/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>569012

Umm have you heard about alimony?

>>569016

Just

>>569016

what if tyrone has no income subject to alimony and instead defers to committing petty crime to be put into a state (you and I)-subsidized vacation for him known as the US prison system? How will your deflowered maiden daughter and her bastard offspring survive?

>>569012

>Let's say that you have a maiden daughter who gets deflowered by Tyrone

unless it's legit rape then it's my fault for raising my daughter wrong. Also the race here isn't an issue.

>>569012

The church should enforce marriage tbh.

>deflowered by Tyrone

She was either raped or I have failed to raise her properly. In the case of rape, adoption and having the family help raise the child is valid. If not, she has made a poor choice in husbando material and it will come down to the deliberation of her betters to decide if the marriage should be done. Otherwise she'll have to find someone new.

>>569012

>forced marriage

Um, no. I'm not going to force my daughter to marry anyone. My daughter and my wife and I will take care of the child and "Tyrone" will pay child support and be allowed visitation.

However, I assume you're using the name "Tyrone" to imply that I would react differently if the man in question were black. My reaction to ANY man impregnating my daughter would be the same. The child is my grandchild and I will take care of it, but there will be no forced marriage.

>>569049

Exodus 22:16-17 says that the marriage should be carried out unless the father objects. Why would you choose to put the child up for adoption when you can force Tyrone to be a present father in the child's life? And if Tyrone himself decides to murder someone or threaten someone's property, why don't we execute tyrone or threaten his property too? Quid pro quo.

>>569038

perhaps it would be one of the few arguments for bringing back forced labour

>>569012

>Tyrone

>plz /christian/ be racist like meeeeee

>Baptist

You might want to change flags if you're going false-flag, /pol/. The various Baptist churches are overwhelmingly black, especially in the Southern US. Might want to do a little more research before trying to take over /christian/ with your drivel.

>>569054

Forced labor still exists in prisons in all 50 states, but the problem with a "jail job" is that it pays $1-$2 a day at best. If your court ordered child support is, let's say, $300 a month, no amount of forced labor in jail is going to pay that.

>>569056

I'm not false-flagging. I'm showing you what the bible says

>16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

>17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

I can use the metonym "Tyrone" if I want to do so. If the implications of the metonym were not true, then you would have an objection to it. You don't though.

>>569057

Sorry I don't have knowledge on US laws. Why does it pay only that little? Are they being used for some absolutely worthless tasks or does someone take most of the profit?

>>569074

It pays so little because the inmate is given free housing and food, etc. There's no reason to pay a corrections inmate at all, but they use pay as an incentive to keep them working. The hope is that they'll get used to working a daily job so they'll continue to do so when they're released.

>>569074

>>569078

Exactly, therefore the state pays out double at your expense and my expense if she consummated her marriage with a scumbag.

>>569064

>mentioned none of that in the OP

<n-no guys I'm not from /pol/ belieeeeeve meeeee

>>569080

Why do you assume that someone impregnating a woman out of wedlock will go to jail? You asked why the State doesn't force a man to marry a woman he has impregnated and now you're going on tirades about jail.

>>569084

You would know if you would follow the discussion. We started with alimony but op asked what if he doesn't work and go to prison.

>>569087

>>569084

Because they go hand in hand. Think about it.

If your daughter is pregnant, then that child is the responsibility of the parents. Therefore they should get married.

If the father does not pay for his child, then the wife and child starve.

But if said father who cannot provide for his family commits a crime, then the wages are provided from the state to the family as a function of his incarceration.

>>569087

Thanks.

>>569081

>If you say "Tyrone" you're from /pol/

Weak.

>>569089

>that child is the responsibility of the parents

Primarily, yes, but there's this little thing called "the rest of the family." My daughter is my child and, thus, is my responsibility. Her getting pregnant doesn't mean she stops being my child.

>Therefore they should get married.

This is incidental and meaningless when it comes to the care of the child.

>If the father does not pay for his child, then the wife and child starve.

… what is the weather like on your planet??

>father who cannot provide for his family commits a crime

Your flow chart is strange. What if he doesn't commit a crime? The child still needs care and if the father cannot provide it, then I will. She's my daughter, my child, and therefor my responsibility.

>no one itt knows the real trad answer

i think you know what i mean

>>569094

>Her getting pregnant doesn't mean she stops being my child.

Which is why the law, God's law, states that you are given the right from God to force Tyrone to provision your granddaughter. This is the principle behind shotgun weddings.

<Therefore they should get married.

>This is incidental and meaningless when it comes to the care of the child.

No this is literally the whole thing. Tyrone NEEDS to take care of the child that she bore. He cannot abdicate his responsibility from doing so.

<If the father does not pay for his child, then the wife and child starve.

>… what is the weather like on your planet??

I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm saying those are the natural consequences.

<father who cannot provide for his family commits a crime

>Your flow chart is strange. What if he doesn't commit a crime?

If he doesn't commit a crime, then he's taking care of his family.

>The child still needs care and if the father cannot provide it, then I will. She's my daughter, my child, and therefor my responsibility.

Yeah exactly, either YOU enforce Tyrone to do what you would be doing or else you "utterly refuse" and do it yourself:

>16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

>17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Exodus 22

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>>569100

This is the trad answer.

>>569084

Im a bit confused. I though the logic of this problem goes like this:

Tyrone get's your daughet pregnant

1.Tyrone begomes her husband and provide for family - PROBLEM SOLVED

2. Tyrone doesn't want to have anything to do with the kid or his gf. He's forced to pay alimony

a) Tyrone pays alimony JUST I mean problem solved

b) Tyrone doesn't want to pay anything. He goes to jail for that. What now?

>>569101

>you are given the right from God to force Tyrone to provision your granddaughter

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If Tyrone doesn't have the money, then he doesn't have the money. Obviously I would demand child support, but if he can't pay … das it.

>Tyrone NEEDS to take care of the child

You can take care of a child without being married. Forcing my daughter into a marriage she doesn't want is off the table. It's a non-issue.

> I'm saying those are the natural consequences.

So, if the father doesn't provide, the wife and child starve? That is exactly what you said, but it is so far from the truth. By your logic, there would be no single mothers because they all starved and died.

>>569103

>Tyrone get's your daughet pregnant

Established.

>1.Tyrone begomes her husband and provide for family - PROBLEM SOLVED

This is one solution, yes.

>2. Tyrone doesn't want to have anything to do with the kid or his gf. He's forced to pay alimony

Alimony is for cases of divorce. I think you mean child support, which does not require marriage.

>a) Tyrone pays alimony JUST I mean problem solved

This is a potential solution

>b) Tyrone doesn't want to pay anything. He goes to jail for that. What now?

All he has to do to avoid jail is to sign away his paternal rights to the child. No child support, no jail; but that doesn't mean my daughter and her child magically starve to death.

>>569103

OP here. Confirmed.

>>569105

>Obviously I would demand child support, but if he can't pay … das it.

DAS IT!!1

>Forcing my daughter into a marriage she doesn't want is off the table.

If she didn't want to get married, why did she consummate the marriage?

>So, if the father doesn't provide, the wife and child starve?

If you yourself can't and/or do not want to, then you can LAWFULLY force Tyrone to do it. Lawful is not the same as legal

<a) Tyrone pays alimony JUST I mean problem solved

>This is a potential solution

No this is the SOLUTION to the problem. Seems YOU'RE the 1488'er here.. seems

<b) Tyrone doesn't want to pay anything. He goes to jail for that. What now?

>All he has to do to avoid jail is to sign away his paternal rights to the child.

What? You can't "sign" away his paternal rights to the child. Dude. Think about what you're saying. "SIGN AWAY the paternal rights" To whom is he signing? What is he signing? Explain it to yourself and then explain it to me, please.

>>569105

> All he has to do to avoid jail is to sign away his paternal rights to the child.

Can you do that? If yes then solution is to fix this shitty us law then.

>>569110

>DAS IT!!1

Yes … das it. There is literally nothing I could do to force Tyrone to pay child support.

>If she didn't …

You ever sin? Ever make a mistake? You sure are throwin' those stones as if you didn't.

>you can LAWFULLY force Tyrone to do it

How?

>You can't "sign" away his paternal rights to the child.

Yes, you can sign away your parental rights. Voluntary termination of parental rights is a thing and people do it all the time. It means that the parent no longer has the rights to visitation and can no longer do things like sign medical documents, file dependency taxes, and all manner of LEGAL things. Being a biological parent doesn't mean you're automatically a legal parent.

>>569112

It varies from state to state, but does have its uses in some cases. If the eponymous "Tyrone" isn't going to support the child anyway, then why should he have the right to visit or to sign school papers or claim the child on his taxes?

My knee jerk reaction would be to cut all ties with her. Possibly the most irresponsible thing a person can do, I don't see why I would invest any more of my resources into a failure.

>>569119

>There is literally nothing I could do to force Tyrone to pay child support.

No that's MY line. Currently there literally ISN'T anything you could do to force Tyrone to pay child support. That's literally the problem. I think you're just being pathologically disagreeable.

<If she didn't …

>You ever sin? Ever make a mistake? You sure are throwin' those stones as if you didn't.

We're talking about how a functional civilization should be versus what we have, not about my personal sins or yours.

<you can LAWFULLY force Tyrone to do it

>How?

Shotgun weddings

<You can't "sign" away his paternal rights to the child.

>Yes, you can sign away your parental rights.

You didn't answer my question

What are you signing and to whom are you signing

Let me answer it for you. You are signing an appeal the third party of the contract, THE STATE, to dictate the terms and conditions of the marriage to function contrary to the reality of the marriage. Tyrone IS the father of the child – nothing can change that. By signing something to the state, you are conscripting that third party, the state, to enforce an appeal to use force to enable abdication of your responsibilities as a father.

>Being a biological parent doesn't mean you're automatically a legal parent.

That's exactly what it SHOULD mean, but you're right, it doesn't automatically make him a LEGAL parent. Therefore the legal binding is UNLAWFUL.

You do not understand the difference between "legal" and "lawful."

>>569127

>My knee jerk reaction would be to cut all ties with her.

And it is your biblical right to do so and to force Tyrone to provide for her instead.

>Possibly the most irresponsible thing a person can do, I don't see why I would invest any more of my resources into a failure

The flipside is that she is your responsibility until you give her away in marriage.

That's the purpose of the ceremony when the father is giving away the daughter to the husband.

>>569128

>Shotgun weddings

That's actually a crime, you know. You can't just pull deadly weapons on someone and you can't force them to sign a marriage contract. That would be "under duress" and render the contract invalid.

I think you're talking about the world you want, not the world that is. You need to face reality. Exodus is not Law and it is the Law, not Exodus, that determines who is and who is not married and the obligations, legally, of a parent to a child.

If you don't believe me, go brandish a gun on someone and force them to do something "lawful" in the eyes of God. You'll be the one in prison.

I also suggest you refrain from having kids.

>>569127

>My knee jerk reaction would be to cut all ties with her.

If you had a daughter, that wouldn't be your knee jerk reaction. Once you have kids, everything changes. I have 4 daughters and there is nothing in the world they could do that would cause me to abandon them or cast them out among the wolves. Reprimand them, surely, but never cast them out.

>>569012

>Do you expect the state to make Tyrone marry your daughter in order to take care of her son?

In an ideal world? Sure. But that isn't what happens today.

>If so, why doesn't the state force Tyrone to marry your daughter?

Because of progressivism and Jewish judges and lawyers.

>Her child is also his responsibility, correct?

I guess so.

>Why instead does the state force the tax payer (you and I) to pay for Tyrone's bastard son while allowing Tyrone to do the same thing to other people?

>If the state is responsible for enforcing marriage, why does it do such a shit job at doing so?

See above. Progressivism and Jewish judges and lawyers.

>And if the state is not responsible for enforcing marriage, then who is?

There is a bigger problem here. The fact that your daughter allowed herself to be impregnated by someone who is not willing to be married first implies you haven't raised your daughter outside the influence of modern culture enough. The mistake was on the parents' part first, on the fornicators' part second and of course anyone else who would encourage fornication shares in the blame for the problem at large. All you can do now is provide for your estranged daughter and pray to God for not being able to raise your child properly. Use your experience as an example to others not to be passive about allowing fornication and shame women who do it, as a form of protecting other innocent maiden daughters. Also as a bigger issue, you have to get the subversive judges and lawyers out of the courts, media and education system who all promote and make a profit from these kinds of things.

>>569119

>Being a biological parent doesn't mean you're automatically a legal parent.

Allowing people to sign away their natural God-given rights is a slippery slope that I'm glad we haven't allowed. We would find such a contractual termination of parental rights to be unlawful. Such things have happened in cases with surrogate mothers who change their mind and want to raise their biological child themselves; the contract they signed is found to be unlawful in that case.

>>569133

One of my greatest fears in life is that exact possibility. Being emotionally forced to not be able to cast out rotten fruit is incredibly frightening. Possibly damning, even.

>>569134

>In an ideal world? Sure. But that isn't what happens today.

You're calling it "non-ideal" and I'm calling it suicidal.

>Because of progressivism and Jewish judges and lawyers.

exactly. We do it to ourselves too. Every judge and lawyer who affirms the statutes are just as guilty as the people who enacted the statute in the first place.

>See above. Progressivism and Jewish judges and lawyers.

Pathologically disagreeable.

>There is a bigger problem here. The fact that your daughter allowed herself to be impregnated by someone who is not willing to be married first implies you haven't raised your daughter outside the influence of modern culture enough. The mistake was on the parents' part first, on the fornicators' part second and of course anyone else who would encourage fornication shares in the blame for the problem at large. All you can do now is provide for your estranged daughter and pray to God for not being able to raise your child properly. Use your experience as an example to others not to be passive about allowing fornication and shame women who do it, as a form of protecting other innocent maiden daughters. Also as a bigger issue, you have to get the subversive judges and lawyers out of the courts, media and education system who all promote and make a profit from these kinds of things.

Thank you, that's exactly what my point is. And everyone puts up with it. None of that stuff would exist if there wasn't a state enabling it. If everyone governed their own affairs then it wouldn't happen.

You and I both agree on this, don't you think more men would? If so, why do we by default assume that we are alone in thinking like this and that everybody other than our own selves is an animal?

>>569141

>If everyone governed their own affairs then it wouldn't happen.

Are you seriously saying to abolish the state? That's creating five new problems for every one you solve. Without enforcable marriage contracts of some kind, married parents could simply verbally agree not to be married any time with no consequences, robbing the child of its family. Before the state issued licenses (for taxes) there were other forms of binding contract, I'd consider that first.

Having no legally binding framework is not only degenerate as an impulse, it's actually untenable, as some new law system will fill the void in the ensuing violence. Many communists pretend to be anarchists for this reason.

>>569141

>clings desperately to Exodus in case some nigger fucks his pure white daughter

>doesn't realize that marriage is a state enforced legal contract in the OT

Man, some of y'all Baptists are strange

>>569151

where in the bible do the words "legal" and "state" occur?

>>569171

>it can't be a State cuz it's not modern like 'Murrika

Is dis nigga serious?

>>569177

Are you serious?