Petitions for money inappropriate?

[Ray]

     

[chizz]

Common Law

nonsense. Common law has nothing to do with the bible. If you do find it, please share book, chapter, verse, but let me help you. It's not there. With this kind of thinking, i can see why you're a "former" minister.

" Ray you a complete ignoramus period, when a person differs in a opinion with you , you get anal and malicious, this is an indication of immaturity and ignorance."

When people disagree with you, you call them heathens so what does this make you?

Bottom line is you try to sound intelligent and only exposed yourself as a monumental hypocrite.
chizz

[markanthony7]

Chizz you do not know what you are talking about , in ancient history civilization and past there was no such thing as a legally binding exchange of vows or a formal wedding, as in our contemporary society, just a wedding reception or celebration, Jesus told his disciples "I go away to prepare a place for you that where I am there you may also be also" this was customary of ancient marriage where the bride groom would prepare a home and household for his bride and upon the completion of  the residence he would bring his new wife to the home and this was marriage, the primitive custom is similar in Colombia, most Colombians do not have formal weddings that just bring there spouse to their residence and sometimes notary but this is considered marriage or "common law marriage"

[David]

from: David on Yesterday at 08:16:13 PM
So let me get this straight. Planting and irrigating crops is only from morality? So nevermind about the "trying to survive and live part" huh?
At the time people started planting crops, they could have foraged for foods. Planting crops was just easier and a bit more stable. Is trying to achieve a better, more luxurious lifestyle part of the drive to survive? I don't think so. I suppose that showing off a Gucci purse, bragging about your new car or 120" plasma TV, or eating beluga caviar are all part of the instinctual drive to survive?

I agree, planting crops is easier. Please don't put the beginnings of man trying to survive with people trying to afford the plush things in our contemporary society. You're splitting hairs, and you know it  . There is a huge difference between not having any technology to plant crops and saying you need a plasma tv just to survive   Survival is eating, and shelter. More luxerious accomodations such as leather sofas are not required for survival.

It is only when people live together does moraliy come into existence.
And this is where you get into concepts of natural law, and where I urge you to read philosophy instead of my posts. Basically, the idea that morality is determined by society and is only valid because it is properly promulgated is a philosophical outlook that has not been around very long, has caused quite a few bad results (including the support of dictatorships, and the aforementioned Nazis), and is mostly favored by self-styled intellectuals who are out of touch with reality.

Let's basically say it this way: if you think the Nazis were morally correct, you win. If not, I win.

I agree, my philosophy is rusty, but that doesn't mean that I can correlate or understand that it takes a group of people to decide morality. The idea that you are born with some sort of moral compass to guide you is a bunch of malarkey. Why is it ok for some communities and cultures to be cannabalistic? Where is their moral compass?

The German's in 1920's and 30's were in a horrific depression, mainlly caused by world war 1, and the accords placed on them from the signing at Versaille. As a result, the building tension left a vaccum for healing. When Hilter rose as a figure with an answer (blame the Jews) people found an outlet for their pain from the economic depression. Unfortunately it was hatred and realising that tension and pain upon the Jews. So in essence, morality shifted. It became "ok" in the German publics view to kill Jews. Obviously the rest of the world, whose morality was different, was still moderately balanced about the deaths of fellow human beings. So yes, morality is fluid.

Actually, if you look at judicial opinions from the time, you will get a slightly different picture. Judges during the period basically went along with the "the law is promulgated properly by the government, so there's nothing we can do" attitude, even though many of them thought it was morally wrong. If people had just done the moral thing and stood up for what most thought, especially in retrospect, was a horrible thing, the horrible genocide wouldn't have happened. If you'll look at the basic law in Germany, it reflects an incredibly strong desire to never have such an atrocity happen again, and commands government officials to take account of the dignity of all human beings.

OK, first of all, judical opinions may matter for historical understanding, but they in no way controlled the public opinion. They might have had a small percentage of the responsibility to say "Yo, Hitler, take it easy man," but they are human beings too, and are just as susceptable to the hateful influence. The fact is Hitler found a place for the public's anger and people followed. Were they easily influenced? Yes. Was it immoral? Yes. But did the moral values change due to anger and hatred from economically difficult times? Yes. From one leader finding a place to vent the anger, he could control the population and change the modality of thought, the moral structure. Some rebellled and left, most chose to go along with it.

Although there may be circumstances which influence a person or people to act in an immoral way, that doesn't change the fact that it's immoral. While you can say the Germans were in a bad spot, and so looked to hitler for rejuvenation, and were willing to ignore the atrocities they committed, it doesn't make genocide morally correct. It just means that the typical German didn't have the moral fortitude to say "prosperity be damned, i'd rather die in a gutter than be part of one of the most atrocious acts in human history!" You can forgive them, you can make excuses for them, but I really hope that you don't truly believe that genocide is morally correct.

You are correct, it doesn't change that times contemporary ideology that its immoral. If that society was origianlly anit-genocide, then overriding that is immoral. However, if it is already the morality of that culture, country, or community, then who is to say it is immoral? Example: Big safari hunts in Africa were not seen as immoral by western eyes until the population of animals declined drastically, and people came together to say "this is wrong." Example: Cannabalism.

I disagree that the the Germans didn't have "moral fortitude" as the sole reason they gave into Hitler's ideology. I don't believe any German thought that Hilter was going to take it the extent of the concentration death camps. It more simplistic at the beginning: The Jews are to blame.

Just because I am agruing that morals are fluid, doesn't mean I condone genocide. Please don't insinuate that, and make the distinction. I'm not forgiving or making excuses for anyone. You are the one who sighted the Nazi's and German people. I am simply using your same example for my argument.

Another good place to look is slavery in America. Judges, even abolitionist judges, would adhere to the laws regarding slavery, even though they thought it was a horrible, inhumane practice, because the formal rules told them that's how they must do it. Quite literally tormented with the idea of allowing slavery, they nevertheless felt they had to support it in their official role. If they had just struck down the slavery laws they knew to be immoral, we'd all be thanking them for it today.

I simply don't believe that American judges turned a blind eye to inhumane justices in the past because the rules told them too. People are susceptable to influence and judges are not beyond it.

[chizz]

Chizz you do not know what you are talking about , in ancient history civilization and past there was no such thing as a legally binding exchange of vows or a formal wedding, as in our contemporary society, just a wedding reception or celebration, Jesus told his disciples "I go away to prepare a place for you that where I am there you may also be also" this was customary of ancient marriage where the bride groom would prepare a home and household for his bride and upon the completion of  the residence he would bring his new wife to the home and this was marriage, the primitive custom is similar in Colombia, most Colombians do not have formal weddings that just bring there spouse to their residence and sometimes notary but this is considered marriage or "common law marriage"

I applaud your ability to avoid the issue, very slick of you. However, you're trying to cover your blatant and obvious transgression. As a "christian", im sure you read hebrews, or maybe even galatians 5. Sexual immorality is rampant in the bible, i could give your many quotes that would actually show you what a hypocrite you are. That was a nice quote from jesus you put in your post, but has nothing to do with what where talking about. You were called to the carpet about your sexual immorality as a christian, and instead of owning up to it(shocking) you come up with this lame excuse. You're not colombian, this woman is, and you're not married. As a "former" minister you should be embarrassed. I'm still waiting for book, chapter, verse by the way.
chizz

[jm21-2]

Well, apparently I have way too much time on my hands, so...

Obviously I exaggerated a little comparing planting crops to gucci purses, but the basic idea is that if we were acting purely on instinct, no one would think about planting crops. It simply wouldn't occur to them. You don't "instinctually" develop a relatively complicated process of growing crops, then "instinctually" wait a year for them to grow, when there are other ways to get food.

You could make an argument that planting crops was an essential part of society and flowed from the gregarious nature of humans, which could be seen as instinctual...but sheep are rather gregarious too and they're generally content with eating grass. And then there are nomadic cultures.

My point was simply that agriculture was not necessary for survival, and thus not spurred by a survival instinct. You can come up with a lot of explanations as to why people wanted it, like luxury, gregariousness, the urge to have extra time for family or to study religion or philosophy, develop artistic talents, or who knows what, but I think it's inarguable that it was just pure survival instinct that drove them.

I think I should clarify that I don't think ALL things people perceive as moral values are fundamental, natural, and everlasting. There are definitely soem grey areas (like jay-walking, environmental regulations, due process, equal protection, etc.). I'm merely arguing that there is a very core, base morality that is in-born. I think all species have this to an extent, but humans' is far larger and more complex than other species. Perhaps other species like neanderthals came close or exceeded us, but they're all dead now.

Cannabilistic cultures, and here I get out of my depth a bit, generally (always?) did not kill specifically for eating. They ate fallen warriors and that sort of thing. Like, eating a strong enemy warrior who had fallen in battle would give you part of his strength, etc. Whether you bury a body, burn it, eat it, shrink it, whatever, is more of a gray area that is developed by culture and religion. What you're relaly looking at is how to deal with corpses, not interactions between humans.

I reference judicial opinions a bit, because my last academic brush with philosophy was in the jurisprudential context, haha. Sorry about that.

RE: the nazis, I don't see it as the morality changing, I see it as people giving in to immoral urges. There's a reason why every culture in the world looked at the holocaust and thought it was madness...it was. You seem to be agreeing with me that during WW2 the German culture basically went nuts. After, they returned to sanity, figured out what they had been doing, and were horribly ashamed at what they had wrought. What I don't see is what about those events makes you think morality is fluid.

To me it looks like, if a person were under a lot of pressure and bad influences, they commit a crime, let's say kill someone, and afterwards they come to their senses, realize what they did, and are repentant. Would you argue that the person's morality changed before, during, and immediately after the murder? I find that incredible. Doesn't it make much more sense to look at such a chain of events and say that he was not thinking straight, insane, in a fit of rage or passion, or in some other way had lost touch with his sense of morality? Doesn't that seem to really be what's happening?

I use the example of the Nazis primarily because after WW2, the idea of natural law (humans have some in-born sense of morality) saw a huge resurgence. For the prior two centuries (I might have my dates wrong), the view that morality was fluid and/or the only purpose of government was to make people happy had largely eroded the concepts of natural law that had been in place for thousands of years, especially in Europe. When people saw what happened in Germany, they had a serious wake-up call.

And yes, many American judges tortured themselves over supporting slavery. There's a good read about it, by (Joseph?) Cover I think. His dad was one such judge (or justice?). The type of slavery that took place in the Americas was reviled throughout the world. It's just southerners dependent on slavery had lost touch with their sense of morality. They were greedy, dependant, desperate, and corrupted by the influence of absolute power (as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely) and racist beliefs. Even some slave-owners felt moral pangs though. Some illegally tried to educate their slaves, etc. If you read accounts of slave-owners, almost all had to convince themselves slavery was OK, and the ones that say they didn't are probably lying or unaware. It's not like a despicable form of slavery (one that was very different from all previous versions, to my knowledge), became morally acceptable for a bit, then went out of vogue. It's that slave-owners were so influenced by other factors they were able to convince themselves it was acceptable, and over-ride their moral sense.

[sean126]

I haven't read every single post here, but I can see it's made several twists and turns.

M.A.,  I don't get it......you asked this question and it was pertaining to your wife?  I can understand your argument as far as common law....It's a humongus stretch (that I don't agree with) but I can understand it.

So......my questions would be: 

1.  Since your married to this lady, in the eyes of God and as a good Christian husband who has a wife who is unable to find work, why don't you give her an allowance so she doesn't have to ask you or lie to you to get money?  Whats yours is hers, since your married.  I would think any stay at home wife gets some kind of weekly or monthly allowance to spend as she pleases.

2.  I assume that you are supporting your wife by paying for her rent, food, clothes, ect... like any normal husband (Christian or not) would when they have a wife who cannot find a job.  Yes?

I'm just sincerely curious.

As Soltero mentioned several pages of posts earlier....this little tidbit of info would have been appropriate in the very beginning.

3.  So.....your asking: Since your wife is trying to get money out of you, by lying to you...is that a reason for divorce.  Is this the question now?


Also....is there any other information pertaining to this lady that you forgot to tell us?  LOLOLOL.  I mean, you got 10 pages of posts here being based on randomly omitted information by you and your asking for opinions. Wouldn't it be better to give the whole entire story first and then ask?

[chizz]

Chizz I refused to get in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, its John chapter 14, learn the difference between casual sex and a marital partners, I have extensive training in ancient history civilization and past and sketches of  Hebrew culture and practical Christian living and you do not, please shut up you get on my last nerve, you do not know what you are talking about and you just enjoy being argumentative

Ok, so now you're married??? When you're backed into a corner, you'd say anything to save your behind. Can anyone who's read this long thread, please point out where he said he was married, because I don't see it. As far as shutting up, you can kiss that pipe dream good-bye. You put your foot in your mouth, got exposed(again) and now trying to save face. If I was going to get my behind kicked(again) I wouldn't want to "match wits" with me either, because you'd get creamed. Oh yeah, I'm still waiting on that book, chapter and verse, where Jesus ok's what you're doing.

[markanthony7]

Sean at this point it is all futile everything I say gets contorted, it appears that there are people on this board that are more into drama and Jerry Springer episodes, than having an intelligent discussion on a subject that as far as I am concerned is very interesting and pertains to a lot of people that I come in contact with, Chizz, Ray, just like taking swipes all at me all the time, IMO they are just contemptuous , the discussion was about women petitioning for money and they turn everything into personal attacks, I don't always agree with everyones opinion but I don't get vindicative as is the habit of some, actually on previous post I have stated repeatedly that , I am indifferent about the conduct of a woman that has behaviour such as this and the bases of starting the thread was to gain more of a collective view point for others because I am often asked about this dilemma from men that seek relationships with foreign women (and I don't mean women from my particular agency) but men that have utilized all sorts of other agencies have asked me or confronted me about this issue and yes even customers from Jamie's agency, were discouraged from women in his agency that inappropriately asked for  money and they seek out advice

[sean126]

Fair enough.

BTW....Congrats on having love in your life!  I didn't know.

[utopiacowboy]

"most Colombians do not have formal weddings that just bring there spouse to their residence and sometimes notary but this is considered marriage or 'common law marriage'".

Not in my experience. If a couple goes to a notary in Colombia and gets a civil marriage, that's not a common law marriage. Sure people shack up but most of the Colombianos I know go to some lengths to avoid ending up in a common law marriage.

[Ray]

Well guys, Soltero was correct when he said this was a supreme waste of time.

I came to the conclusion long ago that markanphony is nothing but another arrogant, self-righteous, hypocrite who tries to use the bible to make himself feel superior.

Oh, and when someone tells you that he is in a "common law" marriage, what he really means is that he is too much of a coward to make the lady his legal wife with all the legal responsibilities that go along with a legal marriage. He reaps all of the benefits of a conjugal union but then he can walk out whenever he feels like it, leaving her with NOTHING. Sounds pretty selfish to me.

No wonder she has to con the cheap ass out of grocery money... 

PHONY!

[jm21-2]

Do they even have common law marriages in Colombia? I mean, legally binding ones? Aren't there only about 3 states in the US that have them still, and almost no other countries?

[Researcher]

 I agree with the guys here that say not to give.If you are going to look for a woman in another country like Colombia get used to hearing this kind of thing.There is a common con amoung some women in these agencies and it goes like this: For me, I would meet a woman that I would like to get to know better(and at first that is all she is, someone I want to get to know).The woman would start by telling me how difficult her and her family's life is and how poor they are.Right here she is fishing and trying to soften me up.Then she would tell me that a close relative was sick or had health problems or her family owed someone money and there would be trouble if they didn't pay up soon.Then, if that didn't work they would ask for money to go to school(some even offered to get naked on the webcam if I would send them money).Then all of a sudden the woman would end up in the hospital and need money to pay the bill.I'm not saying that it's impossible for these things to happen but I would offer to help in ways that didn't involve sending them money directly(like calling the hospital and talking to the doctor)...it was amazing how fast they recovered and the problems disappeared....and the ones that offered to get naked on camera for me if I sent them money...well, I dumped them as soon as I could and moved on.You seem like a good person.My take on this is there is nothing wrong with wanting to help someone...I just would not send them money directly because chances are they are just "fishing" for what will make you do just that.

    After dealing with alot of scam artists like that I became alot more cautious and even developed certain things I looked for.One thing I did was when I visited them in person, I would take her to a fairly nice restaurant.If she ordered the most expensive thing on the menu...She was out.I know that may sound a little rash but I don't have expensive tastes and I don't need a woman with expensive tastes.After all, there are so many single foriegn women out there a man can afford to be choosy.
                             

[markanthony7]

Researcher I agree with everything you state about the morality of the is this type of conduct is completely inappropriate, thats the title of the thread , the question presented for argument, is if they were confronted by conversation with her indiscretion and she was remorseful, and it was explained to her that honesty related to respect is important and "just simply ask" instead placing a genuine need in a cloak of deception, I am in Cartagena now and believe me these people have it difficult they struggle everyday, they have nothing, now I personally feel and IMO, that if she asks and you "say no not right now" and she does not become indignant or act as if she wants to alienate her self from you and ignore you but persist in getting to know you personally, she might have genuine feelings for or a sincere interest in a relationship, now on the other hand if she alienates her self from you stops e-mailing etc;, it was probably about the money, its all in her attitude and the way she responds after you deny her and rebuke her, I am trying to determine if there is a little wiggle room for this type of indiscretion, these women are beautiful and have a lot to offer in making someone a good life partner and sometimes its a shame that an infraction like this has to be divisive in a relationhip that other wise has a vast potential, in our agency we always on intake, counsel young ladies about requesting money, we explain it is offensive and gives Colombian women a negative image, we also explain that most men if there is an existing relationship and there is chemistry usually have a natural inclination to be supportive


2. So the question is this behaviour so ostentatious that it is completely inexcusable because its deceptive?

3. Or give the adverse social and economical conditions, if she is repentative about her misconduct and acceptant of co useling could there be an opportunity for a fruitful relationship?

4. Now some of the guys in this discussion have stated that they were fortunate to find a wife or significant other that was free of this type of conduct but for some of us we are not that fortunate or blessed and we have to make ammends of the situation

5. Ray and Chizz I would like to apoligize, I was tired last night and acted out of character, I am very busy with the release of Amor De Cartagena Fall 2007 and I am in the middle of a relestate deal and you know what a headache that can be!

[chizz]

LMAO!!! I woke up this morning expecting to beat on you some more mark, but I can see everyone else beat me to it. I'll leave you alone now mark, but I hope this teaches you a lesson. Stop trying to use the bible to atone for your stupid behavior.
Also, you going to answer sean's questions? I know myself, soltero, ray, and others don't know what we're talking about, but surely you can answer his questions, as he may be the only friend you have left in awhile. Also, I caught that little dig you made about Jamies agency(you know the part where customers where discourage from women in his agency), listen let it go Markaphony(sorry ray, had to steal it) only in your dreams could you have an agency like his. Just stop lying, and be a man of your word, and you might see some improvement. Peace and hair grease.
chizz

[Researcher]

   Thanks for clarifying.If you are asking this to get feed back as an agency marriage agency manager let me answer specifically, with my humble opinion.

1.As a man that has been a member of several agencies in a few countries over the past 10 years, if I knew that ladies asking for money was condoned by an agency I would ask for a refund and find another agency.

2.Not only do I think its inappropriate, it should be frowned upon.

3.If a woman that I have been in a relationship with asked for money, well, that would depend on the relationship and how well I know her.

4.I've been to the Philippines, Korea, Colombia and I lived and worked in Mexico for a while, so I have seen the "grinding poverty" that exists in these places.My question is this: are you asking as a manager of a marriage agency or just in general?

  I'm  just trying to learn and understand.

[markanthony7]

Researcher on issue 1 and 2 ,I unilaterally agree with you, number 3 is the issue of this discussion, some of the people are so desperate that it is beyond measure its really bad, oppression is pervasive because it is two tier society, sometimes when you travel and have proximity to the deplorable conditions, I wounder do these people have a "bad character" or do they do these things out of "extreme desperation", there is subtle difference between a person that has a "bad characther" and someone that is "acting out of character" to be honest I am in close contact with a lot of the young ladies that join our agency, I have many friends here because I have travelled here consistently for 6 years and IMO these women are of extremely good quality in character, its as if poverty has given them a humble and contrite spirit not commonly found in AW, they are sweet, affectionate, feminine, loyal all the qualities a man could hope for in a young lady suitable for marriage or a long term relationship, in so many words I don't know if they are "bad people" or just in "a bad situation" now some people in the discussion have already expressed that they are completely intolerant, but sometimes I wounder are we judgmental because it is easy for us to say we are in the land of opportunity, so now I am middle ground, I have tightened up some but sometimes "situational ethics" might be appropriate, its the hold saying "do you throw the baby out with the bath water" a lot of times I see where these women have 9 good qualities but one deficiency, is that one negative a serious enough infraction to negate the other 9 and kick her to the curb? or do you try to drum through the one issue with communication and dialogue and give the relationship an opportunity?

[blockbuster]

 MA,

 Not to put you down or anything but can you please answer these questions without beating around the bush.

 #1. If you've been dating a woman for 4 years,why is it you are not giving her mone when she needs . Why do you feel she had reason to lie to get money from you?

  #2. If you love her as you say,why have you not married her?

[markanthony7]

1. Blockbuster I always gave her money when she asked thats what made me upset with her, she just did not trust in my good nature and simply "ask" but she resorted to that old its a "Gringo on the block", likewise she may she did not understand that just a request was suffice, she probably felt that if there was not a dire need demonstrated that I would feel she was being greedy about requesting for money without an emergency and made up some heartbreaking BS story, to justify her request , earlier to day I had to get rid of one young lady that sends us referrals for us because she was scamming us about busfare and taxi fare, if she wanted more than just ask, when I confronted her about it she became indignant, so we paid her and ask her not to come back again, she was not remorseful, so its all in the attitude

2. I am retiring in 4-5 months and it is more practical for me to relocate to Cartagena, so I will have dual citzenship, our mutual preference is to live in Cartagena,

[fathertime]

I asked these questions sometimes because as an agency owner, you get a wide variety of clients whose opinons and proto types are diverse, this is an educational and informative and I appreciate your honest answers, me personally the jury is still out for me I am somewhat indifferent or indecisive, I think for each individual it is more of a personal decision, I am still a single guy and I met some pros in Cartagena that looked better than the women on my website! I mean they had me contemplating!, I have also seen a few men that did not care about her promiscuios background and history and married the woman anyway, the women did not come from our agency

The bolded quote from you does not quite dovetail into how you profess a 4 year long Commonlaw marriage!  Please explain!  Check mate?

Your old buddy
Fathertime!

[bigstew33]

I am betting there is more to the story.  It just doesn't add up for me, and apparently some others as well. 

[markanthony7]

First of all I did not say I was married for four years I said I have been in a relationship with her for four years now if you please start another thread on Mark Anthony bashing this thread is about inappropriate petitions for money, the moderater has suggested that everyone on this thread should stay with the subject, to disregard the moderators instruction is defiance, Check mate? Father Time you have issues, I am astonished on how grossly immature some people on this board can be, dont you have anything better to do than ridiculing people?

[Researcher]

  Thanks for the explanation Marc Anthony, If number 3 is the topic then I feel the same.It depends on the situation. It is definitely a thought provoking subject.I now realize how lucky I am. I met my wife in Bogota through Latin American Introductions.They screen thier members very well.They don't have the quantity of women but they sure have the quality ones.My wife has a job and supports herself well as of now.Before I married her I made a few trips there ,spent alot of time with her and we have stayed in constant contact since we met.I speak and understand alot of spanish and that is what we speak most of the time.She made her wedding dress because she said that she didn't want to spend alot of money on something that she is only going to wear once.She also bought our wedding bands and had them inscribed.She has so many great qualities.Like I said, I am lucky..I haven't had to even consider sending her money...but I would.I feel I know her well enough to know that she wouldn't be trying to con me....Thanks..

[sean126]

This is the "clean" thread.  Use the other one in the flame room for name calling, provoking and bashing please.

At the request of "The Great One", I have suffered a lump on my head by a flying shoe and a I have suffered a bruised forearm by deflecting a frying pan thrown by my angelic sweetie pie, by taking the time of sorting out the posts into a clean and flame version.  Please keep them divided.