WARNING to men before you date or consider marriage! (dating, lesbian, lover)

[stepka]

I've seen the author Stephen Baskerville over on Jeff Rense Program. He's quite a nutjob.

[njguy]

Originally Posted by temptation001

I'm not interested in marriage. I don't want to exploit a man when it doesn't work between us. We can live together,

PALIMONY - Soon to a judgment near you.

[njguy]

Originally Posted by stepka

I've seen the author Stephen Baskerville over on Jeff Rense Program. He's quite a nutjob.

IS IT POSSIBLY?: It's not that you think he's a nutjob, but that the truth hurts is more like it.

[Northside904]

I can't believe there are actually books like this.

[njguy]

Originally Posted by NorthsideJacksonville

I can't believe there are actually books like this.

There are books and URL's.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by temptation001

I'm not interested in marriage. I don't want to exploit a man when it doesn't work between us. We can live together, but I rather we be free individuals with no courts involved. Only reason I would get married is if there was some kind of federal benefits. But I certainly won't try to get married just to get a free house, dog , and minivan. At least not the bad way, like they do in divorce. (But if someone wants to get me such gifts, then, thats another story).

the 3 great lies, i dont wana get married i am not interested in your money, i love to cook.

[kmc757]

Originally Posted by stepka

I've seen the author Stephen Baskerville over on Jeff Rense Program. He's quite a nutjob.

In what way a "nut job"?

He is highly respected in his field. Often interviewed in major publications such as NY Times.

Have you read his book? I did and the statistics he quotes seem to check out. I did not research all of his references in the book, but of the ones I did, they all checked out as being accurate.

Could it be that the truth hurts and you just do not want to acknowledge it?

[njguy]

Originally Posted by kmc757

In what way a "nut job"?


Could it be that the truth hurts and you just do not want to acknowledge it?

That's what it is IMO even though the fems will deny it 1 million times before the next sunrise.

[kmc757]

Originally Posted by LizCab44

Oh come on . Aren't we a little too old for scare tactics and conspiracy theories?

Yeah right! It is not scare tactics and conspiracy theories when it is true. Read the following.....

Childless Men Jailed for Non-payment of Child Support
By Jeffery M. Leving | Jul 22, 2009

Frank Hatley spent the past year in Cook County jail in South Georgia for falling behind in child support payments. However, as the court was aware, he had no children according to court documents. A DNA test even confirmed that there was no chance he was the father.

Walter Sharpe, from Philadelphia, was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man’s daughter. He spent two years in jail for falling behind in child support payments. Sharpe’s Petitions filed for DNA testing were denied by the judge. However, the paternity order against him was finally overturned after the girl’s mother failed to show up to a court hearing.

Paternity Fraud victims need justice. Our system is broken.

A report issued by the American Association of Blood Banks found that nearly 30 percent of paternity tests conducted in the U.S. reveal that the man being tested is not the biological father. Partially as a result of the availability of DNA paternity testing, thousands of fathers are discovering that “their” child is someone else’s. But, many of these “duped dads” continue to be responsible for the payment of child support or suffer the consequences of jail.

Too many states adhere to an archaic 500-year-old English common-law doctrine that a married man is always legally presumed the father of a child born of the marriage, even if he is not the biological father. Unmarried men can be court ordered to pay child support for children they did not father through default paternity and child support judgments. Such judgments can be court ordered without the alleged father’s knowledge.

Ignoring paternity fraud is not different than ignoring DNA testing showing a convicted murderer wasn’t guilty. It’s time to correct this injustice. Paternity fraud is just as reprehensible as any other kind of fraud from which the public needs protection.

Tony Jackson is a California father who had to work two jobs to pay back approximately $13,000 in back child support for a child proven by DNA testing not to be his. It’s time to release men like Jackson from this blatant injustice.

Opponents of paternity fraud legislation needed to correct this problem say we must prevent “duped dads” from abandoning children that are not theirs biologically. In many cases I’ve seen, the “duped dad” does not want to abandon the child he has come to love as his own. It was the system that drove him off as well as the biological father. For example, in one outrageous case in Texas, the judge ordered a man to pay child support for another man’s three children and cut off his visitation with all of the children.

Who is really hurting the children in cases such as this?

To those who say children will be left unsupported if men are not forced to pay support, I say that the men who should support the children should be the biological fathers. Making men pay child support for children proven by DNA testing not to be theirs is not in the best interests of children and families. It can also deprive children of ever knowing their true biological fathers.

The real fear underlying the arguments of many of the dwindling number of opponents of this legislation is losing a cash cow for agencies and institutions that benefit financially by preserving the status quo. In reality, it has little to do with protecting the interests of children.

States benefit by collecting financial incentive payments from the federal government for child support collected. It is easier for child support agencies to financially squeeze the “duped dad” than to find the biological dad, who may not even know he has a child and would welcome the opportunity to step up to the plate and be Dad.

I encourage all state legislatures to pass fair paternity fraud bills requiring courts to order DNA testing when requested. I also encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the next Paternity Fraud case that comes before it. A correct ruling by the high court would speed justice along for everyone. This is clearly what is right.

Jeffery M. Leving is one of America’s leading family law attorneys. He is the founder of dadsrights.com.

[Braunwyn]

To start, I just want to say that I support those men in this thread that are anti-marriage/anti-having children. Please, don't breed.

Originally Posted by NotARedneck

The main result of the women's movement is that women now have the same right to make mistakes as men did.

Early on, (around 1970) many young women, fresh tom an awareness seminar, looked around and viewed their parents marriage with a jaundiced eye. They lived in a modest house, as most did then. Life was predictable and BORING. Their 48 year old father had a paunch. OMG

They resolved to do better and the sexual revolution gave them the tool they needed (the pill) to get what they wanted. The 70s were the golden era of the good looking guy with family money. Every woman wanted one and since a shot of penicillin would cure all, such men were willing to audition numerous women. Only one problem. They quickly realized that they didn't need to enter into a marriage contract to get serviced and the first generation of feminist pioneers were pissed. AIDS eventually killed this "golden era".

Women now played their next card. Part of the feminist manifesto was that women should have equal rights to employment. I never consider this to be at all unreasonable, but during the 70s, the reality was that while opportunities were opened up rapidly, very few women were willing to get the required education.

By the 80s, they took a new approach. Now it was deemed that sexism that had resulted in no women in senior management. Little could be done about this since these positions were held by men who started working in the 50s or earlier. Instead, they became very successful at lobbying employers to hire recent female graduates over much more qualified men. Where I worked, the males they hired had multiple degrees and the female had 2 year of community college. Despite this inequity, there was always a shortage of candidates to hire. An HR manager told me that they had to hire 50% female, and when only 14% of applicants were female, they had a major problem getting adequate staff!

Anyhow, given this, soon many women were in well paying jobs and no longer had to rely on finding a scion of the local wealthy family. Instead, they could now marry the good looking guy WITHOUT money. Such men were often barely employable so they stayed home and due to boredom, took to drink and weed. This gave feminists further ammunition against all men.

Divorce rates soared but women never learned and by and large, still feel the need to seek out the same types. Meanwhile, the interest in education among young men has plummeted.

There are more women in college than men today. But, is that due to less men wanting higher education or more women wanting an education? I'm not sure of the stats.

Originally Posted by njguy

That's what is is IMO even though the fems will deny it 1 million times before the next sunrise.

I'm a feminist and I don't think I'm denying anything. I don't think these men should breed and I certainly don't think they should marry. I'd be surprised if any woman (or man) would want anyone doing anything they don't want to do.