S
severus68
Guest
So the wrong is in getting caught, then?
- Status
S
severus68
Guest
I am replying directly to what you said. Those children are also the children of men.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The direction of this conversation seems to imply that all of these babies born out of wedlock were unplanned. That is a part of the puzzle, but it is not by any means the whole picture.
There is a growing sentiment that biological parents are not that important. Dads, in particular, are seen as an optional component of childrearing.
choicemoms.org/
singlemothersbychoice.org/
singlemommyhood.com/
As long ago as the 1980s, I heard this conversation:
1: I don’t see much value in marriage.
2: I don’t see any reason to get married at all, if you’re not going to have children.
3: What do children have to do with it? Who is still together when their kids hit high school?
I was person 4, and my thought was, “WHO IS STILL TOGETHER? ESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY I KNOW!!”
I did not say that. Why? Because the other three people were all divorced and either remarried or living together with a partner. I grew up surrounded by people who reasonably expected to be buried by or to live to bury a spouse of 50 or 60 or more years. I knew, however, that my upbringing was totally outside the experience of this group. If I said that I could expect to ride my horse to school if my car broke down, I couldn’t have been speaking from farther outside their experience.
What were they supposed to have done with their kids when their spouses abandoned them? Put the kids up for adoption, so the child could escape their broken home? There wouldn’t have been enough homes, if they had wanted to. Instead, they raised their children alone or from a broken home. Their children would have wanted happily-married parents, but that seems to them a mere wish and if wishes were horses, then every beggar could ride.
When divorce is rampant, marriage ceases to be seen as a sanctuary for children. Two parent childrearing ceases to be seen as the norm. Even those who want it to be that for their children can lose the courage to feel it is in their power to guarantee that. With no-fault divorce, how can they? Who can protect themselves from charges which may be entirely baseless? When even those who do marry don’t feel confident they will be able to deliver, lifelong fidelity ceases to be a defining raison d’être for marriage. When marriage is not a sanctuary for children and lifelong fidelity is not believed attainable for all who devote themselves to it, then everything revolves around the adults. That is what we have now. I would argue that deciding whether this flows from rampant sex outside of marriage or the other way around is a chicken-and-egg question. Each problem exacerbates the other, and the two together bring on many more, including the failure of so many heterosexuals to see any difference at all whether a union is of a man and a woman or two of the same sex. It is all from the same tangled skein of yarn, and the skein could be labelled: “Why SHOULDN’T I live to suit myself? Whose business is that but my own?”
There is a growing sentiment that biological parents are not that important. Dads, in particular, are seen as an optional component of childrearing.
choicemoms.org/
singlemothersbychoice.org/
singlemommyhood.com/
As long ago as the 1980s, I heard this conversation:
1: I don’t see much value in marriage.
2: I don’t see any reason to get married at all, if you’re not going to have children.
3: What do children have to do with it? Who is still together when their kids hit high school?
I was person 4, and my thought was, “WHO IS STILL TOGETHER? ESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY I KNOW!!”
I did not say that. Why? Because the other three people were all divorced and either remarried or living together with a partner. I grew up surrounded by people who reasonably expected to be buried by or to live to bury a spouse of 50 or 60 or more years. I knew, however, that my upbringing was totally outside the experience of this group. If I said that I could expect to ride my horse to school if my car broke down, I couldn’t have been speaking from farther outside their experience.
What were they supposed to have done with their kids when their spouses abandoned them? Put the kids up for adoption, so the child could escape their broken home? There wouldn’t have been enough homes, if they had wanted to. Instead, they raised their children alone or from a broken home. Their children would have wanted happily-married parents, but that seems to them a mere wish and if wishes were horses, then every beggar could ride.
When divorce is rampant, marriage ceases to be seen as a sanctuary for children. Two parent childrearing ceases to be seen as the norm. Even those who want it to be that for their children can lose the courage to feel it is in their power to guarantee that. With no-fault divorce, how can they? Who can protect themselves from charges which may be entirely baseless? When even those who do marry don’t feel confident they will be able to deliver, lifelong fidelity ceases to be a defining raison d’être for marriage. When marriage is not a sanctuary for children and lifelong fidelity is not believed attainable for all who devote themselves to it, then everything revolves around the adults. That is what we have now. I would argue that deciding whether this flows from rampant sex outside of marriage or the other way around is a chicken-and-egg question. Each problem exacerbates the other, and the two together bring on many more, including the failure of so many heterosexuals to see any difference at all whether a union is of a man and a woman or two of the same sex. It is all from the same tangled skein of yarn, and the skein could be labelled: “Why SHOULDN’T I live to suit myself? Whose business is that but my own?”
J
JimG
Guest
You’ve pointed out more areas of the problem, including no-fault divorce, which makes marriage vows meaningless, and a cultural shift in attitudes which portends a more radical civilizational shift.
Is Uncle Sam the only one left who’s willing to be a daddy?
M
Marie1234
Guest
Our contemporary culture. That’s what culture I’m talking about. Look at the media, our culture, with unblinded eyes. You’ll see it clearly. People fall into the culture not because they are dumb or lazy, but because they want to fit in and they believe that’s what the world really is like. Women do the same thing. Men are not unintelligent or lazy. I know that, and I just wish people could be able to rise above our culture and see that as well.
Yes, women need guidance, as do men. No one is losing their intelligence at all, but rather are being blinded from the Truth.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
Whoever decided that women were the ‘gatekeepers’ of sexuality certainly did not speak for all women or men. I think it is best to leave sex and gender out of it. People like sex. That has never changed and never will. One can try to change hearts and minds, but making scapegoats and focusing on unwed mothers or even fathers is counter productive at best, dehumanising and unChristian at worst.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I for one am glad that by and large the mentality that women are not only responsible for their behavior but that of men has fallen to the wayside. That had to have been the greatest lie of all time, and women believed it for far too long.
S
severus68
Guest
Clearly.
S
severus68
Guest
Obviously not by some, even Christians, unfortunately.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But it is largely due to the Christian ethos that the paradigm has shifted.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
Just like anecdotal evidence: My grandma smoked every single day of her life since she was 12 and lived to be 100…
does not refute the science that smoking is bad for your health.
Similarly, anecdotal evidence of a person being raised in a single-parent home who turned out just fine…
does not refute the science that a 2-parent, 2-gender, married, religiously-oriented family that loves each other is the BEST culture for raising children.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I posted the following somewhere, but i don’t think it was in this thread. please forgive me if I did.
A recent study done in the UK appears to establish some interesting things about pheremones; barely perceptible or even imperceptible chemical signals people emit and to which members of the opposite sex are receptive. Among the findings were:
-Ovulating women are more attractive to men than non-ovulating women. But the attraction is mutually selective. Ovulating women prefer, during that time, men who are more different from themselves in physiognomy. Both tend, at such times, to choose members of the opposite sex whose DNA and immune systems are complementary, not terribly similar.
-The respective pheremones of men and women normally lead to immune system complementariness in their choices of mates; that is, genetic differences that, acting in concert, bolster the immune systems in their children and minimize the chances of genetic defects.
-Contraceptives alter the normal pheremone signals, so that women on contraceptives are attracted to men to whom they would not be attracted if they were not on contraceptives, and whose DNA and immune systems are close to their own, with the same strengths and defects.
-The same is true of men. Their pheremone perceptions are “off” with women using contraceptives, and they are attracted to women who they would not be attracted to if they were not taking contraceptives, and who have immune systems and DNA much like their own.
-As a result, women on contraceptives have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Mr. Wrong” instead of Mr. Right. Men have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Ms Wrong”, and the chances of their children having immunological disorders or birth defects is increased if they conceive a child. Their chances of later disillusionment with their chosen mates is greatly increased.
-After sufficient time using contraceptives, even after women stop taking them, their systems do not ordinarily “reset” to normal.
So, does this affect the 40% rate? Is it possible that the sexes make a lot of mistakes in their relationships and attractions because of contraceptives; mistakes that lead to less marriage, more divorce, possibly more abortions and, simply, bad choices in mating and family formation all the way around?
It seems possible. It also seems possible that some of the maladies that seem to be on the rise (like asthma, for instance, which is an immune disorder) are caused by contraceptive use; not directly, but by people choosing mates with the same immune system defects, thus enhancing them in their children. Oh, and another UK study strongly supports the proposition that the autism rate among people with highly similar DNA is much higher than among the population at large.
A recent study done in the UK appears to establish some interesting things about pheremones; barely perceptible or even imperceptible chemical signals people emit and to which members of the opposite sex are receptive. Among the findings were:
-Ovulating women are more attractive to men than non-ovulating women. But the attraction is mutually selective. Ovulating women prefer, during that time, men who are more different from themselves in physiognomy. Both tend, at such times, to choose members of the opposite sex whose DNA and immune systems are complementary, not terribly similar.
-The respective pheremones of men and women normally lead to immune system complementariness in their choices of mates; that is, genetic differences that, acting in concert, bolster the immune systems in their children and minimize the chances of genetic defects.
-Contraceptives alter the normal pheremone signals, so that women on contraceptives are attracted to men to whom they would not be attracted if they were not on contraceptives, and whose DNA and immune systems are close to their own, with the same strengths and defects.
-The same is true of men. Their pheremone perceptions are “off” with women using contraceptives, and they are attracted to women who they would not be attracted to if they were not taking contraceptives, and who have immune systems and DNA much like their own.
-As a result, women on contraceptives have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Mr. Wrong” instead of Mr. Right. Men have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Ms Wrong”, and the chances of their children having immunological disorders or birth defects is increased if they conceive a child. Their chances of later disillusionment with their chosen mates is greatly increased.
-After sufficient time using contraceptives, even after women stop taking them, their systems do not ordinarily “reset” to normal.
So, does this affect the 40% rate? Is it possible that the sexes make a lot of mistakes in their relationships and attractions because of contraceptives; mistakes that lead to less marriage, more divorce, possibly more abortions and, simply, bad choices in mating and family formation all the way around?
It seems possible. It also seems possible that some of the maladies that seem to be on the rise (like asthma, for instance, which is an immune disorder) are caused by contraceptive use; not directly, but by people choosing mates with the same immune system defects, thus enhancing them in their children. Oh, and another UK study strongly supports the proposition that the autism rate among people with highly similar DNA is much higher than among the population at large.
J
JimG
Guest
Hmm, so contraception can result in maladaptive marriage, divorce, and unhealthy children?
Why do I not expect to find this information greatly publicized on MSNBC or in Cosmo or Playboy?
J
JimG
Guest
On the other hand, perhaps the major entertainment media WILL publicize the data, with the message being that we must always practice “safe” sex, unmarried sex, and have unlimited abortion available as a backup. Marriage, they will note, could be bad for you! But they will never reach the obvious conclusion that contraception might work against your best interests!
S
severus68
Guest
A link to that study please. I believe that the increase in autoimmune diseases is due to pollution of the environment and food.
If two people with the same recessive gene marry, their children may have problems. That is why it is not advisable to marry even cousins (first).
J
JaneGrey
Guest
Hmm now families where the parents are not married to each other produce unhealthy children and do not love each other. I do love it when others try to teach me about my reality (and those of some of my peers, just so its clear that I am not just on about myself). 
S
Sam_777
Guest
:dts:Now the blame is on the “contraceptives” !!!
Where is GOD’s fear, where is our faith !!!
S
severus68
Guest
That link please. BTW, how does the use of condoms support this theory?
M
maryjk
Guest
Wow, where did you read that?Hmm now families where the parents are not married to each other produce unhealthy children and do not love each other. I do love it when others try to teach me about my reality (and those of some of my peers, just so its clear that I am not just on about myself).
Because what I have read is that statistically children are better off when Mom and Dad are married. I didn’t read one post or one link that indicated that any parent didn’t love their child or even their partner.
Do people just not understand statistics???
S
severus68
Guest
She was referring to a particular post I believe. Mentioning stats means little if we know they are accurate coming from a reliable source.
- Status