Where can you afford a home on your income?

[Josh]

Choosing single parenthood is a sin, every single time. You are welcome to reject my opinion on this.

Please explain - where do you get Bible support for the idea that a single person dare not adopt a child?
Where do you read that a widow with children must re-marry if given the opportunity?

Ken,

Choosing to adopt a child is fundamentally different from CHOOSING to become a single parent through fornication. A foster parent isn’t a “single parent” - they are a foster parent. They also didn’t choose to create a child without a stable, loving, 2-parent home of a husband and wife married to each other.

Widows are not “single mothers”. They are widows.

When I say “single mother”, I mean “single mother by reason of choosing fornication”; this is the generally accepted main meaning of this phrase. It is acceptable to speak in generalities and not to muddy the waters with every edge case you can think of.

[Josh]

This is a discussion forum. We engage in political discussions and express political opinions.

This isn’t the politics sub forum. Please don’t try to engage in political discussions and express political opinions here.

Political advocacy or political participation is something different. I don't know if you engage in any of that or not. But if you did you would likely be doing it someplace else as this would be a very poor forum for doing that.

But you most certainly express political opinions and are engaging in political discussion.

That’s your own personal, private opinion. You’re welcome to hold it. I disagree.

You are expressing political opinions and engaging in political discussion if you suggest that the state change any laws

Which I haven’t done. I have said the adultery should be punishable by death, because I agree with what the Bible teaches on that subject. The end. That isn’t a political opinion nor is it a political discussion.

And you are also expressing political opinions and engaging in political discussion if you oppose changes to laws suggested by others.

No, it isn’t, just because you think it is.

In this thread you have expressed the opinion that it should be harder for certain people to live near you.

No, I didn’t. I simply said I have a personal preference that certain types of people not live near me.

So do you. Did you choose to live in a crime-ridden neighbourhood or did you choose an expensive, upscale one where the rate of single parenthood is below the national average of 37%?

That we should make it harder for single mothers.

Yes, I don’t think we should subsidise harmful things.

That we should fix the problem of single motherhood at the source. And in other threads you have said that single parents should be punished by the state. And you have even suggested that adulterers should be executed. Those are all political opinions to the extent that it would require the state to make any of those things happen. Only the state has the power to regulate who lives near you. Only the state has the power to make life more difficult for single mothers who are not part of your family. Only the state has the power to punish single parents.

I find it interesting you think the only entity that can exercise any incentives at all with regard to fornicating mothers (I’ll just start calling them that) is the state.

And only the state has the power to execute anyone.

Wrong. A higher authority also has that power.

[Josh]

It’s amazing how often a child ends up being the reason the mom straightens up her life and gets responsible,

I could also list many examples where a child of a fornicating mother doesn’t straighten up her life nor become responsible. It is extremely well documented how much worse the outcomes are in these situations, on average; of course, outliers exist. Many of these examples are people I know and people I grew up with whose earthly mother and father decided priorities like fornicating, abandoning their child’s father or mother and pursuing fornication with a new girlfriend or boyfriend, drug use, or physical abuse were more important than the good things you listed in your response

God’s plan for children and for family is for it to happen with a 2-parent home with a mother and father. Sometimes tragedy strikes and that mother or father is lost to death, disease, disability, etc. - and sometimes a foster or adoptive parent stands in the gap where earthly parents failed.

But God’s plan is not for families to be formed that are composed of “single parents” with children conceived in fornication. And God doesn’t see fit to somehow bless the fruit of such temporary unions with good outcomes as good as he sees fit to bless the children of marriages. It does no one any good to sit in denial of this fundamental, basic fact.

[ohio jones]

When I say “single mother”, I mean “single mother by reason of choosing fornication”; this is the generally accepted main meaning of this phrase. It is acceptable to speak in generalities and not to muddy the waters with every edge case you can think of.

Maybe that's what you mean, but it's not what most of us hear. "Single mother" most certainly does include widows, divorcees, adoptive single parents, those whose husbands have abandoned them, and others whose motherhood is not a result of sin. It would help the reception of your arguments greatly if you would say something like "promiscuous single mothers" when intending to limit the discussion to that category.

[Soloist]

When I say “single mother”, I mean “single mother by reason of choosing fornication”; this is the generally accepted main meaning of this phrase. It is acceptable to speak in generalities and not to muddy the waters with every edge case you can think of.

Maybe that's what you mean, but it's not what most of us hear. "Single mother" most certainly does include widows, divorcees, adoptive single parents, those whose husbands have abandoned them, and others whose motherhood is not a result of sin. It would help the reception of your arguments greatly if you would say something like "promiscuous single mothers" when intending to limit the discussion to that category.

Words have meaning. If we think they mean one thing and everyone else disagrees, it would be no surprise if there is pushback about our narrow focus if everyone else reads broad.

Single mothers create bad places to live, crime, and bad neighbourhoods. I don’t want to make it “easier” for them to come and pollute where I live. They should give up their babies for adoption.

I know you intend to be referring to promiscuous mothers, but you don’t say that, and words have consequences.
That being said, I don’t want them going to live near you either. I don’t think Jesus viewed people living in sin this way. The only time we’re told to basically shun and avoid is when they call themselves church members and are in sin.
Paul certainly implies that Christians are eating with people who are not living right.

1Co 5:9  I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

You seem to be stopping at verse 9.

[Josh]

Let’s be realistic. Most of us choose not to live in the most crime-ridden place surrounded by people engaging in the most fornication, drug use, murder, and so on as possible. Most of us would prefer people doing those things not move in near us, either.

It would be a lot cheaper in many cases to do so. So why do many of us spend a lot of money avoiding the above things in our abode… and then talk sanctimoniously about anyone who actually speaks about this reality as if they are somehow being unchristlike?

[Josh]

When I say “single mother”, I mean “single mother by reason of choosing fornication”; this is the generally accepted main meaning of this phrase. It is acceptable to speak in generalities and not to muddy the waters with every edge case you can think of.

Maybe that's what you mean, but it's not what most of us hear. "Single mother" most certainly does include widows, divorcees, adoptive single parents, those whose husbands have abandoned them, and others whose motherhood is not a result of sin. It would help the reception of your arguments greatly if you would say something like "promiscuous single mothers" when intending to limit the discussion to that category.

I’ll be glad to use the term “fornicating mothers”.

“Single mother” used to be a term of art in sociology that was used to replace prior more offensive terms but definitely did not include things like widowhood, adoptive parents, and so on in its definition. It is interesting how much the definitions (apparently) are broadened, and it is rather obvious it is so done to obscure the problem that the overwhelming majority of single mothers are that way due to sin.

[ken_sylvania]

Choosing single parenthood is a sin, every single time. You are welcome to reject my opinion on this.

Please explain - where do you get Bible support for the idea that a single person dare not adopt a child?
Where do you read that a widow with children must re-marry if given the opportunity?

Ken,

Choosing to adopt a child is fundamentally different from CHOOSING to become a single parent through fornication. A foster parent isn’t a “single parent” - they are a foster parent. They also didn’t choose to create a child without a stable, loving, 2-parent home of a husband and wife married to each other.

Widows are not “single mothers”. They are widows.

When I say “single mother”, I mean “single mother by reason of choosing fornication”; this is the generally accepted main meaning of this phrase. It is acceptable to speak in generalities and not to muddy the waters with every edge case you can think of.

The phrase "every single time," especially when bolded, is fundamentally incompatible with the description "speak[ing] in generalities."

Not all adoptive parents are married, and there is no reason to think they must be married in order to adopt a child. There is also no reason to think we have the right to steal a child away from his mother solely because he was conceived through a sinful action.

Jesus did not teach us to punish sinners by intentionally making their lives more difficult.

[Josh]

Did Jesus teach us to try to make life easier for fornicators?

In fact, he said that the wages of sin are death. Yet we live in a society that thinks a fornicating mother deserves more money, free food, free medical care, and support in general than my wife does.

[Soloist]

Did Jesus teach us to try to make life easier for fornicators?

In fact, he said that the wages of sin are death. Yet we live in a society that thinks a fornicating mother deserves more money, free food, free medical care, and support in general than my wife does.

I think I suggest you show this thread to one of your ministers and ask him if your position is Christlike.
Let us know what he says.