Posted on 01/03/2005 8:31:56 AM PST by qam1
ahve=have.
Sorry about that, lol.
You mean God's covenants with Jacob and Noah, for instance?
God set specific covenants with specific people in the Old Testament. I don't believe they apply to me.
If one believes those covenants apply to Christians today, why would he not also believe all of God's other commands in Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus apply as well? But we know they do not all apply, because of Jesus Christ.
Do you honestly believe people who do not want children should have them? Because that would be a horrible thing--to have children only because other people think you should. When you really think about it, it would actually be immoral: wrong to do to the child, wrong to do to oneself, wrong to do to anyone else it might affect, and thus wrong to do in God's sight.
There are many purposes for marriage. Procreation is indeed one of them. But I don't believe it's a mandate.
I understand conservative Catholics may feel differently, and that's fine.
What a stupid statement.
Did I say having kids would guarentee companionship? Nope, I didn't. The only thing it does is increase your chances.
Are you kidding? Two incomes and NO kids is great! We sure don't vote DEM either. We spend our money on ourselves, and our retirement.
Most of the older women I know are extremely independent. Sometimes they do live together and share expenses but I haven't seen it that often.
One older woman I used to visit would want to cook for me every time I visited her. She made the best pasta fagiola (sp?). The only person she wanted to live with was her unmarried son.
Of course I've seen really well-behaved children and attentive parents at times too, but there seem to be fewer of them than the other kind. I live in a blue state, so maybe that makes a difference.
And yeah, no doubt there are tons of ill-mannered grown people out there too. But I figure when parents have kids in tow they should at least make a good effort to keep them behaved/out of the way (just common sense), etc.
You are exactly right, of course. I just don't understand how that would keep someone from having children of their own, kwim? Presumably, your children wouldn't behave like that, or have it tolerated when the inevitable tantrums occur.
That's my issue with it. I hope you understand where I am coming from here.
That is so cool. She is really lucky to have you. I'll never forget sitting with one of my older friends as we watched the House Managers getting ringed by some dingbat female demo. All she said was, in a very quiet tone. "Bull sh!t."
Awww thanks :-)
"Selfish hedonism".- Is there any other? Besides, selfishness is good, just like greed is.
Yep, but to me I wouldn't trade the time investment. I really like being with them. My main objective is to guide their souls. If I get to have them by my side when I die I will consider it gravy.
That is way too funny.
Fifty years ago, this discussion would not have even taken place. The last fifty years (round number) have turned America upside down.
Fifty years ago, it was just as normal as bacon and eggs for breakfast, that a man and woman married and had children. As it always had been. Why? Were my parents too dull to consider whether or not they were "cut out" to be parents? I think not; though they both came from families of modest means, both had graduated college and both had career prospects - Mama as a teacher and Daddy in finance.
My Daddy was not really "cut out" to be a father. His own died when he was two years old, and in later years, he told me that he had messed up a lot, because his male influences were not so good. So, he realized that he did not have a good ideal for fatherhood. Yes, he messed up a lot. But, he did well enough to bring four children into the world who are also having children and making the world a better place.
Forgive the ramble. But, this is interesting to me, in light of what, fifty years ago was considered, at best sad, and at worst, slightly scandalous; i.e., that a man and woman would marry, and never be blessed with children. I think it speaks to a downward trend in the matters that made us a strong nation.
fwiw
=== As long as marriage is tied as an institution raising children then there will never be viability to homosexual marriage.
Birth control rendered children an Option of marriage long ago. It's interesting that no one on this thread (save AquinasFan, or so I've seen) acknowledges that fact.
Folks who choose how many children to have within their marriage are making the same exact decision as those who choose to have no children from the marriage.
Actually, cyborg made reference to that as well.
We had three failed adoption efforts after the birth of our son and three muscarriages. Fourth time (Russia) worked to get Ben a brother. It's an outrage, what the domestic adoption system has turned into.
Issac Newton never married or had children. Somehow I don't think he was a waste of oxygen.
I bet a dollar, not a one of them had a stay at home mama; nor was one home schooled.
Hell, I bet a hundred.
What we see when we see that, is the result of bad choices by parents. It is not ipso facto proof that bringing children into the world is a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.