Most of the religious tenets of a people are passed down as the "word of God". But what the rules and principles of religions do best is place constraints on the people in efforts to maintain economic, political, and social control. This is not to suggest that churches and religion should not address social issues and define moral social behavior. Without the morality of socially acceptable behavior, all societies--in testimony to the entropy principle--moves much too fast towards chaos.
Churches and religions have responsibilities not only to their members and to the God they purport to serve, but also, some will argue, to the culture in which they prevail. It may be appropriate, for example that churches and religions speak out against men and women or boys and girls conceiving babies outside of marriage. In "civilized" societies, any widespread violations of this convention of not having babies outside of marriage places severe penalties on its citizens.
And even though some cultures frown upon having babies outside of marriage for reasons other than their history remembers, a lack of this control, more often than not, places severe penalties on most of the women who violate the convention. And it places severe penalties on the children who are products of conception outside of marriage or an otherwise functioning partnership.
Some question whether the consensual infringment of this convention is more a social problem in a culture that is structured against it than it is an infringement of a personal moral responsibility to God. Does God require of couples that conceive a baby that they should first enter a legal contract and make a marriage vow of monogamy, faithfulness, and trust? We stress legal, because in America for example, religious rhetoric to the contrary, a church or religion cannot marry you. A marriage vow may be made in a church as part of a religious ceremony, but only the state can make it legal.
Could God possibly be pleased by the unmarried monogmous couple that preserves the sanctity of The Primal Innocent and raise children who in their sojourn on Earth try to establish Symbiotic Intimacy with God and with other human beings? Could God be more pleased with them than He is the couple that makes a public marriage vow, secures the legal document, and then proceed to damage The Primal Innocent , the sexual love relationship, the children, and the marriage--even when the legal union endures for years?
Or is God equally displeased with the unwillingness of men and women to make a legal and public marriage vow of commitment when they allegedly have already made a private vow of commitment or live together as if they have made one?
Consider the woman who gives birth to a baby without being married to the baby's biological father; but who honors God; gives thanks to Him for her life, her baby, and for His other creations; and lives her life guided by the Ten Commandments and the covenant of Eve's Simple Realities.
Is she less favored of God than is the mother who is married to the baby's biological father but who is intolerant and uncivil towards persons who are not of her race, ethnicity, religion, economic or social status, and tell lies and denigrate others when it pleases her? Is she less favored by God than is the mother who is married to the biological father of her babies but leaves the responsibility for the teaching and nurturing of her children to a nanny and the child's public or private school teachers?
What does the word of God say your God prefers--one or the other or neither?