This was so good that I wanna see it again:
**
Yep.
Very nice!!
It always amazes me that people who claim to place a high significance to “traditional values” always ignore the Golden Rule. 
What legal protection would that be? A parent is still liable for the support of their children, no matter what the legal status of the relationship is. Exactly what legal protection is afforded by parents being married? I’ve heard that in some countries there are inheritance issues, but that’s not the case in the US. In the US, the marital status of one’s parents is irrelevant.
And what business is it of mine how my parents handle their relationship? Am I to blame them for not being affectionate enough in public? Are they derelict in their duty to their children if they don’t conduct their private lives in exactly the way everyone else thinks they should? Or should I be grateful that my parents, no matter how the households arranged themselves, loved me and supported me? I know where my money is.
Frankly, I think it’s irresponsible of people to get married “just to give the child a name.” (That always makes me laugh. It’s not as though children born out of wedlock go their whole lives answering to “Anonymous.”) If there’s no other reason to marry, you can bet everyone, including the child, will be miserable–speaking as the cause of my parents’ marriage, I know whereof I speak.
If my mate and I ever have a child together, it would have to be “out of wedlock”, because we cannot legally marry.
I think the equation of “married” with “committed to each other” is . . . wrongheaded at best. There are plenty of people who are quite committed to each other who cannot marry, or do not marry for personal or political reasons.
If two people are civilly married (they have a marriage license from the local courthouse), but never married in any recognized religion, are their children “illegitimate” in the eyes of religion? And since the Catholic church doesn’t permit divorce, is anyone who is the result of a second marriage of a parent (who is not a widow/er) a “bastard” in canon law?
How about a couple who does not get a civil marriage license but marries in services not recognized as “mainstream” by much of society. If two people marry in the nude at the “Church of the Divine Earth Goddess” instead of a Episcopalian chapel, are their future children legitimate?
And how about common law marriages. In many places if a couple lives together for a certain time, they are “married”. In a few places, I believe any couple who presents themselves as “married” regardless of any wedding actually taking place, may be held to be married. What about their children?
Also most adopted children are presumably born to unwed mothers. Why is an adopted child “legitimate” but a counterpart who stays with the birth mother not?
And to make the distinction really arbitrary, most places recognize that when previously unwed parents become married; the children are made legitimate after the fact.
All this makes me feel that the distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children is arbitrary, and based on rather relativistic moral or cultural grounds. Having said that, there is a problem when many children grow up in poverty without their fathers - whether their mothers were unwed, or divorced and abandoned by the fathers. But having an abusive father in the household for propriety’s sake is perhaps a shade worse.
FWIF, I’m a [url=http://www.bastardnation.com/]bastard** and proud of it!
I am the product of an unwed mother and unknown father, adopted by two FABULOUS people. The only people that treated me “differently” was an elder relative who remembered the orphanages and stigmatization of children of unwed parents and people who, upon finding I was adopted, thought me to have antenna and a third eye.
My child is the product of unwed parents, and thank heavens for it! The pain of dealing with a divorce and community assets, &c would have been a royal PITA. I know she wishes she were in a 2 parent home (preferrably with her father), but we’re such a close family I do not really see how different it would be than it is now.
And to someone above re: child born THEN parents marry: That child IS considered borne of the marriage, if the father has been adjudicated such prior (at least in Minnesota)
Feh. PREVIEW IS YOUR FRIEND!
bastard
Of my eight grandchildren, five were born out of wedlock. The parents of three are married to each other now, but chose to start a child before marrying. The fourth and fifth cases are exceptional. In one, one boy made a disastrous marriage, and is trying to get through the paperwork involved in getting a divorce, while working and supporting the woman he truly loves and is committed to and the little boy they had together, so that he can marry her.
Two of the five pre-wedlock children were the daughters of a couple who married after the birth of the third – her decision to wait, as she wanted to be sure of him; he was prepared to marry her before the first girl was born. Their older son has known no other Daddy but the man his mother was married to, but the irrelevant fact is that the paternal genes were contributed by another guy with whom his mother was dating before meeting her husband. He was bad news in a number of ways, and she ditched him while pregnant; my boy who is her husband fell in love with her while she was pregnant, and, although they’ve raised the boy with the truth, he’s really known no other father than my boy. When the kid was five, I was visiting them, and, talking to the mother with the kid immediately present and my boy in the next room, I happened to mention the kid’s blood father in the course of conversation. Turning to little Kyle, I said, “…that’s your Daddy, I mean” to clarify who I was talking about. Kyle looked at me with that “grownups can be so dumb” look that kids get, and said, “No, he’s my father. That’s” (pointing to my son) “my daddy!” (with a big grin as he pointed him out).
I stand corrected! And I think the kid has more wisdom than the 50 collected state legislatures put together, on that subject.
I would never involve myself in the institution of marriage, so for me the question amounts to “Is there anything wrong with having children?”
Of course not.
“If I knew that I was nothing more than the product of a night of fun for my folks, I know I’d feel pretty worthless.”
Maybe your parents should have worked on giving you a little self-esteem. You aren’t your parents. You are you. That’s all you ever can be. If your parents were married, would that make you more worthwhile? Why? Your parents’ accomplishments are theirs, and yours are yours.
If you aren’t committed enough to wed, you aren’t committed enough to have a child.
And if one believes that marriage as currently instituted is an abomination because of its discriminatory practices and do not wish to participate in it for ethical principles?
How about if one isn’t legally permitted to get married?
Does it have to be a legal marriage? Does it have to be a religious marriage? How about social presence and awareness, which parts of those make it count?
A pox upon unthinking litmus tests.