I can see that I look at things from the other end than SinglDad.  I believe that people who consider consequences are more likely to be good parents, so people who are either meticulous about contraception, or who do not engage in casual sex, are likely to be good parents.  Excuse me, if they are meticulous about contraception, they are unlikely to be parents, but if there is a failure, they are likely to be good parents.  You can be sure about your own meticulous behavior, but, as I said previously, such things can be feigned.  As can abstaining from casual sex, but at least you are sure that a person who didn't have casual sex with you didn't have casual sex wth you.

I just noticed that I talk in metaphors a lot, so if it gets too flaky, ask for clarification, or just call me on it. Also, I looked after I finished this, at the length of it, and so, I will put my thesis here. The nuclear family is the best practice in providing for the well-being of the child, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for the well-being of the child..

The only commitment a child needs is the commitment from an adult that the child will be reared in a loving and secure home.  Here, I think the engineering principal of redundancy applies. 

Two parents who are each committed to the rearing of a child, along with extended family, add to the security of the home.  A truly single parent carries the load alone.  And a heavy load can break the most devoted parent.  Extended family can help with the load, but a pair of devoted parents (married or not) share the load, which makes it less likely that either parent will break, and if that happens, the  remaining parent still provides security. 

What about adding children of a third party to the home?  I guess I need to make this clear,  I'd skip reading the rest of this paragraph if I were you.   Example, A and B have a child or a few, then A has a child with C (which demonstrates unreliability in A, unless there was a contraceptive failure).    Unless polygyny or polyandry is being practiced, we have family AB and family AC which  both stress parent A, making parent A more likely to break.  Parent B is likely to be more stressed (because of feelings of betrayal, and of decreased personal security), also.  Polygamy is unusual, and a polygamous marriage is not legal in most states, I believe, so if we do have family ABC, there will also be additional stress on parents A,B and C, if that is the case.  I do wonder if family ABC might not be a good choice, if B and C were able to make it work.  Not an experiment I'd be willing to make. 

So, in order to provide that commitment of security, if A and B have children, the best situation is for A and B to not add children from a third party. If parent A and parent B can manage to live in the same household, that is a nuclear family.  Living in the same household removes a lot of barriers to communication.  More than a nice thought, a best practice.  Easily attainable?  No.    Essential? also NO. 

The commitment of one adult is necessary and sufficient to the well-being of the child.  The nuclear family is the best practice, but is neither necessary nor sufficient. to the well-being of the child. 

My intention was to see if there were reasonable arguments for "conventional" morality which did not resort to That's how it's always been, or That's what God says.  \Also, to explore people's understanding of what a correct context for sexual activity is.  To see if there is justification for teaching the conventional context to the rising generation. 

You were very succinct in expressing what is a commonly held context.  I agree with you that those things are important, I just think that ignoring the failure rate of contraception methods is a mistake.

The context which I advocate, within a marriage, is also commonly held, is "conventional," is old-fashioned.    If you are not interested in defending the context that you provided, I respect that, but I would invite others to take issue with me, or you can, if you change your mind.

Also, I can't prove that the context I advocate is common. I seem to be a lone voice. Anybody want to agree with me?

thanks.  I promised myself I wouldn't make this a solo act.  I had some additional thoughts. 

  So here's a person who has had a child/children.  The person is no longer in a monogamous relationship with the other parent.  What are the options for a responsible parent?  The first option to consider is re-establishing the monogamous relationship.  But if that isn't going to work, we'll take dad first.  Dad can either be abstinent, or be sexually active and meticulous about contraception.  If the contraception fails, dad's best option is--never tell existing children or extended family/close friends about new sibling.  Never try to establish a relationship with the new child.  Never try to tell the mom how to raise the child.  Comply with child-support.  That is the best option for maintaining his own divided or single-support nuclear family, and the new child's single-support nuclear family.  That sounds harder than being abstinent.  That sounds more painful than almost anything I can imagine.

    Now let's take mom.  Mom can either be abstinent, or be sexually active and meticulous about birth control.  If the birth control fails, mom aborts child, never tells other children, sexual partner, extended family, close friends, casual acquaintances who may become friends. Never puts it on a message board. 

   I'm going to make another too-long entry, because I am not putting anything else up without intervening input, and I think this is really important. 

    What if you have already messed this up.  What if you already have children from more than one relationship?  And I think, more often than not, if you are a step-parent and you have your own baby with the parent, you have made a multi-nuclear family.  Your step-kids foundation is not as secure as it was before you had the baby.  Your baby's foundation is also less secure, And I'm sorry if that hurts. 

   I messed up in a totally different way.  I put my children in a really bad situation and I'm going to leave that to your imaginations.  When I figured it out, The first thing I did was to change it, which is not an option for you.  The only option you have in that realm is to not repeat it.  Then I took opportunities, immediately and over the years, to express to my children that I had made a bad decision (not a mistake).  That I had noticed that they were paying for my bad decision.  I might even talk with them about how they were paying.  That I was sorry.  That I would check before I made important decisions now, and that if they noticed something that I was doing wrong, they were to tell me.  That I might get mad when they told me, but I would say right now, in advance, thank you for being brave enough to speak up.  \

An apology (and it's important you don't explain or justify the bad decision) is the only thing that can help restore their security. 

  And I know this isn't part of the debate, but I thought it was important to put this where people can see it.

  People like SinglDad, who have a single-support nuclear family.  I would give you a medal if I could.  Also a subsidy, a full-time housekeeper, a staff of other professionals, and bowling passes for life.  I can't.  I remember sitting in my car outside a convenience store at 11:55 on a Saturday night over 20 years ago with snow falling lightly on the windshield, deciding if I would stay married.  The reason I did is because I knew I didn't have the right stuff to be the support of even  a divided-support nuclear family.  I wasn't and am not capable of  being the kind of parent that so many good people are.  You have risen to the occasion.  It has to be so hard, and if I come off as complacent, believe me, I am only grateful that I have not been put to such a difficult test.

My bad decision came later. 

Any new thoughts about Sexuality, commitment, marriage, divorce?

I went off half-[filtered word]ed on a thread (dating a parttime dad please help) and SinglDad very correctly called me on it.

   I wanted to "take it outside" (like two guys fighting in an old movie) and I am grateful a few people are courageous enough to enter the fray.

Tried hard to resist answering but felt I had to say something about last part at least.

But, if you are divorced already, with minor children, I re-affirm my
prior argument.  Wait till they are 18.  Even if you don't have custody.

I grew up in a single parent home because my father left my mother with two young children and pregnant with me. He had another woman and she was pregnant too. He apparently was abusive to my mother.
I am divorced. I was married 22 years and my husband's drink addiction
just got worse and worse. We had known each other for three years and had been engaged for two of them, so it was not a quick marriage. He was not much of a drinker when we met but couldn't cope with family life. I stayed with him because I wanted my
children to have two parents..He was abusive and all the family were suffering. My youngest son was only 4 at the time and the last straw came when we lost our home and were on the streets. Luckily my older three children were by that time left school and working so found accomodation with friends. I took my little boy to some accomodation they found me. Six months later, I met my now partner and I have never regretted a single day of our relationship. My son has ADHD and Asperger's but with my partner's help, we have brought him up together to be a fine young man. My partner has done more for my son than his own father ever could. I don't know what his life would have turned out to be had I not met my wonderful partner.I do not accept your premise to wait until the child is 18. This is something which has to be played strictly by ear. There are no hard and fast rules or time scales. And I also have to say, was I not entitled to some happiness too, even though I made the mistake of marrying the wrong person. My other three children like my partner very much and they are very happy to see me so content.