What's most appalling is the normalization of adopting kids before these divorces. It's lunacy. They're bringing kids into the light, and then saying "Sorry, Pilgrim, but Daddy's got some new tail to chase."

At least these kids will never want for anything other than their parents love.

Just in case you AREN'T being as sarcastic as I hope you are:

1. Their bio-kids are flatly fucked; but given the choice, would you want their adopted kids to have been raised by a coherent family, or would you have preferred this outcome (which we presume to be some substantial inheritance –however impersonally delivered– in decades hence)?

2. Do you really, really, sincerely believe that this was the choice civilization had to make with respect to the fate of these kids?

(I think people's weird daydreams, especially about showbiz wealth, constrain insight in these matters.)

So is she or isn't she pregnant again? I'm behind on my smut-reading.

Poor kids. It's like Angelina's trying to fill up some sort of child-zoo: one from each country. On the whole though, at least the adopted ones are still going to have a better life than in an orphanage in some 3rd world country. Having the bio kids was sheer selfishness. The sort of selfishness I'm really tired of seeing from unmarried people. You don't want to marry? Great-not everyone should. But if you want to have a kid, you have to be able to make that commitment, period.

I give more latitude to adopting-most of the time, any home is better than no home, abusive parents aside. Which is why I'm A-ok with gays adopting.

I give more latitude to adopting-most of the time, any home is better than no home, abusive parents aside.

Of course the adopted kids are better off. But, they'd be lots and lots better off if their parents weren't splitting up.

You guys are dodging... Making the better the enemy of the best.

At work and may have got that backwards, but we'll fight later, OK?

You should probably think about the values of a woman who wore a vial of Billy Bob Thornton's blood around her neck, yet does not apparently recognize the term, "commitment". Hmm. I'll amend that because I don't know what she promised anyone.

There is a long line behind Brad for Angelina's favors, however brief, however scant, however savage, and so she can do as she pleases so long as her bodyguards are alert.

I didn't even know they were married. I always thought they were doing the Sarandon\Robbins thing.

With their busy schedules, flying all over to make movies, the kids may not even notice a difference.

Of course the adopted kids are better off. But, they'd be lots and lots better off if their parents weren't splitting up.

Indeed. I often hear versions of the argument that, because someone has put children in a bad position, it's ok because it's possible that the children could be in an even worse position. What bullshit.

I had neighbors whose rather wealthier relatives had adopted 3 children from Guatemala. They also had 3 older biological children. The family treated the adopted children as servants. They cooked and cleaned, and they were punched and screamed at if they did it badly. They were called retarded, stupid, dumbass, etc., because they couldn't "speak good English".

My face gave me away when I asked why my neighbor had been caring for them for a couple of weeks, and the answer was, "The others are on a family vacation." That's when she proceeded to lecture me that "those kids should be grateful, because otherwise they'd be on the streets of Guatemala."

Of course I called DHS, of course my neighbors never spoke to me again, and of course nothing was done.

We don't even know if this is true or just another Brangelina rumor. Whatever the outcome, the kids that were adopted are still better off as children of divorce than what their lives would have been like had they never been adopted by Jolie and Pitt, especially that little girl from Ethiopa.

I don't know about you, Amy, but I'm not coping very well after hearing this news! :-)

Eric, they aren't married ASFAIK, this is a report about a contractural split...

True or not, Angie has had some interesting things to say about fidelity and disagreements, and since they were said recently, I wouldn't be surprised if the split were true:
""She told German magazine Das Neue: "Neither Brad nor I have ever claimed that living together means to be chained together. We make sure that we never restrict each other."
"I doubt that fidelity is absolutely essential for a relationship. It's worse to leave your partner and talk badly about him afterwards." and, "The sparks fly at home if the nice Brad fails to see that he's wrong and reacts in a defiant way. Then I can get so angry that I tear his shirt.""

Well, now... that's an interesting way of putting it.

When this sort of thing is normal in the types of circles they run in [The article mentions Madonna and Guy, who are their friends] there is no surprise, it's just sad. But to them, the outcome doesn't really have many downsides. If we are taking bets, I'll bet she wants more kids and he said "isn't 6 enough?" After all, she got the older kids before she met him, she doesn't necessarily see a need for him...

You know Amy, once you reach that level of celebrity, in their little brains, Brangelina can just make it up as they go along and whatever they decide is right. Brad and Angelina, original denizens of the land of the tiny brained folk.

Well, not reaching the level of maximum douchebaggery, but vying for a spot in the play-offs.

Are we supposed to care about this issue? Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have more than enough to make sure that their kids will want for nothing.

And a divorce does not suddenly make parents stop loving their kids, either.

Perez is reproting this is a fake rumor.

Here's where I reveal the depths of my shallowness (WTF? even I don't understand myself some times). As sad as it is that the relationship is breaking up, Angelina was absolutely at the peak of hotness in "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" so I was never surprised that Brad couldn't quit her.
But as Chris Rock pointed out, no matter how fine a woman, there's someone who's tired of (fill action verb here)ing her.
Maybe the Brokeback Mountin' boys should have spent more time together.

IF this is true....it looks like the Brangelina Apology Tour is over. They've spent so much energy trying to convince us that they're NOT bad people, that creating a huge family out of what started as infidelity is a good thing. I'm not buyin'. So if they DO break up, instead of having screwed over one innocent person, they've now involved six more, even more innocent than the first. Gah, Nadia Suleman chose her idol well.

I don't know if that's a different newspaper, but having "News of the World" as your source in Britain pretty much qualifies for you getting laughed at, hard. "Das Neue" is the German equivalent of Britain's "The Sun" - another source that qualifies you for being laughed at, hard.

Is this story coming from any actually half-decent sources or are you just lining yourself up to have a pop at single-parenthood via some suitably juicy and catchy celeb gossip?

Surely the real issue here - AGAIN - is the media? These "newspapers", so-called, are responsible for spreading completely fallacious celebrity gossip to sell their shiny fucked-up mags. Who's to say "Brangelina" mightn't be happier - regardless of how true this story is - if they weren't permanently having to put up with stories about how sick they are of spending time with each other?

Ah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!

Quote from the News of the World page (which is, in fact, the self-same shit-selling piece-of-piss tripe-rag that I though it was):

Our source added: "There's no date for when the contract would come into effect.

If they'd signed a pre-nup, would we have had this article about them breaking up? Ooh, ooh, what IF they signed a pre-nup and then THEIR SITUATION CHANGED?!?

Jesus H. Christ! They just had six kids and made several more movies - and they're wanting to change the terms of their pre-nup to protect themselves and their family in case of a split, AND THIS IS A BAD THING?!

Fucking hell. Talk about sensationalism. And this isn't even sensationalising a particularly interesting subject. Change the record!

So, my wife and I would like more children, but she's not so excited about being pregnant again. I'm quite sympathetic; I'm very happy that I'll never be pregnant.

I called up my state's DSS, the agency responsible for running foster homes, adoptions, etc...

They told me that since my wife and here are on H-1b and H-4 status, that they can't place a child with us; it's not a stable household. My wife and I are originally from Toronto, Canada. So, in Massachusetts, you can rest assured that your taxdollars are going to keep children safe in foster care, to prevent the (fairly small) possibility that these children might have to move to Toronto!

Can you imagine?

I'm with Donald on this. The London papers aren't the most reliable sources. And while many celebrities invite attention from the press, where is the line drawn? Why do we think it was our business if he cheated on Jennifer, what the reasons were, if he and Angelina love or hate each other, etc. I cannot imagine people selling my secrets or the press dissecting a romantic relationship on a daily basis let alone printing lies on a continuous basis. Does anyone think that could contribute to stress or tension in a relationship?
I get that Amy is for intact families and doesn't like divorce, but I'm sure there are better examples to use to make the point. Why not jump on the Gosselin family or that Octomom woman if you want to find examples of people not putting their children first though I think that's the type of people they are and would have been married or not.

Maybe you hang out together for a few years to make sure you can make it stick before you run around creating a family?

How long does a couple need to be together before they can be reasonably sure they won't split later? I'm asking this seriously--are there statistics which suggest that after a certain amount of time, the likelihood of divorce goes down significantly? I've personally witnessed the breakup of quite a few marriages which lasted a lot longer than Brangelina, including my own of 13 years.

"Why not jump on the Gosselin family or that Octomom woman...."

I did...that's the Nadia Suleman reference. That crazy broad wants to BE Jolie. Plastic surgery to look like her, and a selfish drive to have more kids than she can actually personally mother without a troop of professional aides.

I'm with Donald on this. The London papers aren't the most reliable sources.

I appreciate the support and I know what you mean when you say "London papers", but I would like to stand up for some of our news in Blighty. :)

Although there are a lot of snot-rags, we do have some excellent papers here - on both sides of the political spectrum (because, as we all know, there are only two sides to the political spectrum!); we also have the BBC, which is arguably the best news-reporting agency in the world.

But I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment. As you say, more succinctly than I did:

I get that Amy is for intact families and doesn't like divorce, but I'm sure there are better examples to use to make the point.

How long does a couple need to be together before they can be reasonably sure they won't split later?

I'd be interested in hearing an aswer to this too, if there is one. Anyone have any ideas?

My apologies, Donald. I should have clarified that I was speaking of the daily rags in London that produce gossip and usually gossip that is not true. Of course there are fine examples of journalism in England.
And it is an interesting question to ask how long a couple should wait. I also think that while couples shouldn't rush into having kids, its very easy to say people are being selfish by getting divorced because its all about the kids, but my recollection of growing up was that in the generation before me all stayed together for the kids and were miserable and produced a generation that feared ending up like their parents. I'm not so sure that was what we want either. Healthy relationships that fulfill both parties should be the goal and I don't see people forced to suck it up and stay together as being the answer. And of course the flip answers will come, but seriously think about it and think about the time in this country when divorce was not really done. Who really was better off?

Now she and Octomom REALLY have something in common. Maybe Octomom was psychic?

"The sparks fly at home if the nice Brad fails to see that he's wrong and reacts in a defiant way. Then I can get so angry that I tear his shirt.""

First off, that is abusive bullshit. No woman has the right to do that to a person she claims to love. That isn't love, it is abusive bullying. I would leave her stupid ass too!

"I doubt that fidelity is absolutely essential for a relationship. It's worse to leave your partner and talk badly about him afterwards."

This statement doesn't surprise me. Angelina did start fucking Brad when he was still very much married to Jen Aniston. It is part of the reason why I've never seen a Brad or Angie movie. The early ones didn't seem interesting, and in many ways I felt going to any of the later ones would have been a blessing from me about their nasty choices.

They've spent so much energy trying to convince us that they're NOT bad people, that creating a huge family out of what started as infidelity is a good thing. I'm not buyin'.

I am right proud to hear you testify! I'm in complete agreement.

-Julie

"Maybe you hang out together for a few years to make sure you can make it stick before you run around creating a family?"

If you waited until us boys are fully emotionally mature, you'd run a 1 in 200 risk of down's syndrome.

They're not even married. How can they get divorced? Someone didn't do their research very well.

I've read her interviews. Born to the right parents in the right place, she has had everything handed to her on a platter. Then, she has the nerve to be a rebellious teenager. I can't stand whiny crybabies choking on their silver spoons. And I really don't think she's made it that far from her wild days with Billy Bob. I don't see any signs of her changing, just more of the same crap spewing from her lips.

All it took, though, was adopting a few kids and a few good pictures to turn her image around. It's a shame that she's letting them run wild. I'm not going to be surprised when they hit jail -- that's the end result of a kid being taught that they can do whatever they want.

If a man admitted to ripping his significant other's shirt in a fit of rage, would their not be public outrage at the abuser? When will we decide that abuse is unacceptable, whether you are male or female!?!

I wish I lived in the days when the man left his wife for a mistress he was ostracized. Where I was raised, they still are. Brad wasn't raised too far from where I was, and I got a pretty good feeling that his parents hate her as much as I do. I'll celebrate the day that he leaves her controlling, abusive, personality, but I really doubt he's man enough. Nor will he be man enough to take the children with him even though he knows that letting them have every whim is ruining them. It's a shame he turned his back on the morals of his youth in the first place, for a two-bit Hollywood publicity whore.

I did...that's the Nadia Suleman reference. That crazy broad wants to BE Jolie. Plastic surgery to look like her, and a selfish drive to have more kids than she can actually personally mother without a troop of professional aides.

Wasn't there something about Miss Suleman being on public assistance as well? If so, you and I (or, these days, any grandchildren we might have) are basically subsidizing her decadent, child-hurting lifestyle!

Cat's comments are the reason I don't like using celebrities as an example for any argument. It's Hollywood and who really knows the truth. Angelina is a wild bi-sexual prone to mood swings or a loving devoted mother and good samaritan depending on which tabloid you read. Brad is either the pot head who can't stand up to his wife or the long suffering husband who had a wife with a career more important than kids which speaking of that wife, she is either the ambitious career woman who left her husband unattended and uncared for refusing to have children she promised to have while she went after a movie career or she is the long suffering wife who did nothing more than love the husband that was stolen away by that husband stealing seductress. Soap opera-ish enough? There's never a middle ground and do any of us know the actual truth to any of these stories?
I haven't lunched with Angelina, Brad, or Jennifer lately to know which version of the Hollywood machine to believe. I also don't beleive that any of them are either pure saints or pure evil. Today I read that the couple who is not married yet somehow divorcing were shopping for coordinating Oscar clothing. I'm sure tomorrow I'll be reading that she's shredding his Oscar tux or some other load of crap. And I'm not sure why Cat believes those kids are running wild because from what I can see from the what seems to be carefully orchestrated photos, those kids are either always being carried by a parent or holding hand. So again, who really knows? I think better examples could be found.

I would like to mention that I'm not trying to defend Angelina and Brad actions, but rather point out that none of us really know the truth about them. Its hard to have a discussion or debate when so many facts are unknown and in question.