children out of wedlock

sebastian4jc

What is the opinion of most Irish people on having children out of wedlock? Is the country still true to their Christian values?

Thanks,
Seb

Dudess

I'd say only a minority have a problem with it - mostly elderly religious. I think it's strange how you'd deem non acceptance of it to be christian. Surely Christ would have advocated acceptance?

sebastian4jc

I didn't mean for this to be started as a new thread. Someone is messing with the forum. In reply to your comment Dudess, well I think wedlock is an important enough, going by the the story of Jesus himself, that God had Joeseph marry Mary.

Khannie

Gonna move this to a more appropriate forum....

edit: Oh, I see it's already been moved.

Cavehill Red

sebastian4jc wrote: »

I didn't mean for this to be started as a new thread. Someone is messing with the forum. In reply to your comment Dudess, well I think wedlock is an important enough, going by the the story of Jesus himself, that God had Joeseph marry Mary.

Always wondered about that yarn. Doesn't that make Jesus a child born out of wedlock too? After all, he wasn't Joe's kid, according to all accounts.

Gregor Samsa

sebastian4jc wrote: »

I didn't mean for this to be started as a new thread. Someone is messing with the forum. In reply to your comment Dudess, well I think wedlock is an important enough, going by the the story of Jesus himself, that God had Joeseph marry Mary.

But, according to the fable, Joseph wasn't Jesus' father.

So, under these Christian values, would it be acceptable for me to get a girl pregnant, once I could get her to marry someone else?

sebastian4jc

Khannie wrote: »

Gonna move this to a more appropriate forum....

edit: Oh, I see it's already been moved.

Seriously, do you guys even know what you're doing?

Nevyn

I moved it, it did not belong where you put it in the pregnancy chat thread in the parenting subforum. If you want to discuss the changing attitudes this is the forum for it.

So When you say Wedlock do you mean children born outside of the christian scarement of wedlock?

Cavehill Red

Thaedydal wrote: »

I moved it, it did not belong where you put it in the pregnancy chat thread in the parenting subforum. If you want to discuss the changing attitudes this is the forum for it.

So When you say Wedlock do you mean children born outside of the christian scarement of wedlock?

Loving the typo (if it was a typo!)

Nevyn

More like my dyslexia strikes again with humorous consequences.

sebastian4jc

Thaedydal: I think clearly a quick question on wedlock is related parenting and pregnacy. I did not want to start an entire thread about it. You didn't even ask me, you just went right ahead. And I noticed that in a thread I actually started, mods were happy to keep in off topic nonsense involving people's behinds in a discussion about atheism. Why the double standard then? Or are you going to tell me that was related?

Nevyn

If you have an issue wtih the athiestims forum and it's mods take it up with them.

So you would define wedlock is then christian marriage?

sebastian4jc

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you have an issue wtih the athiestims forum and it's mods take it up with them.

So you would define wedlock is then christian marriage?

I do. How do I do that? I'm trying to have a serious discussion and people keep posting off topic messages. Why would I make a stupid claim like that? There were people getting married before Jesus arrived you know.

looksee

There's an interesting word, on the face of it it seems to express the ideology that the OP undoubtedly subscribes to, but the definition is rather different

wed·lock (wĕdˈlŏkˌ)
noun
The state of being married; matrimony.
Origin: Middle English wedlocke, from Old English wedlāc : wedd, pledge + -lāc, n. suff. expressing activity.

Oddly enough, OP, Parenting and Pregnancy is not really concerned with the philosophical, theological and cultural implications of Christian 'wedlock', and whether children are born in or out of it. This is a much safer place to discuss it.

Nevyn

sebastian4jc wrote: »

There were people getting married before Jesus arrived you know.

So you mean children being born outside of marriage, legal marriage no matter if there was no christian priest invovled or if the parents are atheist/Jewish/Islamic/pagan/whatever?

sebastian4jc

looksee wrote: »

There's an interesting word, on the face of it it seems to express the ideology that the OP undoubtedly subscribes to, but the definition is rather different

wed·lock (wĕdˈlŏkˌ)
noun
The state of being married; matrimony.
Origin: Middle English wedlocke, from Old English wedlāc : wedd, pledge + -lāc, n. suff. expressing activity.

Oddly enough, OP, Parenting and Pregnancy is not really concerned with the philosophical, theological and cultural implications of Christian 'wedlock', and whether children are born in or out of it. This is a much safer place to discuss it.

I just wanted to know how important marriage was for the new mothers, that's all. Yeah but people posting random pictures of sandwiches and calling me names when I do try to have a discussion in the appropriate forum is completely, fine right?

marglin

I don't see the big deal with it.
Marriage is basically a social contract that makes it harder for people to split up, which is essentially good for kids but I don't think its an absolute prerequisite.

A loving and long term cohabiting relationship is just a good a home as a married home.

Isn't judging people very un christian anyway? btw not religious, just to be transparent.

Nevyn

sebastian4jc wrote: »

I just wanted to know how important marriage was for the new mothers, that's all.

For some it is important for other's it's not.

And what about new Dad's considering they only have automatic legal rights over thier child if they are married to the mother?

Ireland does not only have christians in it, so saying that marriage has christian values to it is wrong as there are married people out there who are not christian and who married with out christian rites.

As for christians who would have disproved of children being born outside of marriage, many of them are compassionate and are glad that the child was born rather then aborted.

sebastian4jc wrote: »

Yeah but people posting random pictures of sandwiches and calling me names when I do try to have a discussion in the appropriate forum is completely, fine right?

Again that is a totally separate thread and forum to this one with separate mods.

Holybejaysus

I don't really have a problem with someone having children out of wedlock-What's more important to me is that a child has a stable upbringing, and has both a Father and a Mother to help raise them. I am concerned about the single parents in society these days, I don't think it is healthy for any child to be raised entirely by one parent. I know the psuedo-feminists will try to argue otherwise, but I care not a jot.

Whatever you might think about the 60's, this decade was without question responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family. Nice work, hippies. It would appear to me that there are elements within society that are dedicated to the destruction of the family.

the_syco

sebastian4jc wrote: »

What is the opinion of most Irish people on having children out of wedlock?

I have a problem with those who have a problem with kid born out of wedlock.

sebastian4jc wrote: »

Is the country still true to their Christian values?

What christian values? You forget that before the christians came in, that Ireland was a pagan country. Are we still true to our pagan values? Nay. People have become materialistic, and have started following false gods, rather than gods like the sun, the wind, and the rain.

fudgez

No problem with it whatsoever OP Ireland has traded "Christian Values" for common sense and tolerance if you ask me

nozzferrahhtoo

sebastian4jc wrote: »

What is the opinion of most Irish people on having children out of wedlock? Is the country still true to their Christian values?

These days I do not think there are many people who think being married has that much relevance to child birth or child rearing. The religious concept of marriage is all but meaningless, and there are not all that many aspects of state marriage that are too relevant either.

So I would warrant, at a guess, that the "opinion of most Irish people" would be that it is irrelevant either way. Of course that is a guess and unless you engage in a study or find someone else who has a guess is all it could be.

What aspects of marriage, religious or state, do you think are in any way important or relevant?

As for the rest of yours posts... I have noticed that if you have a problem with how the forums are moderated there are people to contact and so forth. Derailing your own thread with back seat modding is not likely to achieve much.

Truley

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Whatever you might think about the 60's, this decade was without question responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family. Nice work, hippies. It would appear to me that there are elements within society that are dedicated to the destruction of the family.

Actually the idea of a nuclear family is a relatively modern construct, most probably from the start of industrialisation, 19th early 20th century. It certainly hasn't been the 'norm' in human history.

To answer the OP. I don't place a very high value in children being born within wedlock. I understand why people put a huge value on it in the past, and religion isn't the main reason for this. Kinship ties would have been extremely important in times where resources were scarce and social security didn't exist. More and more people have renounced marriage in recent years, not necessarily for moral reasons but because economically (and socially!) it's not really necessary.

gbee

sebastian4jc wrote: »

well I think wedlock is an important enough, going by the the story of Jesus himself, that God had Joeseph marry Mary.

Mary had Jesus out of wedlock. Mary and Joseph were bethrothed a state whereby they live together but are still not sexually active.

At the time the law would call for the male to stone his bethrothed to death, failure to do so would mean the whole village would stone both to death.

They fled.

Ash.J.Williams

fudgez wrote: »

No problem with it whatsoever OP Ireland has traded "Christian Values" for common sense and tolerance if you ask me

Well tolerance anyway!!

metrovelvet

I think there is a difference between kids born within a couple that arent married and a child born to parents where one doesnt want them. I do think there is a difference. I remember someone said to my son 'Your gorgeous, how could your daddy not want ya?'

I think the rising number in fatherless kids is something for everyone to be concerned about because it does affect the community and the nation as a whole.

colm1234

what a load of rubbish if two people love each other and want to have kids provided they are financially comfortable what is marriage but a piece of paper, there are plenty of kids born into this world whos parents were married and had absolutely diabolic upbringings, so long as the two people involved look after each other and their kid I dont see any problem

The Corinthian

Marriage is, IMHO, an outdated and temporary institution that masquerades as a permanent one, and so is in serious need of reform before it becomes completely irrelevant - as it slowly is.

What is important is not whether the child is born in wedlock, but whether the child is accepted by both parents - there is a long and sad tradition of children in marriage being rejected by a spouse/parent because they never wanted them. Better two unmarried parents who both want and love the child.

Emme

As long as the child is loved and cared for does it matter if the parents are married?

Marriage came into being to legitimise the heirs of the upper class when the lord of the manor was spreading his seed far and wide and impregnating every maiden going!

ChocolateSauce

I recognise that from a legal perspective, having children in wedlock offers more social protection than out of.

Ethically, there is zero difference between the two. I reject out of hand as vacuous religious psycho-babble the assertation that it is somehow less moral to have children out of wedlock than within.

miec

As long as the child is loved and cared for does it matter if the parents are married?

+ 1

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

I'd say only a minority have a problem with it - mostly elderly religious. I think it's strange how you'd deem non acceptance of it to be christian. Surely Christ would have advocated acceptance?

I don't think the OP is talking about acceptance or non-acceptance of children born in such situations, but rather pre-marital sex which would be considered to be contrary to Christian sexual ethics.

Then again, it is the responsibility of individuals and God to determine how best they should live.

I think Jesus would encourage us to have non-judgmental nature towards people, but to encourage people to aim to follow Him at the same time.

krudler

I think Jesus would encourage us to have non-judgmental nature towards people, but to encourage people to aim to follow Him at the same time.

gotta love those christian values

"tolerate others, except those who do things we dont approve of"

philologos

krudler wrote: »

gotta love those christian values

"tolerate others, except those who do things we dont approve of"

That's not what I've said.

What I have said is that obviously Christians have a certain way of living that they feel is best which they aim to live by, and for others to live by. However one cannot coerce people to do this.

Mike 1972

sebastian4jc wrote: »

Is the country still true to their Christian values

What a strange question !

If someone isint being true to "their" Christian values then its probably because "their" values arent actually Christian and therefore its rather presumptious to speak of "their" Christian values.

An Increacing number of people dont have "Christian Values" some people regard this as a bad thing. Some dont !

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

That's not what I've said.

What I have said is that obviously Christians have a certain way of living that they feel is best which they aim to live by, and for others to live by. However one cannot coerce people to do this.

...but those who don't live the same way will burn for eternity in a lake of fire, right?

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

...but those who don't live the same way will burn for eternity in a lake of fire, right?

It is up for God to judge, not up to me. I believe that all people irrespective of how they have lived before can accept forgiveness.

Funnily enough, I don't wish that anyone will go to hell, indeed it's actually quite an upsetting thought.*

* I'm not a heartless person!

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

It is up for God to judge, not up to me.

That's what the Bible says though, right?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that all people irrespective of how they have lived before can accept forgiveness.

Sure, they can accept forgiveness if they want (even serial killers/rapists/etc?!), but for those who unapologetically don't follow the Christian rules, and don't repent, they're going to hell.

Jakkass wrote: »

Funnily enough, I don't wish that anyone will go to hell, indeed it's actually quite an upsetting thought.*

* I'm not a heartless person!

I would certainly believe that

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

That's what the Bible says though, right?`

The Bible says that God will make His judgement at the end of all time.

Dave! wrote: »

Sure, they can accept forgiveness if they want (even serial killers/rapists/etc?!), but for those who unapologetically don't follow the Christian rules, and don't repent, they're going to hell.

It is the choice of the individual to decide whether or not to follow God. This choice will have consequences. It is up to you to decide which way you wish to go.

I don't see Christianity as a set of rules rather it is a way of living. By accepting Christ's grace one is forgiven there and then. One will live according to that grace out of gratitude.

And yes, even serial killers, rapists and so on. God sees heart and mind. God knows truly when someone has changed. I believe that people can transform their lives.

The Corinthian

Why on Earth are people actually discussing Christianity, let alone God?

Christian values, may have religious origins, but those origins have long been lost and all that remains is a moral framework that culturally affects us all regardless of religious belief. In fact, religion is not even the only determinant of Christian values, otherwise our moral and ethical outlook would be homogeneous in all Christian or even Catholic countries - and it's not, because it does vary.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

Christian values, may have religious origins, but those origins have long been lost and all that remains is a moral framework that culturally affects us all regardless of religious belief. In fact, religion is not even the only determinant of Christian values, otherwise our moral and ethical outlook would be homogeneous in all Christian or even Catholic countries - and it's not, because it does vary.

Honestly, I disagree with you. They haven't been lost, rather people in many countries have abandoned them, they still remain amongst many in the population.

What is probably inaccurate about the OP is that they expect this of necessity to be shared by the population at large.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

Honestly, I disagree with you. They haven't been lost, rather people in many countries have abandoned them, they still remain amongst many in the population.

That is not what I said. I simply pointed out that Christian values have very little to do with religion, but sociology. Having a tiresome discussion about what God thinks is irrelevant to most of the population, because most of the population is more concerned with what the parents or neighbors are thinking.

In this regard, 'Christian values' are still relevant in Ireland; I've known numerous atheists and even Pagans who married - in Christian churches - simply because that is what was expected of them. While the origins may be religious, for the vast majority of the population little more than the ritual remains to remind us of this.

However, the dynamics of society are changing and this has naturally effected those 'Christian values'. Then again, 'Christian values' have hardly been a static moral framework, have they?

philologos

You're going to need to explain yourself better.

How do they have very little to do with the Christianity from which they are said to have originated from? Why should we call them "Christian values" at all if this is the case? Indeed, surely there are values that are expoused in the Judeo-Christian revelatory system that we can call "Christian values" in earnest?

As for the discussion being pointless I agree to a degree, but this is something you'll need to take up with the OP and his expectation that most of society have Christian values. I'd argue for one that they most certainly don't for the most part, if we are talking about values derived from the Judeo-Christian revelatory tradition.

As for marriage within churches, everyone knows this happens for convenience. However, there are still a sizeable number of people in this country who take their life inspiration from Christianity and from the churches that they adhere to. This is certainly apparent from what I have seen in the last few years in spite of increased secularisation in the younger demographic.

To say that this is lost, is a categorical mistake. They are still present, just much harder to find.

Dynamic of society changing doesn't change the "Christian values". All it does is cause people to form differing values contrary in numerous ways to "Christian values" as the OP has highlighted. As for how we define Christian values, if you don't believe that they are derived from the Judeo-Christian revelatory tradition then of course they shift and change. Rather I would hold that the values don't change, but rather individuals shift and change them to suit themselves, or indeed completely reject them.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

How do they have very little to do with the Christianity from which they are said to have originated from? Why should we call them "Christian values" at all if this is the case? Indeed, surely there are values that are expoused in the Judeo-Christian revelatory system that we can call "Christian values" in earnest?

Your reply was written using the Latin alphabet. It's called the Latin alphabet because it originates from the writing system used by the Romans. That does not mean that you wrote in Latin, only that this is where the alphabet originated - which is why we call it the "Latin alphabet".

"Christian values" are largely the same, in that their original origins are not really that important to the majority of people. Many don't even really know were they even come from.

As for marriage within churches, everyone knows this happens for convenience. However, there are still a sizeable number of people in this country who take their life inspiration from Christianity and from the churches that they adhere to. This is certainly apparent from what I have seen in the last few years in spite of increased secularisation in the younger demographic.

Depends upon what you mean by sizable. Certainly there is a 'sizable' number of people who identify with Evangelical or even orthodox adherence to Roman Catholicism, but they are a minority. The vast majority of people have not read a Bible in decades and have no interest in doing so.

Most don't go to mass every week. And 'Christian' observance towards topics such as premarital sex is remarkably low. Their 'Christian' observance has become more a question of tradition, or even habit, than faith.

It may still be important to you, and super that it is, but for most people the the idea that it is for "God to determine how best they should live" is not really in the top ten of reasons why they marry in a church, or give money to charity or whatever.

So "Christian values" are a bit like the Latin alphabet. Whatever the origins, we're kind of used to them now, and the religious aspect has become lost to most, making any discussion about God, in relation to them, pretty irrelevant to the vast majority.

Tim Robbins

Dudess wrote: »

I'd say only a minority have a problem with it - mostly elderly religious. I think it's strange how you'd deem non acceptance of it to be christian. Surely Christ would have advocated acceptance?

I am atheist and considered it very important to be married before I had a child. I know people who had kids before they got married and then had church weddings. They aren't holy joes but wouldn't probably described themselves as confirmed atheists.

Marriage was around before Christianity and exists in other cultures which aren't Christian.

JajaD

Do people think that Religion puts pressure on women to have abortions?

Arounf 90% of people in Ireland are Catholic.. so why is there nearly 7000 people having abortions?

Does Religion in society make woman decide to have an abortion because the shame and stigma put on children out of wedlock?

Im doing my thesis on 'To what extent does Religion influence women's decision making on abortion?'

Normally Religion tells you not to have an abortion but my thesis will try to investigate if it is actually a descisive factor?

Hope this makes sense....

Nevyn

JajaD wrote: »

Do people think that Religion puts pressure on women to have abortions?

Arounf 90% of people in Ireland are Catholic.. so why is there nearly 7000 people having abortions?

Does Religion in society make woman decide to have an abortion because the shame and stigma put on children out of wedlock?

Im doing my thesis on 'To what extent does Religion influence women's decision making on abortion?'

Normally Religion tells you not to have an abortion but my thesis will try to investigate if it is actually a descisive factor?

Hope this makes sense....

Which relgions are you referring to ?

JajaD

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which relgions are you referring to ?

Religion. Doesnt have to be specific. Religion as a whole force.

Nevyn

Not all relgions forbid it, you are lumping them all in with christianity, which is a frankly daft thing to do as it make your basic premise flawed.

JajaD

Thaedydal wrote: »

Not all relgions forbid it, you are lumping them all in with christianity, which is a frankly daft thing to do as it make your basic premise flawed.

To what extent does religion influence womens decision making in relation to abortion... So in what ways does it prevent or allow for abortion.

Does that not cover all religions?

Do you think I should narrow it done to Catholicism ?

Nevyn

Where did you get your 90% from?
Also if the majority of people are catholic and swayed by catholic teaching then we would not have so many irish women using contraception, you need to retune your premise.

As for the notion that abortion is being opted for due to the stigma of having a child out of wedlock, I would say it is the other way around that people are more accepting of a child born out of wedlock as it means the mother didn't have an abortion.

I think that the nations notions re abortion have more to do with the fact we were until very recently very much a agricultural country. Newstalk had an intresting segment on abortion which covered this angle.