Right Divider
Body part
So God has no place; just people thinkin' that they know something.... got it.
Last edited:
End of Roe Vs Wade?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
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?
Irrelevant.
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?
"his"
Correct.
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.
Duh.
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.
Big difference.
Supra.
Scaredy cat.
Why is that such a bad thing?
Why?
Like I said, God knows your thoughts, and He doesn't approve.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Not remotely what I said so what you 'got' sure ain't what I wrote.
Right Divider
Body part
How is this proper consensus reached? By what standard?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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.
Unfortunately you're not making progress at all. 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 - who you supposedly care about to the point of birth at least - 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 don'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.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
False.
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.
False.
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.
Yawn.
Only before the law.
Other than that, they're not equal to men. They're different.
Sure.
Again, God knows your thoughts, and He doesn't approve.
Just think about that for a bit.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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 and what you think that people should and shouldn't do is pretty much irrelevant.
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 into a dystopian nightmare of religious fundamentalism that nobody outside of extremists would ever want.
Your beliefs have everything to do with your position so you should own them, not shy away from them.
Some children are in a far better and healthier environment with a single parent 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? Don't pretend to 'pity' a child you'd sooner see having no government aid if that's the last recourse to their survival JR.
You call women all manner of terms you want if you reckon it fits JR. No bravery to it and they won't care anyway.
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. You should really know that without even being told.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Great post overall Arthur, but this caught my eye. Wonder what terms would be used for a guy having sex outside marriage.
Stud?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Pretty much. Even if unspoken, there’s a double standard there as old as time.
musterion
Well-known member
Real debates have to have honest motives on both sides to get anywhere. They may never agree on what the truth is but that's what both are after.
True debate is so rare because it's reasonable and honest.
But then there are those whose only agenda is to gainsay. They cannot be debated because they are not honest. They are not reasonable. They are fools. All you can do is argue, and arguing with them makes you a bigger fool than they are.
True debate is so rare because it's reasonable and honest.
But then there are those whose only agenda is to gainsay. They cannot be debated because they are not honest. They are not reasonable. They are fools. All you can do is argue, and arguing with them makes you a bigger fool than they are.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
So was I. Give me a little credit. I can understand the words coming out of your fingers.
What happens when your disagreement is over something like, something analogical to, slavery? Something where there's no "gray area"? I would say something like, infidelity for example, in a marriage. What if one party steadfastly asserts that he or she has the right to be unfaithful?
In America, in the 1860s, divorce happened. Former President Lincoln amended the Constitution then, by forcefully interpreting it, in a way that's never been done with such power, before nor since. He made the statement in words but more so in deed; he said No. There is no divorce here. And you can't own slaves. Sorry not sorry.
But with a married couple, divorce is possible, and before it (marriage) gets near 1860s America wrt slavery, divorce is actually what God wants.
The one that is conceived as a result of having sex.
Correct, because it teaches people that there are consequences to one's actions, while simultaneously providing a solid foundation for any children that are born as a result of their inability to control their lusts.
Think of it this way: The two people liked each other enough to have sex. That's more than enough reason to get married. The "no divorce" part is the punishment. They made their bed, now they must lie in it.
Such a punishment teaches society to be more responsible.
But they shouldn't.
Yes, I do, because you don't seem to quite fully grasp the breadth of the problem with what you advocate.
A child, a living, breathing human being, is the result of having sex, and not punishing those who are caught having sex outside of marriage teaches society that, contrary to reality, there's no need for commitment, and that it's ok to give in to one's lusts, because there are no consequences to doing so.
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.
Contraceptives aren't a 100% guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant.
Because there's nothing inherently wrong about a husband and wife using contraceptives because they're not ready to have children yet.
On the other hand, however, it IS wrong for an unmarried man and woman to have sex. Period.
Correct.
Thus, the parents must face the consequences of their actions.
If their child dies as a result of their neglect, then the parents should be punished by the government. Any parent(s) who neglect their child to the point where the child dies should be executed, because it's murder through negligence. This would teach parents that they need to take care of their children, else face the consequences.
By whom?
The government is not responsible for children, nor does it have the right to take children away from their parents, regardless of their treatment of them.
I do, which is why I want single mothers to find a husband who can provide for her and her child so that she can care for her child, instead of spending time away from her child at work while her child goes off to some day care.
If I hated children, I would be on board with that. But I don't.
False.
Clearly not.
Then why go outside of that paradigm if not to rebel against God?
Don't take my word for it, Arthur.
40 Facts About Two Parent Families | Studies and Statistics
The “typical” American family has changed radically over the last 50 years. Learn more about two parent families and consult with Gillespie Shields today.
gillespieshields.com
A two-parent home is FAR BETTER than a single parent home.
Marriage is GOOD FOR CHILDREN.
You want to talk about caring for the child, marriage of the mother and father is the best way to go.
False.
Nothing of what I have said comes from either of those countries.
False.
What I advocate is that parents be responsible and care for their children, enforced by the government, not taken over by it.
Not really.
Again, you don't have to take my word for it, Arthur.
40 Facts About Two Parent Families | Studies and Statistics
The “typical” American family has changed radically over the last 50 years. Learn more about two parent families and consult with Gillespie Shields today.
gillespieshields.com
The fact that the mother and father are unwilling to reconcile does not mean therefore that single parent homes are better than two-parent homes.
Sadly, yes. I can say that their living conditions are far worse than if they were to find a spouse to marry.
Why?
Why can't the parents face the consequences of their actions? Why does the government have to prevent those consequences?
Friends of the family, no?
Why do you automatically assume the government has to be the one to step in?
What I want has nothing to do with it.
Women who behave promiscuously are sluts.
Women who do the same for money are whores.
That's what they are!
Equal under the law, yes.
Not equal in capabilities.
Arthur, God knows your thoughts. He doesn't approve. You should repent.
Also, whoremonger...
That double standard was implemented by God Himself.
There's a reason for it.
God made men to have a strong sex drive.
He made women to have a weaker sex drive, but to be more emotionally driven.
Man and woman complement each other, and in a proper marriage, the man's sex drive ensures sex happens, (probably not as much as he would like, but more often than he would otherwise, and in marriage, it's a healthy amount), while the woman's emotional drive ensures the connection between them lasts, so that their children have a stable foundation on which to grow.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.The idea has promise. It would reduce promiscuity.
==
[ Following some typical trolllike behavior from @User Name : ]
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.)
Last edited: