Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is he the father of all 4.

Yes, he is.

What do you have against birth control?

I have nothing against birth control, why would you think I do?

Two children and a set of twins. This is a birth control issue for you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you religious?

Yes, we are.

What does your religion say about having out of wedlock children? Don't you worry that your children will be considered lower class because you and baby daddy aren't married?

Lower class? No, I do not. It's 2012, not 1940. If you're passing judgement on my children based on my decision to not marry that says more about you than about me. I'm a graduate of Dartmouth & my partner went to UMD & then to Harvard. I am far more stable & much better off than 90% of the couples I know. Our German relatives are also not rooting their relationships in marriage. I think it's an American issue to be so judgmental over unwed couples, yet a slug like Newt can piss all over family values and it's okay. It's a hoot to us.

So, because both of you are graduates of Ivy League schools, this makes a difference, how? Nobody has said that Newt is anyone whom we would wish our children to emulate but I also would not want my children to emulate someone so selfish she refuses to give her children the benefits of their parents being lawfully wed.

It makes no difference, but when people are asking me if we live in a double wide or single, then asking if I were on medicaid I felt I may as well divulge our higher educations. It's not fair for me to put that on the table when people are asking asinine questions about how large of a trailer we live in? We are not poor, trashy Americans that a few of you are insinuating we must be. Again, I do not think many of you have traveling out West recently. Unmarried couples are the norm out in San Fran, not the exception.

I am not refusing to be married. I have not denounced the institution of marriage. We made the decision together to continue our happy, solid, stable relationship as it was with legal checks in place. This is not selfish in any way, this is smarter than most married people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not get married?

We both grew up in family situations where multiple divorces came into play. My mother is on her 3rd marriage. His father was married 4 times, his mother 2 times. I think this stuck with him more than it did with me, but we both agreed that we'd rather put money into a house than a wedding. From there were had a child. There was never a strong desire to marry, everything felt right, and still does.

A marriage license and City Hall cost very little and your children would not be bastards.

My children have two loving parents and they live in a stable home. You are labeling them. It's 2012, not 1812.

Do you consider Heidi Klum's children bastards?
Madonna's first daughter is a bastard in your eyes?
Halle Berry's daughter?
Brad & Angelina's children?
The countless other (double wide living) unwed couples raising happy children. People who marry for the sake of their children and then end up divorcing are okay, as long as they try, right? LOL.

All bastards, not healthy children that are well loved by their parents. Just bastards in your eyes. For shame!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you religious?

Yes, we are.

What does your religion say about having out of wedlock children? Don't you worry that your children will be considered lower class because you and baby daddy aren't married?

There is no religion that condones having children out of wedlock. Married parents give stability to a family. Very few states now recognize common law marriages and if he decided to bring a mistress home, there is nothing you could do.

There are very few religions that recognize same sex marriage, correct? Yet those happen, correct? What does religion have to do with someone's decision not to marry?

What would happen if the woman brought a lover home, I am at a loss as to how this is bad for the woman but a benefit for the man. Please explain.

Anonymous wrote:I'm annoyed OP never answered my questions.

What was your question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your race and ethnicity?

White from Germany

Whew! Well it's alright then. You're not irresponsible; just hippie, crunchy and non-traditional.

LOL in reference to the double standards.

OP, you sound like a really cool and rational person in a wonderful relationship. Congrats to you for doing things your way.

I'm annoyed OP never answered my questions.

Anonymous wrote:

We went the legal way and have papers drawn up for the children, the house, life insurance.

OP, since you went to the trouble of creating a strong and solid legal foundation for your mutual household, from my point of view, you are married (not a "traditional" marriage, but a marriage nonetheless.).

Only legally married people are married in the eyes of the law. She and her partner are doing more that shacking up.

We went the legal way and have papers drawn up for the children, the house, life insurance.

OP, since you went to the trouble of creating a strong and solid legal foundation for your mutual household, from my point of view, you are married (not a "traditional" marriage, but a marriage nonetheless.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you religious?

Yes, we are.

What does your religion say about having out of wedlock children? Don't you worry that your children will be considered lower class because you and baby daddy aren't married?

Lower class? No, I do not. It's 2012, not 1940. If you're passing judgement on my children based on my decision to not marry that says more about you than about me. I'm a graduate of Dartmouth & my partner went to UMD & then to Harvard. I am far more stable & much better off than 90% of the couples I know. Our German relatives are also not rooting their relationships in marriage. I think it's an American issue to be so judgmental over unwed couples, yet a slug like Newt can piss all over family values and it's okay. It's a hoot to us.

So, because both of you are graduates of Ivy League schools, this makes a difference, how? Nobody has said that Newt is anyone whom we would wish our children to emulate but I also would not want my children to emulate someone so selfish she refuses to give her children the benefits of their parents being lawfully wed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you religious?

Yes, we are.

What does your religion say about having out of wedlock children? Don't you worry that your children will be considered lower class because you and baby daddy aren't married?

There is no religion that condones having children out of wedlock. Married parents give stability to a family. Very few states now recognize common law marriages and if he decided to bring a mistress home, there is nothing you could do.

Why do you think it would be less traumatic or damaging to your kids for you two to split up when not married, rather than if married. It is still their family breaking apart. And if you then got together with another man for a few years, then another man...how would that be different for your kids then what you experienced.

I don't get how not being married protects your kids in any way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not get married?

We both grew up in family situations where multiple divorces came into play. My mother is on her 3rd marriage. His father was married 4 times, his mother 2 times. I think this stuck with him more than it did with me, but we both agreed that we'd rather put money into a house than a wedding. From there were had a child. There was never a strong desire to marry, everything felt right, and still does.

A marriage license and City Hall cost very little and your children would not be bastards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is he the father of all 4.

Yes, he is.

What do you have against birth control?