A young mans responsibility

That's the best you've got???

 

No doubt, guitarpreacher. You break it, you bought it is the best advice? I'm truly stunned by that post, sularis.

I can't imagine what you're talking about here.

I'm shocked you would criticize Helen's post. Helen is one of the best posters on the BB and she didn't fail to deliver on this one too.

 

Book? Chapter? Verse?

 

How about - The ten commandments were for theocratic Israel.
(BTW - I do not believe that )

I am shocked Helen! you usually make such decent posts.

Thank you, but unless you also believe that we should wash our houses out when they show mold, make the sacrifices, etc. etc., you will have to recognize a distinction between the Ten Commandments, which are universal and able to apply individually without societal sanction and the law which follows which was specifically for the Israelites at that time!



adoption is certainly a viable and acceptable option, but to dismiss the OT like that is breathtakingly horrific

Please, I am not dismissing it. I am trying to be a little discerning here...


and I loved PastorSBC - asking where the passage was that said that they had to get married - it's like woah! Blow my mind!!!

That is part of the law for the theocracy, not part of the universal law of the Ten Commandments. I'm sure that is what he was getting at.


You break it - you bought it

I'm sorry, but a woman is not a thing to be bought.


Let's face it not as many people go to college or university as we'd like, and they still manage to raise a family. They got it on - they have to pay the consequences - Even if they give the kid up for adoption - they have to get married.

Why? We don't even know that these two are Christian. Or are you saying we should force our morality on the world? And even then, I'm not sure that the laws for the ancient theocracy of Israel are a good basis for our morality today. The Ten Commandments, yes, but there is a definite, and historically recognized, difference.


By removing consequences we have caused our own societal degradation.

We can't remove consequences. We can change them, but not remove them. It's a cause and effect thing. But forcing consequences would do a couple of things I am aware of. If the families were not supportive (and we don't know that they are), three families would be torn apart -- his, hers, and theirs. These are far worse consequences. Secondly, by forcing this issue, the young couple very easily might rebel against what they see as Christianity altogether and cause even more harships for themselves. THAT would certainly give a little impetus to the societal degradation in their neck of the woods!


(Divorced and remarried(with the spouse not being dead)) people serving as church leadership. Have pre-marital sex and yer only on the hook til she gives birth; then if she doesnt give it up for adoption - that's not yer fault. Faith is being shoved into the toilet full of excrement and being given a "swirlie"

That part of your response is crude and uncalled for and, in parts, extremely wrong. [I agree; edited by DHK]


the guy fulfilled the one of the requirements/rewards of marriage - consumation (being one flesh) - he should get the whole package. No free samples

These are kids who made a grievous error. That's a little different. It's what the world -- and possibly their sex education in school -- actually condoned. Let's try to help them out and not push them deeper into their error, eh? Jesus forgave prostitutes, and this is certainly less.

 

Thank you, sir, and congratulations on your marriage and the length of it! Since the two kids are in your church youth group, the two families are also presumably Christian? The parents MUST be brought into the picture so that the young people have full support and wise advice. I'm sure you know most marriages that start at that age simply don't make it. But if that is what both families and the young people choose, then with that kind of support, they are starting on a good foundation, at least.

God give you wisdom.

 

So what I am getting from this is that alot of you are saying that being bound to a family by marriage to the mom of the children is not really all that important?

Marriage is for the enjoyment of the adults and not a way to bind famlies together for the good of the kids?

So why is it that the majority of the religous right fight against gay marrage. If marriage is for the enjoyment of the adults why not let gay people be married, they are going to be gay married or not. I thought the argument is that it is bad for the family.

Helen makes a great suggestion that adoption is a good way to go. But not all couples will take this option. If that is the case then I stand by my opinion that the couple should be bound be marriage because they have the responsability to raise there children in a family unit the way God intended children to be raised.

Does ANYONE here disagree that God intended children to be raised in a family bound by marriage?

Also agreed that the father is responsable to take care of the children.

But $$$ is only a small part of what a child needs. Who is going to provide what only a father can provide in 7 years when the young man has found another woman and has children who live in his household.

 

If they do not get married then the child will not be raised by a mother and father in a Godly enviroment. You can not (or should not) force them to get married. It should be something they do out of responsability to the child. FORCE no. But I do believe the parents should want to raise their kid in a family. The visitation share the kid is a poor substitute for a family and if the parents are to inmature to make a marriage work then what are the chances that they can work out visitation with the mother (most likely) resenting that she does not get to see her kids for weekends and the father resenting that half of his paycheck goes to support.

I agree not to force. But I would encourage. I would tell my son that it is his responsability to make the right choice. But in the end he is 18 (in this synario) and makes his own choices.

Finding a relationship that works then getting married would have been the best thing. I also would recomend that a couple be married a couple years before having a baby and not getting married or having a baby until at least 25 years old. But it is to late for that. They have made a baby and now responsability kicks in. What would have been best is not an option now.

Giving the baby a name or saving face, avoiding embaresment would not be my goal. I believe that marriage is important to a family and that a married mother and father are in the best interest of the child. I understand that is not the goal for everyone. Like I have said I disagree with the shotgun wedding. But the question was not " My 18 yo son got a girl pregnent, should I make them get married" The question was "What should I do as an 18 yo."? The answer is you should want to take responsability for the best interest of your child and get hitched to the mom.

Absolutly councling and guidance would be appropriate. They will have to work HARD everyday to make it work. But they have as much a responsability to make there marriage work to keep the kids in a family as they do to get married and bring the kids into a family.


The tragedy of a young couple getting married and having the marrage fail is that the children will be brought up in a broken home. So it does not make sense to me to avoid that by bringing up the children in a broken home.

 

Ummmm, you don't like the idea of adoption?

 

Quoting myself from post #30

Adoption is great, It would be the best option in this case. But I imagine that some young mothers will not want or take this option.

 

So you prefer them to get married and start to resent each other and the child and then later get divorced and REALLY rip that kid up?

My ex left me with six children (five adopted). Just walked out with one of his other women in 1991. We were all devastated beyond description. But, as the years went past, and as I learned to cope with being a single parent (he never bothered involving himself with them again), I heard from each of the kids except the retarded one who can't talk that it was so much better with just me. They could never please him; their memories of him revolved around him coming home, watching TV, and going out to bars. He didn't care about the pictures they drew him or the little gifts they gave. He left everything behind when he left.

Each of those five came up to me at some point during the years that followed and asked me, "Mom, if you had not had/adopted me, would Daddy still be here?"

That is an absolutely heartbreaking question.

Better to be raised by a single parent than to face the kind of rejection my children had to live through.

Marriage is NOT for the sake of the kids. If it is, then when the kid misbehaves or gets sick or difficult the marriage falls apart, and then they blame the kid. That is the rottenest thing that can be done to a child.

 

I prefer them to do the responsable thing. That includes alot of things, including bringing the child into a family committed by marriage, working hard to make the marriage work and puting the interests of the child first.

I am sorry you and your kids went thru that. Obviously your ex did not have the best interest of the children or you in mind. That is all I am asking of the young man in this synerio.

Marriage is for the sake of the kids. It is in there best interest. But I will qualify that by saying that a good Godly marrage is in the best interest of the kids.

If this young man wants to do what is best for his new family he will marry the mom. BUT that is only the first step, he also needs to make sure that the enviroment of the marriage is good.

Like I said before

The tragedy of a young couple getting married and having the marrage fail is that the children will be brought up in a broken home. So it does not make sense to me to avoid that by bringing up the children in a broken home.

 

If there is even a hint of conditionality in the guy and girl's attitude, (the "if things don't work out" model) they have no business getting married.

These marriages need heavy-duty counseling from the get-go...they're starting with several tough scenarios:

• the strain of a new child--emotional, financial, etc.
• so many life changes in so short a time.
• at best, a good relationship got things out of order and sinned (saying here: if these were Godly kids who intended on getting married and had sex, it's still wrong, and will be tough to overcome (but can be). Tougher still would be a relationship that was superficial to begin with)
• Being delicate here--the newlyweds will not have the physical enjoyment of each other to the degree that most do...there are, um, extenuating circumstances, and that can strain a young marriage.
• the shame, guilt, bitterness, and other stuff associated with sin. If confessed, it's still something the devil will try to drudge up. If unconfessed, it could wreck the marriage.

I'm with many of you...I thought sularis' posts were over the top.

 

did God say, "Marriage is for the sake of the kids?" It sounds true, but what scripture supports that?

What if the guy or girl either one have serious issues...violence, drug abuse, other serious problems...should they compound one sin (fornication) with an unwise vow to God and another?

I realize you qualified your statements...that may mean we agree more than I thought we did.

I simply object to this "we HAD to get married" statement.

A horrible marriage IMO is much worse than no marriage at all.

Keep in mind: I've counseled many pregnant unwed couples. Some were "ready" to get married (not excusing their sin). Others were so unhealthy in their views of love, marriage, priorities, and the like...their vows wouldn't have been taken seriously, in my view as one who counseled them. And I'd rather a person not make a vow to God than to make it lightly.

 

I cant say that "marriage is for the sake of the kids."

BUT I do believe that kids belong in a marriage, a family that is bound and commited by marriage.

Can I support it with scripture, I will have to study. But I have not read the answer to my earlier question. Does anybody doubt that a commited marriage (mom and dad) is the way God intended for children to be raised?

 

That is God's best blueprint, for sure. When kids aren't on the way (or here to start with), there's nothing better. But if the kid is coming, or here, you don't get married just so that there's two parents, IMO.

Let me approach it from another angle. Let's say a woman has a 9 and 7 year old, and she's single. Should she rush out and get married, so the two kiddos will have "two parents?" No...that's not the reason there should be a marriage.

Now...once again, back to the OP situation...if mom & dad to be are willing to make the commitment, understanding this is a vow before God, and they're willing to commit to do what it takes to make a new marriage with strikes against it work, (and preferably they're willing to be counseled and mentored) then yes...absolutely. But if it is a, "Oh, drat. We're pregnant. Now we have to get married." That's a divorce waiting to happen. It's a vow not taken seriously. And it's better a vow like that not be made.

Sure...God's primary design is two parents, committed to each other under God for life. Sin's in this world, and many times it doesn't happen: sometimes because of one's sin, both's sin, or just "junk" (death of a spouse) and there's a single parent left.

I just don't want to see one bad decision (having sex outside of God's boundaries) followed by another (a marriage that's not got the full commitment of both parties). This compounds, rather than alleviates, the first problem.