I sometimes wonder if in the past it was actually common for adult teachers and their underaged students to engage in sexual relations, since we in recent times so often hear of such things in the news. Now it appears that one way a younger boy or girl can get rich is to have sex with a teacher, claim to be a victim of abuse and file a lawsuit to get millions of dollars from the experience. How convenient!
A website titled Let Them Marry promotes Christian standards for marriage.
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him”
There are thousands of godly young men and women who are ready to be married but are not – this is not good.
It is time for godly men to seek out the biblical path for marriage, to search out the cause of delayed or denied marriages, and to put away unbiblical ideas surrounding the marriage process.
Note: Contrary to vicious internet rumors we do not support or in any way condone child sexual activity of any sort, child marriage, or any other illegal activity. Nor do we support or condone forced marriages. We believe that parents should NOT seek a spouse for a child where that child has not actively sought for the parents to do so.
Recently, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of the many Christian based cults founded in the 19th Century, produced an attractive and professional looking video with a clear message: Jehovah will not allow gays and lesbians into Paradise.
Watch that video here:
Afterwards, consider the following questions.
How do we know that Jehovah invented marriage for us? Why him and not some other god?
What if Jehovah told us to reject interracial marriage too? The Mormons have a book that condemns people with black skin!
What if Jehovah ordered us to kill anyone above the age of 65?
How do we know there is a Paradise for us to go to?
How do we know that gays and lesbians will be excluded from Paradise?
Indeed, how do we even know Jehovah exists at all?
We KNOW that gays and lesbians exist and that some of them are PARENTS.
Using one or more things that may not be real to attack things or people that are certainly real is irrational.
And making something cute to teach BIGOTRY is the worst kind of brainwashing!
It does not matter if you say, “God hates fags!” or if you say, “Jehovah does not approve of your gay lifestyle and he will love you more if you change.” Sugarcoated bigotry is still bigotry, period!
(A father is washing dishes in the kitchen. His ten-year old son enters.)
Son: Father, why do atheists hate God?
Father: Who told you that nonsense?
Son: Uncle Bob was talking about religion with Mother in the living room.
Father: (Lowers his voice) Son, your uncle is an idiot. Atheists do not hate God because you cannot hate something if you do not believe it exists.
Son: So what are we supposed to believe about God?
Father: I can only tell you what I believe and I expect you to make up your own mind later. I believe in the God of Christianity, which is also said to be the God of Judaism and Islam.
Son: Then I choose to believe as you do.
Father: So be it. But as you grow older and learn more, you may reconsider that view. If you do, no matter what you end up with, I assure you that I will always love you.
Son: Thanks, Father.
A long time ago, I wrote this:
Having been a horny teenage boy, it seems clear to me that if I was seduced by an older woman, even if she was one of my teachers, I would not have considered myself a victim at all, but would have felt proud that she chose ME to be her sex partner! But at the same time, I would have known it to be a violation of the most basic standards of proper behavior in schools. As a willing participant in the sex acts, I would be just as guilty as the teacher and would also expect to be punished in some way. And yet, society still has this idea that someone below the age of “consent” (which varies in different countries and even different states in the USA) must automatically be called a “victim of child rape”. If that is not an obvious form of AGE DISCRIMINATION, what is?! Continue reading
Read this article:
Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support
Nick Olivas became a father at 14, a fact he wouldn’t learn for eight years.
While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.
State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. But Olivas didn’t press charges and says he didn’t realize at the time that it was even something to consider.
The two went their separate ways. Olivas graduated from high school, went to college and became a medical assistant.
Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That’s how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.
“It was a shock,” he said. “I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It’s unexplainable. It freaked me out.”
He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.
Olivas, a 24-year-old Phoenix resident, said he now owes about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child’s birth, plus 10 percent interest. The state seized money from his bank account and is now garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.
He has become one of the state’s 153,000 active child-support cases, according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security division of Child Support Services.
In May alone, payments were not made in 49 percent of those cases, according to the agency.
Olivas’ fear has turned to frustration.
He wants to be in his daughter’s life and is willing to pay child support going forward. But he doesn’t think it’s right for the state to charge him for fees incurred when he was still a child himself or for the years he didn’t know the girl existed.
“Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for,” he said. “But as a teenager? I don’t think so.”
I have already made my opposition to the concept of statutory rape clear. The state of Arizona, and every other state that has such a concept, must make a choice: Either discard the concept, or never charge the underage fathers that result from such acts as being financially responsible for the babies that are later born. Actually, I think they should do both.
On the one hand, I do not think there was a “rape”, since Olivas clearly consented to having sex with the older woman. But because what they did was illegal, OF COURSE she kept the relationship and the paternity of the baby secret…..until the boy had grown up and had started a lucrative career that she could take advantage of! Indeed,I have to wonder…..why hasn’t the woman been arrested and charged with rape? If a 20 year old man had gotten a 14 year old girl pregnant, wouldn’t the expected actions of the state against the man be obvious?
In the case of a boy so young he could not even hold down a full time job at the time the baby was born, the issue is obvious; he should be released from paying any child support, no matter how many years have passed and the state should NOT charge him for back child support! If an older woman is stupid enough to have a child by an underaged boy, she alone should care physically and financially for that child, period. Or if she cannot due to lack of child support payments, she should not have custody of the baby. Even if Nick Olivas was not a rape victim of the mother of his child, he currently IS a victim of a state that has trapped itself in a contradiction resulting from “pro-family” values not based on practical reality, which should forever be the ONLY basis for laws and procedures of any government!