Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.singles Subject: Re: marriage = commitment (to children) Message-ID: <1108@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 11:41:41 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1108 Posted: Mon Aug 5 11:41:41 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 00:55:00 EDT References: <591@ihu1m.UUCP> <1761@reed.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 59 Xref: linus net.religion:6916 net.singles:7446 In article <1761@reed.UUCP> purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) writes: >>Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. >>He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration >>involves having children. For our species to survive children must be >>conceived. To have a good and moral society free from anarchy >>someone must raise the children. The christian believes this is the >>wife's duties. With this in mind someone must take care of the children. >>And that means 24 hours a day. There is a responsiblity in being >>married. The most important is raising children. The idea of quality >>time does not exist. What children need is to be with their parents >>and the more time the better. If not the wife then the husband. >>This should be commited before and kept during the marriage. >>If the two cannot agree than they should not have children. I am glad that >>my mom and dad conceived and raised me so that I can enjoy life now >>and later. [Andy Miller] > As to Andy - I've heard the claim before that it's not right for a >Christian to marry unless they plan on having children. I'm not sure if >that's what he's saying or not, but it is a view that I totally disagree >with. I plan on never having a child (whether I marry or not) although I >do want to adopt one someday (whether I'm married or not.) As to one >person having to stay at home and take care of the child, I definitely >disagree. I also disagree that there is no such thing as quality time. I >know some wonderful parents who both work. I come from a single parent >home. I went through a lot of tough times and spent a lot of time on the >streets. But I enjoy life now, and I expect to enjoy later. Not to say >that my childhood was one that I would wish on anyone, but you can't say >that just these certain elements (one parent not working, spending a lot >of time with the kids, etc.) makes a good parent, a good family, or a >good child. Andy is incorrect when he attributes his position to Christianity in general, because a number of protestant churches explicitly disagree with this position. For instance, the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1958 identified many significances to sex besides procreation. Just reading Genesis, it is clear that the reason for marriage is companionship rather than procreation. Children do not in fact need absolute 24 hours a day supervision; when they are old enough, it indeed becomes burden upon them. I don't think it is clear yet whether or not latchkey kids are really so disadvantaged. I would suspect that with some parents, it is better for them than the other alternative. This flight from freedom and responsibility is always puzzling to me. We are supposed to be rational creatures, capable of reasoning out a situation rather than always having to follow some rule. Yet what I hear Andy saying is that this one role assignment is ALWAYS the correct one (with rather scanty justification from scripture too). Isn't it possible that responsible parents could look at their children and say, "It is time that we both returned to work; the children are old enough to deal with a few hours of being left to themselves"? It should also be obvious that the emotional wellbeing of the parents has a considerable impact upon the psychological health of the children. Parents do in fact need to get away from their kids once in a while. C Wingate "Are you sure you weren't adopted?"