Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

What marriage resources have been helpful or encouraging to you?
User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby poetess » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:54 am

MayDay Girl wrote:Honestly, all this denial about promoting condoms would be like not teaching our kids to wash their hands after using the bathroom because they might not do a good enough job . . .

No, I think it's more akin to saying, "Yes, you can play in the cats' litter box as long as you wash your hands afterward." In other words, we are assuming that washing their hands is enough to make the activity safe and that they actually will wash their hands.
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!

User avatar
MayDayGirl
Hammock
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: The Burbs

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby MayDayGirl » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:22 am

Exactly, and we have to assume that if we tell kids that playing in a litter box is a bad idea, some will ignore this advice. Hence, telling them that if they do it, they'd better wash their hands is better than not telling them anything.

neilethere
King bed
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:27 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): March 18th, 2000
Gender: Male
Location: The land down under ...... where women glow and men ppplllllunder

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby neilethere » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:31 pm

Or tell them to wear rubber gloves ....... come on ..... surely someone thought that was funny?

I love it when we get to the multiple mixed metaphors stage of a conversation.

Job, I was skirting around the third rail as well, and clearly it is incredibly important in this topic. But you know I don't get your aversion to Government, can you fill in the blanks?

User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby poetess » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:02 am

Neil, briefly, Job's government allusions (I will let him answer more completely) suggest that you don't get "less" of something by paying for it. Government can't pay a bounty to anyone shooting a fox and then turn around and rail about people killing foxes, for instance.

Government isn't in a position to show compassion or wisdom at all; those are traits of people, not of a bureaucratic system. And for all that it may seem "compassionate" to give money to a woman who has a baby and the baby's father isn't there to help her care for it, the end result is that government has been paying for (and thus encouraging) women to have babies and not marry the father. I know of cases where a couple has been engaged to marry, has gotten pregnant before the wedding . . . and has decided to move the wedding back because financially they were better off letting the government pay for stuff than letting a father who is young and early in his career pay for it. Well, most of us have parents who struggled a bit in the early years of marriage and parenthood; that's life. But do you see how giving couples financial incentive NOT to marry can encourage babies born out of wedlock, mothers relying on government and not on their men is a bad set-up for encouraging family formation . . . and telling young men that their women do better relying on government than relying on them is emasculating and does not encourage young men to take on their responsibilities? We have seen generations of this in the black community in America, and young black males brag about how many babies they have, but instead of working to care for those children, they are out seducing more women, and many of those young men end up in prison or killed by other shiftless young men. That is not a racist diatribe, but reality written by someone who has had her heart broken by watching this play out again and again. (It's a cliche to say "I have a lot of black friends," but I genuinely do. I've been the only white person in the room many times.)

Back to the child-playing-in-the-litterbox analogy. Let's imagine that government realizes that litterbox play has become a "thing." In the way of government to get involved in everything, they could advertise that playing in the litterbox is an unhealthy activity. But let's say that instead they focus on training children to do it safely. So over the course of a few decades, this is the message they send: Litterbox play is a natural, fun part of childhood. Parents have no right to tell children they shouldn't play in litterboxes, since children are going to do it anyway, and they have a right to their own bodies. It is normal and healthy to want to play in litterboxes, and in fact, children who don't wish to do so are a little weird. We can never expect children to show self-control to not play in litterboxes or to wait until they're older. Here are pamphlets showing new and creative methods of play, here are some gloves to use while you do it (they're free!). And now, for the grand finale: children who play in litter boxes are eligible for government money for just about every aspect of life, from money for food to college scholarships, medical care, housing, and more.

Now, no analogy is ever perfect, and this one isn't, because (1) playing in the litter box is morally neutral and (2) sex is good or bad in context--whether or not you are married--and in the proper context it is not dirty or ugly, but beautiful. However, the idea that making something normal and good, and paying people to do it is going to encourage more of the same . . . that is true.

And I know that people are going to say it is heartless not to pay this poor girl who has no one else to care for her. But it isn't as though there are no other options if government chooses not to sponsor and support out-of-wedlock births. Families stepping in to help means financial hardship for that family in many situations, but here's the kicker: Families are not better off today because of government "help"! Families always had the choice to come alongside the girl, or to have someone adopt the baby, or to have the young couple marry. But the family system stayed intact and the rare baby born outside of marriage was a blip in the system, and a blip that could be absorbed by a society with overall healthy families. But when the "norm" is babies out of wedlock, when the vast majority of households are not married-couple households, you don't have a healthy community.
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!

User avatar
Leah
Under the stars
Posts: 16010
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:42 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): November 3rd, 1979
Gender: Female
Location: The Volunteer State

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby Leah » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:01 pm

Some people suggest that if a child is produced from an unmarried couple, a de facto marriage be declared so support is required. Such a union would require legal divorce
Leah

“I have learned now that while those who speak about one's miseries usually hurt, those who keep silence hurt more.”--C.S. Lewis


TMB Copyright and Fair Use

User avatar
Job29Man
Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain.
Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain.
Posts: 8049
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:52 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): August 2nd, 1980
Gender: Male
Location: Hobby Farm, USA

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby Job29Man » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:49 pm

neilethere wrote:Job, I was skirting around the third rail as well, and clearly it is incredibly important in this topic. But you know I don't get your aversion to Government, can you fill in the blanks?


Sure Neil,

In the 50s and 60s the Black American family was as strong or stronger than Whites, and was growing more prosperous by the year. The Civil Rights Acts threatened to help bring them up solidly into a more middle class level. This meant that they would not be dependent upon a large government bureaucracy. Oh no! That will never do!

So President Lyndon B Johnson, mainly with the help of one party of Congress, began a movement called "The Great Society." The upshot of which was to make the Federal Government much more powerful, either directly, or through the States, by giving benefits to people because of their economic condition. This all came into existence in a perfect storm of many other social revolutionary forces in culture and society in the 60s and 70s.

This is a little quiz I give to my children, and to (especially) young Americans (like Millenials and Gen Z) who are bewildered and clueless about things.
Complete the following, by inserting the accurate verb:
The strongest powers of government are the power to tax, the power to subsidize and the power to criminalize.
Behaviors the government wishes to increase, it subsidizes.
Behaviors the government wishes to decrease, it taxes (or criminalizes).

The foundational principle of the Welfare State is not "compassion." The goal of Welfare is not to lift anybody up and establish them as prosperous people who don't need handouts. The actual effect of Welfare has been to make the Black husband irrelevant and unnecessary to the Black Woman; she can "marry" the State -- the State will be her provider, so who needs a man? At the beginning of the Welfare State the Black out of wedlock birth rate was 15%, now it's 70%. If you talk to "strong family values, conservative Blacks" today they will tell you that they are disgusted, sickened by the raging Black culture today. Black men have been relegated to a place where they are not appreciated or sought as protectors and providers.

We have completely screwed the Black family and especially the Black man, not with oppression and racism, but with false compassion, with the Welfare State. We tell them that they are "oppressed" and that they are "owed" compensation for their disadvantage, so they sign up in droves to receive the "benefits."

The State subsidizes single motherhood, so we get (wait for it) ... more single motherhood.
The State reduces Welfare benefits (same effect as taxing) to families with a father/husband in the home, so we get (wait for it) ... men impregnating women and leaving the home.

If you want to suck the soul right out of people, convince them that they are oppressed and owed something by society, then pay them money to not contribute to society. There's incredible racism in our country, it's called Leftism, and it has virtually destroyed the Black family and left them permanently addicted to the Government. There are many shining exceptions, but the "rule" is poverty, children raised by single feminist mothers and grandmothers, without solidly reliable protector/provider husbands and fathers.

Anybody who points out these truths is called racist, nazi, etc, despite the facts, statistics, and evidence.
Wanting to become like Job, as described in the Bible, the book of Job chapter 29. Hence the screen name.

User avatar
MayDayGirl
Hammock
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: The Burbs

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby MayDayGirl » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:46 am

Job, your theory would make sense if we've been under a dictatorship for the last 50 years, but we haven't and there's been plenty of turnover in which political party has held power. Still, nothing changes. And if the government's reason for taxing us is because they are trying to decrease citizens from working, the government wouldn't be able to subsidize anyone or anything, including itself.

You are ignoring the simple story that the Bible tells about over and over again: our sinful nature. People are always going to be lazy, look for the easy way out, try to get something for nothing, etc. And governments (run by these same sinful folks) are going to look for the easiest way to bandage the situation: throw $$$ at it. I don't believe there's any conspiracy going on. It's just easier to hand out money than to try to convince anyone to do anything, whether that be to go to school to get an education and a better job, to exercise to stay healthy, or to not have children out of wedlock.

User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby poetess » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:20 am

Here is a haunting article about Appalachia (the white side of the same story on utter societal destruction with government money hurting people): http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... williamson

I don't know that it's a conspiracy to hurt people; it's probably largely the idea that the best way to get re-elected is to give out "free money" to those who will vote for you. But the end result is the same: whether the promised free money is from buying a couple of lottery tickets or from getting pregnant out of wedlock and thereby qualifying for food stamps that your chaste sisters aren't getting, irresponsible behavior is rewarded or teased (the lottery is mostly a mere "tease"), and those who work hard are taxed to pay for the irresponsible, while those on the "responsible" side of the ledger find their numbers lessening with each generation.

When a community is largely functional, it can afford a few "losers." (In much the way that in the Andy Griffith Show, town drunk Otis is just a comic touch, not a threat to their way of life.) A community can afford to provide care for one person who is genuinely disabled, but not for a bunch of people who pretend to be because they'd rather get monthly checks from disability than work for money. A middle-class neighborhood isn't going to be destroyed because one teenager gets pregnant while still living at home and continues to live with her parents a few extra years before she marries, but when the out-of-wedlock birthrate gets up to 40%, that is an awful lot of homes relying on government help, an awful lot of homes without a father. And before you know it, the neighborhood has had multiple generations of the dysfunctional behavior, and you end up with neighborhoods like the South Side of Chicago, Appalachia, or a pre-Katrina New Orleans, where dysfunction is normal and few have the good sense or motivation to get out. (But the motivated ones do leave, so the community no longer has them as neighbors and examples, keeping the cycle going in yet another spin.)
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!

User avatar
Job29Man
Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain.
Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain.
Posts: 8049
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:52 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): August 2nd, 1980
Gender: Male
Location: Hobby Farm, USA

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby Job29Man » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:49 am

MayDayGirl wrote:Job, your theory would make sense if we've been under a dictatorship for the last 50 years, but we haven't and there's been plenty of turnover in which political party has held power.

MDG, respectfully, this comment has nothing to do with my post since I very carefully chose NOT to mention any political party. Yes, it is true that one party actually got the train started rolling, and seems to want to increase the Welfare State, and the other party has the reputation of "trying" to decrease the Welfare State, but has never been very successful in actually getting it done. But the truth is that it has done almost nothing but grow under BOTH parties.

As to taxing and subsidizing: I never said that taxation eliminates behavior, only that it decreases the targeted behavior, which indeed it does. Likewise I never said that subsidies cause 100% of people to adopt the "desired" behavior, only that it "increases" the targeted behavior. Also, common sense dictates that there is a difference between slight taxation and high taxation. Likewise there is a difference between slight subsidization and high subsidization. That both of my statements are "dose dependent" I thought was self-evident. Apparently, it is not self-evident. So this is my clarification. :D

Conspiracy?: I never said there was a conspiracy. For the most part, I don't believe in organized conspiracies. I believe that if the Black American community would return to the "traditional" husband & wife for life marriage, and resume their climb into the Middle Class they would abandon their support of Leftist politicians in droves. Therefore it is in the best interest of the Leftists' desire for political power to NOT do anything that would actually, in real life, ACCOMPLISH the integrity and prosperity of the Black Family. There doesn't need to be a "conspiracy" with a leader and a play book to make this happen. It happens organically when all the infrastructure and payment system is in place.
Wanting to become like Job, as described in the Bible, the book of Job chapter 29. Hence the screen name.

User avatar
Job29Man
Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain.
Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain.
Posts: 8049
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:52 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): August 2nd, 1980
Gender: Male
Location: Hobby Farm, USA

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby Job29Man » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:25 am

Poetess,

You make a good point that "a community can afford to pay for one 'loser'" or not be much affected by one "town drunk."
This is an illustration of the "dosage dependence" to which I refer.

Dosage Dependence:
Q: Will donuts make you fat?
A: Depends on the "dosage." One donut a month won't make you fat. That's a small dose of donuts. 7 donuts a day will probably make you fat over the course of a year. That's a "large dose."

One high-school age single mother in a town of 3,000 is just "sad."
75 high-school age single mothers in the same town is tragic, a crisis, and a huge drain on the community resources. It's the stuff that calls for town newspaper headlines, investigative journalism, relentless searching for the root causes of the crisis, and emergency town meetings.

Our country is faced with an absolute crisis of fatherless/husbandless homes. While Blacks are 15% of the population young male Blacks commit over half the homicides. MOST, no almost ALL of those young male Blacks who committed homicide grew up without their own father in their home. The correlation is just too strong and persistent to say there is no causation. I've work in prison and met many hundreds of these murderers. Many of them trusted me and told me their stories. It is the same story again almost every single time. "I grew up without my Dad."

And with that, poverty has pretty much become feminized in America. Single motherhood is almost a guarantee of poverty.

Our country has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem and the problem just gets worse. That's a fact, not an opinion. Money has not helped and is not the answer. Behavior change is the answer, but behavior is driven by beliefs, personal morality, and opportunity. And any government actions and policies that are not based upon, and informed by these facts are ineffective.
Wanting to become like Job, as described in the Bible, the book of Job chapter 29. Hence the screen name.

User avatar
The Twit
Blanket on a secluded beach!
Posts: 1870
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:13 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): August 14th, 1993
Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere in the Upper Midwest

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby The Twit » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:49 pm

I will expand a bit on JobMan's statements in this thread.

The state I live in has had the party in leadership switch 3-4 time in my 50 years of life. The power and influence and the actual size of the bureaucracy has not shrunk. The only thing that has happened is the rate of increase has changed depending on who is in power. Note the key thing is power and maintaining the power. There may have been a program or two merged into another program or two but the number of people working to administer the programs has increased, the number of people receiving benefits has increased, and the amount of money being spent on said programs has increased. Yes at local levels we may see a program in the school get dropped, but really look at the school's overall budget it groes faster than the rate of inflation. Look at where the money goes.

I like to use tobacco as an example of this. We have people reliant on the tobacco revenue to fund this program or that program. They have jacked up the sales tax on all forms of tobacco. Meanwhile we get ads showing us the horrors of using tobacco. We hear from some politicians that they need to raise revenue to pay for more antitobacco missions yet out of the same mouth comes the need to raise taxes on tobacco to reduce the number of smokers or chewers or dip users. So we need the revenue to increase the bureaucracy to get people to quit a product that is bad yet we still need a certain number of people using this product to pay for these and other programs. The trick has been to find the right balance of income to maintain the payouts. Raise the tax enough on a pack of cigs and we will see less people smoking, but keep it low enou to keep people from buying the cigs on the black market and keep a good steady flow of money.

Similarly as we have been preached at to reduce energy usage, which we have done a great job in this country, we see that the tax on gas and other energy sources has increased. We are also seeing government bodies trying to figure out how to get money to build roads and bike paths and maintain those roads and paths as people arething electric cars or other than petro based autos. So they come up with other ways to tax those who use any form of vehicle but change the name from tax to usage fees.

So yes the basic principle can be seen 100% of the time. A tax I used to reduce a "sin" as determined by the people or by those who govern the people. This does reduce the behavior or use of such product. A subsidy is given to increase the usage of a good or service offered by the government or those who are seen as favorites of the government. Taxes are not used to raise revenue. We keep seeing the revenu increasing each year but somehow, no matter who is in charge, that money and more money is spent

Look at the use of ethenol or the costs of college. I will pay less for a gallon of gas with ethanol even though it is worse for my engine, does nothing to reduce emissions, and will make me use more fuel because my car does not burn the ethanol as efficiently as it does pure gasoline. As there was more money offered via guaranteed loans and grants the more that the colleges seek, then starts the cycle because as the cost get higher the more money is needed and then the more money is supplied so that the schools can raise their costs.

As for conspiracy, yes there is a conspiracy. The author of the conspiracy wants the family destroyed. He wants to destroy the interdependent relationship between man and wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters, and between neighbor's. He wants people to not be reliant on God and His ways. He wants us to create new gods and new laws that separate us from the true God. And that master of conspiracy is Satan. He will use any method to separate us from God and from truly loving one another.

neilethere
King bed
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:27 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): March 18th, 2000
Gender: Male
Location: The land down under ...... where women glow and men ppplllllunder

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby neilethere » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:43 pm

Thank you to Poetess, Job and the Twit. You aren't saying anything that I haven't heard before. And I have pointed out before American Christians seem to have more to say about Government and etc than Christians in most other Western democracies, particularly regards welfare/health care. In a real sense I think you guys make it a religion of its own but you are so steeped in it you can't see it. I'm not here to convert anyone, by the way, just a comment.

The one issue I would dispute, Poetess, is the value of educating the masses in reproductive health. It is interesting how you flavour things - and we all do it so don't be offended - but honestly there is a reason why America has such a high unplanned teen birth rate. The proof is in the numbers, apart from England your rates are three times higher than elsewhere in the world.

And as I said earlier I think the article deliberately overlooks the link between colour and poverty, between what jobs and money people can get and how likely they are to be in that outside of marriage pregnancy state.

All very interesting.

User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby poetess » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:51 am

Neil, the reasons for the high teen pregnancy rate have nothing to do with American teens not knowing about sex or not knowing about condoms, I can assure you of that. And I have nothing at all against teens being "educated." I just don't agree with the American insistence on calling use of condoms in fornication "safe sex." Nor do I agree with making sex be only about fun and pleasure with babies being a really bad unintended, disconnected side effect, whether in marriage or otherwise. Sex is a marital act of mating--it bonds married couples and it is likely to result in pregnancy (and that's a good thing, because babies are blessings, too).

There most definitely is a connection between color and poverty. We have whole neighborhoods that are mostly Hispanic or black and that are unemployed and unemployable . . . but those neighborhoods are not dysfunctional because they are mostly minority occupied (I know several black professionals, including some doctors). What makes those neighborhoods virtually uninhabitable is the absence of married fathers. All the rest of the dysfunction stems from that: unmarried childbearing, predatory males, drug use (by people with no goals and no future), lack of pride in one's own property and care for it, crime, poor education, poverty. . . . For instance, looking only at one element, the predatory males. In neighborhoods with married fathers in every home, teenage boys aren't the neighborhood big dudes. Teenage boys are under the authority of their own fathers, and they are doing their homework, taking a part-time job to earn some money, learning to repair cars, hanging out with other boys in (largely) healthy activities, maybe dating a bit. The more fathers are absent from the home, the less those teen boys have oversight or a good example . . . and the more they have access to other fathers' daughters, leading to another generation of fatherless homes. Meanwhile, without fathers working and supporting the family, the family relies on a combination of resources, from government aid to the females working to possibly some income coming in from the mother's live-in boyfriend. The live-in boyfriend, by the way, is actually more likely to consume resources than to add them, and he poses a genuine danger to the children. (He is the most likely person in their lives to prey on them sexually.)

Boys without fathers are left on their own to figure out manhood, and studies and experience both show that fatherless boys over-exaggerate "maleness" in terms of violence and sex. (I'm a man if I strut around and I get girls pregnant. Don't mess with me, man--I'm a real man.) Unfathered boys in a community that has married fathers can still learn how to be men. Unfathered boys in a community run by teenage thugs and not married fathers are not going to grow up being an asset to their community; they join gangs for belonging and protection, and gangs thrive by selling drugs. And live-in boyfriends aren't going to do much for community health; they have no skin in the game, staying around only as long as the sex is good or they get other benefits. Standing up to teen boys who are trying to prove themselves men is the role of a real man, a married father, not of a pseudo-man crawling from bed to bed as a woman will take him in and share her pantry and her bed. So the live-in boyfriend is only going to laugh at the posturing of the thug, not put him in his place and keep him out of the home.

Poverty in America is disproportionately dark-skinned, but that is not because poverty breeds dysfunction, but because dysfunction breeds poverty, and the cycle deepens with each new generation making the same choices. See my link about Appalachia a couple posts above to see that it is not confined to ethnic minorities. White communities making the same choices--as more and more of America is doing--have the same results. Asian Americans and immigrants to America come and thrive--even immigrants from Africa and from South America, with no more money than American-bred poor people--but having children outside of marriage is not a healthy first step to adulthood, for a family or for a community.
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!

User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby poetess » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:30 pm

This article isn't really dealing (directly) with "Why not promote condom use, as at least better than not using them?" If we believe that sexual immorality is harmful--even with a condom--it isn't loving our neighbor to promote use of something that will lead to more harm, not less: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/troublerof ... -argument/
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!

neilethere
King bed
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:27 pm
Date of your marriage (past or future): March 18th, 2000
Gender: Male
Location: The land down under ...... where women glow and men ppplllllunder

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby neilethere » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:54 pm

True, Poetess, but if one of the factors in the whole cycle is unmarried pregnancy then that is - or at least in my mind should be - something to be addressed by Government because we expect Government to deal with at least some of the consequences for us - health burden, crime prevention and etc. The bottom line is people - Christians as well - are going to have sex outside of marriage. You or me telling them not to obviously doesn't work. If we are to reduce the burden on the whole of society then we should do so - or at least not stop others from doing so.

User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

condoms solve nothing

Postby poetess » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:31 pm

Neil, that assumes several things that I don't think we can grant. First, for background, you say it "obviously doesn't work"--but in our lifetimes no one has really tried it. In our lifetimes, culture has accepted that "people are going to have sex before marriage, Christians included." Culture, Christians included, has not stood up and said, "Teenagers having sex with each other is a very bad idea, and we won't pretend it's a good or neutral thing."

But your saying that shouldn't we at least do something to cut down on the number of pregnancies assumes that pushing condom use cuts down on the number of pregnancies--and that is part of what I am arguing is not true. It's a logical fallacy to assume a point that has not been proven or granted in order to get to the conclusion. In other words, you are assuming the conclusion "Condom use cuts down on pregnancies" and arguing that we should encourage it for that reason. I am saying (1) Premarital sex is wrong, even apart from pregnancy, and society should not condone it, even apart from pregnancy; (2) Christians are not supposed to be "end justifies the means" people, "yes, we'll have more premarital sex, but hey, we'll have fewer pregnancies, and pregnancies are really the bad thing"; and (3) Pushing condom use is actually "what doesn't work," because not only do we have much, much more frequent instances of premarital sex, but we also have a lot more pregnancies and a lot more STDs than when culture frowned on premarital sex.

We also have a much stronger sense that "Babies are what is bad" than "Sex outside of marriage is what is bad." No one on this whole thread has addressed that point--and that too is part of the argument. Looking at pregnancy and babies as what is bad, we end up with more abortions, more abused children . . . and more people who don't want babies even when they marry. This is a very bad cultural trend--and it is most definitely seen even within the church.

In other words, I am arguing that condoms solve nothing. They are not a "second best" that we can agree to compromise on, better at least than having unprotected sex. It would be akin to me arguing that the water in Detroit has been poisoned, and isn't safe to drink, and we should warn people not to drink it . . . and people coming back and saying but if we warn against the water, then people might stop drinking it, and that is a bad thing. No, it isn't a bad thing--the water is poisonous! Telling people they can have "safe sex" as long as they use condoms is encouraging them to drink poisoned water. Sex between an unmarried couple with a condom is NOT safe sex: It is immoral, it does not adequately protect against disease, it does not adequately protect against pregnancy, it does nothing at all to protect against heartbreak, it encourages young people to step outside parental authority, and it teaches young people that adults believe they "can't" control their appetites!
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!

User avatar
poetess
Under the stars
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:47 am
Date of your marriage (past or future): October 8th, 2011
Gender: Female

Re: Marriage an Asset to Family and Community Health

Postby poetess » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:35 am

This article does a great job (but from a bit of a different direction) of saying what I have been trying to say: The solution to the problem of sexual immorality cannot be the problem itself, pushing more of the same. That is, if sexual immorality is destroying people, family, and communities, pushing for more and better sexual immorality (with condoms or with more extreme sexuality) isn't the answer.

Here's the link: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusi ... -education
Marriage--what a wonderful image of Christ's love for His bride!


Return to “Marriage Books, Resources, Sites”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users