I feel ashamed

I feel ashamed that after five decades…

I wasn’t able to get over my parents’ divorce.

I still want my own family.

I was not ever OK with being excluded from family photos.

I was never OK with my parents doing fun or interesting things with their new families when I was with the other parent.

I was never OK with my parents spending more time with their new families than with me.

I never wanted to deal with step families even if they were nice to me.

I wasn’t strong enough to be totally comfortable with “two homes.”

I was uncomfortable being raised around people who I did not look like and who did not look like me.

I wasn’t OK with my parents’ defintions of family.

I wasn’t OK with my definition of family being different from my parents’.

I was never OK with having family members that each of my parents did not have.

I have not coped well with not having a singular source of my life, a singular, solid foundation of my family.

I was extraordinarily, profoundly co-dependent as a coping mechanism for all this. My children suffered because of my co-dependency.

I am a Christian and so I believe that, not only are we created in God’s image as individuals, his image appears in our first families, father, mother, child, the image of the Trinity, a community of three persons who are one. The union of that community was taken from me against my will as a very young child.  I always wanted it back and I feel ashamed to say that. The replacements did not equal one family, and I feel ashamed to say that. I am supposed to be grateful for receiving familial crumbs that fell from the table of my parents’ post-divorce choices. I was never physically or sexually abused, I was never hungry, and I attended good schools, but family life is more than a good academic education and the absence of overt harm, isn’t it?

According to the secular wisdom of the day, and even some of the religious wisdom, I should have been OK with losing the unity of that community. But I never was. I still feel fractured on the inside and this makes me feel ashamed, like there is something wrong with me.

If everybody gets a “choice,” where was mine?

holy family

Did it every occur to anybody why popular music was often so dark as sexual liberation wore on? I’ve thought about it a lot. See if this post and this song helps to explain why.


“Blended family” is a flawed theoretical model


The professional class and divorce industry have failed to provide children of divorce (and other non-triad arrangements) with an accurate theoretical model to understand their emotions and the ongoing problems they face. One of the reasons they have failed to do this, I believe, is that they put their trust in inaccurate models. One of these is called “blended family.” It serves as a buttress against developing a more accurate model.

It is a very popular model, and many or perhaps even most people rely on it for guiding their expectations as to how a step-family should form and function. The idea is that when two adults are in love, their love, joy and excitement is like a magical ingredient that will make the living arrangements and emotional bonding process go smoothly between people who have no shared past, no shared family tree, and no choice in the matter (the children). As I pointed out the other day, this explains why two otherwise intelligent people were completely comfortable with meeting their new step-children, and the step-children all meeting each other, on their wedding day. They relied on a flawed model.

This theoretical model is so appealing and pervasive that when the blending process does not go well, people will say, “My blended family won’t blend.” These people are under the false assumption that a smooth “blending” process is normal, and that a non-smooth process is abnormal. It is as if they are saying, “I have all the ingredients to bake a cake, but when I try to blend the ingredients together, they won’t blend. What is wrong with the ingredients?” dough blender public domainThis question makes sense when dealing with inert ingredients such as flour, sugar, salt, cocoa, etc. There is an actual chemistry involved in baking, and it is reliable–follow the recipe and you WILL get the desired result. But the “blended” model doesn’t work when applied to children and families, since they are not inert. Plus, family life should not be thought of as being in a blender, or as being subject to metal instruments that push you around so that you go in a direction somebody else wants you to go.

The normal result is to have a difficult time “blending” the family, because to even think of it that way is to embrace a flawed way to think about it. This is because:

I long for the day when we are willing to embrace an accurate theoretical model for understanding first families and the harms that come about when they are destroyed because of the sinful behavior or the adults, or fail to form properly. It seems to me that we find ourselves in this predicimate because we (meaning, secular society) no longer accept “sin” as a legitimate category.

Testimonial: my husband’s parents are divorcing

I received this as a comment on my blog. It was in response to one of my posts about how there is a cultural obsession with happy endings and how this clouds our thinking about what divorce does to the next generation over the long term:

Thank you for writing this. My in-laws are going through a divorce right now, and a lot of this mirrors what my husband is going through. While my MIL is very apologetic, my FIL refuses to acknowledge that this is doing anything to their children. “You’re an adult, this shouldn’t affect you.”- his actual words to my husband as the world was ripped out from under him. Meanwhile he surprises us all by bringing his new -to-us but year-long girlfriend to a large family function without telling his children that he HAD a girlfriend in the first place, and insists they should all be adult about it.

We DO have a cultural obsession with happy endings. Cultural pressure to accept that divorce is “for the better”. It’s all a lie. And it all comes from the father of lies himself. It’s horrible, it’s untrue, and it’s disgusting. I don’t know what’s worse- widespread divorce, or the lies that go along with it.

Divorcing parents are utterly clueless as to how offensive it can be when they bring a new love-interest into the picture. However, their cluelessness is not entirely their fault. As I have said elsewhere, the professional class–the group of people who SHOULD know better, who CLAIM to know better–lies all the time about the harms of divorce. Related to this, is how they have failed to provide an accurate theoretical framework for kids of divorce to understand their emotions and the ongoing struggles they face.

Divorce as ontological brokenness…

Wow, this is really good. It’s by somebody named Paul Maxwell. Here is part of it, but please read the whole thing. He describes the ontological-tearing aspect of divorce really well.

… Divorce “attacks the self, because the self is formed within the belonging and meaning provided by the family. When it is destroyed, the threat of lost place and lost purpose becomes a reality. Without place or purpose, one becomes a lost self” (Andrew Root, Children of Divorce, 21). More than losing myself, though, I lost the ability to relate to my heavenly Father. I certainly didn’t think that God had anything to say, or even cared, about the mangled, overturned vehicle in our living room. I’m sometimes still tempted to think that way today. But he does. He speaks. And he cares.

… This isn’t meant to judge divorced parents, or to deter parents from getting divorced for legitimate reasons (abuse or adultery). The point is to see how, as children of divorce, Jesus Christ is a light in dark places, a hope for the broken, confused, and lonely. We will piece together some themes from Scripture to explain how God understands and relates to children of divorce, in ten points…

Read the whole thing here:




Christian sexual ethics is better than whatever else you’re practicing now

Christian sexual ethics is the best. As Christians, we have every right to be proud of our religion in this regard. It is part of the Good News, for everybody.

Christian sexual ethics means this:

  • People marry somebody of the opposite sex.
  • They wait for marriage to have sex.
  • Marriage is a lifelong relationship.
  • We understand that coitus makes babies. We don’t imagine otherwise.

It provides the most justice to a child in terms of the child’s ontology. When men and women wait until marriage to engage in sex, there are a number of benefits:

  • The men and women do a better job vetting their child’s other parent than men and women who are having sex outside of marriage. This means the child ends up with better parents.
  • Men and women who don’t wait for marriage end up conceiving children with partners who can be inappropriate marriage partners and/or inappropriate parents.
  • The abortion rate is dramatically lower for children conceived inside marriage than those conceived outside marriage.
  • Men who wait for marriage, and who marry women who don’t believe in abortion, never have to face the pain of having their child aborted.
  • Women who wait for marriage don’t have to raise their children alone.
  • Single moms are more likely to need public assistance than married moms.
  • Couples who wait for marriage have dramatically lower divorce rates than those who do not.
  • Couples who wait for marriage create children within that marriage who are connected to both halves of their origins. They create a triad that is a reflection of the Trinity.
  • Kids conceived and raised inside marriage don’t suffer ontological fractures like adoptees, kids of third-party reproduction, kids of divorce, kids who are raised in a single-parent-by-choice household, kids of two moms or two dads.
  • Children who are raised by their own married parents experience poverty at dramatically lower rates than children of unmarried parents.
  • Nobody has a right to pregnancy free-coitus. This is because such a thing does not exist–there is no 100% guarantee for it. Contracepted coitus still carries a risk of pregnancy. It always does. You can lower the chance of pregnancy, but not to zero. Remember this next time you’re tempted to do the wild thing outside of marriage.

I am proud to defend my religion’s teaching on this subject. It is the most just for children. It is the most humane way to understand the human person. Other practices are less humane and less just.





“Jesus had two dads…” and Micah 6:8

You may have seen this catchy slogan among some Christians who support same-sex marriage:

Jesus had two dads and he turned out OK.


daddyshome movieYes, he did have two dads, and yes, he did turn out OK. But that statement is pretty ignorant overall, if you ask me.

Many people on both sides of the marriage debate haven’t connected the dots between divorce/remarriage and same-sex marriage. Why they haven’t, I don’t know.

Maybe it’s because they lived pretty cozy lives as kids, with their own married parents.

So they either advocate for (or oppose) same-sex marriage without having a grasp on the underlying structure of that kind of family.

They fight over sexual sin, the necessity for complementary sexes, equality, or other things.

But those arguments never interested me.

I often feel like the voice of one crying in the desert. Opponents of same-sex marriage don’t seem to like my arguments.

I don’t like their arguments either so I guess that makes us even! lol

I can only speculate as to why they don’t like my arguments.

It is probably that they really believe their arguments are better. But it could be other things as well. I don’t want to speculate why. But they missed such a good opportunity.


You see, exactly like the kids of same-sex marriage, kids in divorce/remarriage arrangements can have:

  • two dads
  • and/or two moms
  • or more

Did you know that? Did you ever put the pieces together that way?

Think about it.  stepmom movie

You probably saw articles like this one: Bride’s Dad Stops Wedding So Stepdad Can Walk Down The Aisle Too

Or this one: To my daughter’s stepmom: I never wanted you here, but thank you

You probably saw this movie: Stepmom

Or this one: The Parent Trap

Or this one: Daddy’s Home

So yea, it’s out there that kids in divorce/remarriage situations were dealing with that kind of confusion. I coined a term for it:

Muddied ontology.

We tell them that the unity of their origins doesn’t really matter.

We make them pretend that the  new people are great additions or substitutions for where they came from.

And maybe the new people are truly good people. I’m not calling their character into question at all. I’m calling attention to the structure, not the individual people in that structure. The structure matters, since it relates to the child’s ontology.

But many people ignored these manifestations of “two moms” and “two dads,” because it didn’t seem like a big deal…

…even though the social science data is clear about the risk factors for those kids.

It’s pretty bad, really. Shorter life spans. Lower educational attainment. Higher risks for addictions and their own divorces. Separation from grandparents. Loneliness. Feeling unwelcome in their churches.

For me, I was raised with multiple divorces and remarriages between my parents. So that’s how I know about this kind of thing.

That’s why I totally dig these family structure arguments. I live and breathe them.

So… back to Jesus.

“Jesus had two dads and he turned out OK,” promotes injustice.

People want to believe that their choices are all good. That’s normal.  I don’t fault them for that.

So they like that slogan since it seems like Biblical reason to support same-sex marriage. After all, if you can get the Bible in your corner, that’s pretty cool.

But the similarity between Jesus and those children is superficial. Check out this table I made:

Jesus Children with two dads
God Incarnate Human beings
Made a free choice No choice given
His Heavenly Father loved His mother Mary Child’s father does not love child’s mother
His Heavenly Father was with his mother through the Holy Spirit Father explicitly rejects mother
Jesus knows His Heavenly Father loved His mother and was with her Child knows father does not love mother and is not with her
Ontology respected; never required to choose between his parents Forced to choose between mother and father, or, choice predetermined through falsified birth records and/or deliberate suppression of origins

(It is similar for kids with two moms. Just switch the sexes in the second column.)

From the perspective of the child, same-sex marriage is more like divorce/remarriage than natural marriage.

Here’s the injustice: It is a codified-step-parent that supplants the natural parent. This forces the child to lie about, or at least ignore, her origins…one half of who she is. Like in this video:


Some groups want us to accept them for who they are.

OK, I can go along with that to a point. I didn’t vote Yes on Prop 8, after all. My dad and maternal grandmother lived in an artsy LGBT enclave, and his third wife was bisexual. So I know that these people are people. They’re not subhuman freaks. They were created in the image and likeness of God.They’re just trying to get along and figure out this life.

Like everybody else.

But I have my limits.

My limit to accepting who they are stops at the precise point where they start requiring a child to reject half of who she is so that they can be a parent under the kind of family structure that they want.

It is profoundly hypocritical to demand that a child ignore half of who she is so that some couple can have the experience of being who they are.

Once I put those pieces together, I knew where I had to stand.

On top of that, nobody has an a priori right to be a parent. That’s like saying you have a right to acquire another human being.

We all have the right to parent our own child, certainly, but that comes after (not before) we conceived that child.

Our duty as parents to that child includes a duty to respect our child’s other half…our child’s other genetic parent. We form a triad. And that triad is an ontological unity to the child that we all have a duty to respect.

If it must be dissolved for a reason that protects us or the child, I am not opposed to that at all. But even in that circumstance, the guilty party does not stop being half of who created that child.

So I will never, ever, ever in a million years or more, endorse what we see in that video above.

It is unjust.

I know what it feels like to have to pretend that half of you doesn’t exist. I know what it does to the sense of self, the capacity for moral discernment, the ability to have proper boundaries, and so many other things.

Look, my mom and dad loved me. But they bought into the idea that they could dissolve their unity and it would have no long term impact on me. And why did they do that? Because of the words of professionals.

Professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors, religious and political leaders) started saying, “The kids will be fine if the adults are happy.” Their words influenced my parents and so many other people.

Words matter. Every time somebody says, “Jesus had two dads and He turned out OK, ” it is just another manifestation of, “The kids will be fine if the adults are happy.”

Those words influence people to behave in an unjust way towards their child.

If we are Christians, shouldn’t we be influencing people in a way that pleases God? Wouldn’t this include upholding justice for our own children? I love this verse from Micah 6:8:

He hath shown thee, o man, what is good and what the Lord requires of thee
But to do justly
And to love mercy
And to walk humbly with thy God.


Respecting our child includes respecting all of who she is. Not just the half we like. “Jesus had two dads and he turned out OK” falls far short of this standard. Plus that’s not how Jesus had to live. All of His ontology was respected.

And that’s what we need to do with our kids, as a matter of justice.

Will bigger band-aids help?

One mom’s letter to her daughter’s step-mom went viral in late 2014. It even appeared on NBC News. You may have seen it.

So many people cheered this letter, but to me it smacked of a band-aid, a much bigger band-aid than we normally see, but a band-aid nonetheless.

The letter and all the attention it received forecloses on the possibility of the daughter ever expressing an opinion that contradicts what these people say is true. There are so many incentives to go along with the new program. All the media attention must have felt really great. But there are zero incentives to say something like, “It is still painful that my family was permanently disfigured. If my mom can get along with my step-mom, why couldn’t my mom and dad get along?” Even with this bigger band-aid, each parent has rejected half of who this girl is.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the daughter has literally zero issues. But I remain skeptical. There are just too many cultural buttresses that prop up the wall denial that we kids of divorce (and other non triad arrangements) have to maintain to make our parents happy.

This is also another example of how kids of divorce have had to deal with “two moms” for far longer than kids of gays. Conservatives decry the latter and are utterly silent on the former. Super frustrating.

Having said that…

The circumstance being what it is, it is good that these two women have a good relationship.

But frankly I resent having to yield to the circumstance. Why do I have to say, “At least they are getting along”?

Well, OK, I’ll say it again:

At least they are getting along.

If you find yourself saying this, as I do, consider that it is an admission that this situation is second best for the daughter.

I remain skeptical that bigger band-aids will heal the ontological wounds created by divorce (and other non-triad arrangements).


The desire for happy endings

Here is a story from a child of divorce. I found it here. Because of it, I think I may have discovered another buttress to telling the truth: the desire for happy endings.

I am going to try something new. I’ll bold certain parts, and add my own commentary in red.

What I am about to say is a critique of the culture surrounding divorce, and not of the individual who wrote this story.

One summer afternoon, my mom called me to tell me that she and my dad were getting a divorce. I was blindsided. I knew that they had had their fair share of problems in the past, but I thought that they had worked it out. (Unlike what a lot of people seem to believe, kids don’t always know what’s coming.)

The change that followed brought the most gut-wrenching pain that I have ever experienced. I felt really angry (very common), but more surprising was how completely un-moored I felt, like someone had just ripped the safety net out of my life.  I couldn’t really express how I felt with a “feeling” word, just pictures—like being completely adrift at sea. (Evidence of the liminal space and ontological wound that was created; there is no accurate theoretical framework to express the feelings.)

I had been married for one year, and I lived far away. I resented that my kids would never get to experience Christmas morning at their grandparents’ house, or know my parents like I did growing up. (Grandparents don’t realize that divorce impacts several generations.) I resented them for making me look bad to my husband’s family. And I didn’t want people’s pity. I needed my friends to help me, but none of them knew what to say, and none of them called to check on me after the initial “hey, my parents are getting divorced” conversation. (My guess is that since she was grown, everybody assumed it would be no big deal.)

The only person who I could talk to and would call to check on me was my mother-in-law. She prayed through it with me six months later when I was ready to forgive. She prayed for me in person and on the phone, gave me advice, told me that I had to keep forgiving over and over when I felt the pain, and that part of forgiveness is accepting the consequences of other people’s choices. So I forgave, and I had to keep forgiving. (Forgiveness is good and necessary, and it’s an ongoing choice we must make.)

After my dad remarried and I was going to meet his new wife for the first time, I thought I would vomit in the car in front of their house. On the way there, I called my best friend, and she said that I didn’t have to pretend that everything was fine, but the truth was that I did have to. (Yes, we must pretend in order to keep the peace.) What was I going to do? Cause a scene with sobbing and barfing? (Why not? Because people would have thought she was crazy. But she wasn’t crazy, her situation was crazy.) No. I faced it with my siblings and my husband, and that made it easier. Forgive. Accept the consequences.

Time has passed, and it’s easier to accept now, but I still think about the past, especially when I’m home and things aren’t the same. There are two Christmases and Thanksgivings. I worry about hurting people’s feelings by not spending enough time with them because I have to be somewhere else. I feel the responsibility to take care of my mom, and sometimes to take care of everyone. (“Divorce is when the parents cast off their crosses, and hand them to the children.”)

What changed for the better in the midst of pain?

I got closer to my siblings through processing with them. (That’s great.) I love my mother-in-law for supporting me during the most difficult time of my life, and I will always be grateful to her for being God’s instrument of love and grace to me. (I’m mixed on this being “for the better.” Yes, it’s great that she did this, but it was also her duty as a Christian and as the mother-in-law.) My home is now with my husband and our family together instead of the home where I grew up. (?) My relationship with my dad is restored, and we are friends again. And we even go on vacation together. (I wouldn’t classify this as “for the better.” Imagine a number line. This is just going from something like negative ten to zero. The relationship is now what it should have always been.)


If things are really better, as she indicates at the end, how do we account for the person’s desire for anonymity? After all, if the divorce made things better, she would be thanking her parents for it and not at all afraid to have those other thoughts and feelings associated with her name, right?

I don’t believe things are better. In fact, they are worse. That’s why she remains anonymous. She cannot allow her true feelings and thoughts be revealed, cannot take a chance that her parents will read that post. It would further strain her now permanently strained relationship with them.

Notice that I am also anonymous. I mentioned at the outset, I am not criticizing this particular person or the choices she has made. She is doing the best she can in a culture that refuses to see our pain and has failed to provide an accurate framework for us to understand our issues.

Do we have a cultural commitment to happy endings? Might this be another reason the kids of divorce (and other non-triad arrangements) have a hard time speaking out?

Acceptable losses

Non-triad family arrangements often exist for the benefit and convenience of adults. In order for the kids to conform to these arrangement, we have to embrace a lot of denial. We must pretend that there is nothing wrong with the arrangement, and even that we are happy with it.

We have a lot of help in keeping the denial intact. So far I’ve identified several buttresses that prop up our denial:

  • Honoring our fathers and mothers inappropriately, by pretending that nothing is wrong
  • Professionals such as psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors and religious leaders giving us sacrosanct reasons why we can’t question the loss of our first families, the loss of our ontology, the loss of our cultural or genetic origins
  • Lack of a correct theoretical framework to think about our issues
  • Cultural rites of passage that must be maintained at our expense

Yesterday I may have discovered another buttress for the denial: guilt. Perhaps guilt is a manifestation of the first reason above. I’m not sure.

Below is a quote written by somebody who was conceived with anonymous sperm, somebody who will never know her father (or his family, his culture or origins):

Is it unethical or immoral for me to want to know where half of me comes from? Or is it better to just sit quiet knowing that your own mother intentionally hid half siblings from your reach, registering on sibling registries, viewing their information, letting accounts expire, and moving on silently as if it all never occurred? Am I not allowed to feel hurt or misplaced?

The first sentence just blows my mind. She is questioning if it is unethical or immoral to want to know where she came from. Knowledge that most of us take for granted, she wonders if it is unethical for her to know. I bet her mother knows both halves of where she came from.That’s a form of inequality between the generations, created by reproductive freedom.

Her mother’s reproductive freedom means that she could legally separate her child from the child’s father forever, and the government supports this freedom.

Now, her child lacks freedom. She does not have the freedom to ask her own mother where she came from.

Her love for her mother is being used against her. She feels guilty for even posing the question.

Money is used in these transactions. Kids of sperm/egg donation often feel like they were purchased.

As a society, we do not care about this person’s sadness.

Where are the anthropologists decrying these kids being sold away from their cultural origins? I took a cultural anthropology class recently and made this argument a number of times, about the role of profit in this industry, and kids being legally separated from their cultural and genetic origins on the whim of rich adults. The teacher was stunned. She said that she had never heard it presented this way. But she saw that I was right. We all had to give a five minute presentation as part of our final, on some topic that was discussed during the semester. We would be penalized for going over that time. But she let me give a 12 minute presentation, since she thought what I was saying was so important. 

Anthropologists are uniquely positioned to examine the role of profit in these arrangements, as well as applying equal standards to these kids as they do to kids in other cultures. I may talk more about the role of anthropologists in a future post because there is more I can say.

That class made me fall in love with anthropology, but let me be clear that I’m no left-leaning SJW (social justice warrior). I believe in business, the role of business in creating jobs for people, and the role of profit in not only making businesses attractive to investors but in providing good paying jobs to employees. I am proudly pro-life and pro-marriage.

But I am not a libertarian. I believe that there are some areas of life where the profit motive must be suppressed by legal means. Such as in the buying and selling of human beings, buying and selling the gametes to create them, and renting the wombs to gestate them.

For now, I just wanted to give another example of how the pain of the next generation is an acceptable loss in the advancement of sexual and reproductive freedom.



If “two homes” is great, why not three?

We live in a “more is better” culture. So living in two homes for a large portion of your childhood may not seem like a big deal if you haven’t done it.

There are a number of children’s books on the subject, and from what I’ve seen, their thrust is “more is better.” Two of everything is better than one.


If it were only that simple.

Last time I wrote about “two homes,” I asked my readers to participate in a thought experiment.

Here is another one.

Our starting point is:

More is better.

Let’s exaggerate it. Since more is better…

Living in “three homes” will be better than living in two, right? Does that sound too far fetched?

It is not.

California, living up to its reputation as the land of fruits, nuts and flakes, now allows three or more legal parents for children. The “three parent bill” was inspired by an ugly lesbian-marriage custody dispute, and signed by Gov. Brown in October 2013. In 2012 he vetoed the same bill. Why he vetoed it in 2012 but signed it in 2013 remains unclear to me. Being the cynic that I have become, I wonder if he wanted to distance himself from the ugly circumstance that inspired the bill.

Anyway… remembering that more is better…

What about “five homes”? Five is better than three, right? Does that sound too radical? Not for some people.

Listen to the words of Masha Gessen, biographer of Vladimir Putin and LGBT activist:

“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them into a sanctioned couple. And because those five parents we have two groups with two different citizenships… [next she describes the family structure these kids have]. The five parents break down into two groups of three who have two different citizenships. And really I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that is compatible with the institution of marriage.”

“… five parents legally…”

Since the five legal parents won’t have to live under one roof, this means “five homes” for the children. And we have a large group of people cheering these ideas. No thought whatsoever as to what that means for those kids… but since “kids are resilient” this means we can do whatever we want with their family structures and it’s all good. Never mind that Ms. Gessen was raised by her own married parents and so never had her ontology muddied by the presence of step-parents and others who are not related. She takes far too much for granted and, literally, cannot even begin to relate to what she is making her children endure. I’m sure she imagines that “five parents legally” means five times the love. But she is wrong. It means alienation, loneliness, ontological wounds, liminality, and codependency.

The Cinderella Effect is real but who is changing their lives because of it? Do you know anyone who uses this as reason to stay together for the kids’ sake? As a reason to preserve (or even respect) their childs’ ontology? Maybe I’m just too jaded, but it seems that lots of kids could die like this boy before masses of people would begin to question their beliefs surrounding premarital sex (aka, having kids outside marriage), cohabitation, divorce, remarriage, the definition of marriage (aka gay marriage), and third-party reproduction (surrogacy).

“Five homes” is not even the last stop on this wild ride–it gets worse. But I’ll save that for another day.