People are gonna have sex regardless JR
and they're not all gonna be married
or want children either.
That's reality as has been through the ages. Not everyone is religious or share anything like your beliefs.
What do you mean it's been answered in the very next sentence I quoted?
because if the child's essential needs aren't being met by its
parents then that child is going to suffer and die if nobody else steps in to help
be that government services or something else.
It's not really debatable where it comes to the issue of single parents responsibly raising their kids, there's plenty that do.
Plenty that don't, sure, but it doesn't invalidate those that care for their children and meet their needs.
I assume it because you don't seem to allow provision for a children's needs if it has irresponsible parent's that don't meet them.
What about that are you not getting because newsflash JR, not every parent is going to care for their child.
It's naivety ran amok to even think otherwise.
This is reality and if you deny a child the essentials it needs to live when the parents aren't doing their job then in no way do you care about children.
Wow, you admit its hyperbole, that's something at least.
You've no evidence for it so not even my claim but good to see you recognize the exaggeration of it.
Nah, don't go in for it because it's just self righteous slurs and better things to do.
So male dominance results in women playing subservience to at least some extent.
Ain't in favour of that.
You are very much not a spokesperson for God in regards to my thoughts or anyone else's.
Eh, of course they shouldn't be forced into that.And a man and a woman who are not married, if they are caught, should be married, and not allowed to divorce, for the sake of any children born out of that wedlock.
Then they shouldn't be having sex.
Again, if they have sex outside of marriage, then they should be prepared to face the consequences.
Why is this so hard for you to understand, Arty?
I didn't say "next."
Read more carefully.
I apologize, I thought I had included my thoughts in one of my posts, but apparently did not. That's on me. (I thought for sure I included it, but maybe the edit didn't save? Oh well.)
To clarify: One would hope the relatives can step in and provide, if/when they notice it.
Isn't that usually what grandma does? Make big meals that fill everyone's bellies?
See, we're making progress!
The government does not have the right to step in at any time when it comes to raising children.
Just because the parents fail doesn't mean the government gets to step in.
"Responsibly" is "in the fear and admonition of the Lord."
Or at the very least, teaching them to not become a criminal before they turn 18.
Either of which is pretty hard to do as a single parent.
Too many, most of which can and should be mitigated by having both parents in the home.
There you go assuming things.
More people exist in a family than just the parents, and no, the government doesn't count.
Never said otherwise.
Again: Just because the parents fail in their responsibilities does not mean it falls to the government to raise or care for their children.
No, I'm using hyperbole to make my point.
Why is that such a bad thing?
Like I said, God knows your thoughts, and He doesn't approve.
In a healthy relationship through the methods outlined to you already. If you respect your wife you'll value her input and if she does with you then the same in turn. A lot of couples have disagreements that are resolved without the need for the husband putting his foot down. There'll be times where the pair of you are correct. Does it need spelling out or 'defining' further?How is this proper consensus reached? By what standard?
Absolutely, 100%, totally agree with you.... Oh, through productive dialogue, compromise, stuff like that?
Well, my reply was in the context of a married couple working through disagreement and not about abortion itself but rather the woman having equal say.Absolutely, 100%, totally agree with you.
But what about where we disagree on something like slavery? What do you do then, to compromise? How do you accomplish productive dialog with someone who's just black-and-white slavery's not immoral?
You can plead and argue and make your case, you could make a court case out of it, if they won't yield, then, what do you do?
All your rhetorical ability is exhausted and still, you prove unsuccessful in persuading them that slavery's just wrong, flat. They won't yield, they won't submit, they just stubbornly dig in their heels, abandoning all pretext of being rational and logical about it.
They just believe slavery's OK.
So now what?
In America, we did find a solution to the above. It does come down to, Might makes right, in a manner of speaking. Once you're strong enough to coerce them, you have God's permission----and even a divine obligation----to do it.
Fortunately we did not have to do something that dreadful and apocalyptic to take care of Roe. It's undone. It never should have been done in the first place, just like slavery. Sometimes, it just takes a Republican (former President Trump happens to be the guy, but it could just as well be a former President Lincoln, as another example); a Republican is just what the doctor ordered.
True. But God has laid down rules that prohibit sexual partners killing their mates when they get tired of them or killing their babies if they find them a nuisance.People are gonna have sex regardless JR and they're not all gonna be married or want children either. That's reality as has been through the ages. Not everyone is religious or share anything like your beliefs.
Eh, of course they shouldn't be forced into that.
They will anyway.
"Consequences" that some on the far religious right deem appropriate? Those can be and are dismissed.
What if there is no extended family to step in
or if there is, they're just as irresponsible as the parents?
What then JR? Who steps in to make sure that this vulnerable child has the essentials in order to survive?
"His". Why did you leave out "her" or more to the point, please quit with the pedantics.
If you rule out any sort of state intervention where it comes to children not having their basic needs met then you're consigning a lot of them to being malnourished up to the point of possible death
else you explain just who is going to make sure that these kids are going to be looked after?
'Responsibly' is making sure that a child is well watered and fed with hygiene and sanitary requirements catered for along with shelter and warmth.
Your ideals of how a child should be raised in regards to belief are entirely secondary.
You underestimate how much a single and responsible parent can do for their children.
There's plenty people who do't have extended family as adults let alone children.
So who steps in when there's nobody responsible to look after the child?
You didn't have a point JR, you only had a bizarre opinion that you couldn't support outside of that.
Oh, sure, it must be so brave and courageous to refer to women as sluts and whores and whatnot.
I'm so so scared of doing that...
It's a bad thing because women are equal
and should have equal say and thankfully nowadays they do.
Once again, you are not any sort of spokesperson for God in regards to me, or anyone else. You only get to speak for yourself JR, that's it.
What child would that be exactly? You believe that couples having sex outside of wedlock should be forced into marriage with no possibility of divorce regardless, right? You reckon that's a healthy environment for anyone, including a child either present already or further down the line if this forced relationship turns toxic which in several cases it inevitably will?Yes, they should, for the sake of the child. Or do you not care about the child?
Of course they will. But they shouldn't.
The natural consequence of having sex is that a baby, a human being, is conceived.
The natural consequence of not feeding one's child is that the child dies.
Then I pity that child.
The parents should consider asking a friend for help. Or, maybe, just maybe, they'll recognize that they don't have the ability to take care of their child, and put the child up for adoption.
Then I pity that child.
This is why a husband being in a committed relationship with his wife is so important, Arthur.
It's to AVOID these scenarios you keep presenting, so that the child they have has the best possible chance at life.
Because "his" can refer to both male and female when speaking in generalities. That's how English works, Arty. You'd think an Englishman would know that.
Which just reinforces the need for a committed relationship between the parents, doesn't it.
Arthur, you keep trying, perhaps unconsciously, to address parts of my position as if they were in a vacuum separate from the other parts, but that's not how it works.
IF you're going to challenge my beliefs, you need to address them from the vantage point of the big picture.
All of this is tied together. If you stigmatize sex outside of marriage, you will see fewer children born out of wedlock, especially by forcing those who do so to marry and never allow them to divorce, which teaches that actions have consequences. When you teach women to have enough respect to wait until marriage, you'll see fewer single mothers, and more children being raised by both of their parents, where the father provides for his wife, who cares for their children, which eliminates the need for government welfare programs to support the now non-existent single mothers, which means that that money can be used responsibly for more important things, like protecting borders and providing and maintaining good infrastructure, which allows the government to more easily locate, apprehend, and punish criminals who might harm the very same nuclear family that is enjoying their time together at the park, instead of a single mother away at work while her child is in some day care or school.
EVERYTHING I've said so far in this thread ties together in some way, and forms a foundation that cannot simply be dismantled without dismantling the entire worldview.
That is the responsibility of the parents.
Having the government step in, in any way, is counterproductive.
All of which should be provided by the parents. Never the government.
My beliefs have nothing to do with this.
Regardless, it doesn't falsify what I said: that having both parents present in a family is FAR more stable for a child than a single parent.
Which doesn't mean that it's OK for the government to step in.
Definitely not the government.
If they're being sluts and whores, then they deserve to be called sluts and whores. They certainly don't deserve any respect for it.
Only before the law.
Other than that, they're not equal to men. They're different.
Again, God knows your thoughts, and He doesn't approve.
So was I. Give me a little credit. I can understand the words coming out of your fingers.Well, my reply was in the context of a married couple working through disagreement and not about abortion itself but rather the woman having equal say.
What child would that be exactly?
You believe that couples having sex outside of wedlock should be forced into marriage with no possibility of divorce regardless, right?
You reckon that's a healthy environment for anyone, including a child either present already or further down the line if this forced relationship turns toxic which in several cases it inevitably will?
Yes, they will
You really don't need to explain the natural ramifications of sex
as much as I shouldn't need to explain how humans often use contraceptive methods to avoid those coming about.
As a matter of interest, why aren't you against artificial barriers where people have sex purely for the purposes of intimate enjoyment that are designed to prevent pregnancy from happening?
Yes, if a child isn't nurtured and his/her essential needs aren't met then said child dies. There's no excuse for that happening in cases of parental neglect
where the child can be taken into care.
If you truly pitied the child
you'd be on board with any measures taken to ensure those needs are met including governmental ones
else your pity may as well be crocodile tears.
These aren't 'scenarios' or 'hypotheticals', it's reality and I know fine well how my native tongue works thanks.
There's nothing wrong with the paradigm of a husband/wife
but that does not ensure a healthy and stable environment for a child
and your "solution" to stigmatize and force people into your ideal of how they should behave wouldn't solve anything.
This is the West, not Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
What you advocate is the abrogation of people's civil liberties and freedoms
Some children are in a far better and healthier environment with a single parent [than they are with having both of their parents]
than they are with two,
especially when the parents relationship has gone south.
Do you know any single parents?
If a child isn't having his/her needs met then someone has to step in
and if it isn't family then what's the alternative?
You call women all manner of terms you want
Women are most definitely equal to you, at the very least in fact...
You are not a spokesperson for God or His judgments of other people's thoughts.
Great post overall Arthur, but this caught my eye. Wonder what terms would be used for a guy having sex outside marriage.
Pretty much. Even if unspoken, there’s a double standard there as old as time.
Interesting idea spreading around the pro-abort crowd (the ones with frownie faces because of Roe being overturned) recently, that men who impregnate a woman are automatically on the hook for child support upon conception, not waiting until after birth.... Again: IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
The consequences of the idea that one can give into lust and not face any is that children are born to single mothers, assuming they make it to birth before being killed by their mothers due to the "inconvenience" of being pregnant, and the fathers abandon the women in search of more sexual partners. It's a BRUTAL cycle that never considers the wellbeing of the child that is conceived as a result of their infidelity.
Good Biblical one. Also philanderer, pig, womanizer. Wanker, maybe. There are some words which insult a man for promiscuity. (Typical, sadly, of UN to lose the plot.)Also, whoremonger...