Get it straight- this is not about the rights/wrongs of premarital sex. We all have our opinions and convictions, and that's that. We can talk about that another time.
What this IS about is premarital pregnancy and marriage. I just read an article about everybody's favourite couple, Katie and Tom... oh I'm sorry, Tomkat. So Katie is pregnant, with the father of her coming child being no other than Tom. The two are engaged, but not yet married.
Katie's father, a lifetime faithful Catholic, is reportedly very upset at the premarital pregnancy, and at the man responsible for it (Tom). I can't help but wonder if it is that he didn't think that she was having sex, or that he didn't mind her having sex as long as it didn't become evident to the world that she was going against the family's Christian values.
Anyway, Mr. father has asked that the wedding be pushed up to as early as possible, I suppose in an effort to lessen the damage... And this will somehow undo the pregnancy, retract the belly, banish the foetus? At this point what difference will it make except maybe making him more comfortable? In any case, it's not his responsibility to feel comfortable, it ain't his child!
I somewhat understand why other parents in a similar situation ask their children to hasten/force marriage, especially if their child is really young. Note- I understand what they must be thinking, but I think their thinking is rubbish. Forcing your offspring to wed because of pregnancy does little for that person, except pressure him/her into being more grown-up really drastically (as if having to care a newborn weren't demanding enough). So yes, you've forced them to be a family, but you haven't forced them to be a good family, or a functional one. In fact, you've potentially made that even more difficult. It doesn't guarantee they'll stay together, or ensure that their lives will be any more fulfilling.
If you're pregnant, you're pregnant. If you've broken your Christian vows, it's a done deal. It can't be undone. It can be made right in future if the persons involved are willing to do so. But that's done by abstinence, not marriage. I don't think anyone should be forced into marriage, expecting young couples included.
6 comments:
love the title by the way. draws the reader in alright.
Ok, let me say that the father in this story look like him a try save face, but I will admit that I think (here we go speculating again...) I would encourage (not force, mi cyaa mek nobody do what dem no waan fi do) my child (or myself if it happened to me and the man is mature enough to deal with it) to wed in such a situation.
Yes, marriage is a big deal. But so is raising a child, and more so even. Of course you'll have to work on being a family. But guess what? So does EVERYONE, even those who are or claim to be head-over-heels in love. I strongly believe a child should have 2 parents if it can be helped. 2 people created the situation, 2 people should deal with it. It's a 24/7 operation and it is impossible to do it as a unit if the parties don't even live in the same house.
hush. neva meen fi rait a pos ya so. me'll be breefa neks taim.
What Rae said.
Ahmm...well...
I've always hated the concept of the marriage of convenience (MOC I call them). So two ppl get married for the chid. And we think the child is stupid enough to not realise that these ppl r together just for her/him. It's almost as if love doesn't count - the child will feel this, will live with this, will use this as his example of what marriage should be. I dunno.
Heard a few stories of marriages that were over and done with as soon as the child reached 18. What a burden to the child - (s)he is the only thing keeping the 'family' together.
Whta if the couple like each other enough to copulate, but not marry. What then? Seems to me that two ppl loving a child, living separately, not hating each other is better than two ppl loving a child, hating each other (possibly blaming child for 'ruining' their life), and living together.
Do you know what happens to a rat when it can't escape?
In PAW I spoke of a friend who got his g/f pregnant and ended up living with her. Eventually they went overseas to her homeland, and they all still live together. It's been over a year since the baby was born. They're not married, and everything is fine.
It a couple wants it to work, it will work. If they don't, it probably won't. You can't force the issue. And marriage doesn't guarantee a thing.
In any case, two people should be able to choose when the time is right for marriage. So yes, the deep-in-love marriages dont always work, but that's a choice they made themselves.
I don't live in New Kingston so I don't know much about cornered rats but I think I understand what Think is getting at.
I assume we all get horny at some time and some are in a place legally to act on it, others are in a place spiritually to act on it, others are in a place physically to act on it.
Some have great resolve if they are in the wrong place and others, despite a resolve, end up in the wright/rong position. Thus there are consequences (guilt, child, diseases, betrayal, arrests, etc...)
Marriage is not a consequence. If you find yourself in that situation where you are sweating from fear, vexed from disgust, confused from brain-washing and there is a belly in front of you (that you can't tuck een) or a shot gun pointed at your head, it's an arrangement not marriage.
The officiating minister asks if you are entering into this marriage willingly and freely. If you aren't then the child stands very little to gain.
There are a minority that manage to actually fall for each other afterwards... but mostly I've seen that in movies and Eastern cultures where they take marriage more seriously and stay to work out everything. They aren't as 'liberated' as us Western folk.
Totally agree with think. The concept doesnt work, period. The child will grow up seeing two people who are living together because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to. Very big difference between the two.
Post a Comment