|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Dec 6, 2005 10:31:48 GMT -5
I may be going off on a tangent, but this really irks me. My wife loves to get the trash magazines and she usually picks up In Touch. They had a feature of the top 10 hottest dads in Hollywood. Here's the list and see what I mean (and P.S. I'm definitely not judging them by "hottness"...at the end you'll know what I mean) 10) Charlie Sheen (what a joke anyways...hoe'ing around on his wife..OK..but that's not what irked me) 9) Guy Ritchie 8) Jude Law (Is anyone else disturbed by his enormous head?!?!) 7) Tom Cruise 6) Matthew Fox 5) Benjamin Bratt 4) Brad Pitt 3) Johnny Depp 2) Will Smith 1) Ryan Phillippe OK...now tell me whats wrong with that list. It's freaking Brad Pitt because he isn't even a dad!!! He's a live in play mate. If he adopts them eventually, fine, Like Tom Cruise has done. I have nothing but respect for anyone who adopts. But, as a dad, I find this very offensive, since Pitt is neither a real father or adoptive father. But, this is Hollywood, where they think Tookie Williams should be set free and child molesters deserve a second chance. Sorry for the rant, but some things irk me. Maybe that's why I spend my free time not seeing many movies from Hollywood and blow my $$$$ and free time on COTG!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on Dec 6, 2005 15:37:44 GMT -5
I remember seeing a headline on CNN.com that Brad has already set plans for adopting Angelina's (adopted) kids into motion. I think I saw that yesterday, but I'm not sure. (It's not like I actually read the article.)
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Dec 7, 2005 2:09:50 GMT -5
I read that also Chris, but until he does, he is by no means a DAD.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Dec 7, 2005 9:33:17 GMT -5
And Tom Cruise should not be alowed anywhere near children! He's nuts. C'mon, no offense, but he's a scientologist.
He said to someone on TV that there's no such thing as post pardom depression. When asked, "Then why would scientists put out this info. on it?" He replied, "You don't know the history of psychology, I do."
If that isn't the most ridiculous thing ever. When did he find time to learn the ENTIRE history of psychology? Was it between Mission Impossible 1 and 2 or between all of his TV talk show appearances?
Jeez. This guy is a freak of nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Dec 7, 2005 12:33:37 GMT -5
Jeez. This guy is a freak of nature. ...and a high school dropout. |
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Dec 7, 2005 14:20:27 GMT -5
Jeez. This guy is a freak of nature. ...and a high school dropout. Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Good call Bri! |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Dec 8, 2005 3:29:30 GMT -5
I am not a father but someone who cheats on their wife should not be able to adopt a child. By cheating he has proven that he is unreliable. Most likely he will leave Jolie when he gets bored of her.
I love entertainment but most of Hollywood disgusts me.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Dec 9, 2005 12:00:06 GMT -5
I am not a father but someone who cheats on their wife should not be able to adopt a child. By cheating he has proven that he is unreliable. Most likely he will leave Jolie when he gets bored of her. I love entertainment but most of Hollywood disgusts me. You can't say stuff like that. You cannot enforce morality. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife. It is clearly wrong, but that doesn't make you automatically unreliable for every other instance in your life. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 9, 2005 17:16:28 GMT -5
I am not a father but someone who cheats on their wife should not be able to adopt a child. By cheating he has proven that he is unreliable. Most likely he will leave Jolie when he gets bored of her. I love entertainment but most of Hollywood disgusts me. I am not endorsing cheating, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read or heard. By the way, I also tend to disagree about the whole "No dad until a legal adoption" thing. There are plenty of people who are more of a "Dad" to kids who are not their's than a lot of biological or "legal" fathers. Everything isn't always as cut and dried as some people act. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Dec 13, 2005 16:31:05 GMT -5
Well I agree with you Joe that you can be a father without adoption ever happening. There are countless cases of the true father leaving the mother and the child with nothing and then a clearlly much better man comes into both of their lives and is a much better father than the first could ever be.
And that is not trying to enforce morality. It is trying to enforce a reliable person in a childs life. Being that he is a proven cheater then he can not be reliable. That is common sense. I find it worse that anyone who wants can go about adopting children. I can't even believe that you would support something like this.
You may not be able to enforce morality but you can stand up for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 13, 2005 19:21:52 GMT -5
What does being reliable to a spouse have to do with being reliable to a child?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Dec 13, 2005 19:23:45 GMT -5
Not causing trouble...but are you a dad Joe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 14, 2005 12:26:04 GMT -5
No. I don't want to get into personal matters on a discussion board, my initial post about biological fathers and legal fathers does come from personal experience.
As far as the thing about a cheating husband being incapable of being a good father is ridiculous. We can wax moral all day long, but someone making that comment is essentially saying that anybody who's father ever cheated on his or her mother, that person was a bad father. That is simply untrue.
A person who thinks that way must also go along with the idea of scrapping one's own happiness to stay in a miserable marriage "for the kids' sake." Perhaps they also believe in getting married just because the woman in the relationship is pregnant. The fact is, being a good father and being a good husband do not necessarily go hand in hand. Especially when you are talking about cheating on a first wife with whom you didn't even have any children.
To get this back to Brad Pitt, a lot of rumors circulated that he wanted children but Jennifer felt her career was beginning to take off post-Friends and didn't want any. If that is what led to the infidelity, does it make a difference about what kind of father he would be?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Dec 14, 2005 14:23:44 GMT -5
As far as the thing about a cheating husband being incapable of being a good father is ridiculous. We can wax moral all day long, but someone making that comment is essentially saying that anybody who's father ever cheated on his or her mother, that person was a bad father. That is simply untrue. A person who thinks that way must also go along with the idea of scrapping one's own happiness to stay in a miserable marriage "for the kids' sake." Perhaps they also believe in getting married just because the woman in the relationship is pregnant. The fact is, being a good father and being a good husband do not necessarily go hand in hand. Especially when you are talking about cheating on a first wife with whom you didn't even have any children. I completely agree. Just because you have one instance in your life where a certain situation happens, doesn't mean in every other instance in your life, you will be the same way. I think that's what Joe's saying and that was my point as well. And it IS trying to enforce morality. You said people who cheat shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Tht is because you find it morally wrong. And that is certainly your right to your opinion. My opinion is that cheating shouldn't be grounds to deny you the right to adopt a child. If you get convicted of child molestation (or any kind of a crime that is a felony), that would be a more justifiable reason to deny someone the right to adopt. |
|
|
|
Post by ringsyde on Dec 15, 2005 11:18:51 GMT -5
In defense of pikemojo's cheating statement, I think what he's suggesting is that if someone is so blatant as to publicly cheat on his wife and show no remorse, then he may not be the best example of an ideal adoptive parent.
The implication is that this person has exhibited a rather scary ability to just change directions and switch love without any transition. If he'll do it to his wife, then one must ask if he'll fall out of love with the new woman and her (adopted) child. This is certainly important in the real world, but as pikemojo also alluded to, Hollywood is anything but.
Taken as is, pike's cheating comment sounds a little far fetched, but if you consider that Brad Pitt spoke of and openly displayed affection for Jennifer Aniston only weeks before the Jolie controversy started, then left his wife without looking back, then you begin to get a sense of concern for a man's ability to empty himself of any feelings and move on as quickly as he did. This is not the foundation to build a family around, and if more people considered this, there wouldn't be as many broken families and scarred young lives.
And to address Trav's original message here, no I don't think Brad Pitt qualifies as a dad - yet. It seems to me that his situation isn't all that different from Tom Cruise. The old career isn't firing up the papparrazi like it used to, and the spouse's shadow is looming larger and larger. So, you go off and start a little controversy, leave the scorpion woman who dared to be better than you and become the lush that most of us guys thought you might be. In Cruise's case, the buffer is to constantly profess his love to - and have a child with - li'l Ms. Katie. Brad Pitt seems to be transforming into "daddy dearest" to take the sting out of the fact that he left his wife just when she was about to make a big career move (that was going to make her the power player in the household), and he ended up with a mega-star who also rates somewhat high on the hollywood "Wierdoslut" list.
I'm the father of a now fourteen-year-old daughter (who is turning into a beautiful woman right under my nose - time to start cleaning the guns when the young men come over). I feel qualified to tell when someone genuinely loves a child and when they are using said child for a photo op. Most of Pitt's pics with the children concern me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Dec 18, 2005 6:19:09 GMT -5
Thanks sYde. That is almost dead on what I meant. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough but it is what I meant.
Lets just say that theoretically Brad had cheated on Jen then went to Jolie and stayed with her for 3 years or something. Then of course I would now have no problem with his adopting them. But the fact is that he has just recently moved on from Jen and Jolie's kids would not be like his own at this point at all. Like I said if he had been with her for a while and now wanted to adopt her kids then I would have no problem with it but he really probably only knows them from the time during the making of Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
Plus kids need consistency and reliability and right now if I were the one making the decision I would question how consistent and reliable he is at this point in his life.
I am sorry for the mis-stating of my intended statement. Hopefully you can understand what I meant.
|
|
