I finally read the Pearl's site - and my DH's response

what article is this in?
It just says no news id given
is it the abusive husband article?

[LikeADimMirror]

have shared my sinister theory on this board before but here it is....I think the Pearls have a secondary reason for objecting to marriage licenses. I think it is part of their concept of total patriarchy. Like JandSmama pointed out: the Pearls' own daughters are without protection if their husbands become abusive or whatever.

I agree the Pearl's are cultists and I also think couples should get a state marriage license. But I don't know what you mean that the Pearl' daughters would be without protection if their husbands became abusive or whatever. Laws against battery protect everyone, married or not. In most jurisdictions, when people are living together, whoever makes the call for help is allowed to stay in the house, whoever made the call has to leave for the night (even if the house is in that person's name)--these regulations are also followed in abusive same-sex situations. Alimony is almost never given (unless their was a prenup), so its not like the daughters are losing any kind of monetary protection in this regard. Child support must always be paid, regardless if the couple is married, so they would be guarenteed that. By not marrying, they don't have to worry about incurring their husband's debt if he decides to take out loans without her knowledge (like she would if they were married.) Divorced people have a right to their COBRA if they had been covered under their spouses health insurance, but since they weren't married she wouldn't have insurance from the husband anyway. Property obtained before marriage is not considered joint property after marriage (and the Pearl's advocate the many having a house before marriage). By not marrying, she wouldn't have inheritance....but that isn't a factor in the decision to leave an abusive marriage anyway....without being married, the property would go to the children, so while it would be more messy then if it went straight to her, it's not like she would be left destitute and unable to care for their children. I guess my point is, I don't understand why anyone would rely on state-sanctioned marriage to offer some kind of protection for them.

I've read enough of the Pearl's writings to realize they have no concept that many of their ideas are reprehensible. They don't have any "secret" "patriarchal" agenda--they are quite open about their irrational beliefs, and I fully believe them when they say that their ridiculous fear of homesexuals is whytthey are against state marriage.

[Radosny Matka]

I like your dh!

I like him too. LOL!!

It turns out that the woman who brought the magazines is a friend who's a pastor's wife too! I knew she had no clue about this other stuff and when I told her, she made sure I threw them out. She HAS, however, used Debi Pearl's book to counsel women - but she did say that she always tells them that she doesn't agree with everything she says but a lot of it is good - and that's the feeling I'm getting about the wife book (I've yet to read it but I'm going to borrow her copy so that I know for myself). There's definately stuff that's dangerous (staying with an abusive spouse and such) but I do think that we're too free to leave under lesser circumstances. I started reading TTUAC online but then a friend of mine gave me her copy (that she never read, thank God) and I'm reading through it now. Ya know what's funny? He starts out talking about training horses (it seems like he compares our children to animals a lot, like there's actually a commonality between them) and I don't think he's ever been around a foal that's being trained because his supposititions are quite wrong. I DO train horses and I certainly don't set them up for failures and rarely ever have to hit a horse with a whip and if I do, it's a tap - on a large, full grown horse that's in serious training. The babies? Well, you just spend time with them and touch them, be with them, guide them gently with your hands, encourage them, show them things that might frighten them and love them through it - and they do great. I certainly don't bring a baby to something that will scare it, and when it spooks, I whip it - that would just cause WAY too many problems in the future and, believe me, dealing with a 1200 lb. frightened horse is quite rough. LOL!! I'm working with a horse right now who's huge, 1500+ lbs. and was beaten by a guy trainer and I'm dealing with the ramifications of that. He has no confidence and I'm having to work through a lot of issues that could have been avoided if this guy hadn't done what he did. This boy is quite talented but it's taking a while to get him through his 'issues'. Michael Pearl obviously hasn't been around horses yet he uses them quite freely to give examples of how to raise our children.

Ann

I train horses too, and setting them up for failure would be a)dumb and b) dangerous. Certainly not youngsters, I agree with everything you said, there.

I have never read the Pearls, had a brief look at their website, never knew how dangerous they are

A quite a good friend at church has mentioned to me before 'have you read this or that in the Pearls' and I have just very quietly said 'no' and not raised the issue - but this family is quite open in opposing ACE (curriculum) because they say it is a cult - but yet support the Pearls???

So, now I am thinking, should I says something more?

[hsgbdmama]

Another thought that came to me also is the analogy of our children to animals. Never once in Scripture are children referred to as an animal, nor are we ever directed in Scripture to treat them as such!

Originally Posted by LikeADimMirror

I don't know what you mean that the Pearl' daughters would be without protection if their husbands became abusive or whatever. Laws against battery protect everyone, married or not. In most jurisdictions, when people are living together, whoever makes the call for help is allowed to stay in the house, whoever made the call has to leave for the night (even if the house is in that person's name)--these regulations are also followed in abusive same-sex situations. Alimony is almost never given (unless their was a prenup), so its not like the daughters are losing any kind of monetary protection in this regard. Child support must always be paid, regardless if the couple is married, so they would be guarenteed that. By not marrying, they don't have to worry about incurring their husband's debt if he decides to take out loans without her knowledge (like she would if they were married.) Divorced people have a right to their COBRA if they had been covered under their spouses health insurance, but since they weren't married she wouldn't have insurance from the husband anyway. Property obtained before marriage is not considered joint property after marriage (and the Pearl's advocate the many having a house before marriage). By not marrying, she wouldn't have inheritance....but that isn't a factor in the decision to leave an abusive marriage anyway....without being married, the property would go to the children, so while it would be more messy then if it went straight to her, it's not like she would be left destitute and unable to care for their children. I guess my point is, I don't understand why anyone would rely on state-sanctioned marriage to offer some kind of protection for them.

Actually, the laws regarding division of marital property differ by state. My state is a "community property" state. My husband and I used to joke about it--once we got married, I got half of his house and business, and he got half of my college loans. It was a good deal for me. ;-)

I don't think many states would grant a "live in girlfriend" the home that they lived in should the couple split up--even if children are involved. But if they are married, there is a likelihood that the wife would get the house if she gets custody of the kids. There would probably be some calculation of how much she needed to pay him based on how long he owned the house prior to the marriage as a ratio against the length of the marriage. That is one way that not having a marriage license could mess things up.

With not being legally married, the children aren't automatically assumed to be the father's, as they are in marriage. So if there is a death issue, the property would not necessarily pass automatically to the children but rather to the father's siblings/parents--because I doubt people that aren't filing for a marriage liscense are jumping to file for birth certificates.

Further, in a death issue the non-legally married spouce would not receive pension or social security benefits.

Jenn

Originally Posted by mamame

I started reading TTUAC .... Ya know what's funny? He starts out talking about training horses ... and I don't think he's ever been around a foal that's being trained because his supposititions are quite wrong.

It's not just the horses. He talks about Amish/Mennonite people a lot--says he got ideas from them. But I don't think he really knows a lot about them either. The problem is, he seems to use the terms interchangably, and they aren't! The two groups are "cousins," and in many cases there is hostility between them. The Amish are more "old fashioned," while Mennonites are more modern. Actually, the OB who supervised the birth of my first DD (a resident caught), and who caught my second DD is Mennonite. And married for the second time--twins with first AND second wife...LOL!

Jenn

That is great to learn about the horses One of my big "a-ha" moments was reading a post from a woman who had worked with sheep, and she said simply, "you don't hit sheep." I'm sorry I can't remember who it was. Sometimes read about rod verses and think, "the rod and thy staff they comfort me," and remember, "you don't hit sheep!"

We work with sheep as well, and you work sheep with dogs. Now, those dogs never would touch a sheep, not even a big, ornery old ewe! I've had a dog nip at the heels of cattle, but our sheepdogs never, ever touch a sheep.She's right, you don't hit sheep. And dogs don't 'hit' sheep, and interestingly, if a dog tries (or even looks like it might try) to go too close to lamb, the ewe will take on the dog rather than allow her baby to get hurt (and possibly come off best, )
Also, I'd say you can't 'train' a sheep (there are probably exceptions to that, but not so's you 'd notice!) so as an analogy, illustrating the 'training' of a child it's ...er... not brilliant?