if people don't believe in god

Originally posted by Ullr
In this book he is reporting on his knowlege of the culture and customs of Germanic tribes in the 1st century AD long before their conversion to Christianity.

Well marriage is mentioned in the Old Testament, so I don't think anyone is suggesting it started with Christians. It is however found in all cultures throughout recorded history. Monogamy on the other hand is a bit less common (as a more or less enforced rule).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well marriage is mentioned in the Old Testament, so I don't think anyone is suggesting it started with Christians. It is however found in all cultures throughout recorded history. Monogamy on the other hand is a bit less common (as a more or less enforced rule).

Agreed. I should have been more specific and said Judeo/Christianity instead of just Christianity. But yes the example I've posted is just to reinforce the point that you've just reiterated that marriage is found in all cultures throughout history.

So to the original poster ... nice try.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes the elected representatives of the people should back off and let the self selected churches
do whatever they like... [if you can't tell that's sarcasm you need help]


I am sorry [well actually I am really not] to burst your bubble but not only does religion have
very little to do with marriage (other than having co-opted it as an excellent m ...[text shortened]... state provides civil weddings
which simply do the paperwork without the theistic blather.

Yes, on marrying people.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Yes, on marrying people.

Could you embellish a little on what you meant because I don't know what your responding to and thus don't know what your answer meant.

Originally posted by FMF
Yep. You are in a minority; an admission which makes your comment on the previous page... "-is often the woman" . I beg to differ here. While the man might have the physically advantage, it is often the woman that has the upper hand when going into a relationship, (legally i mean) -at least it is my part of the world (australia,especially brisbane). I have so ...[text shortened]... he forum with them, unless they specifically ask... somewhat unconvincing. Just saying. 🙂

I meant they have the upper hand legally.

When all things are equal the child goes to the woman and the man gets every second w'end and half the school holidays.

I hope this clears it up a bit more.

I have strong feelings about this issue for personal reasons and think that many of the social workers should not be given the right to take others children away.They should be able to sell jeans at best 😛
It's not the sort of job you just get a piece of paper for (like teaching) your hearts gotta be in it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its impossible for me to comment as i do not know any of the details, interesting that
you should have this view of witnesses and their principles and the way we 'interpret
JW belief', you never make mention of the countless millions that have improved their
life by adhering to them, interesting that, oh well, move along these are not the droids
we are looking for.

Imo his misinterpretation of JW "law",especially that adhering to the treatment of wives, wrecked their marriage.

I do not say this to have a go at JW's-it's just the facts mam. I mean fella!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I meant [women] have the upper hand legally.

All over the world or in Brisbane?

Originally posted by FMF
All over the world or in Brisbane?

In brisbane and queensland, and more so than in the other eastern states (NSW and Victoria).

Many a father has gotten many raw deals from these government workers.

But so have the mothers.

It is a very sad state of affairs for some families who have to fight tooth and nail to keep their children from foster homes, when the officials had no right to attempt to displace them in the first place.

In these instances and other involving the gov. or the cops I see them going at pepple who are poor and who cannot afford lawyers straight away.


Again I am personally aquainted with examples. As soon as a responsible looking granparent (or sometimes just a rich or powerful one) comes into the picture , they quickly drop it.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
In brisbane and queensland, and more so than in the other eastern states (NSW and Victoria).

Many a father has gotten many raw deals from these government workers.

But so have the mothers.

Right so let's get this straight: you agree that, all around the world, it is pretty much women who tend [far more so than men] to be economically and culturally vulnerable and to get the raw deal - or could get an even rawer deal without the legal standing their married status gives them - except in Brisbane or Queensland, or a bit beyond that, further down the coast of Australia, maybe as far as Victoria. Is that right?

Originally posted by FMF
Right so let's get this straight: you agree that, all around the world, it is pretty much women who tend [far more so than men] to be economically and culturally vulnerable and to get the raw deal - or could get an even rawer deal without the legal standing their married status gives them - except in Brisbane or Queensland, or a bit beyond that, further down the coast of Australia, maybe as far as Victoria. Is that right?

What?

Look I'll just comment upon queensland and the eastern states

legally women automatically have the upper hand, given all things being relatively equal, even if the father has done most of the child raising and the mother has worked fulltime. (this is becomming more and more common).

Yes, the men have the physical superiority, but that only goes so far, and in this over politically correct world , if the guy should even raise a hand he will spend the night in the watchouse whereas the woman in a similar circumstance may not even have to goto the police station- even in the event that she is brandishing a weapon, (again, coming from fresh examples, not days ago)


edit: i have travelled extensively in europe and found much equality and COMMON SENSE coming into these decisions.
The lower states (NSW and Victoria) seem to be ahead of queensland, but I would not comp[are them with say, Germany- or what I saw of western and middle europe for the year i was there

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What?

Look I'll just comment upon queensland and the eastern states

legally women automatically have the upper hand, given all things being relatively equal, even if the father has done most of the child raising and the mother has worked fulltime. (this is becomming more and more common).

Yes, the men have the physical superiority, but that on ...[text shortened]... n the event that she is brandishing a weapon, (again, coming from fresh examples, not days ago)

So you agree that there are more women with kids who have been abandoned by deadbeat dads in this world than there are men with kids abandoned by deadbeat mothers, but just not in Queensland and the other eastern states of Australia. Am I hearing you right?

Originally posted by FMF
So you agree that there are more women with kids who have been abandoned by deadbeat dads in this world than there are men with kids abandoned by deadbeat mothers, but just not in Queensland and the other eastern states of Australia. Am I hearing you right?

"women who have been abandonded" , is this the issue? Do not many children come from single parent homes?
I was referring to custody and domestic violence issues, where the parent left in charge may have plenty of support left after the deadbeat parent has left.

And why do you insist on saying "deadbeat"? is it something personal or are you just trying to get me to say things that I never mentioned?

I have tried to spell this out for you, however you seem to be not comprehending? You all right over there?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"women who have been abandonded" , is this the issue? Do not many children come from single parent homes?
I was referring to custody and domestic violence issues, where the parent left in charge may have plenty of support left after the deadbeat parent has left.

And why do you insist on saying "deadbeat"? is it something personal or are you just tr ...[text shortened]... spell this out for you, however you seem to be not comprehending? You all right over there?

Generalizations are always tricky. You appear to want to make generalizations based on your own unfortunate circumstances and some - maybe many - stories that your resulting antennae understandably pick up, and you have extrapolated them to the eastern States of Australia, which is your prerogative.

I am peddling a generalization too, and it is a different one. Mine is that all around the world, it is predominantly women - far more so than men - who tend to be economically and culturally vulnerable and to get the raw deal, ending up more often than not on the wrong end of a relationship gone bad. This is based on my personal experience of Britain, parts of Europe, Japan, Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia.

I believe that - for example, in places like Indonesia where there is poverty and cultural conservatism and often low status for women or direct and indirect discrimination against them - that the institution can and does sometimes mitigate this and _ I contend - the women in question would get an even rawer deal without the legal standing their married status gives them.

That is my generalization and I am applying it to this debate on the institution of marriage. You say that Brisbane, Queensland, NSW and Victoria are different and you have anecdotal evidence to that effect. I think we understand each other. There is no problem here.

Originally posted by FMF
Generalizations are always tricky. You appear to want to make generalizations based on your own unfortunate circumstances and some - maybe many - stories that your resulting antennae understandably pick up, and you have extrapolated them to the eastern States of Australia, which is your prerogative.

I am peddling a generalization too, and it is a different o ...[text shortened]... e anecdotal evidence to that effect. I think we understand each other. There is no problem here.

No disagreement, I think I was mainly focussing on the "authorities"that bung these situations up all too often for my liking.

I do see positive change though

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Imo his misinterpretation of JW "law",especially that adhering to the treatment of wives, wrecked their marriage.

I do not say this to have a go at JW's-it's just the facts mam. I mean fella!

interesting that as Ephesians states, we are to love our wife, to feed and to cherish her,
to put her interests ahead of our own, indeed you will now explain how such principles
or their interpretation will not contribute to a happy marraige, Indeed i have a very
successful marraige based on those lofty principles, but then again i am only aware of
the difference between a law and a principle which at the moment you seem to be
blissfully unaware of, otherwise how are we to understand your phrase 'JW Law'.