Free Love Movement vs Children's Rights

1. 87

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   The free love philosophy (legal marriage not necessary) is not conducive to securing all of Children's Rights.
   Agree or Disagree?
   
   Sample of possible children's rights:
   1.  Children have the right to be respected.
   2.  Nature is working to build a man. Children have the right to be understood in terms of their development, as guided by nature.
   3.  They have the right to be accepted 100%. We must properly guide their behavior while maintaining our acceptance and love for them.
   4.  We must properly guide our own behavior, realizing they are absorbing everything in their environment… which includes us.
   5.  Children have the right to an environment conducive to their psychological health.
   This environment includes: purity, goodness, beauty, patience, gentleness, kindness and cheerfulness.
   6.  Children have the right to nutritious foods which are conducive to their physical development.
   7.  Children have the right to an education which is conducive to what the child will require in order to become a healthy, strong and functional adult able to fit into / be able to survive in the society unto which he was born.
   8.  Children have the right to liberty within boundaries for the sake of pursing what is interesting and stimulating to them. We can facilitate their natural interests and love of learning regarding all the amazing aspects of life.
   9.  Children have the right to learn the rules of proper behavior for the sake of common courtesy, common sense and safety.
   10. Children have the right to be protected from all that would harm them mentally, physically, psychologically and spiritually.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Rights" are bestowed by someone; who do you propose bestow these rights?  You? A city?  A country?
      
      You also have a lot of things listed that vary pretty widely by culture.  amount of education, liberty, common courtesy, purity, kindness, nutritious foods, etc.  Who do you propose will define those things and set limits?

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

         They are listed as examples. I think this is an interesting topic to contemplate. You bring up very pertinent points of discussion.

         replyreport
2. 87

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Free love:
   "Free love is a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social and financial bondage. The Free Love movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. It claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, and no one else." Wikipedia

   replyreport
3. 87

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   How do you stand on the free-love movement? I think the free love movement was/is bad for the raising of children. I would say that planning to have children is the best reason to become legally married. A two parent family where the adults have committed to the relationship through marriage is the most ideal arrangement for the raising of children... Not a novel idea, I know. Why would anyone NOT see the benefits of the traditional Judeo/Christian arrangement?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And what are the benefits of a traditional Judea/Christian marriage?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

         Used to be some family stability for both parents and children.
         
         Now it's mostly financial equality for spouses and the kids take their chances, usually with the parents bad-mouthing each other to the kids every opportunity.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But family stability isn't only provided by a Judea/ Christian marriage!

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

               Of course - there are better models for people capable of living them.  A line marriage, for example, where the family never dies.

               replyreport
            2. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

               Totally AGREE with YOU, Mr. Holden.  Marriage is just a legality.  There are committed couples who love and respect each other sans marriage.  Conversely, there are married couples who barely tolerate EACH OTHER, staying together for the sake of the children or for appearances.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Probably because the Judeo/Christian arrangement has pretty much failed as a working model.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

         Disagree.  The two two parent model works quite well when the parents decide to make it work.  When they approach it as a fun time in life, without caring if it lasts, it will nearly always fail.  And that's what we see happening today - few people expect their marriage to last beyond a few years, with the result that it doesn't.
         
         The "ME" generation at work.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One of the best situations I have ever seen was a polyamorous marriage with one man and two women. Those kids always had a parent at home, the relationship was stable, everyone was committed to these two kids and they prospered from a three-income family.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

               Just so.  The two parent is not the only successful style of marriage, just the simplest, easiest and, in the US, by far the most common.  A part of our Judeao-Christian heritage where priests virtually ran society as they saw fit.

               replyreport
4. 60

   Misty Bernandesposted 3 years ago

   I feel that marriage really is a religious ceremony and rightly so, if you follow that belief system.
   Other than that, it is not really necessary to raise children.
   So many children today come from divorced homes, anyway.
   But one should be in a committed relationship if considering children.
   The words " Free Love" have a too frivolous meaning, so to use those words sounds like commune living.
   Taxes should not be based on whether or not you  are married.
   And as the saying goes, nothing is Free.

   replyreport
5. 87

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Without the benefit of marriage everyone suffers…  but, especially the woman.
   
   What is the ideal state of *marriage?"
   religious?
   spiritual?
   legal?
   
   Basically every relationship is a mistake. How can one be proactive in avoiding the results of these "mistakes" in regards to the human offspring that human relationships produce?
   
   In the final analysis, can we really leave it up to the power of love alone?

   replyreport