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.
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.
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.
