Oh Gosh. I don't really want to comment on the post but perhaps you could look at the current presumption in favour of the mother which.

Is Debra a woman?

Dear Anne,

I guess you ask me if I am a woman because this seems preposterous for a woman to post.
I assure you that I am, in fact, a woman, and understand this initial reaction, wholeheartedly.

The likely reason this seems (perhaps) weird is because The Law of God is a Law in totality.
The Whole of The Law, when practiced, would benefit women (and
everyone else) who know.

Kindly,
Debra

You missunderstand the current 'law'. The mother of a child does NOT automatically gain custody in the event of divorce. In fact, it's not even called custody in this country (you're probably thinking of the US)

Residencey usually (though not always) goes to the primary care giver. The reason for this is simple and right, the decision is made based on what is the best thing for the child.

As it is usually the mother who is the primary care giver, it is usually the mother who retains residency.

And I'm not even going to comment on the innapropriate religious arguments you have put forward.

Very good comments Debra and especially that you are a woman.

And I would prefer a Biblical interpretation of the law any day to the perverse legal system that we have ended up with.

What is a primary care giver? Someone who cares for the child physically or spiritually?

I think its clear from the verses that men are the spiritual care givers and women the more physical care givers. And just from my observation, men are better disciplinaries; when the courts and police do not take away their rights in that regard.

Very well said Debra. And Pharun too.

It's nice to see scriptures quoted from the Old Testament as well as the New. To "all" "christians" out there - God's Word NEVER CHANGES, remember? Jesus did "not" say, "ignore all previous instructions from God".

Once women (and men) realize that they have been totally duped by "women's lib", then maybe things will change. For the better of women, and for the better of all.

Well all the god stuff was going to put me off commenting here as if he existed he should be brought before the public and judged for his crimes against man...so putting all that aside.

The law should determine in favour of the children and the parents as a whole, if custardy is awarded to one then access should be simple and easy for the other, all rights regarding name, school, faith and so on joint responsibility of the pertners.

The law is an ass, we all know it as its written by people capable of error and fault, each law should be able to change and meet the aspirations of fairness and justice as time progress's a living law for people made by people.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that The Bible was written by men.

"The only Lawful reason for divorce is fornication."

The Scripture indicates fornication as distinctly separate from adultery. Definitely different.

Fornication is defined as two unmarried people having sexual
intercourse, and not adultery.

For this to be reason for divorce, then it is understood, that the marriage was never binding.
The wife belongs (men rule, not belong to women) to another,
clarifying this status of union.

As a woman who was divorced and brought up two sons alone, trying to be mum and dad wearing two hats , who tried to encourage their dad to see them regularly ( without success due to jealous second wife), who is intelligent and qualified to post grad level, and was always there when they needed and tried to do the right thing by everyone - these are my personal observations.

1) When children are disconnected from their dads they miss out on the unemotional discipline that only a dad can give.
2) As a result the world suffers because without this discipline and a man to set a good role model , how can children have the full range of balanced guidance both physical and spiritual that they need to fully develop.
3) Dads seem to pay more attention to the children within the current relationship at the expense of children from former relationships.
4) Money seems to overshadow everything at the expense of the children - you can have access so long as you pay maintenance (not me) - just not nice, or I'm paying maintenance -what more do you want? (my experience)
    
   The world needs our men to be good dads and set a good example to our children. Women ( especially second wives) need to encourage them and not put barriers in the way. It's not about money - it's about children connecting with their dads in a healthy, substantial and spiritual way.

I've had a long time to reflect on this and to be honest it has been quite a humbling experience.

     I wonder how things would be for children if men were habitually awarded residency and instead of paying maintenance paid a nanny to look after the family. This approach might reduce the instance of many social problems we face today.

Dear angelsforce,

Thank you for your kind message, and sharing your experience.

The nanny suggestion has been offered, to a man regarding this.
He was reluctant. The children want their mum, also.
It was sad.

If the dad had automatic residency, as The Law states, then the mum would be less likely to want a divorce and should obey her husband as The Law demands, and the whole family, community and nation would benefit from joined-up functional families and respectful, disciplined, well-behaved children, rather than out of control hooligans terrorising the neighbourhood.

Perhaps the issue here is the issue of what is a Lawful divorce.
Divorce, as stands now, is granted for many unlawful reasons.
Is divorce granted leniently, or obligation to marry not honored?
Unless The Law is practiced in totality, the whole family suffers.

It is a privilege to be able to speak in the community. Thank-you.

Kindly,
Debra

Well said JethroDee, curious to why Debra ignored it?

"You missunderstand the current 'law'. The mother of a child does NOT automatically gain custody in the event of divorce. In fact, it's not even called custody in this country (you're probably thinking of the US)

Residencey usually (though not always) goes to the primary care giver. The reason for this is simple and right, the decision is made based on what is the best thing for the child.

As it is usually the mother who is the primary care giver, it is usually the mother who retains residency.

And I'm not even going to comment on the innapropriate religious arguments you have put forward."

================================

"If the dad had automatic residency, as The Law states, then the mum would be less likely to want a divorce and should obey her husband as The Law demands,"

Yay legal slavery.
If the law demands the wife to obet the husband and if the husband demands his wife to never leave then no divorce anyway. Poor woman could fall out of love due to experiances changing both there perspective on things (not the same person i fell in love with), and she can't even escape.

"community and nation would benefit from joined-up functional families and respectful,"
functional? what if it was an unhappy marrage? constant arguments etc? Forcing the woman to stay wont make her happy will it? Oh and as the woman has to do what the man says, the children pick up on this and as such women start losing respect, seen as lesser.

"rather than out of control hooligans terrorising the neighbourhood."
I think you find thats from parents;
A) Not being able to punish there kids properly
B) Law protects kids to much (coppers could give kids a clip round the ear but now if they hold the kid to tight and leave a mark they can be in trouble)
C) Parents dont know true respect so they can't pass it on properly
D) There parents are arguing from an unhappy marrage and they hang around causing trouble for attention.

My parents split up when I was young, I have never been arrested for mugging some old lady, I dont have an ASBO, only way I break the law is by smoking a bit of weed occasionally in the privacy of my own home where it effect myself only.