• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should people wait until marriage to have children?

Should people wait until marriage to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 77.5%
  • No

    Votes: 3 4.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 11 15.5%

  • Total voters
    71
Permanent cohabitation without the piece of paper is getting more and more common, and there's no reason people like that can't make perfectly good parents.

A marriage license doesn't mean the home will be stable, as we can clearly see by divorce rates (which skyrocket after a couple has kids), and the fact that I don't know more than 2 or 3 people whose parents are actually together.

It doesn't matter if they're legally married. What matters is whether they're internally stable.
 
People should wait until they can afford to have children before they have children. Have as many out of wedlock kids as you want just so long as other people do not have to support your spawn.
 
Si señor.

There's no credible science to back the claims of instability in SS homes. And your opposition to the morality of homosexuality shouldn't have any bearing on how you see homosexuals as parents.

Why then?
 
There's no credible science to back the claims of instability in SS homes. And your opposition to the morality of homosexuality shouldn't have any bearing on how you see homosexuals as parents.

Why then?

Yes, my opposition to the morality of homosexuality should have a bearing on how I see them as parents. If I believe something is immoral then obviously I shouldn't support anyone teaching kids that it's okay.
 
Yes, my opposition to the morality of homosexuality should have a bearing on how I see them as parents. If I believe something is immoral then obviously I shouldn't support anyone teaching kids that it's okay.

By that logic you should oppose the parenthood of anyone believing in the morality of homosexuality.
 
People should ensure that they have a stable economic environment before having kids. Whether or not that includes marriage differs from person to person.
 
People should ensure that they have a stable economic environment before having kids. Whether or not that includes marriage differs from person to person.

There's more to growing up in a good situation than just economics, though. I think that children really need two parents.
 
I'm fine with premarital casual sex and whatnot, but birth control should be used.

Do you know what the poverty rate in the US is for families that wait until marriage to have children and stay married? 2%.

The poverty rate for the general population is 13%, more than six times as high. Plus, children that grow up in single parent households are much more likely to end up involved in criminal activity.

I look down on people that have children outside of marriage. They are hurting their children, their families, themselves, and their country.

Also I'm an atheist so religion has nothing to do with why I believe this.

Is it the single-parent household that is causing the poverty, or the poverty that is causing the single-parent household? There isn't a clear cut answer to this question. It's simultaneously true that those born into poverty are more likely to have a teen pregnancy or a child out of wedlock, and also that those who have a child out of wedlock or in their teens have overall less earning potential during their lifetimes and are more likely to be in poverty for at least some of it.
 
Shouldn't the question be, what do I do for humanity?

"humanity" didn't baptise you. A representative of a Protestant church did. My point is not to start a holier than thou pissing match. I know that I am no holier than you. However, you argue that you should be able to demand services of a priest/church and have no obligation to serve that community that helped to provide that grace.

As a point of order, priests are not solely granted rights to baptise. All that is needed is a Christian adult and water. There are lots of stories here in southern Louisiana of a devout Catholic grandmother baptising her grandchild while lapsed Catholic mom and dad who never bothered to get the kid baptised are off at the movies. So let's dispense with the whole priests-are-bad-guys-because-they-won't-baptise-kids-of-parents-who-have-no-intention-of-raising-the-child-Catholic meme. The ceremony of baptism is about welcoming a child into a community of the faithful. If you aren't willing to do that, then any Christian adult will do.

Well, I don't have much free time but when I can (and have the funds), I donate money to the cancer fund as well as Shriners Hospital and a local animal shelter. Also, I TRY to be the best person I can be and treat everyone as well as I can (at least MOST of the time) among other little personal things. Also, around Thanksgiving time, I go with my aunt to the food pantry and help out doing whatever they need me to do (whether that be getting bags of groceries together, doing inventory, passing out bags of groceries to people, etc.)

Do you go to church? I will assume the answer is no. Then why do you care who baptises you or your children? If church is irrelevant to you, then why is baptism SO VERY IMPORTANT....?!

And what do YOU do?

Not nearly enough.
 
If they followed Scripture, they wouldn't be baptizing any babies. But I digress....

Some protestant churches feel that only adults can/should be baptised. The church has since its beginning has accepted infant baptism. It is adult only baptism that is the new/non-scriptural thing, not the other way around.
 
"humanity" didn't baptise you. A representative of a Protestant church did. My point is not to start a holier than thou pissing match. I know that I am no holier than you. However, you argue that you should be able to demand services of a priest/church and have no obligation to serve that community that helped to provide that grace.

As a point of order, priests are not solely granted rights to baptise. All that is needed is a Christian adult and water. There are lots of stories here in southern Louisiana of a devout Catholic grandmother baptising her grandchild while lapsed Catholic mom and dad who never bothered to get the kid baptised are off at the movies. So let's dispense with the whole priests-are-bad-guys-because-they-won't-baptise-kids-of-parents-who-have-no-intention-of-raising-the-child-Catholic meme. The ceremony of baptism is about welcoming a child into a community of the faithful. If you aren't willing to do that, then any Christian adult will do.



Do you go to church? I will assume the answer is no. Then why do you care who baptises you or your children? If church is irrelevant to you, then why is baptism SO VERY IMPORTANT....?!



Not nearly enough.

No, the point I am trying to make is NOT that anyone owes anyone anything. My point is that it goes AGAINST the teachings of Christ for the Church to turn any children away and to deny them the process of cleansing original sin.
 
Some protestant churches feel that only adults can/should be baptised. The church has since its beginning has accepted infant baptism. It is adult only baptism that is the new/non-scriptural thing, not the other way around.

Infant baptism isn't in my Bible. Nowhere did Jesus speak of infant baptism. Nowhere did anyone perform infant baptism. Every baptism in the NT was adult baptism. Makes sense - only adults can choose to accept Christ and repent for their sins.
 
No, the point I am trying to make is NOT that anyone owes anyone anything. My point is that it goes AGAINST the teachings of Christ for the Church to turn any children away and to deny them the process of cleansing original sin.

I will repeat, you don't need a priest to baptise. Your parents could have done that themselves. Getting baptised in a church implies you are joining that community of believers.
 
I will repeat, you don't need a priest to baptise. Your parents could have done that themselves. Getting baptised in a church implies you are joining that community of believers.

According to what I was taught, it has to be someone who is ordained to perform a baptism. Neither of my parents were ever ordained.
 
According to what I was taught, it has to be someone who is ordained to perform a baptism. Neither of my parents were ever ordained.

That's religious doctrine created by man, not God. In scripture, disciples baptized. If you're a follower of Christ, you're a disciple. Therefore, anyone can baptize anyone. You don't have to follow some silly man-made rules.

Although, in my humble opinion, infant baptism doesn't do a darn thing.
 
That's religious doctrine created by man, not God. In scripture, disciples baptized. If you're a follower of Christ, you're a disciple. Therefore, anyone can baptize anyone. You don't have to follow some silly man-made rules.

Although, in my humble opinion, infant baptism doesn't do a darn thing.

I never knew that. Well, that was MY parents anyway. I actually never had my son baptized because I decided I would let him make those decisions for himself.
 
I was thinking that baptism doesn't really make a lot of sense, because what about those who never had the chance to be baptized, like still born or miscarried infants, or ones who died before they had the chance to be baptized.
 
I was thinking that baptism doesn't really make a lot of sense, because what about those who never had the chance to be baptized, like still born or miscarried infants, or ones who died before they had the chance to be baptized.

I guess according to the Catholic church, they're in Hell.
 
Infant baptism isn't in my Bible. Nowhere did Jesus speak of infant baptism. Nowhere did anyone perform infant baptism. Every baptism in the NT was adult baptism. Makes sense - only adults can choose to accept Christ and repent for their sins.
Not speeding is also not in your Bible. Beware of treating the Bible like a code of civil law.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children (emphasis added) and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers
 
"and your children" implies that it's not just for THAT generation, but the generations to come as well. That's not an example of children being baptized.

If infant baptism was needed and important, why wasn't Jesus baptized in Bethlehem? Why are there zero examples of babies being baptized in Scripture?

It was fabricated by the Catholic church and isn't necessary. Infants cannot and do not sin.
 
It also doesn't make sense because what about before Jesus and before baptisms? ALL of those people went to hell?
 
Back
Top Bottom