Nor should you 'kibbitz in anonimity' when you write that:
JerveyGotGypped said:
he cares for this child as best as can be expected for a child not of his issue. Heidi probably loves him because he's a decent (albeit maudlin) guy.
Unless you're a personal friend of theirs, you are writing from 'anonimity' the same as I, and basing your opinion on what you read in the news, same as I. You don't know if he really cares for that child as his own, and you don't know why Klum 'probably loves him' or if she loves him at all.
My sarcastic remark highlighted that, at least on a superficial level, anonimitous (is that a word?) as it may be, that one benefits far more by marrying a woman like Heidi Klum than one 'loses' by parenting her child from a previous marriage. In all liklihood, they have plenty of nursemaids, nannies and butlers to take care of all the regular parental duties that concern the more modest of parents, and what time they spend with their children is probably 'playtime.'
But I am of course, merely speculating, because I do not know them personally.
No where in my post did I say that Seal was a 'gold-digger.' I'm certain you are aware that Mrs. Klum-Seal brings more to the table than just her dowry?
Nor did I say that Klum was slumming.
You attempted to make it seem like Seal was doing something wonderful by marrying Heidi Klum, and I was merely pointing out that many men, not just Seal, would certainly liked to have married her as well, with or without child. It has nothing to do with some inner quality that only Seal possesses.
And the irony you write about is ironic only because of its comparison - the, in this case, singular example of a black man married to a white woman with a white child, by another man, - as opposed to the tremendous number of bi-racial children born to white women, out of wedlock, bred by black fathers. If it weren't for the latter, there would be no irony.
