Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because being her husband, you are by default the father of her children conceived during the marriage. It may not seem right but if you dont want to accept that responsibility, dont marry.
With all due respect that response is idiotic!!
So it's my responsibility to financially support the children of another man's and my wife's adultery!!??
It's my responcibility to enable the wife to cheat with no penalty or repercussions.
Please re-read the first sentence of my reply!!
The law for this was written at a time of great ignorance and notions that women could not be capable of such treacherous behavior; well time and DNA tests have proven that fallacy false.
So it's my responsibility to financially support the children of another man's and my wife's adultery!!??
.
You were perfectly free to have that disclaimer written into your marriage vows. Did you? Or was your vow one of those no-matter-what things?
Will you love her, honor her, comfort her, and keep her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to her as long as you both shall live? (I will).
I don't see anything in there about what you're talking about.
Marital and domestic relationships are not constitutional issues.
They can definitely involve constitutional issues -- such as the constitutionality of requiring someone who hasn't committed a crime to furnish a body tissue sample. As in, it's unconsitutional.
If no father is listed...then there is no father...that's an easy one. I would like to see this implemented when child support is awarded....meaning no child support until a DNA test proves the kid is indeed yours. I really can't see how one could be against this idea.
I am against it because I feel the Gov should GTFO of our daily lives, and deal with other stuff, not what's going on in my house as long as it's legal (which it is, BTW!).
They can definitely involve constitutional issues -- such as the constitutionality of requiring someone who hasn't committed a crime to furnish a body tissue sample. As in, it's unconsitutional.
The government requires people who haven't committed a crime to furnish all kinds of things. Name, address, photo ID, birth certificates, social security numbers, signatures, income data, breathalyzer, car search, proof of citizenship, draft registration, jury duty, wanded and patted down. And what about that envelope you got in the mail last week, from the Census Bureau?
Requiring the tissue sample is not the issue. Imposing mandatory sanctions or classifications on people against their will on the basis of the tissue sample is the issue.
What?? In your example...does the husband KNOW that the kid isn't his? If so what makes you think he would even stick around if he found out he was cheated on?
So how would you propose a DNA test be done if the father isn't available at the birth? What if the father is deployed? What if the father is deceased? What if the father refuses? What if the father disappears? What if the father is out of town on a business trip? What if.., what if.., what if.. .
It's obvious who the mother is, but what difference does it make to anyone besides the father, mother and child, who the father is? Unless it's a welfare issue, then they do what they have to do.
+10. People are really naive to think that men want to spend their hard-earned money and resources that he's accumulated over his lifetime on a kid that's not his genetic progeny (particularly if he was tricked into it). Men FEAR being "cuckolded", that is humiliating
.................................................. ..............................................
What people "want" and what they "get" are two different things.
Its no secret that the law makes the man married to a woman at the time she gives birth the "legal" or "presumptive" father of all children born during that marriage. You can find this out. Its there in the state code in virtually all states. A competent family lawyer can tell you this as well. The point is that its no military secret that is closely guarded.
If a man fears this he shouldn't get married. Or, he should marry someone that you can count on. If you believe that a DNA test is necessary for you to have "peace of mind" than you probably shouldn't get married. You're exactly the paranoid suspicious type that is better off outside a committed relationship. Just because you want peace of mind, the rest of us are not obligated to institute an expensive procedure that has serious implications for privacy.
Do understand that if you "tie the knot" there are certain legal obligations that come along with it. You can choose not to support the children born during your union. Society can choose to seize your property and garnish your wages for failing to pay. In extreme cases, it may incarcerate you in prison for habitual failure to pay child support. There is also social stigma. I would never hire a person who wouldn't pay their child support. That sort of a person occupies a rung in the social ladder beneath "thief". Thieves usually steal from businesses who are in some position to protect themselves. A parent who won't pay financial support to a vulnerable child is worse than the garden variety thief.
This dicussion just goes to prove that men are their own worst enemies when it comes to these issues between the sexes.
You actually have men rationalizing as to why men should be legally obligated to provide financial security to a child conceived by an adulterous wife unbeknownst to him. These men are actually advocating that we just "suck it up" and look "beyond" that for the safety and security of the child. Afterall, we wouldn't want to upset the family!-yikes...It's pretty scary knowing that there are actually men out there walking around with this line of logic in their heads.
Well, okay, I'll bite. There is a whole lot of constitutional issues, as well as purely practical issues here that those overly concerned with cheating women aren't appreciating.
First of all, I want to put a certain recurring misconception to rest. I realize femininity is a bottomless well of mystery to some, but let me assure you here and now that women don't possess evil superpowers. We really don't. If a woman has regular intercourse with two or more men and gets pregnant, she has no way of knowing who impregnated her. If a woman has a one-time sexual indiscretion and gets pregnant during a period when she also has sex with her husband every night, she would be safe in assuming the child is her husband's. And inasmuch as fraud incorporates and element of intent, there can be no talk of "paternity fraud" where the woman simply doesn't know.
As to the mandatory testing itself: Who will pay for it? Insurance companies definitely won't, since a DNA test isn't medically necessary in this situation. Should the patients pay out of pocket? What about poor patients who can't afford it? Should the hospital absorb the cost? How will you make sure that this cost does not get passed on to other patients? The taxpayers? Well, I certainly don't want my tax money to go towards exposing people's private marital problems. It's none of my business and none of the government's - and I think I'm not alone here.
What do you do with people who refuse to submit to the test? Force them? Generally, you cannot compel the production of bodily fluids and tissues in the absence of independent evidence that a crime has been committed. Are you going to criminalize adultery? Yes, I know, some states still have those medieval statutes on the books, but none of them treats every pregnant woman as a presumptive criminal. Because that's what you'll need to do in this case, and regardless of how resentful you feel towards the female sex, that's just not something that society will accept.
if you're married and you stepped outside your marriage even once, you've still opened the door to someone besides your husband being the father of your child AND failure to disclose this information to your husband can easily be misconstrued as paternity fraud. even if you're not married, not letting a man know he's not the only potential father is deplorable, especially if you're collecting some sort of support from this man.
with that said, i've been thinking about this issue alot over the past couple of months because i know a handful of friends and family in this situation and even though i'm on the fence for mandatory testing, i am for legislation against parternity fraud, something many states are beginning to adopt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
