Wildfires sweep Southern California

[GG]

Interesting. So if you are receiving state student financial aid, you are at the school by grace of the state, which is secular in nature, and therefore, not controlled by religious decree.

I think it's a very sneaky way to take control of all the schools.

The school recieves no funds, the funds are given to the kids. I don't see why goverfnment funding to the kids should change who controls the schools. It should be with no strings attached.

The funds are given to the kids to attend a specific school - i.e. to pay THAT schools tuition. Damn skippy the public state should not pay tuition for certain students to attend certain schools. (with exception made for schools that are specific to learning or medial needs - and don't bust my balls over this, you know what I mean).

If you choose to send your child to a private school for specifc teaching, then you do so. Pay for it. Otherwise accept the public system. No different then healthcare should be.

[Ben Kenobi]

The funds are given to the kids to attend a specific school - i.e. to pay THAT schools tuition. Damn skippy the public state should not pay tuition for certain students to attend certain schools. (with exception made for schools that are specific to learning or medial needs - and don't bust my balls over this, you know what I mean).

I do know. When this state refuses to pay for my hearing aids, while doling out cheque after cheque for the other 'special needs students', yes I know exactly what you mean.

I honestly think the State of California should just give the money to the families, and allow them to choose the school that they want to send their children. This would result in savings to the public school system, as the schools which would underperform would get less funding then those which can attract students from elsewhere. It also introduces a measure of competition. Where I disagree is that the government should put strings attached to any institution that chooses to enroll students that are funded by the government. That is the part I have a problem.

If you choose to send your child to a private school for specifc teaching, then you do so. Pay for it. Otherwise accept the public system. No different then healthcare should be.

I think all students should get the same amount of money. If the parents chose to send their child to a private school, and use the stipend given to them by the government for this purpose, then that should be just as valid as giving it to a public school. I also don't believe that those who choose to send their children to private schools should have to pay twice, once for the private school, and once to fund the public schools.

[Ben Kenobi]

Child support is always an option if you have two people willing to negotiate. Family law applies ONLY when the two parties involved are not willing to "settle" on issues. If you hear of a case where "Joe or Joette Blow" are forced to pay "x dollars" it's because they were not willing to bend. Trust me. This is an area I am very familiar with.

As am I. I know of cases where the government has said, at least in the US that the men must pay a certain amount of child support, regardless if they want to.

If child support was truly voluntary, then if a man chose not to pay child support, then he should be allowed not to pay.

As it stands right now, it doesn't matter what the father wants. If the father decides to pay, the mother can always go to court and get mandatory payments. If the father chooses not to pay, then the same will occur.

If the mother chooses not to pay when the father is looking after the children, there is no enforcement whatsoever.

Life isn't as cut and dried as you think, Ben. Wait 20 years. Heck, wait 10 years.

Don't presume please. I don't assume you are at all ignorant.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of my whole researched response, your only cue is the child support thing?

What about the rest of the issue?

Child support wasn't even one of your main debatable points....??

My point is that sex is an essential part of being a mother and a father, and that I am shocked you would deny that a natural parent is a mother and a father, and say that sex has nothing to do with parenthood. In my eyes, that is part of the problem today.

If I have children, I would be ashamed if another man had the responsibility of looking after them because they are my children. Yes, I know adoptive parents who do a wonderful job with their children, but to be honest, in a perfect world, every child would have a mother and a father. Every child deserves one. When we say that sex has nothing to do with being a parent, then we deny the responsibility of the mothers and fathers to care for the children that they conceive.

[GG]

Of my whole researched response, your only cue is the child support thing?

What about the rest of the issue?

Child support wasn't even one of your main debatable points....??

My point is that sex is an essential part of being a mother and a father, and that I am shocked you would deny that a natural parent is a mother and a father, and say that sex has nothing to do with parenthood. In my eyes, that is part of the problem today.

If I have children, I would be ashamed if another man had the responsibility of looking after them because they are my children. Yes, I know adoptive parents who do a wonderful job with their children, but to be honest, in a perfect world, every child would have a mother and a father. Every child deserves one. When we say that sex has nothing to do with being a parent, then we deny the responsibility of the mothers and fathers to care for the children that they conceive.

Sex is an essential part of creating life - not being a mom or dad. Yes, by virtue of that creation, you are now given that title, but that does not mean that said kid is going to think that's what you are.

Mom and Dad is a term that is applied to the primary (and sometimes there is a passel of them) caregiver in that kids life.

And sex does having nothing to do with being a parent. Sex is an act that sometimes results in a child. That has nothing to do with teaching said child how to tie their shoes, brush their teeth, or reading them a bedtime story. Sex does not check the closet for monsters, does not teach ABC's or warn a child not to talk to strangers. Those are things parents do.

And sometimes the parents who check for monsters are not the same parents who did the wild thing to create said monster bait.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sex is an essential part of creating life - not being a mom or dad.

No child is brought into the world without sex. It should be that having sex is an essential part of being a mom and dad, because that would mean that all the children who are brought up into this world are cared for by the same people that had children together.

Yes, by virtue of that creation, you are now given that title, but that does not mean that said kid is going to think that's what you are.

It should. Again, I'd be ashamed if I had a child out there and another man had the responsibility of caring for that child. It's my responsibility to be a dad and a father to the child.

Mom and Dad is a term that is applied to the primary (and sometimes there is a passel of them) caregiver in that kids life.

No, it isn't. The mom has always been the mom for the child. Are you saying that the primary caregiver will supercedes the mother who held the child in her womb for 9 months and gave birth to her? Yes children can and do have adoptive parents, but that does not make the adoptive parents the mom instead of the mother who gave birth to her child.

The problem is that the two functions should be one and together. The mother who gives birth to her child, should be the one who looks after her child, the mother in both senses of the word. To separate the two from each other is not how things ought to be. It should only be in extraordinary circumstances that the primary caregiver is not the mother and the father of the child.

And sex does having nothing to do with being a parent. Sex is an act that sometimes results in a child. That has nothing to do with teaching said child how to tie their shoes, brush their teeth, or reading them a bedtime story. Sex does not check the closet for monsters, does not teach ABC's or warn a child not to talk to strangers. Those are things parents do.

I'm a babysitter, that does all these things for a child. Does that mean if I spend more time with the children then their mother and father currently do that I would become the mother and the father? No. Yes, all these things are important, but conceiving the child is also important to. Why is this so hard for you garden gnome? It seems simple to me. If you have sex, and that sex results in pregnancy, then you are the mother and the father, no matter what. Other people may choose to look after the child, and become the only mother and father that the child knows, but that does not mean that the father and the mother of the child will stop being the mother and the father.

And sometimes the parents who check for monsters are not the same parents who did the wild thing to create said monster bait.

It should be.

[GG]

You use "should be" a great deal.

I use "is".

And there lies the difference.