Poor Suffering Bastard!

Is this a result of religious craziness or adoption craziness?

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM:I’m in my 50s, and recently I found out my parents weren’t married when I was born. (They put me up for adoption, and I never knew them.) This has been hard for me, and now I’m even wondering if God will reject me for being illegitimate. Is this possible? — W.L.

What a pity a grown adult should have to ask such questions...or feel such insecurities, fears and doubts. He apparently also expresses feeling rejected by the "sinners" who bore him (which kinda seems contradictory?).

And, hey dude, did you just find out you're adopted? Cause isn't that what most people assume is why anyone is adopted?  Or were you told they were newlyweds who died in a car crash on their honeymoon? Or perhaps it was the "she died in delivery, and he was killed in the war" story you got?

Billy Graham sets him straight and does not - hallelujah - go into any of the recently contrived nonsense about so-called "biblical adoption" - the vertical and horizontal malarky.
 

But my goodness, do people really still think like this in the 21st century? Yeah, I guess it goes right into the same pile with those who believe that being gay is an abomination of God's will, too!  Surrounded by in liberalism, I sometimes forget.

I'm sorta pleased and a bit surprised that Billy Boy did not explain that adoption erased all that "sin of fornication" and made him "as if he were born to" the legitimacy married parents who adopted him. I mean, isn't that purpose of adoption - a kind of religious re-birth with a new certificate and all to erase the shame of bastarditis?  But I'm sure this fellow would have no trouble finding another preacher man who WOULD assure him of that!

Bottom line - marriage is a piece of paper. So is your adoption decree. They bind unrelated people into a legal relationship...some willingly and knowingly. Only God can create a child, and He makes no mistakes, or so I'm told.

And, dude...you're in good company. Mary was an unwed teenage mother and her kid made out pretty well, I'm told (until that crucifixion thing).

Judgment and Discrimination

Some say obesity discrimination is "accepted' when no other forms of prejudice are tolerated. Big and beautiful organizations strive to counter the snickering, snide looks large and rude comments large people endure, and help rebuild their self-esteem and dignity.

It appears however acceptable to launch public tirades of judgment against "unwed mothers" - aka mother who bear children"out-of-wedlock" (per the NY Times) and even to suggest that stigmatizing them for their marital status is not only fair game and justified, but should be increased! How about stoning or tar and feathering, perhaps being shackled in the public square or the wearing of a letter around the neck would be helpful...while, of course the men who impregnate them walk scott free!

Karen Gail Lewis, ACSW, Ed.D., wrote "With or Without a Man: Single women taking control of their lives" in which she states:

A single woman is "unmarried." The negative prefix implies a deviation from the norm - marriage. A single woman, then, is often described by who she isn't. Yet, if we extended this to its logical conclusion, this means a woman is a "non-man"; a short person is "non-tall" [ed: or "untall", as compared to unwed unwed].

Lewis points out that when checking boxes on forms, a woman who lives with her partner must check the "single" box while a woman who is separated for years but not divorced must check "married."

When we extend the topic to single moms, not just single women, the same label applies to divorced as well widowed women, and those who are single moms by choice and even have adopted.

It all leaves me to ponder:

- Why are some women "unwed" and other never marrieds, single mothers? Seems of a bit of age- and classism makes the determination of nomenclature.

- Why is it that the same people who proclaim a child is not a choice prior to birth, want mothers "chose" adoption and support adoption as a nobler, brave "choice."

(Pondering a bit off the topic: Why is that that when animals are in danger of extinction, we work to improve their environment and protect them in their habitat. We do NOT "rescue" them and put them into zoos or relocate them to other parts of the world.)

Back on track...we know that a good part of the prejudice against so-called "unwed mothers" - which is not so subtle code for young and poor mothers - is financial. After ll, the vast majority of hullabaloo about Nadya Sulman (the OctoMom) was not about her poor decsion-making, or the welfare of her children, but about the possibility of her being a "drain" on tax payers.

Does stigmatizing the poor end poverty?

Does labeling children born "out of wedlock" to their "unwed mothers" bastards or illegitimate help by stigmatizing them?

Note that despite all the hype about rising rates of babies born to unmarried women in the United States, it's way behind Northern European countries, where it also far more accepted and tax benefits aren't dependent on marriage.