matter). Almost all men have enough intelligence to know that if they
look the wrong way at their partner she can remove him from the love
of his children and his life's work.
Rather a simplistic way of looking at it. What about folk who pay
thousand$ in child support in advance, and then get slugged again as
though they haven't paid?
And what about people who have their children kidnapped? Yes,
kidnapped, by third parties who have no right to have anything to do
with the kids. Should the government threaten and harass parents of
kidnapped children to pay child support to the kidnapper?
CSA and Centrelink think so. I got letters from Sheila Bird (2IC CSA)
and Asst secretary for DSS stating that the govt does not care about
the legality of the welfare claimant's 'care' of the child. So Jo Blo
could steal your kids and go into hiding, claim child support from you
and there's f*ck all you can do about it.
Sure you can throw yourself at the mercy of the Family Court, but if
Jo Blo hid out with your kids for a few years, which is about the time
required to get an FC order, Jo Blo has status quo and Al Nicholson
will rubber stamp the kidnapping as known paedophile.
All kind of perverts dominate Australian Public Service and abuse children and families.

Like former Tax Commissioner Carmody:

Minister Truss was initially supportive of the Child Support Registrar
until the Registrar deliberately misled Truss with 3 rounds of
conflicting information.


Tax Commissioner Michael Carmody is now in deep shit and Carmody knows
it.


Peter Costello also knows this. The Liberal government moved the Child
Support Agency from the ATO to Centrelink as soon as the Libs got into
power to get around the problems.


Then the libs moved the CSA to an autonomous body when further
arguments were raised about the legality of the CSA?


I put it to the readers of aus.politics that:
-ATO knew CSA was illegal (which is why they got rid of it)
-Centrelink know CSA is illegal (which is why they don't want it)
-and the Department for Family and Community Services has been stuck
holding the illegitimate CSA baby.


I will personally see to it that Michael Carmody is placed behind bars
for his crimes against humanity.
David Moss
2008-03-16 06:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
The DV restraining orders go through the roof at family separation,
but I suggest it is not because men cannot handle the situation, it is
because women see the custody, property, child support, and Social
Security advantages in making false claims of DV (or abuse for that
matter).
Didn't I read you admitted to police that you had assaulted your wife
before they carted you away? Silly, silly, silly.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Society
2008-03-17 07:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Illya Shambat in the guise of "Borked Pseudo Mailed" writes...
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
The DV restraining orders go through the roof
at family separation, but I suggest it is not because
men cannot handle the situation, it is because women
see the custody, property, child support, and Social
Security advantages in making false claims of DV
(or abuse for that matter).
Didn't I read you admitted to police that you had
assaulted your wife before they carted you away?
Silly, silly, silly.
You're being sick, sick, sick, David Moss. Whether
you just made that up inside your petty eristic skull
or it's true that Shambat has a wife who, using her
own powers to create discord, succeeded in goading
him into momentarily not-nice to her, so what?
The fact remains that women throughout the Anglosphere
are abusing fathers and children with phonied-up claims
of domestic violence (DV) as part of those women's
divorce tactics.
--
The life of even the most thoroughly programmed
Femi-Borg drone is fraught with peril. Not only
will there be resistance from the few remaining
unlobotomised individuals; you will occasionally
encounter rational thought from those few sectors
of your neocortex which haven't been cauterised
by years of women's studies and listening to K.D. Lang.

from "Advice for Newly Assimilated FemiBorg Drones"
by Rowena (University of Queensland)
David Moss
2008-03-17 10:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Post by David Moss
Didn't I read you admitted to police that you had
assaulted your wife before they carted you away?
Silly, silly, silly.
You're being sick, sick, sick, David Moss. Whether
you just made that up inside your petty eristic skull
or it's true that Shambat has a wife who, using her
own powers to create discord, succeeded in goading
him into momentarily not-nice to her, so what?
Assaulting people is against the law.
Admitting you have broken the law in front of the police is silly,
silly, silly.

Inside Ms Plod's thicker than average skull the words "you twit, now we
are going to have to lock you up" echoed around for several seconds,
then justice took its majestic course. You left her no choice.

To whine about it afterwards compounds the stupidity.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Anonymous
2008-03-17 11:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
The DV restraining orders go through the roof at family separation,
but I suggest it is not because men cannot handle the situation, it is
because women see the custody, property, child support, and Social
Security advantages in making false claims of DV (or abuse for that
matter).
Didn't I read you admitted to police that you had assaulted your wife
before they carted you away? Silly, silly, silly.
No.

Another of your false shameful hearsay allegations.

What else will you invent to defend wrong Government family policies based
on stealing children, forcing fathers to suicide and exploitation of fathers
to promote radical anti-family feminism?

The facts are that:

- CSA and Family Court were established contrary to Australian Constitution,
hence they are both illegal organisations.
- ATO knew CSA was illegal (which is why they got rid of it)
- Centrelink know CSA is illegal (which is why they don't want it)
- and the Department for Family and Community Services has been stuck
holding the illegitimate CSA baby.

More than 1,2 Million children were stolen from fathers by illegal
Restraining Orders issued by Police Prosecutors under illegal Family
Violence Prevention Program, Family Court rulings discriminating males and
children and giving ALL family properties and rights to females

and

More than 50,000 Australian men were forced to suicide by genocidal
Government policies pushed illegally in the law mostly by homosexualks like
former PM like Keating (caught in act with high ranked liberal member and we
both know who was he) etc.
David Moss
2008-03-17 23:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
No.
Another of your false shameful hearsay allegations.
So you aren't the bloke who uses a remailer and whines about being
carted away by the police on father's day?

You sure sound like him ;-)
(The word "another" above gives the game away)

Remailers can hide your location and name, but they can't hide your
posting style and word selection.

BTW have you managed to find a job within stalking distance yet?
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Borked Pseudo Mailed
2008-03-18 11:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous
No.
Another of your false shameful hearsay allegations.
So you aren't the bloke who uses a remailer and whines about being
carted away by the police on father's day?
I've thought he was a boy writing a speech for John Howard while bending
over the table in the Parliament House when Paul Keating was ramming his
butt.

Many people use remailers in the country where there is no law granting
freedom of speech or human rights to citizens.

In country where wife of PM run employment agency having monopoly of
employment in QLD Public Service.

In country where Minister for family never had family of her own (except 2 big dogs) and hate families because they have different sexual orientation than Minister herself.

In country where normal marriage is prevented by carting away father on
father's day on request of wife's lover, and DPP and Magistrates prevent
father to see children for 3 years.

In country where lover's mate committing fraud become National Manager of
Centrelink, IT Director or Casa and Deputy Executive Director of Australian
Federal Police, while family he destroyed is struggling to survive and "butt
ramming PM" who declared "No children will live in poverty" live on his pig
farm with same sex lover.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous
No.
Another of your false shameful hearsay allegations.
So you aren't the bloke who uses a remailer and whines about being
carted away by the police on father's day?
I've thought he was a boy writing a speech for John Howard while bending
over the table in the Parliament House when Paul Keating was ramming his
butt.

Many people use remailers in the country where there is no law granting
freedom of speech or human rights to citizens.

In country where wife of PM run employment agency having monopoly of
employment in Public Service.

In country where Minister for family never had family and hate families
because they have different sexual orientation than Minister herself.

In country where normal marriage is prevented by carting away father on
father's day on request of wife's lover, and DPP and Magistrates prevent
father to see children for years.

In country where lover's mate committing fraud become National Manager of
Centrelink, IT Director or Casa and Deputy Executive Director of Australian
Federal Police, while family he destroyed is struggling to survive and "butt
ramming PM" who declared "No children will live in poverty" live on his pig
farm with same sex lover.

Keep going David with false allegations.
David Moss
2008-03-18 22:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous
Another of your false shameful hearsay allegations.
So you aren't the bloke who uses a remailer and whines about being
carted away by the police on father's day?
I've thought he was a boy writing a speech for John Howard while bending
over the table in the Parliament House when Paul Keating was ramming his
butt.
Keating had an open door policy. Every time I walked past the PM's
office in Parliament House, Keating had his door open. He'd have to be
pretty b latent to ream out a loverboy bent over the table with that
policy in place. Not even Keating was that arrogant ;-)
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
Many people use remailers in the country where there is no law granting
freedom of speech or human rights to citizens.
Yet I seem to get by using my real name in aus.politics, as I have for
well over a decade. Apart form a few tests in aus.test I've never used a
remailer in aus.politics. Yet I've raised and spoken about some of the
most controversial topics of our times.
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where wife of PM run employment agency having monopoly of
employment in QLD Public Service.
Jeanette Howard runs a business? Or was it Anita Keating? You certainly
aren't talking about Rudd's wife, she sold her interest in Australian
employment services while her husband was still Leader of the
Opposition.
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where Minister for family never had family of her own (except 2 big dogs) and hate families because they have different sexual orientation than Minister herself.
For some reason you seem to think a person has to have had children to
know about families. It ain't so.
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where normal marriage is prevented by carting away father on
father's day on request of wife's lover, and DPP and Magistrates prevent
father to see children for 3 years.
In country where lover's mate committing fraud become National Manager of
Centrelink, IT Director or Casa and Deputy Executive Director of Australian
Federal Police, while family he destroyed is struggling to survive and "butt
ramming PM" who declared "No children will live in poverty" live on his pig
farm with same sex lover.
Bullseye! You just can't help yourself, can you?
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Anonymous Sender
2008-03-19 22:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
Many people use remailers in the country where there is no law granting
freedom of speech or human rights to citizens.
Yet I seem to get by using my real name in aus.politics, as I have for
well over a decade. Apart form a few tests in aus.test I've never used a
remailer in aus.politics. Yet I've raised and spoken about some of the
most controversial topics of our times.
It's your choice to post under real name, same as is my choice to post using remailers to protect my family. Government, police and the big circle of people know my real name and other details and some are supporting my fight for justice, recognition of family, removal of perverts from Public Service and morality in Australia.
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where wife of PM run employment agency having monopoly of
employment in QLD Public Service.
Jeanette Howard runs a business? Or was it Anita Keating? You certainly
aren't talking about Rudd's wife, she sold her interest in Australian
employment services while her husband was still Leader of the
Opposition.
Sure. One of Centrelink Directors was running employment agency (patacat) on her daughter's name until she and her husband also become Centrelink Directors (!). they sold the agency to Polish migrant (Kaz), daughter is NOW running employment agency (Kos Consultancy in Deakin) still having exclusive access to employment in Centrelink. I have more examples submited to ICAC and covered-up.

Why people can not apply for public jobs in Australia directly, but have to pay ransom to family "businesses" run by Senior Public Servants? Isn't that clear corruption case?

And Labors are run by Unions who "protect" workers (who pay high mafia style ransom as membership to be protected) and you can't believe about who I am talking about. What an deliberate idiotic thinking! Give me a break!
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where Minister for family never had family of her own (except 2 big dogs she claims are her family) and hate families because they have different sexual orientation than Minister herself.
For some reason you seem to think a person has to have had children to
know about families. It ain't so.
For some reason you will never understand that family consist of father, mother and children. What you call family without children is called couple. What you call relationship between same gender can be friendship or perversion but never a family.

Extended family includes (with mother, father and children) other relatives and figurativelly some people say that they pets are also member of the family.

Hope that help in your education.

We all know attitude of Jenny Macklin toward fathers and women rights and on her website she claimed that her family is her and 2 dogs living in Heidelberg house.

Regarding Minister For Families job, I am sure that between 21 Million Australians there is someone with experience from living in normal, traditional family, who can do job better than person living with 2 dogs instead husband and children. Jenny would much better work as and RSPCA director than "protecting" families as she is not a family person and has no ideas what is motherhood and family relationship between father, mother and children and she clearly demonstrated lack og family knowledge while oposing just changes in family law.

I held her personally responsible for recent fraud imposed on me by Centrelink and CSA in falsifications of numbers of days my children spend with me on my detriment and I want that Minister for families is family man or woman representing also interests of fathers and children which is not a case now and was not a case during Howard dictatorship.

Regarding your equalising of dogs with husband and children, I am sure that nominating Jenny's dogs on CEO positions in Centrelink and CSA or nominating them on positions in ACT Magistrates Court and AFP will result with more human treatment of my family than we had in the past and have now.
David Moss
2008-03-20 02:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous Sender
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
Many people use remailers in the country where there is no law granting
freedom of speech or human rights to citizens.
Yet I seem to get by using my real name in aus.politics, as I have for
well over a decade. Apart form a few tests in aus.test I've never used a
remailer in aus.politics. Yet I've raised and spoken about some of the
most controversial topics of our times.
It's your choice to post under real name, same as is my choice to post using remailers to protect my family.
Crap. You do it so you can post nasty vindictive things about people and
avoid the consequences. Gutless, IMO.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Government, police and the big circle of people know my real name and other details
Which means you have no legitimate reason to use remailers.
Post by Anonymous Sender
and some are supporting my fight for justice, recognition of family, removal of perverts from Public Service and morality in Australia.
You seem to be running a number of different agendas here, but have them
confused.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where wife of PM run employment agency having monopoly of
employment in QLD Public Service.
Jeanette Howard runs a business? Or was it Anita Keating? You certainly
aren't talking about Rudd's wife, she sold her interest in Australian
employment services while her husband was still Leader of the
Opposition.
Sure. One of Centrelink Directors was running employment agency (patacat) on her daughter's name
until she and her husband also become Centrelink Directors (!). they sold the agency to Polish
migrant (Kaz), daughter is NOW running employment agency (Kos Consultancy in Deakin) still
having exclusive access to employment in Centrelink.
I have more examples submited to ICAC and covered-up.
Rock them out and race them then.
After all, you are behind a remailer.
Lets see some names, dates, places and references to the Acts
transgressed. Its got to be more interesting than your whining about
admitting to the police you assaulted your ex-wife and getting locked
up.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Why people can not apply for public jobs in Australia directly, but have to pay ransom to family
"businesses" run by Senior Public Servants? Isn't that clear corruption case?
Not really. So long as interests are declared and public officers do not
take part in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest, there
is no problem. The public service handles conflicts of interest for
staff members as a routine matter. There are documented procedures in
place to deal with conflicts. If they are followed there is no
corruption.
Post by Anonymous Sender
And Labors are run by Unions who "protect" workers (who pay high mafia style ransom as membership to be protected)
and you can't believe about who I am talking about. What an deliberate idiotic thinking! Give me a break!
Come on now Mr Remailer. Lets not pussyfoot around. Name names.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Post by David Moss
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
In country where Minister for family never had family of her own (except 2 big dogs she claims are her family) and hate families because they have different sexual orientation than Minister herself.
For some reason you seem to think a person has to have had children to
know about families. It ain't so.
For some reason you will never understand that family consist of father, mother and children.
There are all sorts of families. In most cases the father, mother and
children is my preferred model, but there are all sorts of
possibilities.

I currently participate in a family relationship within which one of the
children is not biologically related to anyone else in the home. That
child is very much a part of the family.

Claiming a relationship is not a family unless it consists of a father,
mother and children is archaic and insulting. Does a family stop being a
family if the father or mother is killed in an accident? Of course not.
So why should a mother and children stop being a family because the
father is booted out of the relationship?

In fact why should the private domestic arrangements of the adults
involved affect the definition of family at all?
Post by Anonymous Sender
What you call family without children is called couple.
True.
Post by Anonymous Sender
What you call relationship between same gender can be friendship or perversion but never a family.
Depends on who else is involved.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Extended family includes (with mother, father and children) other relatives and figurativelly some people say that they pets are also member of the family.
Which includes a couple, defined above, within its definition.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Hope that help in your education.
I hope its the start of yours.

Lets start slowly.

Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
Post by Anonymous Sender
We all know attitude of Jenny Macklin toward fathers and women rights and on her website
she claimed that her family is her and 2 dogs living in Heidelberg house.
Presumably she has a father and a mother and has experience growing up
in a family environment.
Post by Anonymous Sender
Regarding Minister For Families job, I am sure that between 21 Million Australians
there is someone with experience from living in normal, traditional family,
who can do job better than person living with 2 dogs instead husband and children.
Jenny would much better work as and RSPCA director than "protecting" families as
she is not a family person and has no ideas what is motherhood and family
relationship between father, mother and children and she clearly demonstrated
lack og family knowledge while oposing just changes in family law.
The skills required to administer a bureaucracy that protects families
are different from the skills required to be a member of a family. Jenny
is not some sort of space alien, she has extensive experience living
within a family and does not need to procreate in order to make this
claim.

I contend that she is far more qualified to administer her department
than any bloke who has been rejected by his wife, admitted to family
violence and spent decades stalking his spouse and spitting venom ant
anyone who gets in his way.
Post by Anonymous Sender
I held her personally responsible for recent fraud imposed on me by Centrelink
and CSA in falsifications of numbers of days my children spend with me on my
detriment and I want that Minister for families is family man or woman
representing also interests of fathers and children which is not a case
now and was not a case during Howard dictatorship.
Hmm, so you hold someone who was not even a Minister at the time
responsible for an adverse outcome in yet another of your disputes with
your ex-wife?

What are you going to do now that your children are approaching an age
where you can no longer use them as stalking horses?
Post by Anonymous Sender
Regarding your equalising of dogs with husband and children,
I am sure that nominating Jenny's dogs on CEO positions in Centrelink
and CSA or nominating them on positions in ACT Magistrates Court
and AFP will result with more human treatment of my family than
we had in the past and have now.
Look mate, by your own definition you have no family.
You aren't even part of a couple, which you reject as a family model
above. You are an individual. Get over it.

If you want to be part of a family, stop stalking your ex-wife, find a
person who will accept you into a relationship, and start one.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Horry
2008-03-20 10:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Hope that help in your education.
I hope its the start of yours.
Lets start slowly.
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
What of TV reports referring to people who "lost their families" in motor
vehicle accidents?

Poor journalism?
David Moss
2008-03-22 02:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horry
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Hope that help in your education.
I hope its the start of yours.
Lets start slowly.
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
What of TV reports referring to people who "lost their families" in motor
vehicle accidents?
Poor journalism?
Poor journalism? Surely you jest!

Journalists tend to overdramatise and oversimplify.

A child with both parents dead in a car crash is said to have lost its
entire family, but the truth may be that they have aunts, uncles,
brothers, sisters, and even (shock horror) birth parents they consider
to be family.

The kind of community work I do opens my eyes to all sorts of
permutations and combinations that can be considered "family". The
traditional mum, alleged dad and their kids is only one permutation.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Nomen Nescio
2008-03-20 12:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
It's your choice to post under real name, same as is my choice to post using remailers to protect my family.
Crap. You do it so you can post nasty vindictive things about people and
avoid the consequences. Gutless, IMO.
As said many times: Government know who I am.
Nobody sue me for defamation yet as what I post is true.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Government, police and the big circle of people know my real name and other details
Which means you have no legitimate reason to use remailers.
Sure. I have to apply for permission to use remailers and you are in charge to approve it.
You would be surprised to find out how close to your place I live :)
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
and some are supporting my fight for justice, recognition of family, removal of perverts from Public Service and morality in Australia.
You seem to be running a number of different agendas here, but have them
confused.
I am not confused. You are. I am running same agenda for 7 years: recognition of family, removal of perverts from Public Service and morality in Australia.
Post by David Moss
Rock them out and race them then.
ICAC and other Government officials did not show any interest yet.
Post by David Moss
After all, you are behind a remailer.
So what?
Post by David Moss
Lets see some names, dates, places and references to the Acts
transgressed. Its got to be more interesting than your whining about
admitting to the police you assaulted your ex-wife and getting locked
up.
I am not paying lawyers to do prove anything to you.

If you want some names, dates, places and references please provide finance or name of the lawyer want to pursue my claims and I will send documentation - justice is very expensive in Australia and my total yearly income is just above $10,000.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Why people can not apply for public jobs in Australia directly, but have to pay ransom to family
"businesses" run by Senior Public Servants? Isn't that clear corruption case?
Not really. So long as interests are declared and public officers do not
take part in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest, there
is no problem. The public service handles conflicts of interest for
staff members as a routine matter. There are documented procedures in
place to deal with conflicts. If they are followed there is no
corruption.
I repeat: Why people can not apply for public jobs in Australia directly?
I DO NOT ask for closing of employment agencies although they have monopoly of employment. I just want to apply directly and keep the wage intact. Why is this prohibited for the most og Government jobs? (hint: corruption).
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
And Labors are run by Unions who "protect" workers (who pay high mafia style ransom as membership to be protected)
and you can't believe about who I am talking about. What an deliberate idiotic thinking! Give me a break!
Come on now Mr Remailer. Lets not pussyfoot around. Name names.
See above. Or read previous posts - plenty of names there.
Post by David Moss
There are all sorts of families. In most cases the father, mother and
children is my preferred model, but there are all sorts of
possibilities.
Other possibilites are exemptions or perversions.
Post by David Moss
I currently participate in a family relationship within which one of the
children is not biologically related to anyone else in the home. That
child is very much a part of the family.
Let me guess (as I don't know you and your family). Sounds like you live with boyfriend and you have stolen child from heterosexual family?
Post by David Moss
Claiming a relationship is not a family unless it consists of a father,
mother and children is archaic and insulting. Does a family stop being a
family if the father or mother is killed in an accident?
No. But at the begining the family was father, mother and children.
Post by David Moss
Of course not.
So why should a mother and children stop being a family because the
father is booted out of the relationship?
Why is father booted out? Because woman have choice of adultery? Sorry, I do not buy this,

Also claiming that 2 poofs or lesbians, or lesbo with 2 dogs are equal family to traditional family is insane.
Post by David Moss
In fact why should the private domestic arrangements of the adults
involved affect the definition of family at all?
Why should Government regulate natural family and prevent it's survival to apease homosexuals?
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
What you call family without children is called couple.
True.
Post by Anonymous Sender
What you call relationship between same gender can be friendship or perversion but never a family.
Depends on who else is involved.
See above.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Extended family includes (with mother, father and children) other relatives and figurativelly some people say that they pets are also member of the family.
Hope that help in your education.
I hope its the start of yours.
With PhD and 2 other University degrees and some other post-graduate studies, I have finished my education long time ago.

What qualifications you have?
Post by David Moss
Lets start slowly.
If you are slow learner why not?
Post by David Moss
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
We all know attitude of Jenny Macklin toward fathers and women rights and on her website
she claimed that her family is her and 2 dogs living in Heidelberg house.
Presumably she has a father and a mother and has experience growing up
in a family environment.
So I should not try family life myself and spent years on Uni as my mother and father teach me all about life and family?
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Regarding Minister For Families job, I am sure that between 21 Million Australians
there is someone with experience from living in normal, traditional family,
who can do job better than person living with 2 dogs instead husband and children.
Jenny would much better work as and RSPCA director than "protecting" families as
she is not a family person and has no ideas what is motherhood and family
relationship between father, mother and children and she clearly demonstrated
lack og family knowledge while oposing just changes in family law.
The skills required to administer a bureaucracy that protects families
are different from the skills required to be a member of a family. Jenny
is not some sort of space alien, she has extensive experience living
within a family and does not need to procreate in order to make this
claim.
Australian families do not need bureaucracy administrator as Minister for family but someone with real family experience to revert changes made to family law by people who never were members of the normal family.
Post by David Moss
I contend that she is far more qualified to administer her department
than any bloke who has been rejected by his wife, admitted to family
violence and spent decades stalking his spouse and spitting venom ant
anyone who gets in his way.
I have PhD, some other UNI education and more than 20 years of marriage + few children.

I know much more about family life than someone living with 2 dogs who never tried family life.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
I held her personally responsible for recent fraud imposed on me by Centrelink
and CSA in falsifications of numbers of days my children spend with me on my
detriment and I want that Minister for families is family man or woman
representing also interests of fathers and children which is not a case
now and was not a case during Howard dictatorship.
Hmm, so you hold someone who was not even a Minister at the time
responsible for an adverse outcome in yet another of your disputes with
your ex-wife?
If you read post about CSA and CEntrelink fraud again you may find the date of CSA letter denying my care for my daughter.
She was a Minister for substantial time on the day of abuse of my family by CSA.
Post by David Moss
What are you going to do now that your children are approaching an age
where you can no longer use them as stalking horses?
My children are not stalking horses silly,silly, silly pervert.
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous Sender
Regarding your equalising of dogs with husband and children,
I am sure that nominating Jenny's dogs on CEO positions in Centrelink
and CSA or nominating them on positions in ACT Magistrates Court
and AFP will result with more human treatment of my family than
we had in the past and have now.
Look mate, by your own definition you have no family.
You aren't even part of a couple, which you reject as a family model
above. You are an individual. Get over it.
Wov, what a claim! I live with my wife and children and I have no family!
Even someone terminally stupid like you can do it better.
Post by David Moss
If you want to be part of a family, stop stalking your ex-wife, find a
person who will accept you into a relationship, and start one.
And how am I stalking my ex-wife?

Please explain as I didn't see her for 6 years, I never post her name, I never sue her for substantial damages she made to own children and me, I do not claim any money for our children care from the Government (she get all) ?

How you define stalking?
David Moss
2008-03-22 03:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Post by David Moss
Lets start slowly.
If you are slow learner why not?
Post by David Moss
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.

Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Horry
2008-03-22 05:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
Post by David Moss
Lets start slowly.
If you are slow learner why not?
Post by David Moss
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
No, but the new husband wouldn't become a member of the children's family
(unless, perhaps, he adopted them) -- which is where you're going with
this.

There'd be two (2) families. One (1) consisting of the mother and her two
(2) kids, and one (1) comprising the new husband and his wife.

Think Venn diagrams.
David Moss
2008-03-22 08:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horry
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
Post by David Moss
Lets start slowly.
If you are slow learner why not?
Post by David Moss
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
No, but the new husband wouldn't become a member of the children's family
(unless, perhaps, he adopted them) -- which is where you're going with
this.
There'd be two (2) families. One (1) consisting of the mother and her two
(2) kids, and one (1) comprising the new husband and his wife.
Think Venn diagrams.
You are on the right track. I'm thinking about the intersection.

The intersection of your Venn diagram contains a new family that has a
stepfather, mother and children.

Few would doubt the remarried widow, her new husband and her children
are a family, especially if they consider themselves to be. Most do.
More children may be born within the new marriage. They are part of the
family too.

The next step is when the mother of the children dies tragically in a
train crash. Are the grieving widower and the children still a family?
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Anonymous
2008-03-22 11:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
Post by David Moss
Does a traditional nuclear family (father, mother, biological children
of the two) cease being a family if the father is killed in a motor
vehicle accident?
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is akin to murder

In spite of the fact that we live in a Christian democracy, or at least we are led to believe that we live in a Christian democracy, here are two examples on how the Chief Justice and the family court have interpreted the terms:

"Christian Democracy and The Family Unit"

Case 1

A father's application to the family court was to have contact to his two sons. The family court rejected the application even though there were no allegations of any wrong drawing towards his children. The presiding judge noted that the father had great love for his children. The only criteria for the father to comply with was that he first change his attitude towards his wife's partner and companion.

The father could not change his attitude towards the wife's partner and companion as that would be to accept and teach adultery, the breakdown of the family unit and the corruption of the marriage, to his own children. This father was a practicing Catholic. The result was that the father did not have contact with his children for over 10 years. So much for a Christian democracy.

Case 2

A father made application to the family court to enforce existing family court orders for contact with his son. The family court set aside all existing orders and ordered psychiatric assessment for his son and himself. The psychiatrist made recommendations that the father not associate or be a member of an organisation called "the black shirts" this was a pre requisite to supervised telephone calls and one hour of contract.

The father claimed his democratic right to be a member of any organisation he chose. The family court did not allow him to challenge this issue and no proof was provided of any wrong doing by the named organisation. The father's application was dismissed. This father has not seen his son for more than nine months. So much for democracy and freedom of will.

We could list hundreds if not thousands of such cases and those who have tasted the poison of
the system know only too well that the above two cases are not only believable but also very true.

These actions by family court judges are supported by corrupt legislation. Society pays dearly for the privilege, to the tune of over one hundred million dollars per year, with the overall expenditure relating to the so called family breakdown, rising each year with over fifty thousand divorces rising to over 9 billion dollars.

This money should be spent on families, the elderly, children and the welfare of the nation.

The black shirts are proud to oppose the current legislation
and the attitudes and actions of judges of the family court.

The children of Australia are in desperate need of rescue
from this Government's blatant abuse of power.

We invite all loving parents to join us in our fight to protect
the traditional family unit and our precious children.

For more information (the truth) go to www.blackshirts.info

We are mindful that our children are taking their lives, abusing drugs, suffering abortions at a disturbing level and many of our children are being treated as hostages by their own parents more often than not by the mother.

The above reasons are just some of the reasons why the Black Shirts exist. But even more importantly is the fact that our children are made to suffer the intrusion of strangers into their lives who more often than not are imposed upon the family by their mother.

We say that the "intruder" corrupts the morals of young by mere fact that they are there, because all children are loyal to their mother and their father.

When a (so called) man is imposed into the family home, the children automatically see this as a betrayal to the father and if a (so called) woman is imposed into the family home the children automatically see this as a betrayal to the mother.

We, the Blackshirts say that if we want our children to be morally bound, decent, dignified, honest, loyal, law abiding and responsible.

We the parents must first be all of the above because all children see adults as an example on how to behave.


This is so. Especially in their own parents

3/ To date, and especially since 1975, the example has, to say the least, not been good.



The Black Shirt Code:

1. Protect marriage - family - children

2. Re-instate the meaning of marriage, family and children.

3. Discourage any intrusion into the family home

4. Promote the best of human traits to children and discourage any alternative

5. At all times promote and stay within the bounds of the law

Which is the fundamental reason as to why the Black shirts sometimes wear masks and that is to ensure to not offend section 121 of the family law act in that indentities of parties may not be divulged.
David Moss
2008-03-22 13:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.

BTW all Christian denominations, including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon which Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the widow of a deceased elder brother.

So, since you have admitted a widow and her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she remarries?

(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-03-27 11:46:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.bigpond.com>, q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations, including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon which Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the widow of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow and her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going and its just too painful.

If a widow with children is a family, a woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself with her children is a family
too.

If a widow with children remarries, and the new couple and children are
a family, so is the woman who chucks out her first husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.

Likewise the single mother and her kids who has never been married.

Or the defacto couple who have lived together for years and their kids.

Which leads us to the woman who chucked out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the kids. Thats a family too.

And thats what you just can't face, Mr Remailer.

Thats the way it is though. Get over it.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Horry
2008-03-27 22:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were father mother and children family. Declaring that Minister for Family and her 2 dogs are equal family is insane.
OK, we have established that a mother living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations, including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon which Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the widow of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow and her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going and its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to the family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families. Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her first husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be more than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family? Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
Peter Jason
2008-03-27 23:04:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000, David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family is
insane.
OK, we have established that a mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
Kitty
2008-03-28 08:41:36 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000, David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family is
insane.
OK, we have established that a mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further. If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have had an extremely sheltered life.
--
Kitty <***@wawamail.com.ua>
Peter Jason
2008-03-28 22:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
involved.

The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.

Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.

Marriage is not for everybody.

The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.

Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort are
contrived because there is some benefit, one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to taint
the institution of marriage even further with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it at
all.

A successful marriage requires three things:

1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.

When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
Kitty
2008-03-28 22:59:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort are
contrived because there is some benefit, one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to taint
the institution of marriage even further with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it at
all.
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
--
Kitty <***@wawamail.com.ua>
Peter Jason
2008-03-29 00:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as
an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted
by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort
are
contrived because there is some benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong. If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group. Please
do not try it a third time. Staying single
is a very viable option.
Fun Tyme
2008-03-29 00:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as
an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted
by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort
are
contrived because there is some benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong. If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group. Please
do not try it a third time. Staying single
is a very viable option.
Exactly Peter, but Kitty can still have a "fun time".
Kitty
2008-03-29 01:17:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:26:46 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as
an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted
by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort
are
contrived because there is some benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong. If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group. Please
do not try it a third time. Staying single
is a very viable option.
Exactly Peter, but Kitty can still have a "fun time".
Exactly wrong. Marriages fail for a variety of reasons. Quite commonly, the people involved are immature. (Sounds like a symptom of most MG postings...)
--
Kitty <***@wawamail.com.ua>
David Moss
2008-03-30 06:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:26:46 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as
an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted
by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort
are
contrived because there is some benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong. If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group. Please
do not try it a third time. Staying single
is a very viable option.
Exactly Peter, but Kitty can still have a "fun time".
Exactly wrong. Marriages fail for a variety of reasons. Quite commonly, the people involved are immature. (Sounds like a symptom of most MG postings...)
Peter is right about marriage being a form of mutual support, but wrong
about if being all about money.

Sometimes the mutual support focuses initially on sex. heterosexual men
and women need each other for sex, so it is quite natural to base a
marriage on sex. Each can support the need of the other.

In fact people are hard wired for this. There is a period known as
"limerance" in which nothing else matters. All other needs are pushed
into the background during the period of limerance. Many people mistake
limerance for love. It isn't though, and once the period of limerance
fades the other needs start to make themselves felt. Limerance lasts up
to 18 months, on average.

Once the limerance is over, members of a couple look to each other to
fulfil other needs. If their partner is unable to meet these needs
dissatisfaction results. Too much dissatisfaction and resentment sets
in. Other relationships might start looking good in comparison with the
existing one and nature takes its course.

Limerance exists to get a woman pregnant and ensure the father will
stick around long enough to feed and protect the woman and child until
after it is weaned. The relationship then ends and the process repeats
itself with another man, thereby ensuring maximum genetic diversity in
the population.

Limerance might be OK in a harsh and primitive environment where the
people have a short life expectancy, but it isn't enough to meet the
needs of long lived people beyond their reproductive years.

When people developed mutually supportive societies, extending their
life expectancy, limerance was not enough. So they developed social
conventions that extended the length of relationships beyond that
ensured through limerance. The ultimate convention of this kind is
marriage.

People who manage the transition between limerance and true love have
always been admired by those around them Lasting love is seen as an
ideal by society, something to be desired but something few ever
attained. Society constructed conventions and later laws that kept
people together beyond limerance, hopefully long enough for love to take
its place. Anyone who interfered with these conventions was heavily
sanctioned by society, which sometimes provided the death penalty for
"adultery".

All this is really about the relationship between adults however. It
doesn't affect the definition of the family, other than provide a
biological justification for women with children by more than one man
being considered a family, or a series of relationships lasting only a
few years each being considered family relationships.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-04-04 06:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:26:46 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as
an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted
by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort
are
contrived because there is some benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong. If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group. Please
do not try it a third time. Staying single
is a very viable option.
Exactly Peter, but Kitty can still have a "fun time".
Exactly wrong. Marriages fail for a variety of reasons. Quite commonly, the people involved are immature. (Sounds like a symptom of most MG postings...)
Peter is right about marriage being a form of mutual support, but wrong
about if being all about money.

Sometimes the mutual support focuses initially on sex. heterosexual men
and women need each other for sex, so it is quite natural to base a
marriage on sex. Each can support the need of the other.

In fact people are hard wired for this. There is a period known as
"limerance" in which nothing else matters. All other needs are pushed
into the background during the period of limerance. Many people mistake
limerance for love. It isn't though, and once the period of limerance
fades the other needs start to make themselves felt. Limerance lasts up
to 18 months, on average.

Once the limerance is over, members of a couple look to each other to
fulfil other needs. If their partner is unable to meet these needs
dissatisfaction results. Too much dissatisfaction and resentment sets
in. Other relationships might start looking good in comparison with the
existing one and nature takes its course.

Limerance exists to get a woman pregnant and ensure the father will
stick around long enough to feed and protect the woman and child until
after it is weaned. The relationship then ends and the process repeats
itself with another man, thereby ensuring maximum genetic diversity in
the population.

Limerance might be OK in a harsh and primitive environment where the
people have a short life expectancy, but it isn't enough to meet the
needs of long lived people beyond their reproductive years.

When people developed mutually supportive societies, extending their
life expectancy, limerance was not enough. So they developed social
conventions that extended the length of relationships beyond that
ensured through limerance. The ultimate convention of this kind is
marriage.

People who manage the transition between limerance and true love have
always been admired by those around them Lasting love is seen as an
ideal by society, something to be desired but something few ever
attained. Society constructed conventions and later laws that kept
people together beyond limerance, hopefully long enough for love to take
its place. Anyone who interfered with these conventions was heavily
sanctioned by society, which sometimes provided the death penalty for
"adultery".

All this is really about the relationship between adults however. It
doesn't affect the definition of the family, other than provide a
biological justification for women with children by more than one man
being considered a family, or a series of relationships lasting only a
few years each being considered family relationships.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Kitty
2008-03-29 01:13:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:10:47 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as
an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted
by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort
are
contrived because there is some benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong.
All right. You are sadly mistaken.
Post by Peter Jason
If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group.
So what?
Post by Peter Jason
Please do not try it a third time.
I will try it as often as U please.
Post by Peter Jason
Staying single is a very viable option.
Speak for yourself. It's not an attractive option for me.
--
Kitty <<***@wawamail.com.ua>
Peter Jason
2008-03-29 03:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:10:47 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22
+0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au
writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they
were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that
a
mother
living alone with her
children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children
are
still a family, do they
cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and
adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism,
allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism,
upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry
the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a
widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if
she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes
or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can*
think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no
change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children
remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two
families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out
her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and
her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There
could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of
fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have
lived
together for years and their
kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in
boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor
(and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the
tab
for
these boutique, experimental and
mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book
you
will find that marriage always existed
as
an
*economic* institution designed for
mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when
one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly
buffeted
by
often errant children and many
unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased
the
number of single mothers by supplying
an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex
sort
are
contrived because there is some
benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the
welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even
further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between
same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into
it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this
fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong.
All right. You are sadly mistaken.
I have seen too many marriages to be
mistaken.
Post by Kitty
Post by Peter Jason
If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group.
So what?
Are you the silly sort of woman who believes
marriages are a love match? Read Jane
Austen.
Post by Kitty
Post by Peter Jason
Please do not try it a third time.
I will try it as often as U please.


Wilfull obdurate headstrong girl! Brace
yourself for another fall!
Post by Kitty
Post by Peter Jason
Staying single is a very viable option.
Speak for yourself. It's not an attractive
option for me.
It would appear to be the *only* option for
you!
Kitty
2008-03-29 03:31:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:12:08 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:10:47 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
in
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22
+0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au
writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they
were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal
family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that
a
mother
living alone with her
children
is
a family.
Lets take things a little
further.
If
the widow and her children
are
still a family, do they
cease
to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and
adultery
is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly,
remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism,
allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism,
upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry
the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a
widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if
she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes
or
no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can*
think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is
going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a
family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by
herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no
change
to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children
remarries,
and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two
families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out
her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she
remarries.
Likewise the single mother and
her
kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There
could
be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of
fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have
lived
together for years and their
kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who
chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in
boyfriend
and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a
family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage
certificate?
The true horror is that the poor
(and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the
tab
for
these boutique, experimental and
mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you
have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book
you
will find that marriage always existed
as
an
*economic* institution designed for
mutual
support for the parties and for the
children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted
marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when
one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and
cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly
buffeted
by
often errant children and many
unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased
the
number of single mothers by supplying
an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex
sort
are
contrived because there is some
benefit,
one
way or the other, supplied by the
welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always
existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to
taint
the institution of marriage even
further
with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between
same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into
it
at
all.
A successful marriage requires three
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this
fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither
marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
I am not wrong.
All right. You are sadly mistaken.
I have seen too many marriages to be
mistaken.
Post by Kitty
Post by Peter Jason
If money was no problem for
you then you are in a minority group.
So what?
Are you the silly sort of woman who believes
marriages are a love match? Read Jane
Austen.
Post by Kitty
Post by Peter Jason
Please do not try it a third time.
I will try it as often as I please.
Wilfull obdurate headstrong girl! Brace
yourself for another fall!
It's a normal part of living on your feet, and not on your knees.
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
Post by Peter Jason
Staying single is a very viable option.
Speak for yourself. It's not an attractive
option for me.
It would appear to be the *only* option for
you!
Appearances can be deceiving. If your case, it may well be
self-deception. Meaning, that you really have no choice. I do.
--
Kitty <***@wawamail.com.ua>
Fun Tyme
2008-03-29 00:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort are
contrived because there is some benefit, one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to taint
the institution of marriage even further with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it at
all.
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
Perhaps you missed the part - "Marriage is not for everybody".... maybe
there is something wrong with your demeanour, or the criteria on which
you select partners.

I agree with Peter Jason, but what are you doing tonight Kitty ?
Kitty
2008-03-29 01:09:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:24:25 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort are
contrived because there is some benefit, one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to taint
the institution of marriage even further with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it at
all.
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
Perhaps you missed the part - "Marriage is not for everybody".... maybe
there is something wrong with your demeanour, or the criteria on which
you select partners.
Perhaps you missed the part -

"A successful marriage requires three things:

1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money."

This is simply wrong.
Post by Fun Tyme
I agree with Peter Jason, but what are you doing tonight Kitty ?
Whatever it might be, you would not have nearly enough of what it takes to interest me. But feel free to dream.
--
Kitty <***@wawamail.com.ua>
Fun Tyme
2008-03-29 01:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:24:25 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort are
contrived because there is some benefit, one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to taint
the institution of marriage even further with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it at
all.
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
Perhaps you missed the part - "Marriage is not for everybody".... maybe
there is something wrong with your demeanour, or the criteria on which
you select partners.
Perhaps you missed the part -
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money."
This is simply wrong.
Post by Fun Tyme
I agree with Peter Jason, but what are you doing tonight Kitty ?
Whatever it might be, you would not have nearly enough of what it takes to interest me. But feel free to dream.
So I was quite correct, my quick probe proves you seek the impossible.

Intellectuals with your (projected) demeanour often find lesbianism a
workable option. Try chewing the rug. :)
Kitty
2008-03-29 03:27:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:54:16 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:24:25 +1030
Post by Fun Tyme
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
Post by Kitty
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:04:44 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:46:22 +0000,
David
Post by David Moss
In article
q0320811
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Post by David Moss
In article
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Post by Nomen Nescio
No. But originally they were
father
mother and children family.
Declaring that Minister for
Family
and her 2 dogs are equal family
is
insane.
OK, we have established that a
mother
living alone with her children is
a family.
Lets take things a little further.
If
the widow and her children are
still a family, do they cease to
be a
family if she remarries?
Marriage is forever and adultery is
akin to murder
[cut]
Just answer the question.
We are taking this slowly, remember?
One step at a time.
BTW all Christian denominations,
including Roman Catholicism, allows
widows to remarry. In Judaism, upon
which
Christianity is built, it was
required that a brother marry the
widow
of a deceased elder brother.
So, since you have admitted a widow
and
her children are still a family,
do they cease to be a family if she
remarries?
(Hint: the answer is either yes or no)
Gosh, the remailer mob *can* think
ahead.
Its obvious where this thread is going
and
its just too painful.
If a widow with children is a family, a
woman who chucks out an
undesirable spouse and lives by herself
with her children is a family
too.
In that situation, there's no change to
the
family.
Post by David Moss
If a widow with children remarries, and
the new couple and children are
a family,
They're not. There are two families.
Think Venn diagrams.
Post by David Moss
so is the woman who chucks out her
first
husband, her new
husband and her kids if she remarries.
Likewise the single mother and her kids
who has never been married.
That's not in dispute. There could be
more
than one family, however
(depending on the number of fathers.
Post by David Moss
Or the defacto couple who have lived
together for years and their kids.
Nor is that in dispute.
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked
out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and
the
kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family?
Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
The true horror is that the poor (and
getting
poorer) taxpayer has to pick up the tab
for
these boutique, experimental and mainly
failed marriages.
If that is "true horror" for you, you have
had an extremely sheltered life.
--
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.
Instead it turns out to be a morass of
expedient compromises, with one partner
propping up the other, constantly buffeted by
often errant children and many unforseen
expenses.
Marriage is not for everybody.
The modern welfare state has increased the
number of single mothers by supplying an
income for stupid people and their
dependents - with the taxpayer and the
dependents being the true victims.
Boutique "marriages" of the same-sex sort are
contrived because there is some benefit, one
way or the other, supplied by the welfare
state. Same-sex couples have always existed,
albeit discreetly, but now we have to taint
the institution of marriage even further with
all the latest herd-following nonsense.
Contracts can be drawn up between same-sex
couples without bringing marriage into it at
all.
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money.
When you wake up, too late, to this fact
remember it was me who told you so!
I have been married twice. Neither marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
Perhaps you missed the part - "Marriage is not for everybody".... maybe
there is something wrong with your demeanour, or the criteria on which
you select partners.
Perhaps you missed the part -
1/ Money.
2/ Money.
3/ Money."
This is simply wrong.
Post by Fun Tyme
I agree with Peter Jason, but what are you doing tonight Kitty ?
Whatever it might be, you would not have nearly enough of what it takes to interest me. But feel free to dream.
So I was quite correct, my quick probe proves you seek the impossible.
Demonstrating yet again your problem of premature ejaculation.
Post by Fun Tyme
Intellectuals with your (projected) demeanour often find lesbianism a
workable option. Try chewing the rug. :)
You are speaking from personal experience, of course!
--
Kitty <***@wawamail.com.ua>
Fun Tyme
2008-03-29 13:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
Post by Fun Tyme
So I was quite correct, my quick probe proves you seek the impossible.
Demonstrating yet again your problem of premature ejaculation.
You would most likely have the opposite effect...a soft-on !
Post by Kitty
Post by Fun Tyme
Intellectuals with your (projected) demeanour often find lesbianism a
workable option. Try chewing the rug. :)
You are speaking from personal experience, of course!
Is it any wonder you cant stay married ?

All my wives behave wonderfully, it's probably the beatings.
David Moss
2008-03-30 05:59:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <fsh75l$vfe$***@news.datemas.de>, ***@gmail.com
writes...
Post by Horry
Post by David Moss
Which leads us to the woman who chucked out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the kids. Thats a family too.
What, in your view, "creates" a family? Is it sexual relations, sharing
a residence, or a marriage certificate?
Self identification coupled with community perception.
It is possible for a group of people who are not biologically related at
all to be a family. Sexual relationships and paperwork are irrelevant to
whether or not a group is a family.

Child psychology suggests a family consists of one or more children, one
primary carer and zero or more secondary carers.

To adults however the term family can mean different things. To the OP
it means "people who I have power over". He sees loss of control over
other people as a loss of family. Consequently he seeks to "get back his
family" by re-establishing control over them.

Some adults see family as an extension of themselves, and their
biological children as a kind of immortality. Such people do not really
accept children as part of "their" family if they are not biologically
related to them. Narcissism is the extreme form of this. People with
narcissistic personality disorder are dangerous. To find out more about
narcissism, see: http://tinyurl.com/43a3

Judeo-Christendom is obsessed with biological lineage, and this affects
the thinking of many of its adherents. Islam, which shares the same
roots, is similarly obsessed with biological lineage.

In the days before DNA testing all children born under the roof of a
married couple were deemed to "belong" to the male partner. This ensured
fathers would provide for all the children in the family even if there
was some doubt about actual paternity.

Because our law has Judeo-Christian roots, paternal liability and
inheritance are based on biological lineage too.

The Judeo-Christian obsession with biological lineage has distorted the
definition of family for many people.

From the point of view of family members however, a family is a group of
people who consider themselves to be a family. Who is included in the
group may vary depending on the individual viewpoint.

Trying to enforce the viewpoint of one person on another is the source
of most disputes in Family law.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-03-30 12:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Trying to enforce the viewpoint of one person on another is the source
of most disputes in Family law.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
I disagree, forcing the COURTS viewpoint on what makes a family is what
causes most disputes in family court.
David Moss
2008-03-30 13:01:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <CHLHj.10444$***@fe187.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
Trying to enforce the viewpoint of one person on another is the source
of most disputes in Family law.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
I disagree, forcing the COURTS viewpoint on what makes a family is what
causes most disputes in family court.
I disagree. People only go to the Family Court if they cannot agree on a
course of action. Often this is because one person wants to end a
relationship and the other does not. The court then decides what will
happen. This leaves at least one person unhappy.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-03-30 21:28:17 UTC
Permalink
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
Trying to enforce the viewpoint of one person on another is the source
of most disputes in Family law.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
I disagree, forcing the COURTS viewpoint on what makes a family is what
causes most disputes in family court.
I disagree. People only go to the Family Court if they cannot agree on a
course of action. Often this is because one person wants to end a
relationship and the other does not. The court then decides what will
happen. This leaves at least one person unhappy.
--
I never said (and neither did YOU) what gets people TO family courts but
what causes the disputes when in family court.
David Moss
2008-03-30 23:22:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <TBTHj.136$***@fe196.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
Trying to enforce the viewpoint of one person on another is the source
of most disputes in Family law.
I disagree, forcing the COURTS viewpoint on what makes a family is what
causes most disputes in family court.
I disagree. People only go to the Family Court if they cannot agree on a
course of action. Often this is because one person wants to end a
relationship and the other does not. The court then decides what will
happen. This leaves at least one person unhappy.
I never said (and neither did YOU) what gets people TO family courts but
what causes the disputes when in family court.
People get to the Family Court because they are unable to resolve a
dispute. They go there so that the court will make a ruling.

The court listens to the arguments of both parties. The dispute is given
a hearing. The court does not create the dispute, it merely listens to
it.

Unfortunately some people close their eyes and ears to their spouse
during a dispute and pretend there is nothing wrong. One partner may
tell the other the the relationship is over, the other tells themself
marriage is for life so it couldn't possibly be happening and ignores
the message. When the same message is articulated in the Family Court
the recipient is forced to acknowledge the dispute. For a person in
denial it can appear the Family Court itself brought on the dispute.

The fact is, they wouldn't be in the Family Court at all if there was no
dispute.

When a third party rules on the outcome of a dispute there will be
losers. Sometimes both parties to the dispute consider themselves to be
losers. That is the nature of judgement.

Ideally the parties to the dispute would negotiate a mutually agreeable
outcome, but that is not always possible. Thats why we have a Family
Court.

The Family Court itself is far from ideal. The highly biased gender
statistics for custody rulings are evidence enough of that.

Currently however, its the best institution we have to deal with family
relationship disputes. Its most vocal opponents seem to be men who seek
to maintain control over their ex-spouse despite the court ruling the
relationship to be terminated. This seems to be an intractable problem.

The gender bias is another matter, one that desperately needs to be
resolved.

One way I can think of would be to run training for Judges based on the
Turing test. The original Turing test was intended to determine whether
a machine could think. It was proposes the machine and a human being
each be located in a separate room and interrogated by a person located
in a third room. The interrogator would not be able to see into the
other two rooms and relied on written answers to questions to arrive at
a decision. If the interrogator could not reliably identify the machine
as a machine, it could be said to think.

I propose a training simulator for Family Court Judges. The simulation
would allow the Judge to ask questions relevant to child custody, but
all material that may identify the gender of the respondents would be
removed from the responses. The responses would be summarised and typed
using formal language by randomly alternating intermediaries to avoid
bias due to language skill.

The object of the simulation would be to train the Judge to ignore
gender as a factor and concentrate solely on child welfare principles.

I.e. If the Judge did not know which respondent was the female, but
Respondent A admitted to drug abuse and respondent B did not abuse
drugs, all other things being equal, who gets custody of the children?
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-03-31 10:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Currently however, its the best institution we have to deal with family
relationship disputes. Its most vocal opponents seem to be men who seek
to maintain control over their ex-spouse despite the court ruling the
relationship to be terminated. This seems to be an intractable problem.
Really, do you have stats to back up that highly biased statement if fact I
would venture to call it misandric.
Post by David Moss
The gender bias is another matter, one that desperately needs to be
resolved.
How can you possibly make a statement like the one directly above, while
also making the statement above that one. You yourself are highly biased
against men because you think the most vocal are men trying to control their
spouses, you have no idea what a man wants to stay married or why he wants
to maintain a relationship with his kids.
Post by David Moss
One way I can think of would be to run training for Judges based on the
Turing test. The original Turing test was intended to determine whether
a machine could think. It was proposes the machine and a human being
each be located in a separate room and interrogated by a person located
in a third room. The interrogator would not be able to see into the
other two rooms and relied on written answers to questions to arrive at
a decision. If the interrogator could not reliably identify the machine
as a machine, it could be said to think.
I propose a training simulator for Family Court Judges. The simulation
would allow the Judge to ask questions relevant to child custody, but
all material that may identify the gender of the respondents would be
removed from the responses. The responses would be summarised and typed
using formal language by randomly alternating intermediaries to avoid
bias due to language skill.
The object of the simulation would be to train the Judge to ignore
gender as a factor and concentrate solely on child welfare principles.
I.e. If the Judge did not know which respondent was the female, but
Respondent A admitted to drug abuse and respondent B did not abuse
drugs, all other things being equal, who gets custody of the children?
It seems like a fine idea , but it will never happen, Family courts are
setup as a wealth transfer agency.
Post by David Moss
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
DM
2008-03-31 11:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
Currently however, its the best institution we have to deal with family
relationship disputes. Its most vocal opponents seem to be men who seek
to maintain control over their ex-spouse despite the court ruling the
relationship to be terminated. This seems to be an intractable problem.
Really, do you have stats to back up that highly biased statement if fact I
would venture to call it misandric.
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
The gender bias is another matter, one that desperately needs to be
resolved.
How can you possibly make a statement like the one directly above, while
also making the statement above that one. You yourself are highly biased
against men because you think the most vocal are men trying to control their
spouses, you have no idea what a man wants to stay married or why he wants
to maintain a relationship with his kids.
I don't need to know. All I need to know is that his ex-spouse wants
to terminate the relationship. Thats all he needs to know too, other
than the fact the Family Court has ruled it to be terminated.

Unfortunately some men can't leave it at that. They try to maintain
control over their ex-spouse through financial manipulation, then get
angry when the CSA prevents them doing so.

The gender bias of the Family Court is another matter altogether.

I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
One way I can think of would be to run training for Judges based on the
Turing test. The original Turing test was intended to determine whether
a machine could think. It was proposes the machine and a human being
each be located in a separate room and interrogated by a person located
in a third room. The interrogator would not be able to see into the
other two rooms and relied on written answers to questions to arrive at
a decision. If the interrogator could not reliably identify the machine
as a machine, it could be said to think.
I propose a training simulator for Family Court Judges. The simulation
would allow the Judge to ask questions relevant to child custody, but
all material that may identify the gender of the respondents would be
removed from the responses. The responses would be summarised and typed
using formal language by randomly alternating intermediaries to avoid
bias due to language skill.
The object of the simulation would be to train the Judge to ignore
gender as a factor and concentrate solely on child welfare principles.
I.e. If the Judge did not know which respondent was the female, but
Respondent A admitted to drug abuse and respondent B did not abuse
drugs, all other things being equal, who gets custody of the children?
It seems like a fine idea , but it will never happen, Family courts are
setup as a wealth transfer agency.
Now you are confusing the Family Court with the CSA.

DM
personal opinion only
Ranting
2008-03-31 15:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DM
The gender bias of the Family Court is another matter altogether.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Actually MR Moss, you opinions are HIGHLY subjective because you have
actually admitted you have any facts to back them up, this alone makes them
subjective.

I notice you single out men for controlling behaviour and yet fail to see
how women try to control men in numerous ways.

Your misandric side sure is showing.
Ranting
2008-03-31 15:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DM
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Well which is it, are your opinons subjective or objective. The two quotes
above are from the same post.

And don't even try the old "spelling error".
David Moss
2008-04-01 01:09:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <8G7Ij.10877$***@fe29.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by DM
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Well which is it, are your opinons subjective or objective. The two quotes
above are from the same post.
And don't even try the old "spelling error".
My opinion regarding the behaviour of aus.politics posters over the last
decade and a half is subjective. I have no statistics with which to back
my claim.

My opinion regarding the gender bias in the Family Court is objective.
Statistics exist to back up my assertion regarding gender bias.


I can walk and chew gum at the same time too ;-)
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-04-02 13:39:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <8G7Ij.10877$***@fe29.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by DM
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Well which is it, are your opinons subjective or objective. The two quotes
above are from the same post.
And don't even try the old "spelling error".
My opinion regarding the behaviour of aus.politics posters over the last
decade and a half is subjective. I have no statistics with which to back
my claim.

My opinion regarding the gender bias in the Family Court is objective.
Statistics exist to back up my assertion regarding gender bias.


I can walk and chew gum at the same time too ;-)
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-04-02 19:42:52 UTC
Permalink
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by DM
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Well which is it, are your opinons subjective or objective. The two quotes
above are from the same post.
And don't even try the old "spelling error".
My opinion regarding the behaviour of aus.politics posters over the last
decade and a half is subjective. I have no statistics with which to back
my claim.
My opinion regarding the gender bias in the Family Court is objective.
Statistics exist to back up my assertion regarding gender bias.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time too ;-)
Really, please show these stats to back up your claim.
David Moss
2008-04-03 01:38:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <blRIj.2528$***@fe189.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by DM
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Well which is it, are your opinons subjective or objective. The two quotes
above are from the same post.
And don't even try the old "spelling error".
My opinion regarding the behaviour of aus.politics posters over the last
decade and a half is subjective. I have no statistics with which to back
my claim.
My opinion regarding the gender bias in the Family Court is objective.
Statistics exist to back up my assertion regarding gender bias.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time too ;-)
Really, please show these stats to back up your claim.
Send me a packet of chewing gum and a video camera ;-)
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-04-03 01:52:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <blRIj.2528$***@fe189.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by DM
No, I don't. The statement is a result of personal observation of the
topic in aus.politics over an extended period of time. I doubt anyone
keeps stats on the issue and I'm certain I'm not going to try to back
up my subjective opinion with numeric data. I have better things to do
with my time.
I have no trouble criticising some men for narcissistic behavior while
simultaneously criticising the Family Court for gender bias. I can do
this because my opinions are objective.
Well which is it, are your opinons subjective or objective. The two quotes
above are from the same post.
And don't even try the old "spelling error".
My opinion regarding the behaviour of aus.politics posters over the last
decade and a half is subjective. I have no statistics with which to back
my claim.
My opinion regarding the gender bias in the Family Court is objective.
Statistics exist to back up my assertion regarding gender bias.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time too ;-)
Really, please show these stats to back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family Court?

Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0

Source: Family Court of Australia.Custody/Residence Order outcomes:
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-04-03 10:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Really, please show these stats to back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family Court?
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Ok, that shows that women get custody more than men, BUT that does not show
bias. There could be multiple reasons what they do, not just bias
David Moss
2008-04-04 01:22:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <px2Jj.7473$***@fe183.usenetserver.com>, ***@rant.com
writes...
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Really, please show these stats to back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family Court?
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Ok, that shows that women get custody more than men, BUT that does not show
bias. There could be multiple reasons what they do, not just bias
If women are equal to men as the feminists claim, I would expect to see
equal outcomes in Family Court custody orders. Instead I see custody
being awarded to the woman in contested cases between 3.5 and 4.5 times
as often. Thats bias.

Imagine the uproar if the Family Court suddenly began to make its
rulings with the bias going the other way.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
samvaknin
2008-04-02 10:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

These may be of interest - click on the links:

http://samvak.tripod.com/family.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/faq22.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/marriage.html

Narcissistic and psychopathic parents and their children - click on
the links:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4727

Take care.

Sam
George Orwell
2008-03-22 22:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horry
Poor journalism?
Controlled by one man worldwide?

Families today are under attack as never before. But this
attack does not come primarily from pornography, television, rock
music, drugs, or even homosexuality. The attack comes from government,
and it targets the family's weakest and most vulnerable point: the
father.

The wholesale separation of children from their fathers, the
mass incarceration of fathers without due process of law, the seizure
of children from both mothers and fathers, the abuse of children by
the very officials who claim to be protecting them - this is hidden
behind a media blackout, hidden behind the silence of the politicians,
but it is the terrifying reality for millions of Americans.

The crisis is especially acute now. Sharp increases in
already-crushing "child support" burdens, new penalties ostensibly to
combat "domestic violence" - these will produce more broken homes and
fatherless children, more parents in jail, and further erosion of
constitutional rights.


But it is also a hopeful time. As Australians wake up to the crimes
being committed against families by their own government, they shake
their heads in disbelief but cannot deny the reality they witness in
their own lives. The media and politicians too can no longer look the
other way, as fathers speak out and organize to protect their
families.

Family and marriage issues are on the front pages around the world.

Parents are now resisting the government's intrusions with new
determination. I hear parents asking how they can become active,
pledging to sacrifice whatever is required, vowing never to relent,
dedicating the remainder of their lives to rescue their children from
the clutches of this cruel machine. And yes, I hear some parents
(increasing numbers, it seems) threatening to use measures which we
dare not condone. But I also hear them vowing sacrifices which we can
only admire.

Even now, we witness courageous deeds and heroic sacrifices. In
Britain, fathers have placed their demands on the front pages of the
most prestigious news organizations in the world. In Australia, Prime
Minister John Howard has put divorce and custody issues before the
national legislature. In Canada, debates on custody law are also
national news.

What Lies Ahead?

As fathers and parents, we are uniquely situated to lead families out
of this bondage, as others have done before. But we must have no
illusions. Before we reach the promised land of freedom, we must fight
our way through a wilderness of despair.

We will be called vicious names: "deadbeat," "batterer," "pedophile,"
and more. We must withstand scorn from the media and politicians that
offers us no platform to defend ourselves. We must be prepared to
endure fabricated accusations of the most hideous crimes against our
own children, with few constitutional protections for our rights. We
must face summary incarceration from government bullies motivated by a
toxic mix of self-righteousness and self-dealing. Indeed, some of us
will find ourselves called upon to make (as some have already) the
supreme sacrifice that fathers have never hesitated to make for the
children.

We must dispense with the illusion that others will win this struggle
for us. We must discard the vain hope that if only we inform them of
the terrible injustices perpetrated against parents and children, then
journalists, politicians, family advocates, or civil libertarians will
wake up, and do their jobs, and end this injustice.

The bitter truth is that no one can "save the children" but their
parents. We alone are responsible for our children, and we alone must
protect them. No one will cry for us if we succumb. No one will
respect us if we complain. No one will listen to our excuses if we
fail. No one - including our children themselves. The entire burden
rests upon us and no one else. But when we succeed - and we will
succeed - we will create a legacy of moral authority and family
strength that will be passed to our children, and to theirs, and
beyond.

Even the most vicious among our opponents have paid us this high
tribute: They have made us responsible. "Father absence," we are told
(and told correctly), accounts for virtually all today's social
problems. And so we are blamed for being "absent" - even when we have
no right to be present. We are held responsible when a marriage ends,
even when we did not end it. We alone are made responsible for
providing for our children, even when they are forcibly removed from
our care. We alone are held responsible for violence in the family,
even when we have not committed it (and even when it is committed
against us). We are held responsible for the abuse of our children,
even when they are abused by others. We are held responsible for the
wayward behavior of our children, even when we are not permitted to
offer them guidance and correction. Even when it is beyond our
control, we alone are responsible.

We must not shirk this responsibility, for it is the essence of
fatherhood. We must embrace it, for it is the salvation of our
children and the restoration of our families. It is time we took the
fair-weather friends of fatherhood at their word by standing up and
taking action. The time for talk is past. It is now time to act.


Who We Are


So let us take this opportunity to state clearly before the world who
we are and what we stand for.

There are those who claim to advocate for an abstraction called
"fatherhood." Others describe themselves as defenders of "the" family.
Many are well-intentioned. But they tend to be political
professionals, and they often claim to speak for "the children," not
their own.

Some of these professionals chide us because (they say) we are looking
out for our own interests, our own families. They seem to claim moral
superiority because they concern themselves with other people's
children.

It is true that we have a personal interest in preserving families.
Because we (and we alone) are defending our families. For us, the
family is not an abstraction or an object for our good deeds. We do
not pretend to be motivated by concern for someone else's children. We
concern ourselves only with our own. We are not crusaders or zealots.
And we are not professionals. We are proud to be amateurs (literally,
those "who love"). We are parents, and our aims are limited. But that
is not our weakness; that is our strength.

It is our strength because we have the authority not of paid officials
but of parents and citizens. Politicians always promise to return
power to "the people." But we are the people. We have endured much
from the politicians, but when they take our children, we draw a line.

The good intentions of fatherhood promoters, family defenders, and
children's advocates cannot meet the test. They will not fight for our
children. They will not sacrifice for our children. They will not risk
their careers or livelihoods or lives for our children. They will not
die for our children.

There is no such abstraction as "the" family. There are only families
- our families. We alone can and will defend them. If others wish to
help - journalists, politicians, defenders of the Constitution,
critics of the judiciary, civil libertarians - we welcome them, and
they will have our gratitude. But we must make it clear to friend and
foe alike that this is foremost our struggle. We - and we alone - can
save families, because they are our families.

Likewise, we do not trumpet an abstraction called "fatherhood." We are
concerned with our fatherhood, the fatherhood of each individual
father. And we will establish it not with words that cost nothing but
with deeds that may cost us dearly indeed.

If those who pose as the champions of fatherhood dislike our deeds,
then it is time they examined what they mean by "fatherhood." For if
it means anything less than defending one's children against those who
would interfere with them or take them away, then theirs is a
definition of fatherhood we find wanting. They are entitled to their
opinion, of course, but we are entitled to our children. And our
children are entitled to us.

Opinions are important (to a point), and "a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind" is obligatory in a democracy. But few who have
both would regard their opinions as being of equal importance as their
children. While we respect the opinions of others about the best
interest of children in the abstract, we expect others to respect our
decisions about the best interest of our own children. And we expect
them to understand something more: that no parent is answerable to
government officials for how they raise their children or for
exercising their right and duty to protect them. The best interest of
children is a continued meaningful relationship with both parents. And
the best way to achieve that is limit the discretion of judges with a
rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting


Where We Stand Now


It is impossible to overestimate the burden that weighs upon our
shoulders. We face a government that threatens our children, our
lives, our Constitution, and quite possibly the very basis of
civilization itself. Before our very eyes we see history's greatest
experiment in human freedom being debased into a ruthless, depraved,
diabolical tyranny.

It has fallen to us "to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never
surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime." But this
tyranny does not come from abroad; it has arisen in our very midst. It
is a tyranny of cowards, that hides in secret courtrooms and protected
offices, that fears the citizens it ostensibly serves, while cynically
using and abusing innocent children to increase the power of
grown-ups.

Against this foe, we have no illusions that our struggle will be easy,
that laws will be passed tomorrow to free our children. Even were this
to happen, it would be to little avail. New laws are only as effective
as the citizens who demand them. The means of freeing our children are
already in our own hands. Our children will be free when their fathers
stand up and speak out like men. Families will be safe and strong when
parents everywhere know they must join us and build upon our work or
face destruction, as we do now.

Defeat is not an option, because we fight for our very survival and
for the survival of our children, and of their children. We will
comport ourselves with dignified outrage. We will never cross the line
into violence. But neither will we relent, withdraw, or surrender. And
if we are struck down, others will rise up in our place.


How Far Do We Go?


How we speak out is a decision that each of us must make alone.

Throughout the US and the world, parents are finding bold and creative ways of calling attention to this tyranny.

Their courage is producing results.

Each of us has our own views about the most fundamental questions before us: the goals we seek, the priorities we deem most urgent, the methods of achieving those aims.

Inevitably, differences and disagreements must arise. As always, there
will be the cautious and the impatient, the timid and the eager, the
moderates and the militants. In our case, however, these differences
represent more: Often, they reflect what the government has done (and
can still do) to us in particular and to our children.

To the usual need for unity and forbearance of differences, therefore,
we have a special need for charity toward one another. No man who sees
his children has a right to brand as extreme one who does not.
Likewise, no man has a right to label as timid one who, by acting
rashly, could lose access to his children as a result. Were the
circumstances reversed, the self-styled man of reason may be the one
to find himself (as journalists say) "foaming at the mouth," and the
coward may prove a hero.


What You Can Do


The power of the divorce regime is formidable, but the power in our
own hands is much greater. They are trading in lies, and as Dr. King
said, "No lie can live forever."

Beyond the power of the truth, we have 15-20 million non-custodial
parents, plus tens of millions more who love and support them. United
in one voice and with our friends abroad, we have the power to check
the global destruction of families.

But even short of that, your personal action now sends a message to
your own children in particular, even children whom you may think have
been irrevocably lost to you: Their father or mother loves them enough
to sacrifice, to risk, and to act.

In times of crisis, people often ask, "Where are the heroes?" In this
crisis, the heroes can come from only one place: the parents, and
foremost fathers. You may not realize it yet, but eventually the eyes
of the world and of history will be upon us. We will be weighed in the
balance, and future generations will judge what we do.

Copyright © 2004 Stephen Baskerville




Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
David Moss
2008-03-22 23:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Orwell
Copyright © 2004 Stephen Baskerville
Spam.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
invinoveritas
2008-03-23 00:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Orwell
Copyright © 2004 Stephen Baskerville
Spam.

Maybe for old farth like you.....

Others have to live through it
David Moss
2008-03-23 03:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by invinoveritas
Post by George Orwell
Copyright © 2004 Stephen Baskerville
Spam.
Maybe for old farth like you.....
Others have to live through it
No, most people only read far enough to realize it is spam, then hit the
delete button.

Not only was it spam, but it was stale, past-its-use-by-date spam. It
still talked about the Howard government.

If you want people to swallow your spam, stock rotation is essential.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Peter Jason
2008-03-31 01:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Cut the Gordian Knot and require parents to
get a licence to have children.

We need a licence for nearly everything else.

It seems every dumb Bimbo and her sleep-over
knuckle-dragger can have children at will,
and then throw all responsibility on to we
poor suffering taxpayers!

There is no dearth of people on the Earth, so
why not do it?
Post by George Orwell
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:12:49 GMT, David
Poor journalism?
Controlled by one man worldwide?
Families today are under attack as never
before. But this
attack does not come primarily from
pornography, television, rock
music, drugs, or even homosexuality. The
attack comes from government,
and it targets the family's weakest and
most vulnerable point: the
father.
The wholesale separation of children from
their fathers, the
mass incarceration of fathers without due
process of law, the seizure
of children from both mothers and fathers,
the abuse of children by
the very officials who claim to be
protecting them - this is hidden
behind a media blackout, hidden behind the
silence of the politicians,
but it is the terrifying reality for
millions of Americans.
The crisis is especially acute now. Sharp
increases in
already-crushing "child support" burdens,
new penalties ostensibly to
combat "domestic violence" - these will
produce more broken homes and
fatherless children, more parents in jail,
and further erosion of
constitutional rights.
But it is also a hopeful time. As
Australians wake up to the crimes
being committed against families by their
own government, they shake
their heads in disbelief but cannot deny
the reality they witness in
their own lives. The media and politicians
too can no longer look the
other way, as fathers speak out and
organize to protect their
families.
Family and marriage issues are on the front
pages around the world.
Parents are now resisting the government's
intrusions with new
determination. I hear parents asking how
they can become active,
pledging to sacrifice whatever is required,
vowing never to relent,
dedicating the remainder of their lives to
rescue their children from
the clutches of this cruel machine. And
yes, I hear some parents
(increasing numbers, it seems) threatening
to use measures which we
dare not condone. But I also hear them
vowing sacrifices which we can
only admire.
Even now, we witness courageous deeds and
heroic sacrifices. In
Britain, fathers have placed their demands
on the front pages of the
most prestigious news organizations in the
world. In Australia, Prime
Minister John Howard has put divorce and
custody issues before the
national legislature. In Canada, debates on
custody law are also
national news.
What Lies Ahead?
As fathers and parents, we are uniquely
situated to lead families out
of this bondage, as others have done
before. But we must have no
illusions. Before we reach the promised
land of freedom, we must fight
our way through a wilderness of despair.
"deadbeat," "batterer," "pedophile,"
and more. We must withstand scorn from the
media and politicians that
offers us no platform to defend ourselves.
We must be prepared to
endure fabricated accusations of the most
hideous crimes against our
own children, with few constitutional
protections for our rights. We
must face summary incarceration from
government bullies motivated by a
toxic mix of self-righteousness and
self-dealing. Indeed, some of us
will find ourselves called upon to make (as
some have already) the
supreme sacrifice that fathers have never
hesitated to make for the
children.
We must dispense with the illusion that
others will win this struggle
for us. We must discard the vain hope that
if only we inform them of
the terrible injustices perpetrated against
parents and children, then
journalists, politicians, family advocates,
or civil libertarians will
wake up, and do their jobs, and end this
injustice.
The bitter truth is that no one can "save
the children" but their
parents. We alone are responsible for our
children, and we alone must
protect them. No one will cry for us if we
succumb. No one will
respect us if we complain. No one will
listen to our excuses if we
fail. No one - including our children
themselves. The entire burden
rests upon us and no one else. But when we
succeed - and we will
succeed - we will create a legacy of moral
authority and family
strength that will be passed to our
children, and to theirs, and
beyond.
Even the most vicious among our opponents
have paid us this high
tribute: They have made us responsible.
"Father absence," we are told
(and told correctly), accounts for
virtually all today's social
problems. And so we are blamed for being
"absent" - even when we have
no right to be present. We are held
responsible when a marriage ends,
even when we did not end it. We alone are
made responsible for
providing for our children, even when they
are forcibly removed from
our care. We alone are held responsible for
violence in the family,
even when we have not committed it (and
even when it is committed
against us). We are held responsible for
the abuse of our children,
even when they are abused by others. We are
held responsible for the
wayward behavior of our children, even when
we are not permitted to
offer them guidance and correction. Even
when it is beyond our
control, we alone are responsible.
We must not shirk this responsibility, for
it is the essence of
fatherhood. We must embrace it, for it is
the salvation of our
children and the restoration of our
families. It is time we took the
fair-weather friends of fatherhood at their
word by standing up and
taking action. The time for talk is past.
It is now time to act.
Who We Are
So let us take this opportunity to state
clearly before the world who
we are and what we stand for.
There are those who claim to advocate for
an abstraction called
"fatherhood." Others describe themselves as
defenders of "the" family.
Many are well-intentioned. But they tend to
be political
professionals, and they often claim to
speak for "the children," not
their own.
Some of these professionals chide us
because (they say) we are looking
out for our own interests, our own
families. They seem to claim moral
superiority because they concern themselves
with other people's
children.
It is true that we have a personal interest
in preserving families.
Because we (and we alone) are defending our
families. For us, the
family is not an abstraction or an object
for our good deeds. We do
not pretend to be motivated by concern for
someone else's children. We
concern ourselves only with our own. We are
not crusaders or zealots.
And we are not professionals. We are proud
to be amateurs (literally,
those "who love"). We are parents, and our
aims are limited. But that
is not our weakness; that is our strength.
It is our strength because we have the
authority not of paid officials
but of parents and citizens. Politicians
always promise to return
power to "the people." But we are the
people. We have endured much
from the politicians, but when they take
our children, we draw a line.
The good intentions of fatherhood
promoters, family defenders, and
children's advocates cannot meet the test.
They will not fight for our
children. They will not sacrifice for our
children. They will not risk
their careers or livelihoods or lives for
our children. They will not
die for our children.
There is no such abstraction as "the"
family. There are only families
- our families. We alone can and will
defend them. If others wish to
help - journalists, politicians, defenders
of the Constitution,
critics of the judiciary, civil
libertarians - we welcome them, and
they will have our gratitude. But we must
make it clear to friend and
foe alike that this is foremost our
struggle. We - and we alone - can
save families, because they are our
families.
Likewise, we do not trumpet an abstraction
called "fatherhood." We are
concerned with our fatherhood, the
fatherhood of each individual
father. And we will establish it not with
words that cost nothing but
with deeds that may cost us dearly indeed.
If those who pose as the champions of
fatherhood dislike our deeds,
then it is time they examined what they
mean by "fatherhood." For if
it means anything less than defending one's
children against those who
would interfere with them or take them
away, then theirs is a
definition of fatherhood we find wanting.
They are entitled to their
opinion, of course, but we are entitled to
our children. And our
children are entitled to us.
Opinions are important (to a point), and "a
decent respect to the
opinions of mankind" is obligatory in a
democracy. But few who have
both would regard their opinions as being
of equal importance as their
children. While we respect the opinions of
others about the best
interest of children in the abstract, we
expect others to respect our
decisions about the best interest of our
own children. And we expect
them to understand something more: that no
parent is answerable to
government officials for how they raise
their children or for
exercising their right and duty to protect
them. The best interest of
children is a continued meaningful
relationship with both parents. And
the best way to achieve that is limit the
discretion of judges with a
rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared
parenting
Where We Stand Now
It is impossible to overestimate the burden
that weighs upon our
shoulders. We face a government that
threatens our children, our
lives, our Constitution, and quite possibly
the very basis of
civilization itself. Before our very eyes
we see history's greatest
experiment in human freedom being debased
into a ruthless, depraved,
diabolical tyranny.
It has fallen to us "to wage war against a
monstrous tyranny, never
surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue
of human crime." But this
tyranny does not come from abroad; it has
arisen in our very midst. It
is a tyranny of cowards, that hides in
secret courtrooms and protected
offices, that fears the citizens it
ostensibly serves, while cynically
using and abusing innocent children to
increase the power of
grown-ups.
Against this foe, we have no illusions that
our struggle will be easy,
that laws will be passed tomorrow to free
our children. Even were this
to happen, it would be to little avail. New
laws are only as effective
as the citizens who demand them. The means
of freeing our children are
already in our own hands. Our children will
be free when their fathers
stand up and speak out like men. Families
will be safe and strong when
parents everywhere know they must join us
and build upon our work or
face destruction, as we do now.
Defeat is not an option, because we fight
for our very survival and
for the survival of our children, and of
their children. We will
comport ourselves with dignified outrage.
We will never cross the line
into violence. But neither will we relent,
withdraw, or surrender. And
if we are struck down, others will rise up
in our place.
How Far Do We Go?
How we speak out is a decision that each of
us must make alone.
Throughout the US and the world, parents
are finding bold and creative ways of
calling attention to this tyranny.
Their courage is producing results.
Each of us has our own views about the
most fundamental questions before us: the
goals we seek, the priorities we deem most
urgent, the methods of achieving those
aims.
Inevitably, differences and disagreements
must arise. As always, there
will be the cautious and the impatient, the
timid and the eager, the
moderates and the militants. In our case,
however, these differences
represent more: Often, they reflect what
the government has done (and
can still do) to us in particular and to
our children.
To the usual need for unity and forbearance
of differences, therefore,
we have a special need for charity toward
one another. No man who sees
his children has a right to brand as
extreme one who does not.
Likewise, no man has a right to label as
timid one who, by acting
rashly, could lose access to his children
as a result. Were the
circumstances reversed, the self-styled man
of reason may be the one
to find himself (as journalists say)
"foaming at the mouth," and the
coward may prove a hero.
What You Can Do
The power of the divorce regime is
formidable, but the power in our
own hands is much greater. They are trading
in lies, and as Dr. King
said, "No lie can live forever."
Beyond the power of the truth, we have
15-20 million non-custodial
parents, plus tens of millions more who
love and support them. United
in one voice and with our friends abroad,
we have the power to check
the global destruction of families.
But even short of that, your personal
action now sends a message to
your own children in particular, even
children whom you may think have
been irrevocably lost to you: Their father
or mother loves them enough
to sacrifice, to risk, and to act.
In times of crisis, people often ask,
"Where are the heroes?" In this
crisis, the heroes can come from only one
place: the parents, and
foremost fathers. You may not realize it
yet, but eventually the eyes
of the world and of history will be upon
us. We will be weighed in the
balance, and future generations will judge
what we do.
Copyright © 2004 Stephen Baskerville
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender
address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is
not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but
to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous
system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more
info
https://www.mixmaster.it
George Orwell
2008-03-26 08:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Which means you have no legitimate reason to use remailers.
See section 121 of the family law act

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
David Moss
2008-03-26 11:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Orwell
Post by David Moss
Which means you have no legitimate reason to use remailers.
See section 121 of the family law act
Poppycock.

I generally get around this kind of thing by referring to a person I
know very well. I don't name the person, but I assure you I always know
the person very well indeed.

Of course I'm not compelled to rant about particular people, calling
them by name at every opportunity. If I see a systematic flaw I go after
the flaw, not individual people.

It is quite possible to talk about flaws in the legal system without
naming individuals. It is also possible to talk about the Family Court
using your real name even if you have once been a respondent in that
court. The systematic flaws are independent of the individuals in
particular cases. Just don't mention the individuals, or that you are
personally involved in the situation you describe.

No, I'm afraid I don't believe s121 is the real reason you employ a
remailer. I think you want to hurt and defame people and s121 is just a
lame excuse for a gutless stalker.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Anonymous
2008-03-30 08:25:28 UTC
Permalink
writes...
<unlawfull David Moss crap deleted>

"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html#marriage
David Moss
2008-03-30 13:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
writes...
<unlawfull David Moss crap deleted>
"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html#marriage
I'll see your Marriage Act (1961) and raise you a Family Law Act (1975)

"divorce" means the termination of a marriage otherwise than by the
death of a party to the marriage.

*************
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 48
Divorce
(1) An application under this Act for a divorce order in
relation to a marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage
has broken down irretrievably.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), in a proceeding instituted
by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been
established, and the divorce order shall be made, if, and only if, the
court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived
separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months
immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for the
divorce order.

(3) A divorce order shall not be made if the court is
satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being
resumed.
**************

I understand all three of these provisions were established and you and
your ex-wife were divorced.

Time to face facts and move on Mr Remailer.
Past time, in fact.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-04-04 06:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
writes...
<unlawfull David Moss crap deleted>
"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html#marriage
I'll see your Marriage Act (1961) and raise you a Family Law Act (1975)

"divorce" means the termination of a marriage otherwise than by the
death of a party to the marriage.

*************
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 48
Divorce
(1) An application under this Act for a divorce order in
relation to a marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage
has broken down irretrievably.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), in a proceeding instituted
by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been
established, and the divorce order shall be made, if, and only if, the
court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived
separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months
immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for the
divorce order.

(3) A divorce order shall not be made if the court is
satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being
resumed.
**************

I understand all three of these provisions were established and you and
your ex-wife were divorced.

Time to face facts and move on Mr Remailer.
Past time, in fact.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Borked Pseudo Mailed
2008-03-31 09:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
writes...
<unlawful David Moss crap deleted>
"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html#marriage
I'll see your Marriage Act (1961) and raise you a Family Law Act (1975)
"divorce" means the termination of a marriage otherwise than by the
death of a party to the marriage.
*************
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 48
Divorce
(1) An application under this Act for a divorce order in
relation to a marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage
has broken down irretrievably.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), in a proceeding instituted
by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been
established, and the divorce order shall be made, if, and only if, the
court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived
separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months
immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for the
divorce order.
(3) A divorce order shall not be made if the court is
satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being
resumed.
**************
I understand all three of these provisions were established and you and
your ex-wife were divorced.
Isn't interesting that this UNLAWFUL amendments (negating definition of marriage in the same ACT - "for life") was introduced approximately at the same time as Child Support Agency and Family Court on request of feminists and in the year when Whitlam was replaced by freemason Fraser?

More data:

a.. Australian Child Support Agency decisions are the ONLY reasons for more
than 20 male suicides EVERY WEEK. This is more than 1,000 deliberate murders
by Government Public Servants every year!

a.. 1,510,455 women and 834,732 men victims of domestic violence 1.5% vs.
0.8% in one year, 22.1% vs. 7.4% lifetime-why the discrepancy?

a.. Annual physical assault rate-44.2/1000 women, 31.5/1000 men
Average 3.5 victimizations per male victim, 3.4 per female victim

a.. 1.1% of married/co-habiting women and 0.6% of men assaulted annually

a.. About twice as many male victims has a knife used on them (10.8% to
4.1%), were threatened with a knife (21.6% to 12.7%), or were hit with an
object likely to cause harm (43.2% to 22.6%.

Exhibits above percentage of subjects surveyed, not percentage of subjects
assaulted. See below. For example, "threw something" is 8% of the 8,000
women surveyed, not 8% of the 1,768 surveyed women who were assaulted. 36.7%
of the assaulted women surveyed had something thrown at them, and 59.5% of
the assaulted men. 96.8% of women and 90.5% of men assaulted experienced one
of the more serious forms of assault.

a.. Well over half the men, but only 40% of the women, were physically
assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child.

a.. As children: mother (alone or with other) the physical abuser in 43% of
cases, responsible for 48% of fatalities.

Father (alone or with other) physical abuser in 28% of cases, responsible
for 12%.

All above is from:
U.S. DHHS Children's Bureau, Child Maltreatment 1999
DM
2008-03-31 10:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
Post by David Moss
writes...
<unlawful David Moss crap deleted>
"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html#ma...
I'll see your Marriage Act (1961) and raise you a Family Law Act (1975)
"divorce" means the termination of a marriage otherwise than by the
death of a party to the marriage.
*************
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 48
Divorce
(1) An application under this Act for a divorce order in
relation to a marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage
has broken down irretrievably.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), in a proceeding instituted
by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been
established, and the divorce order shall be made, if, and only if, the
court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived
separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months
immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for the
divorce order.
(3) A divorce order shall not be made if the court is
satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being
resumed.
**************
I understand all three of these provisions were established and you and
your ex-wife were divorced.
Isn't interesting that this UNLAWFUL amendments (negating definition of marriage in the same ACT - "for life") was introduced approximately at the same time as Child Support Agency and Family Court on request of feminists and in the year when Whitlam was replaced by freemason Fraser?
[cut]

No, I don't think it is interesting that you ignored my rebuttal and
spammed in a ream of data as a distraction.

You do acknowledge however that the Family Law Act 1975 superceded the
earlier Marriage Act 1961, so I assume you concede marriage is no
longer deemed to be for life in Australia.

Thats a start.

DM
Personal opinion only
Anonymous Sender
2008-04-02 23:55:01 UTC
Permalink
"samvaknin" <***@mt.net.mk> wrote in message news:10d446a1-ca6b-4ee5-beb9-***@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Look Ilya Shambat is back as Sam Wanker !
Nomen Nescio
2008-04-06 10:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
BTW have you managed to find a job within stalking distance yet?
DM
Heil Hitler
__________________
ARBEIT MACHT FREI
In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell


At the moment we drag fragile and damaged adults (fathers) through courts and we punish them.

We demonize them;

We take away their children or their right to see their children.

What we don't do is to recognize that children born into a nightmare often become a nightmare.

The way forward is through compassion and understanding.

http://www.femininezone.com/articles.php?a=read&aid=293

Erin Pizzey ©

Read this article if:
a.. You're a man suffering violence from a woman
b.. You're a woman who's prone to being violent
c.. You just want to understand why some women are like this

Domestic violence against men is one of the last
taboos - men don't like talking about it much, neither do the women.

And the 'agencies' - the Police, social services and so on almost refuse to believe
that it exists.

Erin strongly believes that these women are themselves victims as well as the men they beat up, and she is looking to speak to more women so that she can understand more about this phenomenon.

"In violence, we forget who we are." Mary McCarthy
anonymum
2008-04-09 01:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Post by David Moss
BTW have you managed to find a job within stalking distance yet?
DM
Heil Hitler
__________________
ARBEIT MACHT FREI
In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell
At the moment we drag fragile and damaged adults (fathers) through courts and we punish them.  
We demonize them;
We take away their children or their right to see their children.  
What we don't do is to recognize that children born into a nightmare often become a nightmare.  
The way forward is through compassion and understanding.
http://www.femininezone.com/articles.php?a=read&aid=293
Erin Pizzey ©
  a.. You're a man suffering violence from a woman
  b.. You're a woman who's prone to being violent
  c.. You just want to understand why some women are like this
Domestic violence against men is one of the last
taboos - men don't like talking about it much, neither do the women.  
And the 'agencies' - the Police, social services and so on almost refuse to believe
that it exists.  
Erin strongly believes that these women are themselves victims as well as the men they beat up, and she is looking to speak to more women so that she can understand more about this phenomenon.
"In violence, we forget who we are."  Mary McCarthy
Your statement is unfounded and nothing but a campaign of
disinformation. World Health Organisation amongst others that have
been researching domestic violence a lot longer than many others
clearly state that factors of domestic violence against men are very
low. It is also proven the triats of a psychopath will often mimic
its victim to confuse and manipulate a sympathetic audience.
Out of the devastation and destruction we gave birth to anonymums
http://anonymum.bravehost.com
http://www.myspace.com/anonymums
http://anonymums.blogspot.com
Anonymous
2008-04-07 13:23:00 UTC
Permalink
One of the most frightening aspects of our modern world is the incredible
rise in the rate of male suicide.

Sadly, it has been a topic which many, including both State and Federal
politicians have found more convenient to ignore. For a variety of reasons,
many of which have more to do with social politics, male suicide is now
pandemic in our society. It effects Judges, Police, Doctors, all other
professionals as well as "Mr Average". This scourge affects us all. The cost
to the community is huge, not to mention the effect on the love ones who are
left to carry on.

Male suicide has even touched the high office of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Western Australia.

It is simply a scandal that government is doing nothing effective to meet
the challenge. Why? Because the real reason for this huge rise in the cases
of male suicide is the nature of men's roles in our changing society. Men
are being disenfranchised at every level. They are no longer needed as
fathers or as providers for their family. They are no longer valued by
employers. Men are seen as violators of human rights including the sole
perpetrators of domestic violence. In short men have been made to carry the
load of social reform in modern Australia.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Coroner's Office and
the Health Department of Western Australia show the male suicide rate in
this state, between the ages of 39 to 55, has increased a massive 48 percent
over the past two years 1998-1999! As evidence of political ambivalence, the
State Minister for Health, John Day was quoted as saying in the local press
that his figures showed that there had not been a significant rise in the WA
male suicide rate over the past five years. Well Minister, if a rise of 48
percent over two years is not significant, then WHAT IS? MINISTER YOU ARE A
DISGRACE. In the mean time, men continue to take their lives, the result of
the disaffection they feel from our society and their role in it.

Men are faced on a daily basis with the prospect of having everything they
have worked for over their working years, being taken from them by THE
FAMILY COURT, even though they have done nothing wrong. Many can not see
their children the result of a dysfunctional Court system which has become
so perverted that it punishes men for being men, and rewards women for being
women. Judgments in the Court made by judges and others who can best be
described as being intellectual pygmies, are routinely made according to
gender and perceived gender roles. Is it any wonder why men are taking their
lives at a rate never seen before in this country?

Our media is full of of the virtues of young female students and their
achievements at school. Male students on the other hand battle on in the
face of community ambivalence to their achievements. More often than not,
males particular educational needs are ignored, thus leading to under
achievement in the academic world. Just look at the figures from our
Universities. Women now make up more than 60 percent of undergraduates! Who
will address this imbalance?

The sad reality is no one has the will to call a spade a spade. No
politician has the guts to come out and do it for fear of being pilloried by
the vocal feminists who will descend from their self righteous and self
given pal pit.

Make your feelings known on this and other issues. Call your member of
parliament, your local newspaper and become active in redressing this most
serious of social issues as it effects men.

Source: http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p8
Anonymous Sender
2008-04-07 13:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Which leads us to the woman who chucked out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the kids. Thats a family zoo.
Homosexual and idiots theory !

The facts are:

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN?
(1) In terms of the effects of divorce on children, as a group, we can
conclude that divorce roughly doubles the rates of emotional and behavioral
adjustment problems in children. Though the effect sizes are small, they are
very consistent (see: Gregory, 1965; Hetherington, 1989; Hetherington, Cox,
Cox, 1985; Hetherington, Stanley-Hagan, Anderson, 1989; Wallerstein, 1985;
Wallerstein, 1991; Wallerstein Blakeslee, 1989; Wallerstein Kelly, 1980b;
Zill, Morrison, Coiro, 1993; Zimiles Lee, 1991).

(2) The effects of divorce on boys appear to be more immediate and dramatic,
especially in mother-headed households. These are increases in aggressive,
disruptive, acting out behaviors. Boys in single-mother households are
considered to be "developmentally vulnerable" and at risk for high levels of
acting out behavior (Gregory, 1965; Kalter, 1977, 1987; Hetherington, 1989;
Hetherington, Cox, Cox, 1985; Warshak, 1992; Zaslow, 1988, 1989; Zimiles
Lee, 1991).

(3) The effects of divorce on girls (provided mother doesn't re-marry), are
minimal, until adolescence. Girls of divorce show no increased risk of
behavior problems, as compared with girls from intact families, until
adolescence. Then, they show increased rates of running away, skipping
school, sexual promiscuity, and acting out. These girls are more likely to
drop out of school and become pregnant outside of marriage. This has been
dubbed "the sleeper effect". (Allison Furstenberg, 1989; Hetherington, 1989;
Hetherington Deur, 1971; Hetherington, 1991; Kalter, 1977; Kalter, et al.,
1984; Hetherington, 1972, 1973).

(4) The adult children of divorce experience lower levels of reported
happiness, higher levels of psychological problems, lower levels of marital
happiness, and a higher rate of divorce in their own marriages . This is
kown as the intergenerational transmission of divorce (Amato, 1996; Kulka
Weingarten, 1979; Glenn Kramer, 1985; Glenn Shelton, 1983).

(5) Women who come from divorced homes are more likely to have their own
marriages end in divorce than men from divorced homes. When both partners
come from divorced homes, the chances that their own marriage will end in
divorce is triple that of a couple who both grow up in intact homes (Amato,
1996).

(6) What seems to be transmitted to the children of divorce is a tendency
toward lower rates of education, early marriage, living together before
marriage, and a group of behaviors which can be described as: lower
commitment to marriage, infidelity, problems with anger management, feelings
of insecurity, neediness, demandingness, denial and blame, contempt, and
poor conflict resolution skills (Amato, 1996; Hetherington, Bridges,
Insabella, 1998).

At this time, we are not sure if what is being transmitted is
genetic-biochemical, or behavior patterns that are learned, or some
interaction of both.

See O'Connor, et al. (2000), for a complete discussion of this topic.
anonymum
2008-04-09 01:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
@mail.connect.usq.edu.au writes...
Which leads us to the woman who chucked out her undesirable first
husband, her new live in boyfriend and the kids. Thats a family zoo.
Homosexual  and idiots theory !
 WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN?
(1) In terms of the effects of divorce on children, as a group, we can
conclude that divorce roughly doubles the rates of emotional and behavioral
adjustment problems in children. Though the effect sizes are small, they are
very consistent (see: Gregory, 1965; Hetherington, 1989; Hetherington, Cox,
Cox, 1985; Hetherington, Stanley-Hagan, Anderson, 1989; Wallerstein, 1985;
Wallerstein, 1991; Wallerstein Blakeslee, 1989; Wallerstein Kelly, 1980b;
Zill, Morrison, Coiro, 1993; Zimiles Lee, 1991).
(2) The effects of divorce on boys appear to be more immediate and dramatic,
especially in mother-headed households. These are increases in aggressive,
disruptive, acting out behaviors. Boys in single-mother households are
considered to be "developmentally vulnerable" and at risk for high levels of
acting out behavior (Gregory, 1965; Kalter, 1977, 1987; Hetherington, 1989;
Hetherington, Cox, Cox, 1985; Warshak, 1992; Zaslow, 1988, 1989; Zimiles
Lee, 1991).
(3) The effects of divorce on girls (provided mother doesn't re-marry), are
minimal, until adolescence. Girls of divorce show no increased risk of
behavior problems, as compared with girls from intact families, until
adolescence. Then, they show increased rates of running away, skipping
school, sexual promiscuity, and acting out. These girls are more likely to
drop out of school and become pregnant outside of marriage. This has been
dubbed "the sleeper effect". (Allison Furstenberg, 1989; Hetherington, 1989;
Hetherington Deur, 1971; Hetherington, 1991; Kalter, 1977; Kalter, et al.,
1984; Hetherington, 1972, 1973).
(4) The adult children of divorce experience lower levels of reported
happiness, higher levels of psychological problems, lower levels of marital
happiness, and a higher rate of divorce in their own marriages . This is
kown as the intergenerational transmission of divorce (Amato, 1996; Kulka
Weingarten, 1979; Glenn Kramer, 1985; Glenn Shelton, 1983).
(5) Women who come from divorced homes are more likely to have their own
marriages end in divorce than men from divorced homes. When both partners
come from divorced homes, the chances that their own marriage will end in
divorce is triple that of a couple who both grow up in intact homes (Amato,
1996).
(6) What seems to be transmitted to the children of divorce is a tendency
toward lower rates of education, early marriage, living together before
marriage, and a group of behaviors which can be described as: lower
commitment to marriage, infidelity, problems with anger management, feelings
of insecurity, neediness, demandingness, denial and blame, contempt, and
poor conflict resolution skills (Amato, 1996; Hetherington, Bridges,
Insabella, 1998).
At this time, we are not sure if what is being transmitted is
genetic-biochemical, or behavior patterns that are learned, or some
interaction of both.
See O'Connor, et al. (2000), for a complete discussion of this topic.
You are using research on separation that excludes the detrimental
factor of domestic violence.
Anonymous
2008-04-07 13:39:49 UTC
Permalink
writes...
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Really, please show these stats to back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family Court?
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Try statistics before 1975 and after 1998.

In 1975 feminist/homosexual preffered laws were introduced together with
terrorist unconstitutional institution like Child Support Agency and Family
Court.

In 1998 Family Violence Intervention Program was introduced with RADIP
EXTREME increase of male suicides so Government started to hide statistics
clearly demonstrating their genocide intentions against male population.

Thanks God Labors (mostly female Government) at least try to get some sense
in the disriminatory law:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html

FIVE Australian men commit suicide each day compared with just one woman,
according to an academic who says the nation urgently needs a national men's
health policy.

The single major cause of male suicide is the Australian Family Law system,
that's common knowledge among divorced men. There are over 400 individual
services provided by various levels of government solely for women, from
safe shelters for victims of domestic abuse through to free breast cancer
screening. Services solely for men... ZERO. No counselling, no health
services, nothing.

Before the November election Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced a Labor
government would develop a men's health policy to complement the women's
policy created 20 years ago.

Professor John Macdonald from the Australasian Men's Health Forum said it
was vital men's health was put on the national agenda.

"Five men a day kill themselves in our country, one woman," he said. "That's
atrocious - what's the country doing with that now?"

He said it was very old men and those between the ages of 25 and 55 who were
killing themselves and there was no national consciousness about it.

"If it were five whales a day ... we'd be out there pushing them back into
the sea," he said.

"But five males a day, who knows? Who cares? There's something strange
happening."

Prof Macdonald said the problems fathers face when they are separated from
their children during family break-ups must also be addressed.

"There's a lot of evidence that that impacts on the stress on your immune
system, makes you more vulnerable to not just mental but physical diseases,"
he said.


Let's see, every man is either a child molester, wife beater or a bastard.
The labels that are constantly placed on men has been damaging for years.
Not surprising that so many take their own lives. Furthermore, the new
financial stresses placed on men and families will result in more suicides.


Child Support is hounding me for over $900 a month and I have my kids 50% of
the time. I am about to lose my house because of them. I feel like selling
up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It is all getting too hard.. The X has
4 kids with 3 different men and seems to get Rewarded for it... It sucks...


feminism, feminism, feminism, the downfall of our society, discrimination
agaist men is something that society silences.
David Moss
2008-04-08 13:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Try statistics before 1975 and after 1998.
Find them and post them. I've done my bit.
You may even find it fun to contribute more than spam to aus.politics!
--
DM
anonymum
2008-04-09 01:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Anonymous
Post by David Moss
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Try statistics before 1975 and after 1998.
Find them and post them. I've done my bit.
You may even find it fun to contribute more than spam to aus.politics!
--
DM
Peter Jason
2008-04-09 06:34:57 UTC
Permalink
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
In article
writes...
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Really, please show these stats to
back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family
Court?
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
Source: Family Court of
Australia.Custody/Residence Order
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Try statistics before 1975 and after 1998.
In 1975 feminist/homosexual preffered laws
were introduced together with
terrorist unconstitutional institution like
Child Support Agency and Family
Court.
In 1998 Family Violence Intervention
Program was introduced with RADIP
EXTREME increase of male suicides so
Government started to hide statistics
clearly demonstrating their genocide
intentions against male population.
Thanks God Labors (mostly female
Government) at least try to get some sense
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html
FIVE Australian men commit suicide each day
compared with just one woman,
according to an academic who says the
nation urgently needs a national men's
health policy.
The single major cause of male suicide is
the Australian Family Law system,
that's common knowledge among divorced men.
There are over 400 individual
services provided by various levels of
government solely for women, from
safe shelters for victims of domestic abuse
through to free breast cancer
screening. Services solely for men... ZERO.
No counselling, no health
services, nothing.
Before the November election Health
Minister Nicola Roxon announced a Labor
government would develop a men's health
policy to complement the women's
policy created 20 years ago.
Professor John Macdonald from the
Australasian Men's Health Forum said it
was vital men's health was put on the
national agenda.
"Five men a day kill themselves in our
country, one woman," he said. "That's
atrocious - what's the country doing with
that now?"
He said it was very old men and those
between the ages of 25 and 55 who were
killing themselves and there was no
national consciousness about it.
"If it were five whales a day ... we'd be
out there pushing them back into
the sea," he said.
"But five males a day, who knows? Who
cares? There's something strange
happening."
Prof Macdonald said the problems fathers
face when they are separated from
their children during family break-ups must
also be addressed.
"There's a lot of evidence that that
impacts on the stress on your immune
system, makes you more vulnerable to not
just mental but physical diseases,"
he said.
Let's see, every man is either a child
molester, wife beater or a bastard.
The labels that are constantly placed on
men has been damaging for years.
Not surprising that so many take their own
lives. Furthermore, the new
financial stresses placed on men and
families will result in more suicides.
Child Support is hounding me for over $900
a month and I have my kids 50% of
the time. I am about to lose my house
because of them. I feel like selling
up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It is
all getting too hard.. The X has
4 kids with 3 different men and seems to
get Rewarded for it... It sucks...
feminism, feminism, feminism, the downfall
of our society, discrimination
agaist men is something that society
silences.
Heavens! What a horrible existence. And what
happens if you remarry and have children; do
you still have to pay for your old family?

Wouldn't this compromise the existence of
your new family?

And isn't your old wife with her $900/month
children obliged to seek a new man in her
life to take over the care of the kids? Or
at least live in some "single-mothers
commune" where the women can share the
expenses and child-raising responsibilities?

An old lady acquaintance of mine married in
haste to some dullard, and after 2 children
woke up to the realities and divorced him.
Wisely, after the usual 50:50 asset split,
she ignored the lawyers and simply walked
away from the old mess taking the children
with her. The husband disappeared and
remarried successfully. She never
remarried and got a job and brought up her
own kids.

My advice:

Go broke and emigrate
Oksana Gutteridge
2008-04-09 06:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Jason
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
In article
writes...
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Really, please show these stats to
back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family
Court?
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
Source: Family Court of
Australia.Custody/Residence Order
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Try statistics before 1975 and after 1998.
In 1975 feminist/homosexual preffered laws
were introduced together with
terrorist unconstitutional institution like
Child Support Agency and Family
Court.
In 1998 Family Violence Intervention
Program was introduced with RADIP
EXTREME increase of male suicides so
Government started to hide statistics
clearly demonstrating their genocide
intentions against male population.
Thanks God Labors (mostly female
Government) at least try to get some sense
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html
FIVE Australian men commit suicide each day
compared with just one woman,
according to an academic who says the
nation urgently needs a national men's
health policy.
The single major cause of male suicide is
the Australian Family Law system,
that's common knowledge among divorced men.
There are over 400 individual
services provided by various levels of
government solely for women, from
safe shelters for victims of domestic abuse
through to free breast cancer
screening. Services solely for men... ZERO.
No counselling, no health
services, nothing.
Before the November election Health
Minister Nicola Roxon announced a Labor
government would develop a men's health
policy to complement the women's
policy created 20 years ago.
Professor John Macdonald from the
Australasian Men's Health Forum said it
was vital men's health was put on the
national agenda.
"Five men a day kill themselves in our
country, one woman," he said. "That's
atrocious - what's the country doing with
that now?"
He said it was very old men and those
between the ages of 25 and 55 who were
killing themselves and there was no
national consciousness about it.
"If it were five whales a day ... we'd be
out there pushing them back into
the sea," he said.
"But five males a day, who knows? Who
cares? There's something strange
happening."
Prof Macdonald said the problems fathers
face when they are separated from
their children during family break-ups must
also be addressed.
"There's a lot of evidence that that
impacts on the stress on your immune
system, makes you more vulnerable to not
just mental but physical diseases,"
he said.
Let's see, every man is either a child
molester, wife beater or a bastard.
The labels that are constantly placed on
men has been damaging for years.
Not surprising that so many take their own
lives. Furthermore, the new
financial stresses placed on men and
families will result in more suicides.
Child Support is hounding me for over $900
a month and I have my kids 50% of
the time. I am about to lose my house
because of them. I feel like selling
up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It is
all getting too hard.. The X has
4 kids with 3 different men and seems to
get Rewarded for it... It sucks...
feminism, feminism, feminism, the downfall
of our society, discrimination
agaist men is something that society
silences.
Heavens! What a horrible existence. And what
happens if you remarry and have children; do
you still have to pay for your old family?
Wouldn't this compromise the existence of
your new family?
And isn't your old wife with her $900/month
children obliged to seek a new man in her
life to take over the care of the kids? Or
at least live in some "single-mothers
commune" where the women can share the
expenses and child-raising responsibilities?
An old lady acquaintance of mine married in
haste to some dullard, and after 2 children
woke up to the realities and divorced him.
Wisely, after the usual 50:50 asset split,
she ignored the lawyers and simply walked
away from the old mess taking the children
with her. The husband disappeared and
remarried successfully. She never
remarried and got a job and brought up her
own kids.
Go broke and emigrate
Better advice:

Don't marry a dullard.
anonymum
2008-04-10 16:48:08 UTC
Permalink
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
In article
writes...
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Really, please show these stats to
back up your claim.
Oh, you mean gender bias by the Family
Court?
Custody order outcome percentages
Year Man Woman Joint Other Total
1993-94 15.9 74.3 7.0 2.8 100.0
1994-95 15.3 73.9 8.0 2.8 100.0
1995-96 15.9 73.3 7.7 3.2 100.0
1996-97 17.9 69.4 8.6 4.0 100.0
1997-98 19.4 68.5 7.6 4.4 100.0
Source: Family Court of
Australia.Custody/Residence Order
1993-94 to 1997-98 TABLE 1.
Try statistics before 1975 and after 1998.
In 1975 feminist/homosexual preffered laws
were introduced together with
terrorist unconstitutional institution like
Child Support Agency and Family
Court.
In 1998 Family Violence Intervention
Program was introduced with RADIP
EXTREME increase of male suicides so
Government started to hide statistics
clearly demonstrating their genocide
intentions against male population.
Thanks God Labors (mostly female
Government) at least try to get some sense
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html
FIVE Australian men commit suicide each day
compared with just one woman,
according to an academic who says the
nation urgently needs a national men's
health policy.
The single major cause of male suicide is
the Australian Family Law system,
that's common knowledge among divorced men.
There are over 400 individual
services provided by various levels of
government solely for women, from
safe shelters for victims of domestic abuse
through to free breast cancer
screening. Services solely for men... ZERO.
No counselling, no health
services, nothing.
Before the November election Health
Minister Nicola Roxon announced a Labor
government would develop a men's health
policy to complement the women's
policy created 20 years ago.
Professor John Macdonald from the
Australasian Men's Health Forum said it
was vital men's health was put on the
national agenda.
"Five men a day kill themselves in our
country, one woman," he said. "That's
atrocious - what's the country doing with
that now?"
He said it was very old men and those
between the ages of 25 and 55 who were
killing themselves and there was no
national consciousness about it.
"If it were five whales a day ... we'd be
out there pushing them back into
the sea," he said.
"But five males a day, who knows? Who
cares? There's something strange
happening."
Prof Macdonald said the problems fathers
face when they are separated from
their children during family break-ups must
also be addressed.
"There's a lot of evidence that that
impacts on the stress on your immune
system, makes you more vulnerable to not
just mental but physical diseases,"
he said.
Let's see, every man is either a child
molester, wife beater or a bastard.
The labels that are constantly placed on
men has been damaging for years.
Not surprising that so many take their own
lives. Furthermore, the new
financial stresses placed on men and
families will result in more suicides.
Child Support is hounding me for over $900
a month and I have my kids 50% of
the time. I am about to lose my house
because of them. I feel like selling
up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It is
all getting too hard.. The X has
4 kids with 3 different men and seems to
get Rewarded for it... It sucks...
feminism, feminism, feminism, the downfall
of our society, discrimination
agaist men is something that society
silences.
Heavens! What a horrible existence.  And what
happens if you remarry and have children; do
you still have to pay for your old family?
Wouldn't this compromise the existence of
your new family?
And isn't your old wife with her $900/month
children obliged to seek a new man in her
life to take over the care of the kids?   Or
at least live in some "single-mothers
commune" where the women can share the
expenses and child-raising responsibilities?
An old lady acquaintance of mine married in
haste to some dullard, and after 2 children
woke up to the realities and divorced him.
Wisely, after the usual 50:50 asset split,
she ignored the lawyers and simply walked
away from the old mess taking the children
with her.  The husband disappeared and
remarried successfully.    She never
remarried and got a job and brought up her
own kids.
Go broke and emigrate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There are dads in australia that pay $40 per month and still argue
that its too much.
David Moss
2008-04-10 22:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Go broke and emigrate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There are dads in australia that pay $40 per month and still argue that
its too much.
A couple of months ago I pointed out most fathers spend far more of their
income on maintaining the kids while living with them than they do under
order from the Child Suport Agency. So it isn't the money that bothers
them. Its something else.

I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they can
no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. So they get angry with the CSA, the agency that
took away their control.
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Peter Jason
2008-04-10 23:56:49 UTC
Permalink
"David Moss"
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:48:08 -0700,
Post by anonymum
Go broke and emigrate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There are dads in australia that pay $40
per month and still argue that
its too much.
A couple of months ago I pointed out most
fathers spend far more of their
income on maintaining the kids while living
with them than they do under
order from the Child Suport Agency. So it
isn't the money that bothers
them. Its something else.
I believe that it is loss of control over
their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount
or timing of payment they can
no longer control the lives of their ex
partner and family through
financial manipulation. So they get angry
with the CSA, the agency that
took away their control.
It's a situation that tested the wisdom of
Solomon.
Ranting
2008-04-11 00:02:59 UTC
Permalink
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
Go broke and emigrate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There are dads in australia that pay $40 per month and still argue that
its too much.
A couple of months ago I pointed out most fathers spend far more of their
income on maintaining the kids while living with them than they do under
order from the Child Suport Agency. So it isn't the money that bothers
them. Its something else.
Actually it is rare that non custodial parents spend more while raising
kids. WHY, because things like mortgage payments, property taxes are the
same regardless of the kids, so that money isn't actually spent on the kids.

Also, car payments are also not spent on the kids.

These are the 3 biggest expenses most people have.

Also, the vast majority of heating , lighting and water bills are not spent
on the kids.

So, please show this proof that more is spent on the kids.

I will give you an anecdotal story from my own life, well sorta.

My next door neighbour is a single mom, this year her kid turns 18 and I
will always remember over the last several years her claiming how much money
her son was costing her, she was claiming in the thousands per month. Well,
I said to her the other day that she is going to come into a huge windfall
this year. She asked me "WHY", well your son is moving out , this means you
are going to have thousands of extra dollars a month when he moves out.

She then goes on to explain how she won't have much extra at all, and in
fact will have less money because she is going to lose her child support,
she did all this without realizing that she was actually telling me that her
son didn't actually cost her money at all and in fact her ex was supporting
HER lifestyle.
David Moss
2008-04-11 03:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranting
"David Moss"
Post by David Moss
Post by anonymum
Go broke and emigrate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There are dads in australia that pay $40 per month and still argue
that its too much.
A couple of months ago I pointed out most fathers spend far more of
their income on maintaining the kids while living with them than they
do under order from the Child Suport Agency. So it isn't the money
that bothers them. Its something else.
Actually it is rare that non custodial parents spend more while raising
kids. WHY, because things like mortgage payments, property taxes are the
same regardless of the kids, so that money isn't actually spent on the kids.
Also, car payments are also not spent on the kids.
These are the 3 biggest expenses most people have.
Also, the vast majority of heating , lighting and water bills are not
spent on the kids.
So, please show this proof that more is spent on the kids.
I will give you an anecdotal story from my own life, well sorta.
My next door neighbour is a single mom, this year her kid turns 18 and I
will always remember over the last several years her claiming how much
money her son was costing her, she was claiming in the thousands per
month. Well, I said to her the other day that she is going to come into
a huge windfall this year. She asked me "WHY", well your son is moving
out , this means you are going to have thousands of extra dollars a
month when he moves out.
She then goes on to explain how she won't have much extra at all, and in
fact will have less money because she is going to lose her child
support, she did all this without realizing that she was actually
telling me that her son didn't actually cost her money at all and in
fact her ex was supporting HER lifestyle.
I'll counter that with a story from my own life.
Before I got married I lived very simply indeed. All I needed was a bed,
a kitchen and a bathroom. Bare floorboards were fine, at one stage I
didn't even bother paying for gas so it was cold showers for me. Later I
lived in military accommodation that consisted of a bed, a wardrobe and a
desk. Everything I owned could fit in a duffle bag and a metal trunk. It
had to because thats all the military would move when they moved me.

When I got married I moved into a flat. As a concession to my wife it had
carpet on the floor (which meant a vacuum cleaner had to be purchased)
and we *always* paid for water heating. Women can be finicky about cold
showers.

Then the kids were born. Now we needed a house with a room for each kid.
Lots of books. Lots of clothes that weren't solid blue or mottled green.
Outings to educational and fun places. Organised holidays that had to be
taken at peak pricing times. Visits to relatives at long distances. A car
big enough to take everyone. (My Cooper S with the tricked up engine just
wasn't right) Sporting equipment for everyone. Medical and dental for
everyone. (Mine was free, part of my conditions of employment when I was
single) Then there were school and uni expenses as they grew. Dance
classes, tennis lessons, club memberships. Now they have left home and
earn their own way. The day the last one became self sufficient, other
than the kid related assets, I was pretty much in the same position as
when I started. I had spent *everything* I earned along the way on making
things good for the kids (and the wife). I earn about 60k, so you do the
sums. If I'd earned more I'd have spent more on them. They are all very
well set up educationally and socially now. Since I no longer support
them I'm starting to look after myself better now. I've started buying
better clothes for myself, I bought a very nice rifle and took up
shooting as a hobby, and I put in an ISDN feed so I can serve out my web
pages. Once the kids were off my hands I started studying at Uni too, I
couldn't afford to do that *and* educate the three of them at the same
time. The kids came first.

Basically I, like most happily married men, put my own wants and needs on
hold while I fulfilled the wants and needs of my kids.

If I'd remained single I'd probably still be living in a 3 room bare
boards flat with no hot water, but I'd have a PhD in information systems,
a ferarri in one garage, a 4WD ute in the other and a big boat down at
the marina.

I made my choice though. Even if things hadn't worked out in the marriage
I would have spent everything I had making things smooth for the kids
till they were independent. How can I confidently say this? Because I
thought it all through up front. I go into nearly everything with a
contingency plan in mind, including marriage.

Of course my contingency didn't include lying awake at night imagining
who my ex was sleeping with and plotting how I could make it financially
difficult for her to live without me.
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-04-11 10:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
If I'd remained single I'd probably still be living in a 3 room bare
boards flat with no hot water, but I'd have a PhD in information systems,
a ferarri in one garage, a 4WD ute in the other and a big boat down at
the marina.
Did you have a house, car etc. IOW, you also have assets and you standard of
living was much higher than living in a flat with no heat and no hot water.
Post by David Moss
I made my choice though. Even if things hadn't worked out in the marriage
I would have spent everything I had making things smooth for the kids
till they were independent. How can I confidently say this? Because I
thought it all through up front. I go into nearly everything with a
contingency plan in mind, including marriage.
Of course my contingency didn't include lying awake at night imagining
who my ex was sleeping with and plotting how I could make it financially
difficult for her to live without me.
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-04-12 07:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranting
Post by David Moss
If I'd remained single I'd probably still be living in a 3 room bare
boards flat with no hot water, but I'd have a PhD in information
systems, a ferarri in one garage, a 4WD ute in the other and a big boat
down at the marina.
Did you have a house, car etc. IOW, you also have assets and you
standard of living was much higher than living in a flat with no heat
and no hot water.
My point was that if I'd remained single, ir if I didn't give a damn
about my wife and kids, I would have spent my income differently.

This backs my point that most married men voluntarily choose to spend
more on their kids (and wife) than they are forced to spend on their kids
by the CSA.

It leads back to the point that if men are happy spending more to support
the kids before they divorce, unhappiness about spending less after the
divorce must have a non-financial reason.

I tender lack of control over the ex as the reason, but I am open to
alternative explanations.
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Ranting
2008-04-12 11:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
My point was that if I'd remained single, ir if I didn't give a damn
about my wife and kids, I would have spent my income differently.
Yes and according to you, you would have been living in a shitty flat, with
cold showers. The money you spent on the house was for YOU.
Post by David Moss
This backs my point that most married men voluntarily choose to spend
more on their kids (and wife) than they are forced to spend on their kids
by the CSA.
No they don't. Car payments, house payments, etc etc are not spent on the
kids. The kids get to enjoy them for sure, but they are spent on you and are
a fixed cost,
Post by David Moss
It leads back to the point that if men are happy spending more to support
the kids before they divorce, unhappiness about spending less after the
divorce must have a non-financial reason.
Sure, it does, because they are actually paying their ex wife the money. The
words of the law say it is for the kids, the reality is something completely
different and they aren't spending less on the kids after divorce as you
claim. Your feminist math course notwithstanding, the house payments, etc
are spent on you this is why a kid would have no claim against those assets
, if you were spending it on the kids , they would.

BTW, did you know that over here, child support is NOT the kids. There was a
case her recently (I will try and find a link) where a kid sued his mom for
the house because when dad paid his CS, she put it directly on the mortgage
payment, after 18+ years , she owned the house outright, yet in theory the
kids should have owned it since it was HIS money that paid for it , again it
theory.
Post by David Moss
I tender lack of control over the ex as the reason, but I am open to
alternative explanations.
How about lack of control over his own money. Before divorce, HE (and
presumably she) controlled where the money went, what activitiies the kids
participated in, how much was spent on them, NOW he has no control over his
own money, it isn't about his ex, it is about money that he works hard for ,
and is forced to give it to his ex and she can spend it how she sees fit, he
has no say whatsoever.
Post by David Moss
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
David Moss
2008-04-13 04:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranting
How about lack of control over his own money. Before divorce, HE (and
presumably she) controlled where the money went, what activitiies the
kids participated in, how much was spent on them, NOW he has no control
over his own money, it isn't about his ex, it is about money that he
works hard for , and is forced to give it to his ex and she can spend it
how she sees fit, he has no say whatsoever.
I see, so you too believe that it is not the money, but lack of control
over the ex-spouse's spending that upsets some men.

Thank you for your support!
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Anonymous Sender
2008-04-08 01:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +1100
Post by Peter Jason
If you pick up and open a history book you
will find that marriage always existed as an
*economic* institution designed for mutual
support for the parties and for the children
involved.
The post Walt Disney era has touted marriage
as some form of "pleasure garden" when one
achieves sexual and emotion fulfilment,
bolstered by the arrival of perfect and cute
children.
I have been married twice. Neither marriage was successful. Money was
never a problem. You are simply wrong.
WHAT ARE THE STATISTICS ON PARENTAL DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE?
(14) Women are by far more unhappy with the current state of marriage. They
initiate 75% of divorces (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980b), 76% (Koel et al.,
1988), or 80% (Furstenberg Cherlin, 1991), depending on the study.

(15) Second marriages have a higher rate of failure. Furstenberg (1987)
found the rate of divorce of second marriages to be 56%. Glick (1984) found
the divorce rate of second marriages to be 57%. Baydar (1988) found that 42%
of second marriages ended within 5 years.

http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p31

DO CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM THEIR PARENTS' REMARRIAGE?

(16) In general, no. If one reviews the large volume of studies on this
question, one finds that in about half the studies, children do a little
better. In about half the studies, children do a little worse. Although the
children might benefit a little from an increased standard of living, these
gains are offset by increases in inter-parental conflict, and conflictual
relationships with stepparents and stepsiblings. To look at somewhat
predictable findings, you need to look at factors such as the child's age,
and gender, and who it is that is remarrying.

(17) Broadly speaking, remarriage appears to benefit young boys who live in
single mother households and whose fathers are absent or uninvolved. These
boys are eager for a male role model. Acting out behavior is reduced
(Hetherington, Cox, Cox, 1985; Hetherington, 1989; Kalter, 1977; Zaslow,
1988, 1989; Zill, Morrison, Coiro, 1991; Zimiles Lee, 1991).

(18) Broadly speaking, remarriage fares rather badly when one is looking at
adolescent girls in single mother custody homes. They universally reject
stepfathers, despite the best of efforts on the part of mother and stepdad
(Hetherington, Cox, Cox, 1985; Hetherington, 1989; Kalter, 1977; Zaslow,
1988, 1989; Zill, Morrison, Coiro, 1991; Zimiles Lee, 1991).

"The AFP is strongly committed to the FVIP and consistently applies a pro-arrest, pro-charge and presumption against bail procedure in family violence matters."
Nomen Nescio
2008-04-11 10:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymum
Post by Anonymous
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html
FIVE Australian men commit suicide each day
compared with just one woman,
according to an academic who says the
nation urgently needs a national men's
health policy.
The single major cause of male suicide is
the Australian Family Law system,
that's common knowledge among divorced men.
There are over 400 individual
services provided by various levels of
government solely for women, from
safe shelters for victims of domestic abuse
through to free breast cancer
screening. Services solely for men... ZERO.
No counselling, no health
services, nothing.
"There's a lot of evidence that that
impacts on the stress on your immune
system, makes you more vulnerable to not
just mental but physical diseases,"
he said.
Let's see, every man is either a child
molester, wife beater or a bastard.
The labels that are constantly placed on
men has been damaging for years.
Not surprising that so many take their own
lives. Furthermore, the new
financial stresses placed on men and
families will result in more suicides.
Child Support is hounding me for over $900
a month and I have my kids 50% of
the time. I am about to lose my house
because of them. I feel like selling
up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It is
all getting too hard.. The X has
4 kids with 3 different men and seems to
get Rewarded for it... It sucks...
feminism, feminism, feminism, the downfall
of our society, discrimination
agaist men is something that society
silences.
There are dads in australia that pay $40 per month and still argue
that its too much.
If they have child 50% of the time with them, why they should pay?

According to ATO, my income for last year was 11,000, my ex income was
70,000, my daughter according to CSA spent 143 days/nights at my home and I
have order to pay to my ex about $30.

Why?

To denigrate father's role in the family and send fathers to suicide (probably).

Today, feminist operatives employ similar strategies to encourage divorce
worldwide, often inserting it unnoticed and unopposed into programs for
"human rights," and unilateral divorce is now one of the first measures
implemented by leftist governments. When Spain's socialists came to power
last year, their three domestic priorities were legalized abortion, same-sex
marriage, and liberalized divorce. Iranian feminist Emadeddin Baghi writes
in the Washington Post that "a 20 percent increase in the divorce rate is.a
sign that traditional marriage is changing as women gain equality." And
Turkey was required to withdraw a proposal to penalize adultery to gain
acceptance in the European Union, while divorce liberalization counted in
their favor.

The High Cost of Divorce

The damage done by family breakdown -- especially to children -- is now so
well known that it hardly needs laboring. Children of divorced parents
suffer far more emotional and behavioral problems than do children from
intact families. They are more likely to attempt suicide and to suffer poor
health. They perform more poorly in school and are more inclined to become
involved with drugs, alcohol, gangs, and crime. These problems continue into
adulthood, when children of divorce have more trouble forming and keeping
stable relationships of their own.

While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family
advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard
rationalization is that to control divorce we must first change the culture.
But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for
preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the
divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits
and even encourages it.

No-fault divorce laws were introduced in the United States and other
industrialized countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into other
regions of the world today. "No-fault" is a misnomer (taken from car
insurance), for the new laws did not stop at removing the requirement that
grounds be cited for a divorce. But they did create unilateral and
involuntary divorce, so that one spouse may end a marriage without any
agreement or fault by the other. Moreover, the spouse who divorces or
otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the costs
or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. "In all
other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to
compensate their partner," writes Robert Whelan of London's Institute of
Economic Affairs, "but under a system of 'no fault' divorce, this essential
element of contract law is abrogated."

In fact, the legal implications go further, since the courts actively assist
the violator. Attorney Steven Varnis points out that "the law generally
supports the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the
wrongdoer." "No-fault" did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply
allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the novel
concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one
had, in fact, not violated. "According to therapeutic precepts, the fault
for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally seeks
a divorce," observes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture. "Many
husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to
learn.that they were equally 'at fault' in the dissolution of their
marriages."

The "fault" that was ostensibly thrown out the front door of divorce
proceedings re-entered through the back, but now with no precise definition.
The judiciary was expanded from its traditional role of punishing crime or
tort to punishing personal imperfections and private differences: One could
now be summoned to court without having committed any infraction; the
verdict was pre-determined; and one could be found "guilty" of things that
were not illegal. Lawmakers created an "automatic outcome," writes Judy
Parejko, author of Stolen Vows. "A defendant is automatically found 'guilty'
of irreconcilable differences and is not allowed a defense."

Though marriage ostensibly falls under civil law, the logic quickly extended
into the criminal. The "automatic outcome" expanded into what effectively
became a presumption of guilt against the involuntarily divorced spouse (the
defendant). Yet the due process protections of formal criminal proceedings
did not apply, so involuntary divorcees could become criminals without any
action on their part and in ways they were powerless to avoid. In some
jurisdictions, a divorce defendant is the only party in the courtroom
without legal immunity.

Contrary to the assumptions of "change the culture" thinking, these laws
were not enacted in response to public demand: No popular clamor to dispense
with divorce restrictions preceded their passage; no public outrage at any
perceived injustice provided the impetus; no public debate was ever held in
the media. Legislators "were not responding to widespread public pressure
but rather acceding to the well-orchestrated lobbying of a few activists,"
writes Christensen. "Eclipsed in the media.by other issues -- such as civil
rights, Vietnam, Watergate, and abortion" -- the new laws rapidly swept the
nation "with little publicity and no mass support."

In retrospect, these laws can be seen as one of the boldest social
experiments in history. The result effectively abolished marriage as a legal
contract. As a result, it's no longer possible to form a binding agreement
to create a family.

Though the changes were passed largely by and for the legal business, the
ideological engine that has never been properly appreciated was organized
feminism. Not generally perceived as a gender battle -- and never one they
wished to advertise -- divorce became the most devastating weapon in the
arsenal of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles on the
most personal level. Germaine Greer openly celebrates divorce as the
foremost indicator of feminist triumph: "Exactly the thing that people tear
their hair out about is exactly the thing I am very proud of," she tells the
Australian newspaper.
Peter Jason
2008-04-11 23:19:14 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 9, 4:34 pm, "Peter Jason"
Post by anonymum
Post by Anonymous
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html
FIVE Australian men commit suicide each
day
compared with just one woman,
according to an academic who says the
nation urgently needs a national men's
health policy.
The single major cause of male suicide
is
the Australian Family Law system,
that's common knowledge among divorced
men.
There are over 400 individual
services provided by various levels of
government solely for women, from
safe shelters for victims of domestic
abuse
through to free breast cancer
screening. Services solely for men...
ZERO.
No counselling, no health
services, nothing.
"There's a lot of evidence that that
impacts on the stress on your immune
system, makes you more vulnerable to not
just mental but physical diseases,"
he said.
Let's see, every man is either a child
molester, wife beater or a bastard.
The labels that are constantly placed on
men has been damaging for years.
Not surprising that so many take their
own
lives. Furthermore, the new
financial stresses placed on men and
families will result in more suicides.
Child Support is hounding me for over
$900
a month and I have my kids 50% of
the time. I am about to lose my house
because of them. I feel like selling
up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It
is
all getting too hard.. The X has
4 kids with 3 different men and seems to
get Rewarded for it... It sucks...
feminism, feminism, feminism, the
downfall
of our society, discrimination
agaist men is something that society
silences.
There are dads in australia that pay $40
per month and still argue
that its too much.
If they have child 50% of the time with
them, why they should pay?
According to ATO, my income for last year
was 11,000, my ex income was
70,000, my daughter according to CSA spent
143 days/nights at my home and I
have order to pay to my ex about $30.
Why?
To denigrate father's role in the family
and send fathers to suicide (probably).
Today, feminist operatives employ similar
strategies to encourage divorce
worldwide, often inserting it unnoticed and
unopposed into programs for
"human rights," and unilateral divorce is
now one of the first measures
implemented by leftist governments. When
Spain's socialists came to power
last year, their three domestic priorities
were legalized abortion, same-sex
marriage, and liberalized divorce. Iranian
feminist Emadeddin Baghi writes
in the Washington Post that "a 20 percent
increase in the divorce rate is.a
sign that traditional marriage is changing
as women gain equality." And
Turkey was required to withdraw a proposal
to penalize adultery to gain
acceptance in the European Union, while
divorce liberalization counted in
their favor.
The High Cost of Divorce
The damage done by family breakdown --
especially to children -- is now so
well known that it hardly needs laboring.
Children of divorced parents
suffer far more emotional and behavioral
problems than do children from
intact families. They are more likely to
attempt suicide and to suffer poor
health. They perform more poorly in school
and are more inclined to become
involved with drugs, alcohol, gangs, and
crime. These problems continue into
adulthood, when children of divorce have
more trouble forming and keeping
stable relationships of their own.
While lamenting the high divorce rate is
conventional piety among family
advocates, most have refused to challenge
the divorce laws. The standard
rationalization is that to control divorce
we must first change the culture.
But no one suggests that changing the
culture is a prerequisite for
preventing, say, abortion. While cultural
forces certainly contribute, the
divorce epidemic has proceeded directly
from a legal system which permits
and even encourages it.
No-fault divorce laws were introduced in
the United States and other
industrialized countries during the 1970s
and are being expanded into other
regions of the world today. "No-fault" is a
misnomer (taken from car
insurance), for the new laws did not stop
at removing the requirement that
grounds be cited for a divorce. But they
did create unilateral and
involuntary divorce, so that one spouse may
end a marriage without any
agreement or fault by the other. Moreover,
the spouse who divorces or
otherwise abrogates the marriage contract
incurs no liability for the costs
or consequences, creating a unique and
unprecedented legal anomaly. "In all
other areas of contract law those who break
a contract are expected to
compensate their partner," writes Robert
Whelan of London's Institute of
Economic Affairs, "but under a system of
'no fault' divorce, this essential
element of contract law is abrogated."
In fact, the legal implications go further,
since the courts actively assist
the violator. Attorney Steven Varnis points
out that "the law generally
supports the spouse seeking the divorce,
even if that spouse was the
wrongdoer." "No-fault" did not really
remove fault, therefore; it simply
allowed judges to redefine it however they
pleased. It introduced the novel
concept that one could be deemed guilty of
violating an agreement that one
had, in fact, not violated. "According to
therapeutic precepts, the fault
for marital breakup must be shared, even
when one spouse unilaterally seeks
a divorce," observes Barbara Whitehead in
The Divorce Culture. "Many
husbands and wives who did not seek or want
divorce were stunned to
learn.that they were equally 'at fault' in
the dissolution of their
marriages."
The "fault" that was ostensibly thrown out
the front door of divorce
proceedings re-entered through the back,
but now with no precise definition.
The judiciary was expanded from its
traditional role of punishing crime or
tort to punishing personal imperfections
and private differences: One could
now be summoned to court without having
committed any infraction; the
verdict was pre-determined; and one could
be found "guilty" of things that
were not illegal. Lawmakers created an
"automatic outcome," writes Judy
Parejko, author of Stolen Vows. "A
defendant is automatically found 'guilty'
of irreconcilable differences and is not
allowed a defense."
Though marriage ostensibly falls under
civil law, the logic quickly extended
into the criminal. The "automatic outcome"
expanded into what effectively
became a presumption of guilt against the
involuntarily divorced spouse (the
defendant). Yet the due process protections
of formal criminal proceedings
did not apply, so involuntary divorcees
could become criminals without any
action on their part and in ways they were
powerless to avoid. In some
jurisdictions, a divorce defendant is the
only party in the courtroom
without legal immunity.
Contrary to the assumptions of "change the
culture" thinking, these laws
were not enacted in response to public
demand: No popular clamor to dispense
with divorce restrictions preceded their
passage; no public outrage at any
perceived injustice provided the impetus;
no public debate was ever held in
the media. Legislators "were not responding
to widespread public pressure
but rather acceding to the
well-orchestrated lobbying of a few
activists,"
writes Christensen. "Eclipsed in the
media.by other issues -- such as civil
rights, Vietnam, Watergate, and
abortion" -- the new laws rapidly swept the
nation "with little publicity and no mass
support."
In retrospect, these laws can be seen as
one of the boldest social
experiments in history. The result
effectively abolished marriage as a legal
contract. As a result, it's no longer
possible to form a binding agreement
to create a family.
Though the changes were passed largely by
and for the legal business, the
ideological engine that has never been
properly appreciated was organized
feminism. Not generally perceived as a
gender battle -- and never one they
wished to advertise -- divorce became the
most devastating weapon in the
arsenal of feminism, because it creates
millions of gender battles on the
most personal level. Germaine Greer openly
celebrates divorce as the
"Exactly the thing that people tear
their hair out about is exactly the thing I
am very proud of," she tells the
Australian newspaper.
Of course the silly bitch never mentioned
that feminism and the exploding divorce rate
was made possible, here as elsewhere, by the
bourgeoning welfare state.

A woman would have to be a Boudicca to raise
three children by herself without the various
pensions and counselling services.

In the bad old days a woman in an intolerable
marriage would have to fall back on her
parents, or siblings, or live with tolerant
other women in a similar situation.

So generous are the pensions these days, that
the poor fucking taxpayer is agog at the
expense. These expenses increase yearly.

If you give money to beggars, their numbers
will increase. If you give money to single
mothers the same thing happens.

Marriage is a risky business, and some people
are better off not doing it. It is *not*
about love, sex, and social acceptance. It
is about economics where two people agree to
live together, take care of each other and
raise children. With any luck (yes, luck)
the pair may become fond of each other!

Remember the old, old saying in the
commercial world: "Better a friendship based
on business, than a business based on
friendship!"

The great engine driving the unreal
expectations of marriage is the entertainment
industry, where every movie, book, magazine
etc has some soggy soap component, usually
with some contrived happy ending. This is
so pervasive that one suspects some mammoth
commercial prime mover is behind it all, to
generate sales of all the consumer junk
purchased by star-crossed lovers.
Nomen Nescio
2008-04-11 11:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moss
Post by Ranting
Actually it is rare that non custodial parents spend more while raising
kids. WHY, because things like mortgage payments, property taxes are the
same regardless of the kids, so that money isn't actually spent on the
kids.
Also, car payments are also not spent on the kids.
These are the 3 biggest expenses most people have.
Also, the vast majority of heating , lighting and water bills are not
spent on the kids.
So, please show this proof that more is spent on the kids.
I will give you an anecdotal story from my own life, well sorta.
My next door neighbour is a single mom, this year her kid turns 18 and I
will always remember over the last several years her claiming how much
money her son was costing her, she was claiming in the thousands per
month. Well, I said to her the other day that she is going to come into
a huge windfall this year. She asked me "WHY", well your son is moving
out , this means you are going to have thousands of extra dollars a
month when he moves out.
She then goes on to explain how she won't have much extra at all, and in
fact will have less money because she is going to lose her child
support, she did all this without realizing that she was actually
telling me that her son didn't actually cost her money at all and in
fact her ex was supporting HER lifestyle.
I'll counter that with a story from my own life.
Before I got married I lived very simply indeed. All I needed was a bed,
a kitchen and a bathroom. Bare floorboards were fine, at one stage I
didn't even bother paying for gas so it was cold showers for me. Later I
lived in military accommodation that consisted of a bed, a wardrobe and a
desk. Everything I owned could fit in a duffle bag and a metal trunk. It
had to because thats all the military would move when they moved me.
So military controllled your life and because you were not happy you moved on.

"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they can
no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.

Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by military was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
Post by David Moss
When I got married I moved into a flat. As a concession to my wife it had
carpet on the floor (which meant a vacuum cleaner had to be purchased)
and we *always* paid for water heating. Women can be finicky about cold
showers.
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they can
no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.

Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by your wife was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
Post by David Moss
Then the kids were born. Now we needed a house with a room for each kid.
Lots of books. Lots of clothes that weren't solid blue or mottled green.
Outings to educational and fun places. Organised holidays that had to be
taken at peak pricing times. Visits to relatives at long distances. A car
big enough to take everyone. (My Cooper S with the tricked up engine just
wasn't right) Sporting equipment for everyone. Medical and dental for
everyone. (Mine was free, part of my conditions of employment when I was
single) Then there were school and uni expenses as they grew. Dance
classes, tennis lessons, club memberships.
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they can
no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.

Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by your kids was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
Post by David Moss
Now they have left home and
earn their own way. The day the last one became self sufficient, other
than the kid related assets, I was pretty much in the same position as
when I started. I had spent *everything* I earned along the way on making
things good for the kids (and the wife). I earn about 60k, so you do the
sums. If I'd earned more I'd have spent more on them. They are all very
well set up educationally and socially now. Since I no longer support
them I'm starting to look after myself better now. I've started buying
better clothes for myself, I bought a very nice rifle and took up
shooting as a hobby, and I put in an ISDN feed so I can serve out my web
pages. Once the kids were off my hands I started studying at Uni too, I
couldn't afford to do that *and* educate the three of them at the same
time. The kids came first.
Exactly. CSA use kids to control life of men.

"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they can
no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.

Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by kids was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
Post by David Moss
Basically I, like most happily married men, put my own wants and needs on
hold while I fulfilled the wants and needs of my kids.
Well, many divorced men can't do it as Government through CSA orders prevent men from full life.
Post by David Moss
If I'd remained single I'd probably still be living in a 3 room bare
boards flat with no hot water, but I'd have a PhD in information systems,
a ferarri in one garage, a 4WD ute in the other and a big boat down at
the marina.
Well, I have nothing thanks to Centrelink (Peter Bickerton, Peter Harren and Peter Elliot), AFP and ACT Magistrates Court and my ex.
Post by David Moss
I made my choice though. Even if things hadn't worked out in the marriage
I would have spent everything I had making things smooth for the kids
till they were independent. How can I confidently say this? Because I
thought it all through up front. I go into nearly everything with a
contingency plan in mind, including marriage.
And a little help from brethren from your lodge giving you privileges most men in Australia do not have.
Post by David Moss
Of course my contingency didn't include lying awake at night imagining
who my ex was sleeping with and plotting how I could make it financially
difficult for her to live without me.
You never love your wife.

Your contingency plan was hiding the money from your wife.

I gave her everything during 20 years of our marriage.

Final result: I am on disability pension (not paying any tax after paying more than 50,000 never year) and she is liberated to work as public servant (contractor 12 hours a day) and wash dishes in Chinese restaurant in Canberra to survive. So my daughter is at my care most of the time so at least she has father after losing mother she can hardly see.

Great family help - thank you Australia !!!

Let me conclude with a word of caution about the implications of these findings. Marriage is not a magic bullet solution to problems of poverty, disadvantage, crime, and discrimination. Nor should the existence of government funding for the promotion of healthy marriage be used as a reason for reducing or limiting other forms of government support for low-income families, such as childcare, healthcare, education, job training and other supports. Nor should marriage promotion be used as a substitute for other effective anti-poverty strategies such as reducing the incidence of unwed teen parenthood. Nor should the advantages of marriage be used to pressure everyone to get married.

Like all human institutions, marriage is far from perfect. And getting married does not turn people into saints. Yet the fact remains: despite its acknowledged problems and imperfections, marriage remains an indispensable source of social goods, individual benefits, mutual caregiving, affectionate attachments, and long-term commitments. And people who are married, though not saints, tend to behave in ways that benefit themselves, their children, families and communities.

Given these advantages, it makes good sense for the public and private sector to explore ways to reduce the barriers to healthy marriage and to make it possible for more parents to form strong and lasting marital unions. Even a relatively modest increase in healthy marriage formation and duration could reduce levels of child poverty, increase parental income and promote higher levels of child wellbeing among families with children.

Adultery, divorce and feminism is bad.
CSA, Family Court, Family Violence Intervention Program is poor evil.
David Moss
2008-04-12 00:36:37 UTC
Permalink
[cut]
Post by Nomen Nescio
I'll counter that with a story from my own life. Before I got married I
lived very simply indeed. All I needed was a bed, a kitchen and a
bathroom. Bare floorboards were fine, at one stage I didn't even bother
paying for gas so it was cold showers for me. Later I lived in military
accommodation that consisted of a bed, a wardrobe and a desk.
Everything I owned could fit in a duffle bag and a metal trunk. It had
to because thats all the military would move when they moved me.
So military controllled your life and because you were not happy you moved on.
No, I voluntarily joined the military knowing exactly what I would be
getting myself into. The military did exactly what it promised, so did I.
We were both very happy while the relationship lasted.

When I got married I moved into a flat with my wife. The military assumes
members will marry and has conditions of service that make it easy to
afford high quality accommodation off the base. I intended to get married
when I joined the military and these conditions played a part in my
decision to join.

The military did not control my finances at all. They paid the exact
amount I was entitled to on the exact day they were supposed to pay me.
Early in the relationship they did use payment as an excuse for social
interaction (the so called "pay parade") but they dropped the requirement
within a few years. My payments were then paid directly into my bank
account, like the CSA does it.
Post by Nomen Nescio
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they
can no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.
Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by military
was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
Hopefully I have taught you the military does not financially manipulate
anyone, or even control their lives. The military provides exactly what
it contracts to provide. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone who joins
knows exactly what is required of them during the engagement. If either
party is unhappy with the arrangement they can terminate it by not re-
enlisting when the contract has expired. There are also provisions for
early termination in exceptional circumstances, such as incompatability
with service life. Pretty much like a marriage really.
Post by Nomen Nescio
When I got married I moved into a flat. As a concession to my wife it
had carpet on the floor (which meant a vacuum cleaner had to be
purchased) and we *always* paid for water heating. Women can be finicky
about cold showers.
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they
can no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.
Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by your wife
was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
In my own marriage pretty well everything was negotiated years before we
actually got married. I voluntarily chose to allow my wife to share my
income, and to manage it on a day to day basis. This arrangement freed me
from the tedium of household budgetting and let me concentrate on my
career. She does an excellent job in this regard, much better than I
could do. I retain the final discretion financially however, that was
part of the deal. A blind butcher could count the number of times I have
exercised this discretion on one hand.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Then the kids were born. Now we needed a house with a room for each
kid. Lots of books. Lots of clothes that weren't solid blue or mottled
green. Outings to educational and fun places. Organised holidays that
had to be taken at peak pricing times. Visits to relatives at long
distances. A car big enough to take everyone. (My Cooper S with the
tricked up engine just wasn't right) Sporting equipment for everyone.
Medical and dental for everyone. (Mine was free, part of my conditions
of employment when I was single) Then there were school and uni
expenses as they grew. Dance classes, tennis lessons, club memberships.
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they
can no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.
Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by your kids
was not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
You seem to have missed the point that I voluntarily put the needs of my
wife and kids ahead of my own. Most married men do this. My wife and kids
were not in control of my spending, I was. I spent far more than the CSA
would have forced me to spend. Most married men do this. You claim you
did too, while you were married. Yet you whine when the CSA forces you to
spend less than you were already spending on the maintenance of your kids.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Now they have left home and
earn their own way. The day the last one became self sufficient, other
than the kid related assets, I was pretty much in the same position as
when I started. I had spent *everything* I earned along the way on
making things good for the kids (and the wife). I earn about 60k, so
you do the sums. If I'd earned more I'd have spent more on them. They
are all very well set up educationally and socially now. Since I no
longer support them I'm starting to look after myself better now. I've
started buying better clothes for myself, I bought a very nice rifle
and took up shooting as a hobby, and I put in an ISDN feed so I can
serve out my web pages. Once the kids were off my hands I started
studying at Uni too, I couldn't afford to do that *and* educate the
three of them at the same time. The kids came first.
Exactly. CSA use kids to control life of men.
No, men take on the obligation of supporting kids when they stick bits of
themselves into women. The CSA only enforces the obligation.

Most men willingly go beyond the obligation while they are happily
married. You too, according to your posting over the years. Yet when they
divorce suddenly even the minimum obligation is too much. There has to be
a non-financial reason for the switch.
Post by Nomen Nescio
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they
can no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.
Why control of your own life through financial manipulation by kids was
not good but control of life of divorced man by CSA and ex is fine?
I only answer a question once in each post.
See above.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Basically I, like most happily married men, put my own wants and needs
on hold while I fulfilled the wants and needs of my kids.
Well, many divorced men can't do it as Government through CSA orders
prevent men from full life.
If I'd remained single I'd probably still be living in a 3 room bare
boards flat with no hot water, but I'd have a PhD in information
systems, a ferarri in one garage, a 4WD ute in the other and a big boat
down at the marina.
Well, I have nothing thanks to Centrelink (Peter Bickerton, Peter Harren
and Peter Elliot), AFP and ACT Magistrates Court and my ex.
No, you have nothing because you are a sad divorcee who seeks control
over the life of an ex-partner through financial manipulation. You have
voluntarily chosen to be unemployed in order to limit your ex-partner's
financial position and consequently reduced the living standards for your
children now, and for the rest of their lives. The only person
responsible for the position you are in today is you.
Post by Nomen Nescio
I made my choice though. Even if things hadn't worked out in the
marriage I would have spent everything I had making things smooth for
the kids till they were independent. How can I confidently say this?
Because I thought it all through up front. I go into nearly everything
with a contingency plan in mind, including marriage.
And a little help from brethren from your lodge giving you privileges
most men in Australia do not have.
Conspiracy theories now? Why am I not surprised?
If you are talking about the Freemasons, I was approached with an offer
to join when I worked in a steelworks. I politely declined the offer.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Of course my contingency didn't include lying awake at night imagining
who my ex was sleeping with and plotting how I could make it
financially difficult for her to live without me.
You never love your wife.
On the contrary, I know the difference between love and ownership. I love
her but I don't own her.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Your contingency plan was hiding the money from your wife.
I gave her everything during 20 years of our marriage.
But you get upset about having to pay the minimum obligation to support
your kids after you were divorced? Think about that.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Final result: I am on disability pension (not paying any tax after
paying more than 50,000 never year) and she is liberated to work as
public servant (contractor 12 hours a day) and wash dishes in Chinese
restaurant in Canberra to survive. So my daughter is at my care most of
the time so at least she has father after losing mother she can hardly
see.
12 hours a day as a contractor plus a part-time job as a kitchenhand is
not mere survival. You seem to have a bit of a problem with reality. The
CSA seems to agree.
Post by Nomen Nescio
Great family help - thank you Australia !!!
[cut and paste from http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/Pub%
20Whitehead%20Testimony%20Apr%2004.htm deleted]
Post by Nomen Nescio
Adultery, divorce and feminism is bad. CSA, Family Court, Family
Violence Intervention Program is poor evil.
You have it backwards. The people who make the Family
Violence Intervention Program necessary are evil. The people who make the
CSA necessary are not far above them in the pond scum.

The Family Court is necessary because many people are unable to resolve
their disputes without it.

Adultery is part of human nature, but not very nice for the victim.
Divorce is, and always has been necessary to some people.

Feminism seeks to elevate the status of women. It is only when they seek
to raise the status of women higher than that of men it becomes
problematic.

In your case however, you think your ex-wife is a chattel that you own
and control. Feminism is quite correct in pointing out to you that, in
Austrlia, that isn't so.
--
David Moss
Personal Opinion Only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
Nomen Nescio
2008-04-12 06:10:08 UTC
Permalink
"David Moss" <***@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message news:puTLj.736$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Every week police arrest more than 50 men and take children from them just
to generate new cases for the Government sponsored divorce industry.

Five (5) men kill themselves every week as a result of this genocide of men
in Australia.
Post by Nomen Nescio
"I believe that it is loss of control over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the amount or timing of payment they
can no longer control the lives of their ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.
She was controling my life through financial manipulation in 20 years of our marriage and she is doing the same now.

She has 5 times higher income than me, my children are more with me than her and CSA is forcing me to pay her.

She get all children payments from Centrelink, I got nothing and CSA is forcing me to pay her.

I can't believe you are so stupid to not see who is controling and who is a victim.

Regarding my ability to pay her, I can't afford to pay her regardless how small or big amount CSA wants.

I will again repeat what you have read 100 times and what was in Court documents:

1. I was in the bed on my back trying to sleep when my ex entered my room
and assaulted me.

2.I defend myself stil being in the bed on my back.

3. She assaulted me and I was arrested.

4. Thousands of same cases started by police on rate of 50
average men arrest by young police psychopats trained by specially paid
lesbo.feminist in police doing nothing else than fabricating cases for DPP.

5. Police lead mo to admit assault under durress and scaring tactics in the
jail. Due to my bad English, I didn't even know what the legal definition of
assault is.

6. As in (1.) MY EX ASSAULTED ME AND CALLED POLICE knowing that
police NEVER search for any evidence as per Family Violence Intervention
Program.
IMO removing the discretion of police and requiring the arrest of a
perpetrator in a domestic violence situation is a good thing. The only
people who appear to believe otherwise are those who perpetrate domestic
violence.
Agree - so my ex (who attacked me at the time when I was trying to sleep in
my bed in my private room) should be arrested and me and children protected.


1. I should not be arrested but her.

2. Children should be protected from her as she beat them up many times,
while I never touch children and her in 20 years of our marriage.

3. I didn't see, call, visit or have any contacts with her except on Court
after my arrest. I never published anywhere any details about her or our
children which may identify her except if in your wrong definition of
stalking & spam you don't count that:

a) Six years ago she was working in Centrelink Network Installations where
she had love affair with other married man.

b) Today she is by her own fault much worse off than when she was not
working at all and I have provided everything to her.

c) My opinion that me, children and Australian Taxpayers are today also much
worse off due to her "friends" and Government abusive intervention in
marriage which should be private issue and not Government divorce industry
business.

How many times I have to repeat that?

Every week police arrest more than 50 men and take children from them just
to generate new cases for the Government sponsored divorce industry.

Five (5) men kill themselves every week as a result of this genocide of men
in Australia.

And loudly: I AM NOT INTERESTED FOR THIS WOMAN AND DO NOT WANT TO SEE HER
EVER AGAIN AFTER ALL WHAT SHE INITIATED TO DAMAGE OWN LIFE AND OWN CHILDREN.
I want that Government stop to destroy families for interests of lesbians.

Comprende?
Peter Jason
2008-04-12 06:20:43 UTC
Permalink
"David Moss"
Every week police arrest more than 50 men
and take children from them just
to generate new cases for the Government
sponsored divorce industry.
Five (5) men kill themselves every week as
a result of this genocide of men
in Australia.
Post by Nomen Nescio
"I believe that it is loss of control
over their partner that bothers
them. Without the ability to set the
amount or timing of payment they
can no longer control the lives of their
ex partner and family through
financial manipulation. " Your own words.
She was controling my life through
financial manipulation in 20 years of our
marriage and she is doing the same now.
She has 5 times higher income than me, my
children are more with me than her and CSA
is forcing me to pay her.
She get all children payments from
Centrelink, I got nothing and CSA is
forcing me to pay her.
I can't believe you are so stupid to not
see who is controling and who is a victim.
Regarding my ability to pay her, I can't
afford to pay her regardless how small or
big amount CSA wants.
I will again repeat what you have read 100
1. I was in the bed on my back trying to
sleep when my ex entered my room
and assaulted me.
2.I defend myself stil being in the bed on
my back.
3. She assaulted me and I was arrested.
4. Thousands of same cases started by
police on rate of 50
average men arrest by young police
psychopats trained by specially paid
lesbo.feminist in police doing nothing else
than fabricating cases for DPP.
5. Police lead mo to admit assault under
durress and scaring tactics in the
jail. Due to my bad English, I didn't even
know what the legal definition of
assault is.
6. As in (1.) MY EX ASSAULTED ME AND CALLED
POLICE knowing that
police NEVER search for any evidence as per
Family Violence Intervention
Program.
IMO removing the discretion of police and
requiring the arrest of a
perpetrator in a domestic violence
situation is a good thing. The only
people who appear to believe otherwise are
those who perpetrate domestic
violence.
Agree - so my ex (who attacked me at the
time when I was trying to sleep in
my bed in my private room) should be
arrested and me and children protected.
1. I should not be arrested but her.
2. Children should be protected from her as
she beat them up many times,
while I never touch children and her in 20
years of our marriage.
3. I didn't see, call, visit or have any
contacts with her except on Court
after my arrest. I never published anywhere
any details about her or our
children which may identify her except if
in your wrong definition of
a) Six years ago she was working in
Centrelink Network Installations where
she had love affair with other married man.
b) Today she is by her own fault much worse
off than when she was not
working at all and I have provided
everything to her.
c) My opinion that me, children and
Australian Taxpayers are today also much
worse off due to her "friends" and
Government abusive intervention in
marriage which should be private issue and
not Government divorce industry
business.
How many times I have to repeat that?
Every week police arrest more than 50 men
and take children from them just
to generate new cases for the Government
sponsored divorce industry.
Five (5) men kill themselves every week as
a result of this genocide of men
in Australia.
And loudly: I AM NOT INTERESTED FOR THIS
WOMAN AND DO NOT WANT TO SEE HER
EVER AGAIN AFTER ALL WHAT SHE INITIATED TO
DAMAGE OWN LIFE AND OWN CHILDREN.
I want that Government stop to destroy
families for interests of lesbians.
Comprende?
Go broke & emigrate.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...