The story in the news about the 13 year old kid in the UK who is a father is disturbing me. HE WAS 12 WHEN THEY HAD UNPROTECTED SEX!!!
TWEVLE!
I said TWELVE DAMNIT!
When i think of the twelve year old chaps i know, or think back to when guys were in year 7, sex isn't something i immediatly think is on the agenda. Never mind fatherhood.
Normally the guys, lets face it... boys, are pre-pubecent, squeaky-voiced, shrimpy kids who are still wearing clothes their mum buys them... Including undies with cartoon areoplanes on them!
My mind wandered to the answer i would give kids about pre-marital sex.
For the most part, i would probably avoid mentioning the Bible upfront. When dealing with kids who don't recognise the truth of the Bible, why bring up a point of conjecture?
I would begin with the view the government takes of the decision.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 16. The feds recognise that under that age you aren't properly prepared to know the consequences of having sex.
When it comes to the possibility of becoming a parent, catching an STD and changing the physical and emotional dynamics of the relationship kids just aren't ready to view the ramifications of their actions.
This gives it importance. Importance in the act and importance in the consequences.
Sure, i would then say that this falls in line with the view of sex that God holds and go from there.
But the sarting point? The government.
2 comments:
If there was a Bible literate person you were talking to how would you respond if they brought up that fact that Mary was probably between 12 and 14 when she immaculately conceived?
Um... I could ramble on about culture or fumble through some half-baked thought that it wasn't illegal back then and their limited life span or that having children was your social security when you get old ... but it would probably be easier to tell the wise-ass ministers kid to shut his mouth!
Post a Comment