Is God not entitled to take a parent's life?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not? If he's good enough to create children with, then he should be good enough to marry. You're committing your children to this man for the rest of their lives. Why aren't you making this commitment yourself? Give your children the stability and the statistically greater hope that you'll stay together till they're grown.

IMO, marriage isn't a means to create stability, it's a recognition of stability already present.

I know that getting married didn't make me any more committed to my wife than I already was: I was committed to her to begin with.

 

[Starfish]

Who said anything about commitment, or lack thereof? Why do assume there would be no stability? And why do you assume there is a "statistically greater hope" attached to marriage? How many marriages end in divorce? There are lots of couples who stay together for years and years, for life even, that never get that peice of paper. Homosexuals in this country are forced into that now aren't they? And whether or not a couple gets married has no bearing on how long they stay together.

I'm sorry, I so very tired of the "piece of paper" argument. Statistics are not in your favor. Yes there are divorces, too many, but married couples stay together more often than unmarried couples.
IF you are commited to this man, what is wrong with marriage? What do you have to lose? You benefit legally, and it sets a better example for your kids. Sure it risks the high expense of divorce, but you've born him children so you must plan to stay with him. You are putting your kids at a greater risk of a broken home and this can be devastating to children.
You're using a lot of excuses. We're not talking about gay couples here.

 

[Starfish]

IMO, marriage isn't a means to create stability, it's a recognition of stability already present.

I know that getting married didn't make me any more committed to my wife than I already was: I was committed to her to begin with.

Marriage is a bigger commitment than living together, because it involves the law. If you really love someone, why not commit entirely, legally? Why hold back?

What I don't get is that when a women conceives a child with a man, she is making this HUGE commitment for the child. This man will be the child's father for the rest of it's life. So why is he good enough for the child, but not good enough for her? If it doesn't work, she's free to go. The child is tied for life.
Think of the kids! They need married parents who will have covenanted to stay together.

 

[Draka]

I'm sorry, I so very tired of the "piece of paper" argument. Statistics are not in your favor. Yes there are divorces, too many, but married couples stay together more often than unmarried couples.
IF you are commited to this man, what is wrong with marriage? What do you have to lose? You benefit legally, and it sets a better example for your kids. Sure it risks the high expense of divorce, but you've born him children so you must plan to stay with him. You are putting your kids at a greater risk of a broken home and this can be devastating to children.
You're using a lot of excuses. We're not talking about gay couples here.

What statistic can one possibly show to ascertain that married couples stay together more than unmarried couples? You can show divorce rates, but not exactly "break-up" rates now can you?

We have both been married before. Me twice even. Both of us suffered horrible marriages, full of cheating and different forms of abuse, followed by exhausting, tormenting divorces. I bore my exes children too, but that didn't change a thing now did it? Marriage isn't always for everyone and isn't any gaurantee for longevity of the relationship. I have already been happily with Turk longer than I have with either of my two exes. If we are content with our relationship as it is then why mess with it?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, I so very tired of the "piece of paper" argument. Statistics are not in your favor. Yes there are divorces, too many, but married couples stay together more often than unmarried couples.

Luckily she is an individual and not a population average, so she can use her own judgement to determine which end of the statistical distribution she is in.

Starfish, I think it might be wise to back off - Draka's personal life isn't exactly your business. I don't think that her remark indicating that your comments had a direct bearing on her gives you free license to pass judgement.

 

[Draka]

Marriage is a bigger commitment than living together, because it involves the law. If you really love someone, why not commit entirely, legally? Why hold back?

What I don't get is that when a women conceives a child with a man, she is making this HUGE commitment for the child. This man will be the child's father for the rest of it's life. So why is he good enough for the child, but not good enough for her? If it doesn't work, she's free to go. The child is tied for life.
Think of the kids! They need married parents who will have covenanted to stay together.

There are also situations where the person you have a child with may be a wonderful father or mother, but you find that you simply don't work well in a relationship together. Wouldn't it be better for a child to see their parents amicably apart and getting along well with each other for the sake of the children than for the child to see a relationship that doesn't work?

This is thinking of the kids. And you using the word "covenant" just exposes the religious backing behind your argument. I'm Pagan, marriage is not a requirement in my faith. It is an option, just like handfasting, but nothing is required except for love.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Marriage is a bigger commitment than living together, because it involves the law. If you really love someone, why not commit entirely, legally? Why hold back?

Actually, my wife and I didn't live together before we got married.

And I think that your idea of marriage being a bigger commitment ignores certain things. Yes, there is more of a legal obligation in a marriage than in cohabitation*, but my personal obligation that comes out of love for my wife is much greater than the legal obligations of either living arrangement, and it would be common to whatever circumstance I found myself in. Because of that, I was just as committed to my wife before we signed the paper and exchanged vows as after.

I think that anyone who gets married to create a commitment that isn't already there is heading for a world of trouble.




*though at least in Canada, we have "common-law marriage": if you live with your partner for two years (or even a day, if there's a child and a "relationship of some permanence" involved), then you're deemed de-facto married in the eyes of the law, with all the rights, responsibilities and benefits that come with that... all without ever signing a marriage license or standing before a minister.

 

[Draka]

*though at least in Canada, we have "common-law marriage": if you live with your partner for two years (or even a day, if there's a child and a "relationship of some permanence" involved), then you're deemed de-facto married in the eyes of the law, with all the rights, responsibilities and benefits that come with that... all without ever signing a marriage license or standing before a minister.

There is a form of common law marriage in Iowa too. Though I am unsure of all the requirements for it. Not something I've really worried about that much.

 

[Gentoo]

You know, I get very tired of people I don't know in person saying that my mom must have done a horrible job raising myself and my older brother because she did it alone.

 

[Starfish]

There are also situations where the person you have a child with may be a wonderful father or mother, but you find that you simply don't work well in a relationship together. Wouldn't it be better for a child to see their parents amicably apart and getting along well with each other for the sake of the children than for the child to see a relationship that doesn't work?

This is thinking of the kids. And you using the word "covenant" just exposes the religious backing behind your argument. I'm Pagan, marriage is not a requirement in my faith. It is an option, just like handfasting, but nothing is required except for love.

One option is to amicably part, and one option is to stay in a "relationship that doesn't work".
There is a third option. Stay together and fix the relationship. It's possible if you are both willing to forgive and change. Easy? Not at all. But possible.

We're talking about innocent children here. Children who, we assume, didn't choose their birth circumstances. We adults make choices and set it up for them. We have to give them the best we can. Any less is not good enough.
Broken homes can be devastating to children. Some seem to survive, some never get over it. We've got to do everything we can to protect them from this.

A covenant, which has several meanings, is an agreement between two parties wherein they each promise to do something.

IMO, which you have every right to reject, if you can't commit in marriage to a man, don't have children. That way only two lives are affected.
I'm sorry this sounds harsh. I've got to be honest.

 

[Draka]

You know, I get very tired of people I don't know in person saying that my mom must have done a horrible job raising myself and my older brother because she did it alone.

Yeah, I was a single mom for a while and I thought I did a damn good job. My daughter was courteous, polite, well-behaved, well-adjusted, intelligent and well spoken. Where oh where did I go wrong?

 

[Starfish]

I think that anyone who gets married to create a commitment that isn't already there is heading for a world of trouble.

Absolutely. However, why would anyone get married to create a commitment that isn't already there? I was very commited to my man before we got married. I married him because I really believed in our relationship. I knew it would hold up under pressure.

 

[Gentoo]

One option is to amicably part, and one option is to stay in a "relationship that doesn't work".
There is a third option. Stay together and fix the relationship. It's possible if you are both willing to forgive and change. Easy? Not at all. But possible.

Not everything that is broken can be fixed.

We're talking about innocent children here. Children who, we assume, didn't choose their birth circumstances. We adults make choices and set it up for them. We have to give them the best we can. Any less is not good enough.
Broken homes can be devastating to children. Some seem to survive, some never get over it. We've got to do everything we can to protect them from this.

Ugg... when my parents split up, they did their best to keep it from us. To this day, I still don't know why they did. I'm not suffering because of it, in fact, I'd probably have suffered more if they had stayed together "for the sake of the children".

People here have been throwing the importance of father figure's around as if they're always the best. Mine didn't know how to deal with me, so ignored me. I was ignored 1-2 days a week for 11 years, but I'd still take that over being ignored and miserable every day for those 11 years. My parents splitting up was the best thing they could have done to keep my brother and I happy, because then they would be happy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely. However, why would anyone get married to create a commitment that isn't already there? I was very commited to my man before we got married. I married him because I really believed in our relationship. I knew it would hold up under pressure.

I have no idea, but I see that as the implication of your line of reasoning: you've advocated that unmarried couples with children should marry to create a commitment. Either the commitment is there or it isn't; a marriage won't magically create anything.

 

[Draka]

IMO, which you have every right to reject, if you can't commit in marriage to a man, don't have children. That way only two lives are affected.
I'm sorry this sounds harsh. I've got to be honest.

Why is marriage the only form of commitment? I never said anything about us not being in a commited relationship. We've considered having a nice, private Handfasting ritual some night, but it, as well, is not necessary.

As I've said, I commited to two other men in marriage and they didn't turn out well at all. In fact, quite opposite. He was married before as well. We both have realized that marriage isn't as important as some would like to think. It does not gaurantee anything. The promises aren't unbreakable. It doesn't mean forever.

If Goldie and Kurt, with all their Hollywood stress and strain (as many celebrity couples don't last long) can last for the many many years they have been together, have well adjusted children, and have never gotten married, then I think a lot of couples can as well.

 

[Kingfrog]

God does not take parents away from Children. Man's free will does. God sits back and watches His creation. He does not interfere with it. Those who come to HIm shall find Him and the all the comfort and joy that allows. Those who don't seek Him shall never find Him and will live forever believing there is no greater purpose in life then the mundane. That's too bad. Really becasue whether or not God exists means nothing to those who believe in Him, There is NO question and as long as they are comforted in this life by His presence in the face of Man's Ills they will be fine and usually far happier then those who are stuck within the narrow confines of human intellect and logic.

 

[Smoke]

IMO, which you have every right to reject, if you can't commit in marriage to a man, don't have children. That way only two lives are affected.
I'm sorry this sounds harsh. I've got to be honest.

It's a very good thing to be honest. A good place to start being honest would be to face the fact that other adults may know how to conduct their own lives as well as you know how to conduct yours. Your unsolicited and repeated advice to Draka doesn't sound harsh so much as presumptuous and rude.

See, this is my objection to the Abrahamic religions, or one of my objections. They make up rules for themselves that may work very well for them, and may even work very well for most people. But they're not content to follow their rules for themselves; they think they have to force those rules where they don't fit, and try to make everyone live as they do. Whatever virtue there might be in their ways of life, it's completely negated by this unrelenting presumption.

 

[The Seeker]

The most important thing is that a child be brought up in a positive, nurturing and loving environment. Whether that environment includes a man and a woman, a man or woman alone or a gay couple shouldn't matter. If the child is raised in this manner, I'm sure they could really give a damn what their family consists of.

 

[Starfish]

See, this is my objection to the Abrahamic religions, or one of my objections. They make up rules for themselves that may work very well for them, and may even work very well for most people. But they're not content to follow their rules for themselves; they think they have to force those rules where they don't fit, and try to make everyone live as they do. Whatever virtue there might be in their ways of life, it's completely negated by this unrelenting presumption.

You're right. We do do that. And I can understand that this is really annoying. The reason why we do it is that our belief in God tells us that we are all his children. He is real and he's your father as well as mine. Christ admonished us to go and teach and baptize the world. So we feel a responsibility to save the world, so to speak. Even a world that doesn't want saving, so to speak. We are genuinely concerned for you and all children. Our motives and intentions are good, sometimes our methods aren't.
So we have to keep trying, and you'll probably continue to be annoyed. Don't know quite how to fix it, but I can see your side. There are plenty of people who want to save me (from my religion) as well.

 

[Scott C.]

So... if it has been ordained by God that a child is entitled to a mother and a father, is God obliged to make sure that a child's parents live until the child reaches adulthood? If not, why not?

This is an age old question, I believe, and can be considered in the broader context of why does God cause or allow tragedy and difficulties in people's lives. I don't know how much God causes or how much He merely allows, but being God, he could prevent all of it. But, He doesn't want to prevent it all, as that would deny purpose of life.

It's good to have a father and a mother. It is good to be safe. It's good to be healthy. I believe all of these are ideals we should work for. I should wear a seat belt. I should not take unncessary risks with my life. I should want to live and want to be safe and want to be healthy. But, God in his infinite wisdom, may decide that it will be best for me not to have one of these. He may give me a serious illness, or take a parent through death or divorce, or He may give me parents who don't love and care for me. God might cause this to happen or He may merely allow it to happen. Things like this happen for our own good and we should trust in God's wisdom. Now, the fact that God may allow a 16 year old to get in a serious accident and permanently lose physical capacity, does not mean that we should behave with disregard for our own safety. It would be foolish to think, "Well God obviously does not care about human life because he allowed this child to die in infancy, so it doesn't matter if I care about human life". Similarly, it's foolish to think that because God does not always provide a father and a mother for a child, that having a father and a mother is not something God always wants us to strive for.