they loved each other to have sex, why shouldn't they love each other to tie the knot? If there is no desire for commitment, then what they have isn't love and since there is no love, they have no business having sex and bringing a baby into the world.
That's certainly an effective way to approach the problem! Start out with a false premise--love is required to have sex. Follow that up with a ridiculous conclusion-whatever love, if any, was present allowing them to have sex is enough to sustain a marriage. Finally, give unwed teenage parents an abstinence lecture.
Naturally, the proposed answer to teen pregnancy is, what else, to get married. Why not top one of the most stressful and life-altering occurrences in a young teen's life with, you guessed it..another of the most stressful and life-altering occurrences in a young teen's life? Would someone please tell me why, other than to uphold some already obliterated facade of morality, this is the first option? If you watch the RNC, anybody present commenting on the situation feels the need to happily exclaim "And they're going to get married!" Well-intentioned people will claim that this is for the good of the child, the child needs a mom and a dad, and that the two teenagers should step up and "do the responsible thing." Folks, they've already proven they CAN'T DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING--not have sex, or at the very least, use birth control. If they can't do it once, why is the response to their mistake entering into a covenant which requires them to do the responsible thing over and over forever? Let them build up to it and if it works, then that's a beautiful thing. The child can still have two parents--they just don't have to be married at first, or if it doesn't work out, ever. This is a set-up for failure--teenage marriages are two to three times more likely to end in the first 5 years. They made a mistake--why pile it on?
