Betty is not married to Joe and Bill does not live in a green
 

house. I am sure most of you have seen this type of brain teaser before. They have been around for ages, I enjoy fiddling with them and thought I would share this one with you for amusement. There are four people, all married, living in the same subdivision, Betty, Bill, Joe, and Sue. They are all avid church goers. Betty is not married to Joe, Bill cant stand ice cream, and Sue is allergic to peanuts. Bill does not live in a green house, Neither Bill nor Betty are jewish. Joe is not Catholic. Sue recently discovered she is expecting a baby boy. Assuming there has been no hanky panky going on and the babys father is indeed married to his mother... who is the babys father?


ETA. Ok, just to clarify a few things that were somewhat open for discussion in todays world.... None of these four fine people are gay, lesbian, transgenders or anything else of that nature.... Sue is married to one of the two gentlemen named in the story... as is Betty... the basic question is who is married to whom.

This is a very normal "old school" pregnancy, Sue is the one giving birth and Sues husband, who was born a boy child and grew up normally into manhood is indeed the father.

There was no milkman involved!

Joe.....

That is one possibility out of a choice of two.
I will be giving the correct answer and why after a few of our other members have had a chance. :)

joe....how could it be otherwise?
Because 1+1 does not equal 3 and 1+1=3 is a given!

I missed the obvious it could be..............BETTY!

Betty is not married to Joe, so Sue is married to Joe, Joe is the father....James

Well, the problem statement says only that the four named individuals are married, not that they are married to each other. Sue, Betty, Bill and Joe could each have a spouse whose name is not mentioned. As worded the answer to this puzzle is indeterminable.

Good point! Just to clarify, Sue is indeed married to one of the two men mentioned, as is Betty.

Sue is the father of Betty's son.Sue was the "Boy named Sue" all grown up and expecting his/hers first son by Betty his/her wife.Plus none of them ,for whatever reason,,can't stand the usurper Obama.:cowboy:

I find it unlikey that Betty could be the father... something about plumbing issues. :)

:umno: But a good guess! :)

Are we absolutely sure of this???? as in.. is this your final answer? Your are just "this" close to being a millionaire, are you sure you dont want to call a friend? :)

LOL you must be from my generation! New laws , new norms, at this point I knew a young lady whos "father" could have been Born "betty" !:shrug:

Yeppers, I am of the old school, when men were men, women were women. again for clarification here.... all of the players in this game are what their names would normally have indicated in the 50s of last century... Betty and Sue are very much women, and both Joe and Bill are indeed men. None of the players have had sex changes, nor are they gay, bi or any of the other strange things we see today.

In this day and age, I'm going with the distinct possibility . .
 

*******************************
That "Betty" could be a pre-op transgender . . .
and therefore 'could' be Sue's baby daddy......

Otherwise, I'd have to say it was the town's only red headed milkman.

Ginger's just don't get the credit they deserve!!!

Bill & Betty are the parents. Sue is grama.

"who is the babys father?" Nope. Who only got to first base.

Either one could be the father. None of the information ( jewish/catholic/ice cream etc) is relevant.

:umno: but thanks for the guess. :)

:umno: but thats another fine guess. :)

Sue is definitely to be the birth mother and her husband is definitely the "donor". This baby is coming into the world the old fashioned way.... no fancy medical procedures required at all.

Some of the information is more relevant than the rest, this part is true. :)

If Betty is not married to Joe, and Sue is also a woman, then she would have to be married to Bill. That would mean that Sue and Joe would have to be married. All of the other information is irrelevant to the question of parentage.

Maybe, and that is one of the possibilities the way the scenario is written, but not all of the other information is entirely irrelative to this situation. Some of it is... designed for the sole purpose of distraction and confusing the thought processes, but some of it is there to make one think about other less obvious possibilities. Lets put it another way.... most of the time a cigar is just a cigar... but ask Castro about that, he can tell you (is he still able?) that sometimes a cigar is an execution waiting to happen! :)

Ok, I guess its time to put the cards face up on the table on this one.

Most of you have pounced right on one of the two correct answers... the very obvious deduction that if Betty isnt married to Joe, that Sue must be, and all other things being equal Joe is about to become a father.

BUT!!! and here is the fun part... Bill could also be the father just as easily and quite legitimately so. Lets say all four of these people are Mormons.... of the old school variety. (or other religion that allows for multiple marriages) Joe has his own wives, and Bill has his, Sue being his first wife, Betty his second. :)
Nobody said where this subdivision was, nor anything about these folks heritage, customs, beliefs, or what laws may or may not apply to them depending upon numerous factors. Only that they were avid church goers living in a subdivision somewhere.

Sometimes things arent always as they appear at first glance. Sometimes we need to think beyond our normal range that we are comfortable with or life as we deal with it daily. Sometimes there are other perfectly legitimate answers to things than we might realize.

LOL When you started this thread with what was such a simple question in the 50's did you ever envision all the exceptions and proviso's that would come to light in todays world?

NOPE!!! And the first time I heard this one was in the fifties.... the only difference was I left out the part about Joes accident, that had left him infertile... That of course would have eliminated him right off the bat. I remember daddy having a lot of fun with it way back then. It got the mormons in the neighborhood all riled up, and the non mormans loved it. LOL

Of course if Sue was a real turkey, SHE could be the father.

The answer is totally wrong you see mormons have not practiced plural marriage for 125 plus years. Another myth about the LDS

I was going to suggest that while Joe and Sue are married and Sue is pregnant, she is acting as a surrogate for Bill and Betty.

Seems like I read somewhere last week Mormons are going to be allowed polygamy again, according to some judge. We knew that was going to happen with all the gay marriage rationalizations, didn't we? Don't be surprised when you read about Elmer taking his favorite ewe to the courthouse.

Really? I guess those were just rumors being passed around a couple years ago about several members of the LDS who were caught up in that thing down in.... west texas maybe??? cant think of the mans name right off hand, but am pretty sure the feds dragged several hundred kids out of their homes for a while. Some scuttlebutt about being involved with not only plural marriages in this particular "old school LDS" group but child brides as well. That was probably all just hype from the media trying to create a story where there was none. :)



Lemme guess here... you are affiliated with the more modern version of LDS? I base that on the reaction daddy always got from the local mormons when he posed this same riddle to them. I was but a wee child at the time, but found their reactions to be very humorous at the time. Got into more than one fight in school too, not about this amusing story, but use of the term "cricket stomper" could get a pretty good rise going when I was in the third grade. ahhh the innocence of youth! ;)

Bear in mind here that I have no problem with either group, the modern mormons I have had dealings with have pretty much all been quite upstanding decent folks, and I am aware they separate themselves from their... shall we say.. less than progressive predecessors, and those who still follow in the ways of Joe and Brigham. I have no problem with the minority sects of LDS either, they seem like pretty good citizens to me... they pay their bills on time and do what they say they will do... there is a lot to be said for that. As a matter of fact I have to admire those men... I have enough trouble dealing with one wife.... much less several! :)

And in todays world that scenario could well have been true.. except for the fact that it was clearly stated right up front that the father was married to Sue. :)

hugh,,,,
 

all this time i was just thinking yvonnes hubby was just trying to get out of paying child support....not the dady not the dady

I do appreciate your sense of humor, but seriously child support has never been up for question in this old guys life... ok, some of the kids I have raised could have had a little bit of support from their "real" dads... but I never was one to quarrel with them about it. I took them and raised them all as my own, never quibbled and didnt really care if those dads ever paid a dime. :)

Which is why my answer is perfectly within the realm of ...
 

******************
possibilities! I'll go you one better. . .
it's "conceivable", (pardon the deliberate pun)
that Betty and Sue are also 'Mormons". :shocked:

However that red-headed milkman is likely a lapsed Presbyterian ...

No, you said the father was married to the mother. Sue is not legally the mother if she is carrying a baby that is biologically the offspring of Bill and Betty. :)

Betty, Bill, Joe, and Sue. Betty is not married to Joe

Give you your answer. Everything else is designed to confuse.

Ive always wondered why the government thought it could interfere with religion in the case of the Mormons.
Ive met men in pluralist marriages and I say if they want more than one wife its none of my business, except for it being prima fascia evidence of insanity.....

The old joke -

Q: What's the penalty for bigamy?

A: Two wives.