Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[MatthewLee]

Greetings,

Once a child calls you "Dad", you've passed the test from the child's perspective.

Kindest regards,

James

Because no one is better equipped to authoritatively answer tough life questions like

"What is a father?"

Than a five year old. Is that right? My tones not snarky, it's incredulous. Were talking about the life of a human child not an adding machine or a social experiment here. This is not a discussion of abstracts anymore.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Because no one is better equipped to authoritatively answer tough life questions like

"What is a father?"

No one is better equipped to answer "Who is your dad?" you mean?

Or do you think you're better equipped to tell my son, a child you never met, who his dad is.

Or would you like to tell him he's wrong?

Come on Matthew - spit it out. Would you like to tell my 5 year old son that he's wrong to call me 'daddy'? Go on, run a cost-benefit analysis of that.

Than a five year old. Is that right? My tones not snarky, it's incredulous. Were talking about the life of a human child not an adding machine or a social experiment here. This is not a discussion of abstracts anymore.

Bollocks Matthew, you were snarky half a dozen times.

And won't somebody please think of the children?

After all, we're talking about their LIFE, no less.

And on the subject of snarkiness. How is my son anything other than an abstract for you? Whereas, how can he be anything but an abstract for me?

 

[MatthewLee]

I am at work at the moment but I will respond with some detail later this evening.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am at work at the moment but I will respond with some detail later this evening.

Not sure why 'sorry, I was being a twat' would take that much focus, but sure.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Once a child calls you "Dad", you've passed the test from the child's perspective.

Kindest regards,

James

Because no one is better equipped to authoritatively answer tough life questions like

"What is a father?"

Than a five year old. Is that right? My tones not snarky, it's incredulous. Were talking about the life of a human child not an adding machine or a social experiment here. This is not a discussion of abstracts anymore.

Children learn what is expected of a father or mother. They then apply those criteria to the adults in their lives - as to whether they meet those criteria in meeting the child's needs. On that basis, they then call the relevant adults "Dad"/"Mum".

Research has shown that what's needed is a stable, loving relationship - regardless of whether that includes both, one or neither biological parent. And it's also regardless of the sexual orientation of either or both parents.

The focus on/hankering for biological parents appeals to a traditional view of parenting.

If you watched any of a number of programs on TV - such as Supernanny, Jeremy Kyle (who's particularly concerned with stories about children), Dr. Maury (paternity tests!), Dr. Phil, and/or Steve Wilkos - you'd understand this.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

To make a long story short:

Divorce sucks. Deadbeat dads suck. Bad moms suck. Dysfunctional parents suck. Difficult relationships suck. Single parenting (probably for most) sucks. People suck.

Marriage does not fix ANY of those.

 

[MatthewLee]

To make a long story short:

Divorce sucks. Deadbeat dads suck. Bad moms suck. Dysfunctional parents suck. Difficult relationships suck. Single parenting (probably for most) sucks. People suck.

Marriage does not fix ANY of those.

An excellent series of points, all true. Marriage isn't meant to fix them. Marriage (in this case defined as civil marriage and not just lifetime pairing) is a contract. The purpose of a contract is enforceability. Marriage assumes enforcement of the provisions that:

1. Divorce should hurt because monogamy is supposed to be forever.

2. Deadbeat dads have to pay because they are contractually obligated.

3. Mom's have a legal responsibility of care enforceable by the state's interference in their lives and possible removal of the child for their own safety.

4. Dysfunctional parents also have a legal responsibility to provide a home free of conflict in which healthy children can grow enforceable by the state's interference...

5. Single parenting should suck less because the other parent, if they abandon their responsibility in the child rearing department, has to pay and pay a lot.

True marriage is the joining of two people for a lifetime relationship that may or may not include children but is assumed to include monogamy and to supersede selfishness but represent sacrifice and partnership in love and trust. Civil marriage is the contractual formalization of these relationships which special attention paid to protecting the states compelling interest which is child rearing. The community cannot be expected to monitor this and deal with divorces, break ups, abuse and tom-foolery. The state is set up to deal with stuff like this and contracts give it the authority to deal with these things. These are facts of Jurisprudence.

 

[LawyerLee]

I am the child of a mother who did not value marriage or monogamy. Her love affair with substances and various men (many of whom I was forced to call "dad") created an environment unfit for any child. Had it not been for my maternal great aunt and her husband, I would likely have landed in state custody, or worse. They took me in at three months old and raised me through adulthood. They remain the people I call "mom and dad" to date, despite my biological mother always being just present enough to feel like I owe her something, but far enough away to convince herself that the debt remains one-sided. For years I watched her bounce from relationship to relationship thinking that it was only a matter of time until she found the right one. I truly believed that my unconventional living arrangement was temporary and that eventually, she would be stable enough to care for me. I realized that this was not the truth at the age of 9 when she had another child with a new fiance and I was not in the equation that was their new life together. They never did get married.

For many years, other children prodded me about why I didn't have a mom and dad. It was not that I did not have a mom and dad. It is a basic principle of biology that to have been conceived, carried to term, and born that I must have. I had parents who were raising me and who loved me as their own. I was even lucky enough for those people to be actual family, but it was not and is not the same as being raised by the people who created me. Even as a young child, I knew this to be true though I could not understand why I felt that way.

Fast forwarding a couple of decades, I still bear the shame of my childhood. Any discussion about family with a new person must come with a disclaimer describing that my family was unconventional and when I say "mom and dad" I mean my aunt and uncle, and when I say "my sister" I really mean their real daughter. I made it out okay. I had some issues and some close scrapes with things I shouldn't have been involved in, but I have excelled in spite of my difficult start. I am in a committed marriage with an individual who shares my values and we have two beautiful children who are products of a combination of our genetic material. I now dedicate my life and my career to working with all sorts of families in many difficult situations as a family law attorney.

As a family law attorney, I must first concede that without the dissolution of marriage and other non-matrimonial committed relationships with children I would need to either take a second job or develop an expertise in an additional field of law. Whether I am working on a protection from abuse case, providing court-appointed representation for parents whose children have been taken into state custody, a divorce with children, or a custody case without an accompanying divorce, I am continuously cleaning up the messes of individuals who perhaps did not take seriously enough the bond of matrimony or the strong biological connections inherent in parent/child relationships. More often than not, in both the long and short term, it is neither the mother or father who loses, rather, it is the child. As our culture continues to wade through hookup culture and the traditional family unit continues to break down, the cases I deal with get more and more sad. Additionally, the children involved in these cases tend to have significant emotional and mental health concerns as a result of difficulties coping with their familial situation.

This is not to say that adoptive parents, step-parents, and single parents cannot have success in child-rearing. I have known many single parents who undeniably do a stellar job; however, I do not think I know one who would say that they would choose that life if another arrangement was available. Additionally, I believe that for a child, not having access to the individuals from whom your DNA originates can have significant negative impacts. That being said, I believe, as does the legislature of the state in which I reside and practice that the union of two people joined in monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society, that the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in monogamous marriage.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

To make a long story short:

Divorce sucks. Deadbeat dads suck. Bad moms suck. Dysfunctional parents suck. Difficult relationships suck. Single parenting (probably for most) sucks. People suck.

Marriage does not fix ANY of those.

An excellent series of points, all true. Marriage isn't meant to fix them. Marriage (in this case defined as civil marriage and not just lifetime pairing) is a contract. The purpose of a contract is enforceability. Marriage assumes enforcement of the provisions that:

1. Divorce should hurt because monogamy is supposed to be forever.

2. Deadbeat dads have to pay because they are contractually obligated.

3. Mom's have a legal responsibility of care enforceable by the state's interference in their lives and possible removal of the child for their own safety.

4. Dysfunctional parents also have a legal responsibility to provide a home free of conflict in which healthy children can grow enforceable by the state's interference...

5. Single parenting should suck less because the other parent, if they abandon their responsibility in the child rearing department, has to pay and pay a lot.

True marriage is the joining of two people for a lifetime relationship that may or may not include children but is assumed to include monogamy and to supersede selfishness but represent sacrifice and partnership in love and trust. Civil marriage is the contractual formalization of these relationships which special attention paid to protecting the states compelling interest which is child rearing. The community cannot be expected to monitor this and deal with divorces, break ups, abuse and tom-foolery. The state is set up to deal with stuff like this and contracts give it the authority to deal with these things. These are facts of Jurisprudence.

1. I'm not seeing how marriage has any impact whatsoever on points 3 and 4. It's not as though CPS just ignores any situation involving parental figures that were never married.

2. I don't see how marriage actually solves points 2 and 5. As I understand it, the contractual obligation espoused by point 2 is only mandated and enforced by the government after a divorce, so I guess it kind of does seeing as they have to get married in the first place for divorce to be a possibility? But it's not like a deadbeat dad is by definition divorced from the mom. As for point 5, if someone has simply walked out and disappeared, then I'm not really sure how you could even manage to get an official divorce, or how the government is even supposed to enforce child support payments.

3. Please elaborate on point 1. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're going to make a reasonable argument with this, but from what you've said thus far I get the impression that you're espousing divorce as a punishment bestowed upon the couple by the government, and that this is somehow a good thing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

An excellent series of points, all true. Marriage isn't meant to fix them. Marriage (in this case defined as civil marriage and not just lifetime pairing) is a contract. The purpose of a contract is enforceability. Marriage assumes enforcement of the provisions that:

Yes, a transactional contract.

1. Divorce should hurt because monogamy is supposed to be forever.

Supposed to be? There's no supposed to be. Marriage isn't woven into the fabric of the cosmos. It is a transactional contract designed and codified by humans regardless of their proclivity to engage in extra-marital affairs. Aside from the fact that most humans don't factually practice monogamy, and the majority of marriages continue through sexual relations with other partners, there are also a number of cultures that practice polygamous marriages.

Monogamy isn't the goal of marriage, because strict monogamy occurs irrespective of married status, such as between two committed partners who never enter into any contract, and marriage contracts exist in the absence of monogamy.

2. Deadbeat dads have to pay because they are contractually obligated.

Matthew. I consider you a vastly more cognizant and competent human being to Tree, so stop emulating him. The USA is not the world. The laws of the USA are not the laws of the world. Provincial declarations of absolutism on the internet are bloody stupid. Sorry, but I expect better of you.

3. Mom's have a legal responsibility of care enforceable by the state's interference in their lives and possible removal of the child for their own safety.

In which states?

4. Dysfunctional parents also have a legal responsibility to provide a home free of conflict in which healthy children can grow enforceable by the state's interference...

In which states?

5. Single parenting should suck less because the other parent, if they abandon their responsibility in the child rearing department, has to pay and pay a lot.

Should have to pay =/= have to pay

True marriage is the joining of two people for a lifetime relationship that may or may not include children but is assumed to include monogamy and to supersede selfishness but represent sacrifice and partnership in love and trust.

Provincial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamía, "state of marriage to many spouses")[1][2][3][4] is the practice of marrying multiple spouses. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, sociologists call this polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called a group marriage.

What marriages means to you is personal, but is factually not ubiquitous among all the varied human groups culturally and historically, nor even among the national/cultural group you belong to.

You're trying to convert your ought to an is.

Civil marriage is the contractual formalization of these relationships which special attention paid to protecting the states compelling interest which is child rearing.

A wholly modern arrangement, and one found only in a minority of nation states.

The community cannot be expected to monitor this and deal with divorces, break ups, abuse and tom-foolery. The state is set up to deal with stuff like this and contracts give it the authority to deal with these things.

The state is set up to deal with maintain marriages? You've got it entirely the wrong way round. Rather, you misinterpret the contemporary result of the long, slow evolution of the power of the state, the increase in recognized human rights, and the peculiarity of the governmental system under which you live as some kind of cosmic absolute.

These are facts of Jurisprudence.

Except they're factually not facts.

 

[MatthewLee]

I am not going to challenge how you feel about your kids, consequently it would probably be best if you didn't seek to declare to me how I feel about my son just because I don't share fathership in the same manner as you.

What you would want to do is phrase your skepticism as a question rather than a statement. Your doubt, your inability to imagine my feelings is irrelevant.

The fact is, no bawling is necessary, no terror is necessary, neither flesh nor blood is necessary... if you have not experienced this, you shouldn't comment or at least you should take your [/b]own admonition[/b] to heart.

Your tone policing is futile. I said what I meant and I mean what I said and I would not change a word of it. You need to stop admonishing me because I am a grown man who stands by his words. When I am wrong I admit it, and I stridently believe that I am right in this case. Your admonition is condescending and insulting as well as minimizing to my point. I have been a stepchild. I have been on the other end of this. I am not stating skepticism but rather a biological fact that a step-parent does not have the emotional connection a properly bonded biological parent does. He shares a Y chromosome with his father...

He shares only his mother with you. Think about that for a moment. The only parent he has, he has to share with you, someone he doesn't really know. You may feel worlds of affection for this child but he didn't choose you, his mother did and he simply has to accept that and go with it... To illustrate exactly that this means let me ask you... Would you gladly share your mother with someone you've only known a year? I have a biological father shaped hole in my heart which was filled by knowing my father. My experience is relevant and the statement I just made is common. Would you suggest you understand my position? I understand the position of the child in your life only too well from experience.

And I would say that you are still mistaking the role of a parent with the role of a partner.

Most married couples have at least one affair in their lives, and this doesn't magically mean they are no longer valid parents. You are either smuggling back in your proposition here because it can't stand up to scrutiny independently, or because you are not clear in your reasoning.

As for college. I'll go one step further. I've already opened an account for his university costs that I alone am paying into.

And back to the mistaken addition of partnership: I've already loved and supported his mother for 15 years, so it looks like I check even that irrelevant box too!

Does your significant other know you are airing your relationship out on these forums? If you don't want comments on these things you shouldn't offer them but here goes...

OK so you have known this woman and supported her for 15 years... but you only just met the child she had with another man who she had a relationship with five years ago? So where were you for the beginning of her pregnancy and the infancy she says you missed? What does this even mean? This doesn't make any logical sense unless you have withheld details for some reason but why only offer the ones that make this sound awful?

Do you even think about what it says about you that the woman you loved and supported for 15 years made you wait to meet her child? What does love and supported mean to you? You just said "she raised him, changed his diapers, fed and clothed him, and I just waltzed in once all the dirty work was done." None of your narrative makes sense and my original statement stands. You aren't married to her so he isn't your step-son by definition... look up the word and savor the definition. You aren't his biological father and you haven't adopted him by law so you calling him your son is quaint and optimistic... but in no sense true no matter how much high hope you have. You have zero legal rights to this child and therefore have assumed zero responsibility for him as far as the state is concerned. If you are not willing to make a contractual obligation the word "father" might be a bit premature. Am I wrong about this? Have you formally adopted him to make it legal or is that "antiquated" for you?

If you don’t think that you’ll still be with her in that amount of time you are cruel for forming a relationship with a child that you know may end…

Even were that the case, you are still employing your own faulty premise in your argument. Even if his mother and I don't stay together, I will still be his daddy - that's never going to change.

I admire the fact that you say this and it's wonderful that you think it. Words are free, buddy. Until you formally adopt the child with his mothers blessing or marry her it's basically on your word alone that either of them is supposed to believe this and statistics would suggest you aren't likely to follow through on this if the two of you have a break up. Aside from the glaringly obvious fact that that she might at some point decide she doesn't want you in his life anymore and then where will you be? Did you forget that she was in this equation too and has a will that might in the future not include you? What if you two break up and she takes up with another fellow who doesn't take kindly to you being around? You keep telling me I have faulty premises when your logic extends to less than one dimension of emotional situations.

***NEWSFLASH***
Emotions are often illogical and cause unpredictable outcomes.

If you won’t leave… why not commit formally instead of just expecting this family to take your word?

Well, firstly, because I don't believe there's even so much as a fragment of logic to your proposition.

What is marriage but 'my word'? I can get married and then get divorced in exactly the same way, with all the consequent creation of a false sense of emotional security and letting the children down!

So it's very hard to respond when you are so unclear in your arguments, and those arguments are predicated wholly on that which I am denying the validity of.

Secondly, this family is my family. How am I not also taking his mother's word? There's absolute parity here, not some scenario in which only the male has a duty.

Marriage is a contract. That's putting your word in writing and giving it state enforceability because you believe that you can uphold the terms of the contract and require it to perform your full duties in the event of unforeseen circumstances which require adjudication . You keep telling people they don't use logic but you fail to show where logic was faulty. The arguments aren't faulty, your understanding of the most basic components and duties of the citizen is faulty. The fact that you deny the validity of the need for you to make a formal, contractual commitment before law to a woman who you want to allow you to raise her child speaks volumes. If my arguments are so unclear how you tell what their predicated upon?

It's not your family, it's her family until she takes your name or otherwise grants you legal authority. You live in a fantasy world if you think otherwise. If you want proof of this see what happens if you break up and try to see the child when she doesn't want you to. You'll find out real quick that it's her family and she's letting you into it on the strength of your word and nothing else. You haven't paid your dues, buddy, and you want the bonanza and the credit without dues. Is she against marriage like you are? Have you asked her if she wanted to be married? Would you do it if she wanted it to?

See, there is a reason that when adopting a child you can’t just walk into an orphanage like it’s a puppy mill and say
“I’d like that one! I love him just like my own flesh and blood and I’ll take care of him always! Can I have him!?”

This statement might be enough for you because perhaps you know you are a good enough person to take care of a child and love them forever. For the state, however, it may require a little more assurance before signing over the title to the little tyke… they may need a bit more evidence of your conviction. Raising kids is hard, expensive, and heartbreaking. It’s not all candy cane breath at Christmastime.

:lol:

Your arguments are funny, Matthew. You're trying to make my argument for me, but then formulate it in a way that has no bearing on me or the way I think.

As for the state, it's a bureaucratic hurdle, not a divine sign of glowing morality.

That is why your not ready to be a father. You seem to think this is all a big friendly game and that people never change. The state protects children from hastily made bad decisions with those "bureaucratic hurdles." At least that's how it's supposed to work but nothing and no one is perfect. Except for Jesus and even he was adopted.

What will you do when the little one turns fifteen and says,
“You’re not my real father! I don’t have to listen to you!” Mark my words, it’s a prophecy not a speculation. It will happen.

Can I have a toke on your crystal ball? :lol:

What will I say? I'll say 'Duhhh' in response to 'you're not my real father' - as it's not like we've ever pretended otherwise, so it'll hardly be some kind of powerful revelation.

And as for the rest of the sentiment, I will respond the same way as a biological father with a 15 year old who says "I don't have to listen to you" - I'll shout angrily, threaten to throw him out of my house, then sulk for a few days! :lol: :lol:

You're just not grasping this at all, are you Matthew? How does being a biological parent preclude the actions of a 15 year old? How does being a biological father genetically grant you the ability to deal with difficulties in a child's development?

I had a biological father, Matthew, I know what they're capable and incapable of. The fact of being a biological father is of literally no consequence comparative to the brain, sensitivity, and understanding of the person behind the role. At 15, I told him he wasn't my dad, just my father and that that was hardly something to be pleased with, that he'd chosen to have kids but I assuredly didn't choose to have him... and so on and so on.

My biological father was utterly useless at dealing with this, so why would it make any difference me not being biologically my son's father?

You haven't drawn any logical line between your ideas, just left the blank is if it were pregnant with meaning.

Your failure to see reality by putting your hands over your eyes is not a failure in my argument. You keep using that word logic and I'm not sure you fully grasp its meaning. You also completely fail at grasping subtext and that may be why you fail to understand. I can't teach you all that don't know here, only time and experience can and yet you already think you have a pretty good bead in this whole child raising thing. The fact that you are so confident and haughty that you can just waltz in and raise a kid that's not yours with no trouble at all seems to me an indication that you may not fully grasp what you are undertaking. High ideals, a good education, and a can-do attitude mean precisely jack shit in what you're attempting. You have the opportunity to show a little humility, make a true commitment, and change a child's life. You also have the opportunity to go in thinking you know everything there is to know about life and the world and truly cause harm to another human being whose needs you haven't the faintest concept of.

The fact that you would subject this relationship to public scrutiny by bringing it here and brag about it like somehow you're the father of the year because... you've been a "father" for a year... well... that speaks for itself.

Therefore, in the eyes of the state, making a lifetime conviction to a mate can be one indication you’re ready to handle this kind of responsibility.

You misunderstand entirely. The state has precisely zero fucking business in ascertaining whether I am ready to handle fatherhood any more than you're obliged to check in with the government each time you decide to copulate with your wife.

No, you misunderstand the states compelling interest in the welfare of children. In fact, the state asks for a birth certificate so yeah, they obviously want to know when successful copulation has occurred because... and I'll say this again hoping you get it... they have an interest in continuing the population and helping children stay healthy and alive.
I don't care what business you think they have because I know what business that they SAY they have. The microcosm is the macrocosm therefore what happens in families affects the world. Your thinking "bollacks!" or "Crackpottery" or some other word you use to minimize and dodge points right now, right? Was I right? You'd never admit it but you know I'm right. Now follow the pattern, say one of those words and tell me I haven't used logic then tell me how I should be arguing this point.

Try and get custody of this child, for example, in the terrible and unthinkable event something happens to your significant other as just boyfriend and girlfriend.

Why are we engaging in all these fantasies, Matthew? Are you seriously asking me now to imagine my girlfriend dying just to respond to your argument about the necessity of marriage on a discussion forum? :|

If you haven't already considered and prepared for this with legal documentation and rock solid plans you aren't ready to be a parent. The fact you think it's so amusing and dismiss it is concerning.

You’ll quickly find in most jurisdictions that without that ring you have little or no say in what happens to the child and that they will be taken from you and given to blood relations who have legal rights.

Even in the not-so-civilized world, they have various forms of civil unions too, Matthew. These confer all the state recognition of a partnership without marriage. Also, there is common law scenarios in most countries. Finally, you are used to living under the power of the Leviathan, but other countries do not have such strong centralized states.

Yeah, in Somalia there is little to no government. Wanna live there? Wow, what freedom they enjoy.

In the eyes of the law, you are no relation to this child until you make a formal commitment for this reason.

I expect that's not even true in the U.S. but I am not about to go looking through U.S. common law at 9 a.m.

So you don't know, but you're perfectly willing to tell me I'm wrong. See a pattern here? You are incorrect. In the state I live in especially you are wrong. I won't bother linking statutes, you can find them easy enough for any state in the US and for almost any civilized nation. I will be happy to entertain citation and admit I am incorrect.

Your assurance you love the child is not enough proof for them to give you someone else’s child. You're formal declaration of contractual obligation to be held legally accountable for the child's welfare, on the other hand, is.

All of your statements here are contesting with one another as to which could be more wrong, and which could be more certain. You are mistaken Matthew. Mistaken on the premises, mistaken on the conclusions. I doubt you are even correct for the U.S. where, if a child was raised by a parent under common law, the state would presumably see fit to continue that affair rather than separate the child from his or her family. If not, then that's a fault in YOUR state, not a universal.

This is a gross speculation on your part and I believe that you that you are incorrect. You should look up common law marriage statutes (where they exist) and also de facto parenthood and how hard it is to establish. Not all the states even entertain common law anymore and the standards differ. They don't give kids to the parent who seems to want it the most in the US. You would have to get a lawyer and fight for the child in a long and expensive process that may not turn out the way you want it even if you had established common law marriage. I have already told you I have a family lawyer in my family who is in court with these kinds of questions all the time. If my premises and conclusions are incorrect provide me with evidence and statutes which contradict my claim or admit you are wrong and move on. If you can prove me wrong I will admit it. Do you have the same courage of conviction or are you just a blowhard contrarian?

You get to proclaim you know what you’re talking about after you make a commitment to a woman, make a child with her, take care of her and her exhausting needs and emotional napalm for nine months….

Fuck off Matthew; I do not need to jump your manufactured hoops to get your approval. Your acceptance of facts has literally nothing to do with this situation. However, your condescension does show you to be in Christian automaton mode.

You're like a university bot... when challenged accuse someone of religious bias. Wow, two F-bombs so far... really got under your skin eh? Here's a clue... if they were MY manufactured hoops SHE wouldn't have complained you didn't jump through them either. My approval is meaningless, that's true. The emotional connection those "manufactured hoops" create is not meaningless but the fact that you call them that shows you don't understand their value.

Then help her through the six months of no sleep, constant diaper changes, feedings and terrifying rides to the doctor when the fever just won’t go away. The word “Dad” is an earned title and you have to put in the work.

Ok, great. So I will just go and invent a time machine in order to do all this...?

No. Just acknowledge it with humility.

Ok, well how about the fact that I've helped her through the last year where she was under a lot of financial, medical, and vocational restraints which resulted in me juggling my jobs around so I could take the kid to school in the morning, pick him up in the afternoon, shop and cook his dinner, read him bed-time stories as I tucked him in?

No? That doesn't count because Matthew says the first 6 months counts, but no following set of 6 months does?

What about biological fathers who fail to do all this? Recall, your argument is meant to be an argument for marriage, but as usual you have forgotten the fact that being married or not married in all your scenarios is wholly interchangeable.

So daddy puts sperm in mummy, then she does all the rearing for the first 6 months, therefore he's not actually a real daddy?

Oh wait, that's entirely contradictory to your own argument, meaning that none of the above really has anything to do with it, and ultimately you're just building a stack of bullshit on a foundation of bollocks.

The fact that you think a year of shuttling and inconvenience even comes close only speaks to the utter lack of knowledge with this you are entering this and your unwillingness to admit it. It's wonderful that you're trying but you have not really exceeded the mantle of babysitter yet. Babysitters, nannies, and housekeepers do the same amount of work and have great affection for their charges. That doesn't make them the child's mother. God forbid there are sacrifices but that you bring them up to justify yourself indicates your selfishness has already begun to edge you into doubt. In twelve years you write me a note and let me know how well it's gone and I'll apologize profusely in public and praise your merits. Until then unless you make a formal commitment to that child and his mother you are a nanny or a big brother as far as the law is concerned. You demonstrate a terrifying lack of humility before the undertaking you propose.

You used the word “step-dad”. Step-dad means you married his mother.

No it doesn't. If you look again, I was drawing distinction to the point that this is the term used: step-dad, but there's no 'step' about it. Kindly at least acknowledge what I say before ranting at me about irrelevancies.

Words mean stuff and, no, it doesn't mean what you think it means. It means you married the woman. The definitions are pretty clear legally and formally.

" Step-father
Also found in: Dictionary, Acronyms.
STEP-FATHER. In Latin vitricus, is the husband of one's mother who is not the father of the person spoken of."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Step-father

Now admit you were wrong or prove me wrong. "Balderdash! I don't have to prove anything you!" Did I do it... did I write what you thought? Was I close? lol

Here is some more fun:

"A father is the male parent of a child. Besides the paternal bonds of a father to his children, the father may have a parental, legal, and social relationship with the child that carries with it certain rights and obligations. An adoptive father is a male who has become the child's parent through the legal process of adoption. A biological father is the male genetic contributor to the creation of the infant, through sexual intercourse or sperm donation. A biological father may have legal obligations to a child not raised by him, such as an obligation of monetary support. A putative father is a man whose biological relationship to a child is alleged but has not been established. A stepfather is a male who is the husband of a child's mother and they may form a family unit, but who generally does not have the legal rights and responsibilities of a parent in relation to the child."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father

Either you are married and arguing against marriage (??????)...

Even were that the case.... so?

Because if you're married and arguing against marriage your a monstrous hypocrite.

.... or you are neither the child’s dad or step-dad, you’re just a male figure in his life.

Sorry... who are you again? Oh yes, that's right - a nobody. I am not sure quite why a nobody thinks they get to declare aspects of my life as if from authority, but that nobody is sorely mistaken. Perhaps that nobody should turn off his Christian automaton unit and start employing a little humanity 1.0 instead?

I'm not the one who aired his life here for discussion. I'm somebody, of course, you've proven that. If I was nobody you would ignore me. When did I say anything about your life from a Christian perspective? I think you may have your stereotypes turned up too high.

This is not semantics, it's the language.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Step-father

It's neither semantics nor language - it's your fiction you are seeking to impose on me.

Go look into the dictionary and then realize I'm trying to assert reality. Then look into the statutes of your country as to how step-parents are defined and let me know how it works out in arrangements like yours. I will admit I am wrong if your jurisdiction feels differently.

If you aren’t willing to commit and to tie yourself to him in the eyes of the state and the law, which is what would be required for you to take custody in most jurisdictions if something happened to his mother, then you aren’t his dad or his stepdad.

I don't conceive of the state as being the provider of legitimacy as to whether I am his dad or not. The person I concede to, in that regard, is him. So long as he thinks of me as his daddy, I am his daddy, and ain't no internet moron vacuously propounding their provincial and religious strictures or modern nation state going to convince me otherwise.

Then you are not living in reality and the child may suffer because of it. What you conceive is irrelevant. The law governs these things and you and the child are bound by it. What he thinks means nothing in a custody dispute where legal custody is clearly defined by family ties. Especially at the age he is at now. Ask yourself this... is he a credible witness in a murder case? So why would his opinion of who should be his legal guardian really seem important to the court?

It is a legal solemnization of the relationship between two people in front of the state, family, and world. It is a promise made in front of people whose opinion you respect, which means if you break it, all those people know you can’t keep a promise.

Because that's what folks care about 10 years later when their marriage is failing, their spouse cheating, and their life falling apart... what will the neighbours think!!??

No, this isn't the pre-1960's.

So your relationship is the one that's gonna make it though? You are better than all those other people who marry, divorce and leave their kids behind? You can guarantee that you'll be there because you're a modern man with modern ideas. You don't need to make legal, contractual obligations... everyone can believe just your word! Tell that to the bank and see if you get a mortgage. Tell that to your intended son when something happens and he ends up with his grandparents because you didn't adopt him. Worse, when he ends up with his bio dad who doesn't want him. I have seen this happen.

It is how you demonstrate to the society and families you live in you are ready to raise children and therefore can be trusted with the resources to do so.

Firstly, you're living in the past. This tribal/community/family unit is a premodern notion which I wasn't even raised under myself, so I am assuredly not restrained by it. Secondly, I don't give two hoots about demonstrating anything to anyone aside from those I love. Thirdly, I reject the stupid pseudo-magical notion that signing a bit of paper ensures you are ready to raise children, or that doing so evokes a trust in me. Anyone who thinks these things clearly doesn't think very much at all, and consequently I feel no need to persuade them. They can stew in their own myopic prejudices for all I care.

If you think the family unit is a pre-modern notion which you are not restrained by... why do care so much if he thinks you're his Daddy? Or if she thinks it? If you only care what the people you love think... what happens if you fall out of love with her? Will you leave? You said relationships were a toss of the coin, right? So are you tossing a coin on a child's emotional future? I had a lot of people like you run in and out of my life. They all sounded exactly alike and they all said forever. Why do I believe in marriage? Because I have seen what it's like when practiced right... and when done wrong.

Children are human beings and they deserve, at the minimum, a stable mother and father of their own line to raise them, support them, love them and raise them.

Honestly, you're getting just as bad as Tree.

Tree had some excellent points and was spot on many times in some of the things he said about marriage and child raising. He also nailed the fact you are most likely, "a reprehensible human being" if you think you can be a kids dad without making any kind of formal commitment in this matter or even researching what would happen in an emergency if you needed to assert custodial rights. You haven't even addressed that to me yet and I wonder if you can? I'll happily admit I'm wrong just to know that you have a backup plan.

Ok, so in my son's case, he didn't get what he deserved, according to you, amirite? His father was an ass who abandoned his mother. It's not his mother's fault that she did everything she could to raise him without a father, working multiple jobs, and giving endless love to her son.

So now, I have stepped up to raise, support, and love her son, but even though you're telling me that this is what every child deserves, you're also trying to tell me that I haven't done enough.

Make up your mind, Matthew. Which is the preferable scenario here? My son dadless, or my son with a dad who's not married to his mother?

The preferable scenario is your son with a legally declared step-father and not just a child being raised by his mothers boyfriend with no legal ties biological or otherwise. All the good intentions in the world don't equal legal adoption in the mind of a human who you want to parent and if you debate that... you know jack squat about humans, buddy. Admirable that you want to step up and help. Now prove it and become his legal guardian. Have you even asked her if she would let you? There is a chance she may not see this as necessary, sure. There is also a chance it would mean to the world to her that you offered. Or... perhaps she may not think you're ready.

Sex makes babies, and babies require money and care. Who will provide this money and care and how does the state enforce this? It's called marriage.

Utter bollocks. States are not in the business of legally gating the production of babies via means testing. Do you have to go and fill in a form every time you desire to copulate bare-back with your wife?

No, then your argument is bollocks.

Only totalitarian dictatorships and theocracies get this involved with where their citizens put their whangers,

You've got completely the wrong idea about marriage and the role of the state. Marriage is not for the benefit of the state, it's not because the state needs reassurance about the intentions of the would-be parents. It's for the parents to oblige the state to recognize that their shared goods are inheritable by the other party. It's a contract where the state agrees to recognize the ramifications of their choice, not about condoning their choice. The state has nothing to say in that regard, which is actually the argument for same-sex marriage incidentally.

You're a genuine romantic. Surprise no one snapped you up before now! You are wrong, of course. Go back and read that statute from the Constitution of the state of Maine I posted a few pages back where they outline why the state has a compelling interest in monogamous heterosexual marriage and you may realize that there are more things in heaven and on Earth, buddy, than you realize. I'm sure you think that's just provincial hogwash, though, lol.

You can think that deconstructing things to make them seem more comfortable for personal freedom will improve life for everyone but it's an experiment which risks children's health and safety on the same kind of hopeful yet misguided logic the hippies employed.

Leaving aside your errors, you're nigh on a 100 years out of date, Matthew. Individualism is already here, it's already spread around the world: community & family have been overtaken by market forces. You might as well be using the internet to argue against those new fangled steam machines. That mechanical horse has bolted.

[/quote]

Do market forces influence you relationship with your significant other and your son? Is it maybe deeper than that? Where does individualism fit into that, I wonder?

Look, you can call me all the provincial putzes in the world but at the end of the day... you can blame religion, or antiquated chattel concepts... but YOU want a stable monogamous relationship with a woman and to be the father of her child... you can't just wish that into existence. You have to either be the kids bio dad, or you have to do it through law... If you deny this point but can't prove the contrary or you simply are unwilling or unable then maybe you should think twice before you get his heart involved. The only thing worse than the dad who fathered and bounced before he got to know him is the dad who got to know him, and be loved by him,... and then bounced. I know this from personal experience multiple times and I have lived in multiple broken families with many interesting legal nightmares. You can minimize my experience or you can learn from it but it seems like you believe you have nothing to learn from anyone. Now, you may commence to tell me all the F'us and balderdashery and hogwattle and yada yada but in the end... can you make a substantive argument to refute this essential point or will you just sputter and tell me my logic is bad and I'm a old fashioned bigot and swear at me some more?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Your tone policing is futile. I said what I meant and I mean what I said and I would not change a word of it. You need to stop admonishing me because I am a grown man who stands by his words. When I am wrong I admit it, and I stridently believe that I am right in this case. Your admonition is condescending and insulting as well as minimizing to my point.

You're damn right it is, and when I've got some time later, I will come back and insultingly and condescendingly admonish you further.

 

[MatthewLee]

To make a long story short:

Divorce sucks. Deadbeat dads suck. Bad moms suck. Dysfunctional parents suck. Difficult relationships suck. Single parenting (probably for most) sucks. People suck.

Marriage does not fix ANY of those.

An excellent series of points, all true. Marriage isn't meant to fix them. Marriage (in this case defined as civil marriage and not just lifetime pairing) is a contract. The purpose of a contract is enforceability. Marriage assumes enforcement of the provisions that:

1. Divorce should hurt because monogamy is supposed to be forever.

2. Deadbeat dads have to pay because they are contractually obligated.

3. Mom's have a legal responsibility of care enforceable by the state's interference in their lives and possible removal of the child for their own safety.

4. Dysfunctional parents also have a legal responsibility to provide a home free of conflict in which healthy children can grow enforceable by the state's interference...

5. Single parenting should suck less because the other parent, if they abandon their responsibility in the child rearing department, has to pay and pay a lot.

True marriage is the joining of two people for a lifetime relationship that may or may not include children but is assumed to include monogamy and to supersede selfishness but represent sacrifice and partnership in love and trust. Civil marriage is the contractual formalization of these relationships which special attention paid to protecting the states compelling interest which is child rearing. The community cannot be expected to monitor this and deal with divorces, break ups, abuse and tom-foolery. The state is set up to deal with stuff like this and contracts give it the authority to deal with these things. These are facts of Jurisprudence.

1. I'm not seeing how marriage has any impact whatsoever on points 3 and 4. It's not as though CPS just ignores any situation involving parental figures that were never married.

2. I don't see how marriage actually solves points 2 and 5. As I understand it, the contractual obligation espoused by point 2 is only mandated and enforced by the government after a divorce, so I guess it kind of does seeing as they have to get married in the first place for divorce to be a possibility? But it's not like a deadbeat dad is by definition divorced from the mom. As for point 5, if someone has simply walked out and disappeared, then I'm not really sure how you could even manage to get an official divorce, or how the government is even supposed to enforce child support payments.

3. Please elaborate on point 1. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're going to make a reasonable argument with this, but from what you've said thus far I get the impression that you're espousing divorce as a punishment bestowed upon the couple by the government, and that this is somehow a good thing.

As for point 1... Divorce should be hard. Divorce destroys lives, wrecks children, and creates legal ramifications that extend into old age for both parties. Marriage carries with it some wonderful benefits but those are only extended to those willing to undertake a contract with one another in front of the state. It's sort of like getting credit, in some sense. It is a duty you agree to discharge faithfully and a description and quantification of that duty. Divorce is a failure of said duty. It should be a sobering consideration before marriage is even a thought. Sure, people can just be going steady and have kids... it happens all the time. There is, fortunately, some legal protection for people in these arrangements but the legal benefits, and consequences, of marriage are far larger in magnitude. Child rearing should not be done lightly, marriage the same.

 

[MatthewLee]

Your tone policing is futile. I said what I meant and I mean what I said and I would not change a word of it. You need to stop admonishing me because I am a grown man who stands by his words. When I am wrong I admit it, and I stridently believe that I am right in this case. Your admonition is condescending and insulting as well as minimizing to my point.

You're damn right it is, and when I've got some time later, I will come back and insultingly and condescendingly admonish you further.

Your relationship with tree makes much more sense to me now.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Your relationship with tree makes much more sense to me now.

Quite right too. I treat anyone the same way who assumes they know everything and sets about castigating others on their assumptions when they manifestly know fuck all relevant.

You're labouring under a suite of terminally stupid assumptions that have nothing to do with me, with my life, or with my attitudes or emotions. You are projecting all of this onto me then asking me to account for your errors.

Of course, I am not obliged to be corralled by loaded questions and assumptions. I am not even obliged to challenge those loaded questions and assumptions - it is perfectly ok for me simply mock the close-minded superciliousness that produces these loaded assumptions. I can have fun at your expense when you don't bother to learn the factual situation first, but instead emote reality at me.

If you want me to show you respect, then stop acting in such a narcissistic, self-righteous manner. Ask questions, don't tell me the facts of my life because every single person reading knows very well that you don't know the facts of my life aside from those I give you.

You are so wrong, so far from reality, it's genuinely amusing the spectacle of bullshit you're creating. From previous interactions, I had assumed you were a reasonable chap, but you are assuredly showing not even so much of an inkling of reasonableness here. You've decided on a set of ideas and simply projected them onto me in the absence of knowledge.

If I decide to tell you about my private life, then you're going to be red-faced and ashamed of your behavior and assumptions, because you will realize quickly that should have lent me the modicum of respect of asking me first about details you know fuck all about, rather than thinking that your personal experiences are ubiquitously relevant.

 

[Gnug215]

I am the child of a mother who did not value marriage or monogamy. Her love affair with substances and various men (many of whom I was forced to call "dad") created an environment unfit for any child. Had it not been for my maternal great aunt and her husband, I would likely have landed in state custody, or worse. They took me in at three months old and raised me through adulthood. They remain the people I call "mom and dad" to date, despite my biological mother always being just present enough to feel like I owe her something, but far enough away to convince herself that the debt remains one-sided. For years I watched her bounce from relationship to relationship thinking that it was only a matter of time until she found the right one. I truly believed that my unconventional living arrangement was temporary and that eventually, she would be stable enough to care for me. I realized that this was not the truth at the age of 9 when she had another child with a new fiance and I was not in the equation that was their new life together. They never did get married.

For many years, other children prodded me about why I didn't have a mom and dad. It was not that I did not have a mom and dad. It is a basic principle of biology that to have been conceived, carried to term, and born that I must have. I had parents who were raising me and who loved me as their own. I was even lucky enough for those people to be actual family, but it was not and is not the same as being raised by the people who created me. Even as a young child, I knew this to be true though I could not understand why I felt that way.

Fast forwarding a couple of decades, I still bear the shame of my childhood. Any discussion about family with a new person must come with a disclaimer describing that my family was unconventional and when I say "mom and dad" I mean my aunt and uncle, and when I say "my sister" I really mean their real daughter. I made it out okay. I had some issues and some close scrapes with things I shouldn't have been involved in, but I have excelled in spite of my difficult start. I am in a committed marriage with an individual who shares my values and we have two beautiful children who are products of a combination of our genetic material. I now dedicate my life and my career to working with all sorts of families in many difficult situations as a family law attorney.

As a family law attorney, I must first concede that without the dissolution of marriage and other non-matrimonial committed relationships with children I would need to either take a second job or develop an expertise in an additional field of law. Whether I am working on a protection from abuse case, providing court-appointed representation for parents whose children have been taken into state custody, a divorce with children, or a custody case without an accompanying divorce, I am continuously cleaning up the messes of individuals who perhaps did not take seriously enough the bond of matrimony or the strong biological connections inherent in parent/child relationships. More often than not, in both the long and short term, it is neither the mother or father who loses, rather, it is the child. As our culture continues to wade through hookup culture and the traditional family unit continues to break down, the cases I deal with get more and more sad. Additionally, the children involved in these cases tend to have significant emotional and mental health concerns as a result of difficulties coping with their familial situation.

This is not to say that adoptive parents, step-parents, and single parents cannot have success in child-rearing. I have known many single parents who undeniably do a stellar job; however, I do not think I know one who would say that they would choose that life if another arrangement was available. Additionally, I believe that for a child, not having access to the individuals from whom your DNA originates can have significant negative impacts. That being said, I believe, as does the legislature of the state in which I reside and practice that the union of two people joined in monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society, that the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in monogamous marriage.

Hi, and welcome to the forum.

This was a good but sad read. I'm happy to hear it turned out well for you.

The problem with these things will always be the children. I don't think it's ideal to jump from partner to partner, but if people can't behave otherwise, then that's their issue. However, as soon as children arrive on the scene, I think they have an obligation to create a stable environment.

I can understand that the state has an interest in nurturing the institution of marriage, but I think beyond that, it should not discriminate against other arrangements. Nor should the issue of marriage vs. non-marriage-arrangements be made into a moral issue, that certain groups (and previously the majority of society) can beat people over the head with, which has been the case.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That being said, I believe, as does the legislature of the state in which I reside and practice that the union of two people joined in monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society, that the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in monogamous marriage.

Do you recognize the same (in parity) values inherent in states with polygamous marriages, with consequent state interests in said marriages?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Let's try a quick analogy to see if some reason can permeate the nonsense.

Imagine, Matthew, if I declared that the reason you had married your wife was really just about inheriting her family's wealth.

Of course, I could know no such thing but that wouldn't actually stop me from typing the words in a confident declarative format.

Imagine the entirety of my argument was: I've seen other people get married for that reason, so therefore you got married for that reason. It wouldn't stand to reason at all, would it? One could not draw generalized motivations for each and every single individual just because of the reported actions of a few people. That X happened before, doesn't actually legitimize the claim of X happening again in an entirely different case.

So how could you respond to that accusation?

Well, first I would submit that you would feel as if you are being personally attacked. Your motivations are being impugned with no justification. I would guess you would feel there is little reason for me to make these suggestions except to be nasty to you, because they certainly achieve nothing. You wouldn't assume that other people would be convinced about your personal motivations by my ignorant declarations.

You could just say 'no, you're wrong' but what if I keep insisting I am right, then adding further accusatory declarations on top of that? Perhaps I could talk about imagined futures where you murdered your wife in terribly nefarious circumstances in order to get at her family's wealth.

It would be preposterous, but I could certainly write the words that formed the sentence that signified that meaning.

So what would be your option? Would you feel obliged to reveal a slew of personal information about your life to justify your own rejection of the accusation? Would you elect to talk about how your wife's family is poor (for example), or reveal other sensitive information to counter the accusation?

Or would you instead do the appropriate equivalent of telling me to go sling my hook?

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that you are being connivingly nasty for the sake of it. You're not getting a kick out of saying these things. You've had a real experience which has left you emotionally troubled. But that emotion is also clouding your judgment here, and you're taking these issues out on me by proxy. If you look at what I've written, you will find your own arguments don't actually make sense - if a child deserves 2 loving parents, then that's what my son now has for the first time. Handwringing about me is not going to make his biological father come back to him when his biological father has never even met him and has made it clear he doesn't even want to know his own son's name.

This isn't a perfect world, Matthew. We can just try to make it a little better, but there can never be an onus on any individual to make the world maximally better. I can't make his real father come back, perhaps you're right that I can never fill the notional hole in his life caused by his biological father's absence, and I certainly can't just become his biological father by any means, but I am hardly to blame for not being able to do those things. What I can give, I will - not because of a piece of paper, not because of societal expectations, not because of traditions and norms... but because it is who I am. And no words you write will have the slightest impact on that.

 

[MatthewLee]

Rhetorically that's wonderful. It also means that you didn't understand my point. It also means that you made a bunch,of claims external to your relationship about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Rhetorically that's wonderful.

Thank you.

It also means that you didn't understand my point.

Does it? Or does it suggest, as said, why the points being made become less relevant than the tone in which they're being made?

It also means that you made a bunch,of claims external to your relationship about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.

Such as?