I don't quite get it. Why do Hollywood couples (many of them anyway) have this need to produce a child without first getting married? It seems endemic, at least in the media reports. Last week it was Matthew McConaughey and his gal pal. This week I was disappointed to hear about Chris Noth and his girlfriend were expecting an illegitimate child.
Oh such charged words those are. Illegitimate, out-of-wedlock, love child, and on and on. Yet where are the morals, the ethics, the concern for the child's future well-being?
My disappointment about Noth, who I seldom have seen in anything I watch, is that he is from Madison, Wisconsin, my home city since I was 18. I generally cling to good old Midwestern values and hoped he might too. Of course, Wisconsin had Spencer Tracy too.
My concern is really for the child's future. He or she will eventually know that his or her parents conceived their bundle of joy before marrying. If the couple is no longer together, it is just more baggage that kid will carry around for a lifetime. If a couple is committed enough to have a child, then shouldn't they be committed to a marriage as well?
They can't be ignorant of birth control options, or of what causes babies. So why do they feel that as icons and models for others, that this behavior is acceptable?
Oh such charged words those are. Illegitimate, out-of-wedlock, love child, and on and on. Yet where are the morals, the ethics, the concern for the child's future well-being?
My disappointment about Noth, who I seldom have seen in anything I watch, is that he is from Madison, Wisconsin, my home city since I was 18. I generally cling to good old Midwestern values and hoped he might too. Of course, Wisconsin had Spencer Tracy too.
My concern is really for the child's future. He or she will eventually know that his or her parents conceived their bundle of joy before marrying. If the couple is no longer together, it is just more baggage that kid will carry around for a lifetime. If a couple is committed enough to have a child, then shouldn't they be committed to a marriage as well?
They can't be ignorant of birth control options, or of what causes babies. So why do they feel that as icons and models for others, that this behavior is acceptable?
8 comments:
It's really to bad. I recently read that about 32 percent of children in the US are born out of wedlock. It used to be this huge social stigma, to be born out illegitimately.
I think it's a selfish thing for parents to not be willing to commit to each other. Like they don't even care about their children's stability.
Why does marriage make it okay to have a child? There are people who should NEVER have children, but we can't legislate against it (at least I hope it never comes to that!) There are hundreds (dare I say thousands) of couples who should never have had children (can anyone say Brittany & Kevin?) Marriage isn't the be all/end all answer. There are also plenty of couples who have been together for many years and have raised healthy, stable families (Goldie and Kurt, Tim & Susan to name two) without the benefit of marriage. Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger were married, but do you think their daughter, Ireland, really cared about that when he was trashing her on the phone? The "concern for the child's well-being" has to come from two loving, caring parents, whether they are married or not. Who can say that Matthew McConaughey and Chris Noth won't be excellent fathers? Marriage won't guarantee they will be and not being married doesn't guarantee they can't be. The word "illegitimate" is more harmful to a child than whether or not his or her parents are married.
Hmmmm 50% of all marriages end in divorce.... gay people can't marry because... why was that again? Children need love and stability. Sometimes that is with a man and woman as parents who are married - in which the man (or woman) doesn't beat his (her) spouse, sexually abuse the kids or ... on and on. Children need love and stability - that comes in all different shapes and sizes - genders and orientation.
Madison, Wisconsin, has been a leftist university town since its SDS days in the 60s. Where were you? You all have tolerated the burn-the-flag and ditch-the-morals crown for better than 45 years, and now you are complaining? Hell, the destruction of American values began there and in Ann Arbor, and Port Huron, other "decent, Midwestern towns". I'm from the South, and never believe anything good about the Midwest. Pig farmers and leftist radicals, all rolled into one.
REsponse to "sr":
No society has ever recognized "gay marriage" in anything but gest. Even in decadent Ancient Rome, it was more of a gest by homosexuals at the Roman system. Gay marriage makes no sense (gays can only have children if society is corrupt enough to allow gays to adopt children, depriving them of a balanced experience of male-female relationships), and doesn't have any place in this discussion. Here in the US, celebrities have been flaunting conventional morality for half a century or more. Out-of-wedlock children by these people should surprise no one. Marriage was originally permanent, and was intended to provide a stable base for children. The Hollywood celebrities do not need the economic stability provided by a permanent household, because money provides that stability. It's just the facts, ma'am.
Wow - once again it is all the liberals and gays that cause all the problems. Amazing. White guys have always been in charge of this country - written the laws run the courts and the police departments... and those out of power - gays are the problem. Interesting. And let's thank our southern brothers and sisters for all the good they have brought us. Slavery, segregation, fundemental christianity that when taken to extreme is just the Taliban lite.
Interesting takes on the marriage before children issue. I may not be a fan of gay marriage, but who cares what other societies have done. We have a whole class of people, maybe 10%, who are shut out from the recognition (and the rights accrued) of a loving two person relationship. And what's wrong with adopting kids? Many hetero couples who cannot conceive do it, and it provides a loving home for many who might not otherwise have a home.
Certainly gay couples can "divorce" in high numbers as well, but that is not an argument for not finding a way to have some sort of civil union.
Bellig:
My comment was meant to take a look at the fact that so many marriages end in divorce. People are avoiding marriage for a host of reasons (not all of which I understand). Gay people seem to want to "marry" or have civil unions - whatever. I was trying to illustrate the irony that here are people who want to marry and can't; while there are people who can legally marry who seem to be choosing not to do so.
In the end it comes back to the kids. They need stability. Sometimes that is a single parent (Mom or Dad) who love them and have gotten away from abuse or whatever. It doesn't always have to be two - man and woman.
Marriage also conveys legal rights. That is a whole other discussion when it comes to kids. That other discussion certainly pertains to gays.
Finally most of northern European, Scandinavian countries, Canada recognize gay marriage. It has nothing to do with corruption it does have to do with human rights.
Post a Comment