The Gift That Keeps On Taking
It's possible for a man to get fucked without ever having sex. Just ask a New York man, a doctor at a hospital where a female resident wanted to have a baby with her female partner. The man donated his sperm -- but, dumb, dumb, dumb -- failed to put an agreement about rights and responsibilities in writing. Now he's being held up for child support. Sophia Chang writes for Newsday:
...He took the unusual step of allowing his name to appear on the child's birth certificate because he thought it was in the child's "best interests that he would have an identity when he grew older," he said in court documents.Before the mother, her partner and the child moved to Oregon in 1993, the man had contact with the child, he said. He also sent the child money, gifts and cards and letters signed "Dad" or "Daddy," and spoke to him by phone about seven times in the past 15 years.
That correspondence, coupled with an affidavit from the child stating that he "has never known anyone other than [the man] to be his father," is enough for a parental relationship, according to Herbst.
"The fact of the matter is that he held himself out as the child's father for 18 years until he asked for DNA testing," Herbst said.
When it comes to artificial insemination by a known donor, the best protections are to have everything in writing and "do your homework," said reproductive lawyer Melissa Brisman of Park Ridge, N.J.
"You can't be half a father, and half a not, under the law," she said.
But the man's trust was abused, his lawyer said.
"The doctor was told this is how it's going to be," Kelly said. "And 18 years later, you end up dealing with something that you didn't know you were going to deal with. Sometimes people aren't really thinking about the legal ramifications."
...The next step is a meeting with a support magistrate to determine the amount of child-support payments — if any — the man would have to pay until the child turns 21, Kelly said.
via Obscurestore
This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'keep it in your pants'.
This looks like a shakedown for college payments.
I don't get child support payments beyond 18. Let's be a little more honest and call them 'adult support'.
doombuggy at December 4, 2007 4:42 AM
Depends on the state, Doombuggy. Some states require that if the child goes on to college, the father is obligated to pay until the child graduates.
Flynne at December 4, 2007 6:01 AM
I generally agree with you on these things, Amy, but it seems to me like he sort of made his own bed there. That said, I think the 'adult support' thing is a crock and the law ought to clearly say an 18-year-old is perfectly capable of earning his own way in the world. My parents didn't give me a cent of financial support beyond the age of 18. How can family law logically say he owes support without considering parents like mine neglectful?
SeanH at December 4, 2007 6:23 AM
The other part of the decision that's offensive is the infantilization of the 18 year old. The judge determined that the results of a DNA test could have a "traumatic effect on the child." This 18 year old is going to college, can vote, and could be drafted and sent to Iraq. I think he is old enough to withstand the trauma of a paternity test and I am dumbfounded a judge could think otherwise.
jerry at December 4, 2007 6:31 AM
How can family law logically say he owes support without considering parents like mine neglectful?
I've long wondered this Sean. And while the guy is legally fucked, I see a man who tried to do a nice thing for the kid -- not leave a mystery as to his biological origins.
The trauma thing is hooey.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 6:33 AM
If they've had a working "arrangement" and reasonably healthy and functional relationship for this long, why is it suddenly worth x dollars to drag someone into court and shake them down? This kid could have had a lifelong mentor and he's trading that for a few bucks.
I put myself through college for reasons that tread a line between not wanting to mooch off my parents and not wanting them to control my life. It was the best choice I ever made.
The kid's "life-partner" parents are teaching him to be a parasite.
martin at December 4, 2007 7:27 AM
"child stating that he "has never known anyone other than [the man] to be his father,"
Of course he hasn't - he had two mothers. How effing ridiculous. With or without that man signing the birth cert. and signing dad on cards, the boy would have realized at some point that two women could not have possibly produced a child.
As they say 'no good deed goes unpunished'.
dena at December 4, 2007 8:09 AM
That's fucked up.
Roger at December 4, 2007 8:34 AM
This kid could have had a lifelong mentor and he's trading that for a few bucks.
Excellent point Martin. And from the article, the guy appears to be a pretty decent dude.
It's an important thing never to forget that for every child, the law seeks to make sure there is a "father" (fiscally) regardless of DNA or whether the man has raised the kid. And will take whatever is the closest approximation to a "father." I can't help but wonder WTF is up with support extending past 18 - is parents paying for college now a legal obligation (I do know financial aid considerations assume that)?
I think he should sue the woman's partner for her share; after all, she has been the other parent. Now that would make for some fun legal maneuvers.
justin case at December 4, 2007 8:54 AM
Societally speaking, it is exactly shit like this that makes us not want to stick our necks out for anyone. I hope that he does not have to pay child support. He was obviously doing more than his fair share in the relationship, as it was. He must feel horrible right now for ever getting involved.
I also liked your comment, Sean. If he has to pay child support, can we all now sue our parents for back pay between the ages of 19-21, à la Segolene Royal?
liz at December 4, 2007 1:02 PM
I think the father was a stupid idiot. Sure, he was just wanting to be nice, but did he think a moment about what he was doing... subjecting his biological offspring to a life without a "real" father???
Now that I have children, I cringe to think how I used to think... what a stupid idiot I was... that if I didn't find a husband, I would have a kid anway...
I see now how important having a father is to my kids... how absolutely postively 100% essential it is to every single facet of their life.
I don't have a single problem with gays or single parents adopting kids, but I believe it is a cruelty to deliberately bring a child into this world without a father AND a mother.
Maybe cases like this will get people to think twice about flippantly throwing their sperm out there with no real investment in what comes of it.
Susan at December 4, 2007 1:40 PM
I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing of egg donors getting hit up for back child support?
Verkan at December 4, 2007 2:21 PM
"I see now how important having a father is to my kids... how absolutely postively 100% essential it is to every single facet of their life.
I don't have a single problem with gays or single parents adopting kids, but I believe it is a cruelty to deliberately bring a child into this world without a father AND a mother."
I call BS.
If a gay couple has a child via artificial insemination, it's 'cruel', but if they adopt a child it's a-okay?
I find Susan's logic hard to follow.
Karen at December 4, 2007 3:15 PM
And now we see why I'm against IVF, fertility treatments, and sperm donors.
If you can't have a baby the old-fashioned way, then you ought to take the hint - the Universe doesn't want you to reproduce.
brian at December 4, 2007 4:28 PM
> I find Susan's logic
> hard to follow.
Aw shit, I came in late!
Well, let me explain it to you.
Children deserve a loving mother and a loving father. The mother shows the child how femininity works at its best. The father shows the child how masculinity works at its best.
Get the picture? Great!
Love the blog. Check in regularly for updates.
Crid at December 4, 2007 7:42 PM
"I can't help but wonder WTF is up with support extending past 18 - is parents paying for college now a legal obligation (I do know financial aid considerations assume that)?"
Sometimes. Regardless, federal financial aid takes into account your "parents'" income when determining your loan package - until you are 24 years old, unless you have served in the military or have a dependent (child) of your own. So if one of your "parents" is a guy who makes big money as a doctor, the feds may tell you that your "parents" are expected to pay X amount of $ in intuition, and the feds will only give you loans for the difference between that amount and the college tuition.
Eighteen years ago, the laws about same sex second parent adoption... may not have existed in the states where these parties resided at the time, and where the kid and his moms live now. Remember, this issue was not on most peoples' radar at the time. In that same atmosphere, the non-bio mom may not have been able to adopt her son at the time. I am not clear about whether non-bio mom is currently in the picture, and whether she has legally adopted her son, which could make a difference. In addition, the law about the legal rights and (freedom from) obligations of the sperm or egg donor probably did not exist when this transaction took place, and are possibly not yet in place in the relevant states even now.
Some courts have opined that the right to support is the child's right, which no one can bargain out from under the child.
Michelle at December 4, 2007 9:00 PM
This is beyond absurd, but I hope it pushes some guys out there who want to help out the friendly lesbians to get things down in black and white. It's worth noting that advice columnist Dan Savage and his boyfriend were initially considering becoming parents by donating sperm to a lesbian couple and being non-custodial parents...that is, before Dan's lawyer (an adoptive and biological parent himself) heard of the plan and said, "Are you CRAZY? Do you WANT a legal nightmare on your hands?" Or words to that effect. They adopted instead.
I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing of egg donors getting hit up for back child support?
Don't think you will in most cases because, in the case of egg donors, there almost always is a gestational mother who really, really, really wants the kid from the time that he or she is born. There are some exceptions - gay male couples hiring surrogates to carry pregnancies conceived with eggs from outside donors - but generally the last thing that the gestational mom wants to do is to think of someone else as her kid's mommy, especially given that the gestational mom is the one with the stretch marks and sleepless nights.
Interesting note: Most surrogates now don't carry their own genetic children. If the egg used doesn't come from the woman who'll be raising the child, it comes from another donor. This is to prevent a Baby M situation. It also, I think, has the pleasant side effect of making suing the donor rather untenable, because you effectively have three mothers - genetic, gestational, and legal. I'm not saying that suing for support would be impossible...just logistically somewhat difficult. If you try to establish that the egg donor has responsibilities, then you have to give her rights...and if you give HER rights, what about the woman who actually CARRIED AND GAVE BIRTH to the kid? Eek. At any rate, I think eventually they'll figure out a way to "build" human gametes from regular genetic material, which will solve this issue while creating some others.
If you can't have a baby the old-fashioned way, then you ought to take the hint - the Universe doesn't want you to reproduce.
So let me get this straight: The universe wants Britney Spears, Kevin Federline, and countless crack addicts to reproduce, but not the many caring, thoughtful, bright, responsible people I know who've needed some help conceiving? Sorry, I don't think the "universe" is involved in micromanaging people's reproductive outcomes in that way. Especially given that, in the situation under discussion, the women in question could have just gone to a bar, picked up two drunk guys, had unprotected sex, and ended up with babies nine months later. If you really think that there's an overwhelming correlation between people being able to conceive and being meant to reproduce, I suggest you spend some time talking to people involved in the foster care system. Hordes of people conceive children that they cannot parent - I don't think this qualifies as being "meant to reproduce." If there is any sort of intelligence running the universe - which is what your "the universe doesn't mean for you to" comment seems to suggest - and it's an intelligence that bestows fertility on those that it feels should reproduce, then it's either vastly stupid or has a really nasty sense of humor.
marion at December 4, 2007 9:40 PM
> Sorry, I don't think the "universe"
> is involved in micromanaging people's
> reproductive outcomes in that way.
I disagree. There are all sorts of fascinating things that science and policy can (or could) do to mangle the mechanics of reproduction. The point of this blog entry is that no matter how much these terribly modern and independent people pretend to be bloodlessly rational and forward-thinking about fulfilling their impulse to reproduce (if not fulfilling the needs of their children), dark and primeval forces of neediness and greed are going to assert themselves from somewhere within the darling little "family."
The impulse to "get things down into black and white" is exactly the problem. We can glibly affirm that nurturing mothers and provident fathers are just, like, stereotypes, man! and that we can rewrite the rules as we see fit. But I think the whole point is that if we need these clever, ironclad legal compositions to withstand adjudication, then they're failures. It doesn't matter to me whether the mother was financially incompetent or willfully deceptive about absolving the father of responsibility (as if that were her plaything to foreswear); nor does it matter if the father was cavalier about involving himself in the child's life in degrees and intervals that brought comfort and amusement only to himself.
(Does anyone seriously think fatherhood can be distilled to "mentoring"? Are you fuckin' kidding me?)
I don't want my courts bothered with sorting out such a half-witted contract. It's troubling that people can look to an onrushing horizon of shit-witted people in loathsome, brittle alliances clogging our courts, and say 'Well, it'll be interesting to see how that all works out.'
You can call it "micromanagement" if you want, but when the universe decides to throw its weight around, it gets what it wants. We all admire civilization for its resistance to nature's torment, but we should never forget who wins the contest... Every time. Harshing someone who takes note of the natural world's boundaries as being too religiously-minded seems backhanded when, a sentence later, you too will personify the universe as "vastly stupid or humorless."
You bet it is. I believe there's no God. The natural world doesn't care . It's quite happy to wound and maim human souls so long as there are souls to maim. And it'll do that from within, which law must take into account.
Now, the world hates a backup dancer, and I understand this... Especially when he's a boy, and especially if he's heterosexual, and especially if he's an untalented, inarticulate weasel who leeches off one of the signal pop talents of his generation. We know all this. But we must always remember, K-Fed is the sane one!
When I was in grade school, there was this one plain pop song, and I can't remember which one it was... Amy's Gregg might know. Maybe it was "Long Cool Woman" or "Green Eyed Lady"... It was something from those years, and about that popular. Anyway, years later I read in one of the guitar magazines that it was the first song the guy wrote after picking up the instrument... It went straight to the Top Ten. You gotta believe that's no accident. The people who are bopping down the freeway enjoying these stupidities on the radio have to imagine that they could have come up with something like that... And indeed, they could have. More than anything else from pop culture, people want to relate.
That's why Britney's famous. Her pairing isn't closely studied because it's been given to us from on high as an example of how things should work. She was just a cute little girl who wore her ineptitude on her sleeve. Americans, especially ones from similar childhoods of divorce (and there are millions), could feel where she was coming from, dude.
Yeah, sure-- the universe will happily extract babies from such imbeciles and from crack addicts. But the weakness evident in these people's very natural impulses is what should be instructive.... Science (and shitty law) allowed the ninnies in Amy's post to reproduce just as clumsily. Are we supposed to be impressed?
Crid at December 5, 2007 2:07 AM
"But the weakness evident in these people's very natural impulses is what should be instructive."
Totally.
The law is often an ass.
And as usual, the lawyers are enriched while the rest of us wait -dumbfounded - for the instruction.
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2007 6:22 AM
"It's troubling that people can look to an onrushing horizon of shit-witted people in loathsome, brittle alliances clogging our courts, and say 'Well, it'll be interesting to see how that all works out.'"
Not half so troubling as the ideas some people have for "fixing" the situation. The Law is an ass but it's the tool we have to work with. What people should do and what anybody can make them do are very different things.
Michelle makes a good point with the financial aid thing. Sometimes people sue each other because it is the only way to get traction in the environment of bureaucratic inertia. Good friends have been advised to sue each other in order to bring some measure of redress from their respective insurance companies after a car accident. (Although the case described smells of opportunistic scumbaggery.)
That people should take fertility problems as a cosmic hint that they shouldn't reproduce is...I want to choose my words carefully lest my point be taken for senseless insult (I'll do that later)...dumb. Some cultures think it's wrong to plant crops when Mother Earth has already decided it's weeds she wants. We are human, we mess with things; it's what we do. We also pratfall when we try to deal with what we have messed with. A really good production of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein will have a handsome young man in the role of "The Monster" because his hideousness was on the inside.
But we decided long ago that we can better stand to look at our own messes than to leave the world (or Universe) as it is.
martin at December 5, 2007 7:17 AM
Very well said, Martin.
(I also find folk tend to be selective regarding which "cosmic hints" they pick up. Funny how these hints often coincide with a personal agenda!)
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2007 9:12 AM
> The Law is an ass but it's
> the tool we have to work
> with.
No! No!
> What people should do and
> what anybody can make them
> do are very different things.
My own damn fault... Instead of say "the law must take into account" and "shitty law", I shoulda said "the community must..." and "shitty culture."
There's all sorts of ways to squeeze and influence people's behavior besides suing and prosecuting them, that's what I was trying to get at. The "bureaucratic inertia" belongs to the couple, if they thought that such individual fulfillments were the meaning of marriage anyway.
Again- Isn't the lesson of this blog post that we can't make our nature vanish through paperwork and personal choices?
Crid at December 5, 2007 9:14 AM
"Again- Isn't the lesson of this blog post that we can't make our nature vanish through paperwork and personal choices?"
Without a doubt!
Another lesson, perhaps, is related to your own point: "There's all sorts of ways to squeeze and influence people's behavior besides suing and prosecuting them, that's what I was trying to get at."
A common response to that is the cynical siren call of the TV rent-an-ambulance-chaser slogan;
'"X,Y and Z" have lawyers working hard for their side, and so should you!'
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2007 9:45 AM
This is the perfect depiction of the young masculine heart: http://urltea.com/2ajh
Crid at December 5, 2007 9:50 AM
"No! No!"
Well what then? (I hate when people write in all caps so Crid, please, as you read my question, scream it until LAX calls to complain about the noise.)
If not the law, then what tools are left? "Culture" and "community" are too poorly defined. If we start talking about our respective inner value systems we sound like lunatics to each other (need I remind you.)
Inner value systems are like discussing what you'll plant in your garden until it comes down to someone's child not having a warm place to sleep and then the guns come out and anyone who has ever heard the crisp "snap" of a bullet parting the air above their head prefers the sound of a 5lb. legal "brief" hitting the desk.
Am I being too dramatic? Society makes rules and decisions that can hurt people. Those decisions are backed by guns and cages with steel bars. What do you really believe is important? How do you convince somebody to do it your way when their inner values are different from yours?
The courts are a cesspool of people trying to get what they don't deserve by artifice and knavery but so fucking what, they aren't murdering each other as used to be the fashion.
martin at December 5, 2007 9:50 AM
"... they aren't murdering each other as used to be the fashion."
Funnily enough, Martin, I was thinking about British history and the brilliant arguments used by the Scottish toffs of yore that man's "natural" inclination for blood murder-as-revenge better regulated society that pissy English court law ever could.
Of course, they lost that wee battle. But they were wonderfully eloquent!
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2007 10:07 AM
Heh, I've got enough Scots-Irish in me that I know not to punch the bride in the face at a wedding.
Society ran like a top in the days portrayed by Stan Kubrick in the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. People flew straight back then by gumphrey! And no lawyers.
martin at December 5, 2007 10:19 AM
> Funny how these hints often
> coincide with a personal
> agenda!)
Turtleneck nihilism: Any statement of principle is an "agenda!" And "You know what happens when someone has an agenda....!"
> Culture" and "community" are
> too poorly defined.
People here used to do that when I'd talk about "masculinity" too.... All the sudden it's a really technical word full of regional variation and academic nuance. But I just mean it in the street sense.
If two women decide to pull the squirty-goo out of a man somewhere and put it in a third women for gestation and then take the baby and run like hell until their own 'union' falls apart and then expect contract law to describe everyone's responsibilities, I think the community --meaning everyone in their lives-- should stop them beforehand and say "Hell no! What the fuck are you thinking?"
> Society makes rules and
> decisions that can hurt
> people.
You sound like a seven-year-old complaining that "Homework isn't fair!" My point is precisely that "inner value systems" are not to be trusted. Individuals are notoriously selfish.
Crid at December 5, 2007 10:31 AM
"I think the community --meaning everyone in their lives-- should stop them beforehand and say "Hell no! What the fuck are you thinking?""
But since these wise words possibly weren't heard or uttered, what else can you or I do but turn our questing flower-like faces to the courts?
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2007 10:47 AM
First, make sure the legal outcome burdens the rest of us --who do pair and reproduce responsibly-- to the smallest possible degree. Second and thereafter(!), do what you can for the kid. Third, put a little punitive juice in the legal outcome for the 'parents'.
Fourth, and this could be the fun part, shun the motherfucking shit out of all the adults involved. Mock them, belittle them, hurt their feelings, and let word get out that that's no way to do family.
Thanks! No, please, thank you! Please... You're very kind. Try the veal! Tip your waitress! See you soon, I'm here all week! Drive safely!
Crid at December 5, 2007 10:58 AM
"should stop them beforehand and say "Hell no! What the fuck are you thinking?""
Well no shit Hammurabi. Let's say that system works in some poorly defined majority of cases or the world would be a bigger mess than it is. What do we do when that system fails? We go to court, such as it is.
"I just mean it in the street sense (culture, community and, apparently, masculinity.)"
Oh, well then, there's that cleared up. At the risk of insulting you, we probably come close to agreeing on what those terms mean (let me know if that does insult you, I like to reward myself with a soda.) The problem is that when circumstances require you to appeal to someone for something important, you have to appeal in terms that make sense to THEM. Let me guess, you're not appealing to anyone for anything so it's not your problem, right?
"You sound like a seven-year-old...inner value systems are not to be trusted."
Fine, I'm a seven-year-old but you've come full circle in my youthful eyes. You've got a compass but it's painted on and you are welcome to it.
martin at December 5, 2007 11:09 AM
> We go to court, such as it is.
Right, but it's hard to imagine that any sort of helpful standard is going to be met when there's already been so much willful misbehavior... Or to expect a society so disinterested in mutual responsibility to take a renewed interest just because the 'family' is in court. Again, I think you guys are looking at these legal outcomes as you might absently watch ESPN while you're waiting for the spouse to finish some chore. "Oh look, Holy Cross is kicking Brown's unholy ass in the third quarter..."
> The problem is that when circumstances
> require you to appeal to someone for
> something important, you have to appeal
> in terms that make sense to THEM.
No, we can expect people to understand things beyond their personal interest, especially when they serve as jurists. This is not Planet Pander. The court is not an advertising agency.
Crid at December 5, 2007 11:21 AM
:::earworm alert:::
Our father high in heaven
Look down upon your son
Who's busy with his
Money games
His women and his gun.
o_O
Flynne at December 5, 2007 11:27 AM
"I think you guys are looking at these legal outcomes as you might absently watch ESPN..."
For what it's worth, when I watch these outcomes, it's with an inner nausea of the kind caused by a hard night of drinking in a sushi house that just lost its health cert.
It sucks and I hate it but it's better than blood feuds.
martin at December 5, 2007 11:32 AM
The mighty Tull, whose chops were so righteous he could jam with a flute. Oh, to have seen it.
martin at December 5, 2007 11:42 AM
Ah yes, martin, and I have seen him, it was wonderous to behold.
Flynne at December 5, 2007 11:48 AM
"For what it's worth, when I watch these outcomes, it's with an inner nausea of the kind caused by a hard night of drinking in a sushi house that just lost its health cert."
Inner nausea, huh?
That's nothing, Martin!
I actively seethe.
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2007 11:48 AM
I used to seethe but nobody would sit next to me on the bus.
martin at December 5, 2007 12:11 PM
Seethe, but remember to make fun of them too, that's all I ask
Crid at December 5, 2007 3:02 PM
The point of this blog entry is that no matter how much these terribly modern and independent people pretend to be bloodlessly rational and forward-thinking about fulfilling their impulse to reproduce (if not fulfilling the needs of their children), dark and primeval forces of neediness and greed are going to assert themselves from somewhere within the darling little "family."
Crid: I actually agree with your larger point. I was disagreeing with the idea of putting, say, IVF on the same level as the current mess that this blog post is discussing, and was carrying that out to the farthest possible point, logic-wise. I spend way, way too much time listening to people claim that having a set of functioning reproductive organs is a clear sign from God that one is meant to be a parent, and that it's fine to get your artery cleared out rather than dying of a heart attack, and to get cochlear implants if you're born deaf, but Freya forbid you get any fertility help, because that's "playing God."
Now, that having been said, the reason I hate the willy-nilly lumping together of garden-variety hetero infertility and the situations such as the one discussed in the blog post is that I don't think they're the same thing. This case involves sperm donation, but, y'know, either of these women could probably have seduced some drunken stranger in a bar and gotten pregnant the old-fashioned way. Modern technology may make the process more indirect and antiseptic, but it's not really the culprit here. The difference between the two situations sort of reminds me of the supposed thinking behind disability hiring laws - while the law, in theory, forces you to make reasonable accommodations (i.e. hiring a deaf woman as an accountant or lawyer and getting a TTY system for her), it doesn't force you to, say hire a deaf woman as a switchboard operator.
Back to the topic at hand, though....I would love to know what went down that convinced this kid that filing for child support at this point in time was a good idea. I'm betting that SOMETHING happened. This is like reading a novel and not yet having gotten to the juicy stuff...except that it's real and heartbreaking.
marion at December 5, 2007 10:38 PM
> I was disagreeing with the
> idea of putting, say, IVF
> on the same level as the
> current mess
Having never felt a fatherly urge, they do kinda seem the same here... The idea that someone could be moving through the world thinking "I gotta have kids! *My* genes have to get back out there again! Right now!" That's just wacky.
My oldest friend in the world went through an extended set of IVF procedures and it was hellish. Their daughter is radiant... but... I just can't relate. It's not the playing god and defying nature that's bothersome, but the egoism of it seems to get a pass from people.... You're allowed to be as precious as you want about your children, even if they're imaginary. And these are invasive, risky, weirdness-making medical procedures. (For the record, my friend was ready, I mean paperwork-filled-out ready, to adopt if the procedures didn't take. And that family was all about sound medical practice.)
When people can't have kids, it's difficult for me to experience the death-in-the-family, cosmic-injustice sort of empathy they expect of us.
Flynne: Sounds like Southern rock.
Crid at December 6, 2007 1:42 AM
Crid, nope, "Hymn #43", by Jethro Tull. Actually one of the few songs Tull did without the insane fluteness of it all. (Although Cross-Eyed Mary and Locomotive Breath remain a couple of my very favourites.)For Southern rock, Allmand Bros. "Le B'rer in A minor" works for me, or anything off of "Eat a Peach". o_O
Flynne at December 6, 2007 5:47 AM
Sorry that should have been AllmaN Bros., no 'd'. Jaimoe would shoot me. o_O
Flynne at December 6, 2007 6:33 AM
Crid- I was trying to keep my post brief, but I think I may have left out some crucial info.
My objection wasn't to Susan's position, but her inconsistency. I should have included this: if she thinks fathers are essential, then why would she be okay with a gay couple adopting a kid in the first place? Whether it's via adoption or A.I., same result: child in a household with no father.
Karen at December 6, 2007 7:18 AM
Karen, I apologize, you're cutting through this argument faster and more thoughtfully than most people who visit this blog, and I couldn't keep up with you. We discussed this most recently here.
Pro-gay marriage people and others with goofy ideas about family composition are always saying that we have to be realistic... To which I respond that we have to be principled, and then reality won't be as harsh. But it's true that gays have always been parents and will always be parents. Since gays want something from society (the right to marry each other) and society wants something from somebody (loving parents for these difficult-to-adopt kids), there ought to be some kind of exchange that could happen.
I agree with you in pure theory. It would be great if there was a loving, young, rich, patient, adoring straight couple ready to adopt every orphan in the world from age zero to twenty. I think that's what would be best for the kids. But that's not happening. When adoption works, it's about the most beautiful thing in the universe... But beauty has boundaries.
Again, sorry for the snark, I misread your meaning. Meantime, I think Susan was precisely correct:
> I believe it is a cruelty
> to deliberately bring a
> child into this world without
> a father AND a mother.
Crid at December 6, 2007 7:46 AM
Some day, some court will negate any contract you sign. The "best protection" is no protection at all.
MarkD at December 8, 2007 8:03 PM
Leave a comment