dfwmtx wrote:Besides, it's the Netherlands; the couples might already be married.
The article said the lesbians were "married." Two of the gay men were "married," and they said they'd "marry" the third one if it were legal.
So, the mother and father aren't married.
It sounds like the lesbians got it on in one room while the men got it on in another. Then the men brought a jar of precious bodily fluids into the room for the insemination. They didn't say whose precious bodily fluid, so it might be the case that the father doesn't belong to either of the two "marriages" or whether the father is the guy who's listed as a legal parent.
So many permutations to consider.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
Why shame the innocent kid? Put the shame on the parents, where it belongs.
I'm not arguing with you; I agree with not burdening the kid.
But I think historically, the label's function in shaming the kid was basically a mechanism to shame the parents and a method to dissuade others from having kids out of wedlock to avoid that additional burden.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
dfwmtx wrote:Someday children raised by two married, heterosexual parents is gonna seem weird to society.
CINCHOUSE has already run into disbelief and wonder several times from students that she is:
1. Married to the father of her child
2. Living with the father of her child
3. Has no children by other fathers
4. Has never been married to or lived with anyone else in over 25 years
Apparently this is Unicorn territory to the culture those kids come from.
You know, that's sad. When the family structure that was the norm when I was a kid is now an oddity..... Seriously, I can count the number of kids of divorced couples I knew thru High School on the fingers on one hand. I probably knew more kids who had a parent widowed and re-married than divorced and re-married. That's not even counting my four brothers and one sister, the product of my mother's first marriage, she was widowed.
skb12172 wrote:A Libtard of my acquaintance posted this on her Facebook page. She thinks it's "awesome." Link
You could point them toward some of the studies that show, statistically, that children growing up in a 'conventional' household (old-style nuclear family, biological mother and father, living together) are least likely to be abused, and have the best outcomes.
Instapundit ran some stories on that topic the other day, basically a series of links to stories of folks admitting that re: Dan Quayle vs Murphy Brown, that Quayle was right.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
dfwmtx wrote:Someday children raised by two married, heterosexual parents is gonna seem weird to society.
CINCHOUSE has already run into disbelief and wonder several times from students that she is:
1. Married to the father of her child
2. Living with the father of her child
3. Has no children by other fathers
4. Has never been married to or lived with anyone else in over 25 years
Apparently this is Unicorn territory to the culture those kids come from.
You know, that's sad. When the family structure that was the norm when I was a kid is now an oddity..... Seriously, I can count the number of kids of divorced couples I knew thru High School on the fingers on one hand. I probably knew more kids who had a parent widowed and re-married than divorced and re-married. That's not even counting my four brothers and one sister, the product of my mother's first marriage, she was widowed.
In the liberal world, there are patrons and there are clients.
Some of the patron class lives like this, because wealth eases the way for a lot of things. But the great majority, in my experience, of the patron class does not live like this at all. They *live* like a bunch of 50's squares (it's how they achieve and maintain success, you know). To borrow a phrase I saw recently, they refuse to preach what they practice.
But the clients do often live like this, they don't know any better, and with their lack of resources (not just monetary) are least able to cope with the dysfunction. Ironic.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
1) The point when marriage is "just networking" is after the youngest child reaches about 25 years of age.
2) Not calling those kids bastards scars them more than calling them that does. (I'm not advocating taunting them to their faces daily, which is another thing entirely, and misses the point in the exact way a straw man is not the main argument.)
3) Pretending a whore isn't a whore doesn't change that reality either; calling things what they are in reality is common sense, but the fact that such delivered wisdom from six millennia of recorded history seems such an alien concept even on this board is proof of how deep is the rot.
4) FTR, one person is having a baby, in some pseudo-replicant perversion of an actual marriage.
Five people doing so is anatomically impossible, and sociologically corrosive.
But the Netherlands are so sociologically fucked up anyways, it's hard for anyone to notice, or care any more.*
And we aren't very far from that ourselves, directly traceable to the rise of "no-fault" divorce (and the XVI-XIX Amendments to the Constitution, inclusive), and the attendant sociopathologies it carries in its wake exactly as Death shelters Famine, Hunger, and Pestilence under his waistcoat as well.
We are vaulting beyond the point in history where the Divine may owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology, purely out of fairness.
But life isn't fair.
* The real pity is noting that better men than they now have died to set them free, twice, but now it's too late to give it back to the Nazis.
So like most of Europe, letting the Muzzies stand in for the NSDAP will have to do. (Try saying "Never again" under sharia law.)
Thus at some not-too-distant point, the story will morph to three ex-men being hung from a crane, and the two women being forced into the concubinage of the local sheik. Proving once again for historical purposes that some sheep were meant to be ruled over. Thank a merciful deity that the Pilgrims had the good sense to GTFO in the 1600s. Which may have bought us perhaps a generation of breathing room. Maybe.
Reason #10,482 why we're either Rome in the early fifth century AD, or on the cusp of another revolution that will necessarily make the first one look like a warm-up game. The first one was over states' rights. The second one will be over individual rights. Beware the wrath of patient men wronged.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Aesop wrote:1) The point when marriage is "just networking" is after the youngest child reaches about 25 years of age.
The last POTUS with children over the age of 25 was Bush I. Or are we still operating under the assumption that presidents come to be electable based on personal merit?
If you want to be a part of the upper crust, you don't marry for love. That's a sure ticket out, though. Politics still runs on the old rules, despite the change in window dressing.
2) Not calling those kids bastards scars them more than calling them that does. (I'm not advocating taunting them to their faces daily, which is another thing entirely, and misses the point in the exact way a straw man is not the main argument.)
The distinction really has no meaning outside of the pseudo-nobility.
3) Pretending a whore isn't a whore doesn't change that reality either; calling things what they are in reality is common sense, but the fact that such delivered wisdom from six millennia of recorded history seems such an alien concept even on this board is proof of how deep is the rot.
Six millennia of recorded history indicate that for everyone without personal political influence, traditional marriage is satire.
