Skip to main content

I don't see where lawguy said that in this thread. Did I miss it? He said that if husband disclaims then man #2 can step up and claim parental rights.

Which I think would be the answer to your first question. Husband stepped up and claimed parental rights and duties. Wife acknowledges and confirms and he is deemed to be the parent.
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
I don't see where lawguy said that in this thread. Did I miss it? He said that if husband disclaims then man #2 can step up and claim parental rights.

Which I think would be the answer to your first question. Husband stepped up and claimed parental rights and duties. Wife acknowledges and confirms and he is deemed to be the parent.


In this case the mother is contesting the "father" who is claiming to be the mother.
This is why God said it was confusion.
quote:
Let me ask you this, and lawguy can confirm, lets say a woman and a man are married, and the women gets pregnant, has a child and the man raises the child as the father. Seven years later, the mother says "I want a divorce and, ohhh btw, I dont know who her real father is, but little Sarah aint yours so hit the road," would you think it would be right for little Sarah to be pulled away from the only other parent she knows.


Once again your logic fails. In this case, the second lesbian knew she was not the father or the mother from the beginning.

quote:
Now, take out 'father' and insert 'other mother'.......



She is not the mother either. This child already has a mother.
quote:
Originally posted by Endora2:
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
Nope, she didn't. The best thing they could do is to remove her from both of those messed up women and find her a normal home.


So we rip a child away from BOTH women who love her and put her with strangers. What's the reasoning behind that? They're no more messed up than anyone else fighting over custody of a child. Would you take a child away from a heterosexual couple going through the same thing?


Yes, I would. Kids dont need that kind of fighting - in any home. They are not thinking of her best interest obviously or they would not be fighting over her like this. People who really love their kids will lay aside their differences for their welfare. As far as wht you said about "rip her away from both women who love her", it looks their doing a good job of that themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Once again your logic fails. In this case, the second lesbian knew she was not the father or the mother from the beginning.



Funny thing about my logic, multiple courts ruled in favor of the 'other mother' using what was probably something similiar to my logic. And, unlike the case here that you keep referring to, it was upheld at multiple levels of the appeals process and confirmed by the state Supreme Court.

So, truth be told, is the logic you are using is somehow faulty. And thats not just my opinion, but a court confirmed fact....
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Endora2:
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
Nope, she didn't. The best thing they could do is to remove her from both of those messed up women and find her a normal home.


So we rip a child away from BOTH women who love her and put her with strangers. What's the reasoning behind that? They're no more messed up than anyone else fighting over custody of a child. Would you take a child away from a heterosexual couple going through the same thing?


Yes, I would. Kids dont need that kind of fighting - in any home. They are not thinking of her best interest obviously or they would not be fighting over her like this. People who really love their kids will lay aside their differences for their welfare. As far as wht you said about "rip her away from both women who love her", it looks their doing a good job of that themselves.


I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.

Please confirm for me what your definition of a normal home would be. And, in addition to that, I would like to hear your case for removing all children from their home if the mother and the father are not perfectly in love and fight and argue with each other.

I just want to make sure you would apply that line of thinking to a straight couple.....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Once again your logic fails. In this case, the second lesbian knew she was not the father or the mother from the beginning.



Funny thing about my logic, multiple courts ruled in favor of the 'other mother' using what was probably something similiar to my logic. And, unlike the case here that you keep referring to, it was upheld at multiple levels of the appeals process and confirmed by the state Supreme Court.

So, truth be told, is the logic you are using is somehow faulty. And thats not just my opinion, but a court confirmed fact....


In a state that recognizes homosexual marriage.
So I wouldn't boast of the perverted mindset it takes to agree with your logic.
The courts set up this fighting for custody.

Reality is most all parents are fit and capable of caring for their children. Just because they divorce or split doesn't mean they divorce or split from their children.

Parenting time should be equal absent some compelling reason. Equal doesn't have to be one week with each parent, it can be week to week or several years at a time.

Those of you that want to debate stability. Married parents with children in the military move on average every three years. So, if moving is an issues to children, then we need to remove all children from parents in the military.

Studies have proven that states with presumed equal custody law have lower rates of divorce.

Studies also show children in equal custody - parenting are adjusted the same as children with intact married families where as children in sole custody arrangements are less adjusted.

There is no basis for courts to force children to live with only one parent and visit the other parent on average 80 day per year absent compelling reasons of parental unfitness. The unfitness I am speaking of is same DHR would use for removing a child from a home of married parents. An argument now and then is not going to harm a child.

Again, I have tons of qualified research to back up these comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

In a state that recognizes homosexual marriage.
So I wouldn't boast of the perverted mindset it takes to agree with your logic.


In two states, not to mention the fact that the US Supreme Court refused to hear it.....

I may change my sig line to "your dont have to like it, you just have to accept it....."
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Endora2:
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
Nope, she didn't. The best thing they could do is to remove her from both of those messed up women and find her a normal home.


So we rip a child away from BOTH women who love her and put her with strangers. What's the reasoning behind that? They're no more messed up than anyone else fighting over custody of a child. Would you take a child away from a heterosexual couple going through the same thing?


Yes, I would. Kids dont need that kind of fighting - in any home. They are not thinking of her best interest obviously or they would not be fighting over her like this. People who really love their kids will lay aside their differences for their welfare. As far as wht you said about "rip her away from both women who love her", it looks their doing a good job of that themselves.


I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.

Please confirm for me what your definition of a normal home would be. And, in addition to that, I would like to hear your case for removing all children from their home if the mother and the father are not perfectly in love and fight and argue with each other.

I just want to make sure you would apply that line of thinking to a straight couple.....

Kirk


Kirk,
You set a new low for yourself here. This is one of the reasons I generally view your posts with contempt.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

In a state that recognizes homosexual marriage.
So I wouldn't boast of the perverted mindset it takes to agree with your logic.


In two states, not to mention the fact that the US Supreme Court refused to hear it.....

I may change my sig line to "your dont have to like it, you just have to accept it....."


The Supreme Court also ruled that blacks were 2/5ths of a human being. They also legalized the murder of babies. Keep going, your on a roll.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Endora2:
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
Nope, she didn't. The best thing they could do is to remove her from both of those messed up women and find her a normal home.


So we rip a child away from BOTH women who love her and put her with strangers. What's the reasoning behind that? They're no more messed up than anyone else fighting over custody of a child. Would you take a child away from a heterosexual couple going through the same thing?


Yes, I would. Kids dont need that kind of fighting - in any home. They are not thinking of her best interest obviously or they would not be fighting over her like this. People who really love their kids will lay aside their differences for their welfare. As far as wht you said about "rip her away from both women who love her", it looks their doing a good job of that themselves.


I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.

Please confirm for me what your definition of a normal home would be. And, in addition to that, I would like to hear your case for removing all children from their home if the mother and the father are not perfectly in love and fight and argue with each other.

I just want to make sure you would apply that line of thinking to a straight couple.....

Kirk


Reread the first two lines of my post:
Yes, I would. Kids dont need that kind of fighting - in any home.

The home in this story is not a normal home. The one parent took the child and is hiding her out. This is beyond normal arguing. This is tantamount to kidnapping. You seem to want to defend this woman because she is gay. Sounds like you've dropped the soap a couple of times yourself.

You also said:

I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.

My answer: no, those are not normal homes. If that's the way you were raised, I'm sorry about that, but don't think for one second that all heterosexuals act like that.
Mekirk;
quote:
I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.


Are you serious? I hope you were exaggerating to make a point and don't think that is normal. And, BTW, those kinds of things, unfortunately, do go on but they are not limited to households with the traditional male/female parents. Just because a household is gay or heterosexual does not automatically mean it is a fit place for a child.
My point was that some folks would call a 'normal' home a home where there is a man and a woman, or a father and a mother. All of my examples above are just that, a home with a father and a mother. Does that make it a 'normal home'? HECK NO! But that was exactly my point, just because a home has a father and a mother does not make it a 'normal home.'

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by MrPepper:
The home in this story is not a normal home. The one parent took the child and is hiding her out. This is beyond normal arguing. This is tantamount to kidnapping. You seem to want to defend this woman because she is gay. Sounds like you've dropped the soap a couple of times yourself.


Nope, see my previous post about my sexual orientation. Why would I be defending the woman who kidnapped the girl because shes gay when, according to the article, she no longer is. It is the woman that is now 'straight' and 'christian' that has kidnapped the girl, not the gay 'other mother.'

quote:

You also said:

I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.

My answer: no, those are not normal homes. If that's the way you were raised, I'm sorry about that, but don't think for one second that all heterosexuals act like that.


Nope, and not all homosexuals act that way either. You said she should be removed from both parents because of their fighting, correct? One parent is fighting to see her and the other is fighting to keep her away. So, tell me, why did you say 'both' parents unless it was because the 'other mother' is not a father? If this was a man and a woman, and the man was hiding their child, would you say take the child away from them both because they are fighting over them? Thats what it sounds like to me, unless its just because of the 'other mothers' sexual orientation.....

Im still waiting to hear about this program where, if the parents dont get along, then the children should be taken away from both of them. According to your post, if parents are in a battle over custody (your 'that kind of fighting'), then the children should be completely removed from the home. Do you care to elaborate?

And, BTW, in my 'normal home' I was taught tolerance. My parents always taught me that, just because I didn't like what someone else does, that doesnt mean I have the right to condemn them for it. Its a lesson that, if more people had been given, the world we be a much better place....

Kirk
quote:
Sounds like you've dropped the soap a couple of times yourself.



Mr Pepper -

This pretty much answers my questions as to what your beliefs are regarding homosexuals. Closet Homophobe maybe? Its about the equivelent of me asking you if you are a homophobe because you were abused as a child? Pretty petty, huh?

And to clarify one other thing that might be on your mind, I do not believe in gay marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. I support civil unions that give homosexuals the same rights as my wife and I have without the religious implications.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by lynnblount:
Mekirk;
quote:
I suppose a normal home is one with a man and a woman. You know, those where the man comes home drunk and beats on his wife. Or what about those normal homes where the husband sexually abuses his kids. And then there are those normal homes where the mother and father party all night and do drugs.


Are you serious? I hope you were exaggerating to make a point and don't think that is normal. And, BTW, those kinds of things, unfortunately, do go on but they are not limited to households with the traditional male/female parents. Just because a household is gay or heterosexual does not automatically mean it is a fit place for a child.


Lynn,
That's exactly why I called his posts contemptible. All the things he described are illegal, and if DHR was notified, the children would be removed.

This guy has a problem with comparing apples to apples.
quote:
Nope, see my previous post about my sexual orientation. Why would I be defending the woman who kidnapped the girl because shes gay when, according to the article, she no longer is. It is the woman that is now 'straight' and 'christian' that has kidnapped the girl, not the gay 'other mother.'


She didn't kidnap anyone. She took HER CHILD to another state in defiance of a perverted judge who wants to destroy this child so he can make a legal precedence to create a new legal right for lesbians.
Again, let me spell this out so you can understand. The second lesbian is not the father of the child, and neither is she the mother.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Lynn,
That's exactly why I called his posts contemptible. All the things he described are illegal, and if DHR was notified, the children would be removed.

This guy has a problem with comparing apples to apples.


You had a problem because I asked if someone considered it a normal home just because there is a father and a mother (which all of those extreme cases were, a home with a father and a mother), which is what Mr Pepper insinuated in his post when he said
quote:
"The best thing they could do is to remove her from both of those messed up women and find her a normal home."
They would be illegal in a homosexual home as well, so I'd say its pretty well apples to apples. You just dont like the apples....
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
She didn't kidnap anyone. She took HER CHILD to another state in defiance of a perverted judge who wants to destroy this child so he can make a legal precedence to create a new legal right for lesbians.
Again, let me spell this out so you can understand. The second lesbian is not the father of the child, and neither is she the mother.


You can spell it out all you like, and whether you and I agree with it is here or there, it has been decided in the court system in that state and, according to the article:

"If Miller does not turn over Isabella, the most likely scenerio is that she would be held in contempt of court and a warrant would be issued for her arrest, said Cheryl Hanna, a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School."

So, you can keep believing that you are right if you wish. As a matter of fact, when the mother is arrested, you can visit her in jail and console her about how right she is.....
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

quote:
They would be illegal in a homosexual home as well, so I'd say its pretty well apples to apples. You just dont like the apples....

Not in Vermont where this thing started.


Wow, and you think Im dense? Domestic Abuse is legal in Vermont? Child Abuse is legal in Vermont? Drug use is legal in Vermont? Wow, impressive......

Roll Eyes
quote:
You had a problem because I asked if someone considered it a normal home just because there is a father and a mother (which all of those extreme cases were, a home with a father and a mother), which is what Mr Pepper insinuated in his post when he said


Kirk,
Repectfully, your attempt to create an argument to prove your point has gone completely off track. If the scenarios you created did in fact exist, there is a whole segment of local government committed to dealing with this, it's called DHR and we also have judge to deal with it also. Children CAN be removed from homes by the court in the instances you provide. On top of that, the court does not care if the children are traumatized by their removal, as they look at the long term good of their removal.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

quote:
They would be illegal in a homosexual home as well, so I'd say its pretty well apples to apples. You just dont like the apples....

Not in Vermont where this thing started.


Wow, and you think Im dense? Domestic Abuse is legal in Vermont? Child Abuse is legal in Vermont? Drug use is legal in Vermont? Wow, impressive......

Roll Eyes


This is a perfect case, for all to see why you cannot be engaged on the basis right and wrong, truth or fiction. You will twist anything, irregardless of it's true meaning, to make yourself look good.

No my good man, homosexual marriege is legal in Vermont where this started, drug use and abuse is illegal. Therefore it's apples and oranges. Your argument fails again.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
She didn't kidnap anyone. She took HER CHILD to another state in defiance of a perverted judge who wants to destroy this child so he can make a legal precedence to create a new legal right for lesbians.
Again, let me spell this out so you can understand. The second lesbian is not the father of the child, and neither is she the mother.


You can spell it out all you like, and whether you and I agree with it is here or there, it has been decided in the court system in that state and, according to the article:

"If Miller does not turn over Isabella, the most likely scenerio is that she would be held in contempt of court and a warrant would be issued for her arrest, said Cheryl Hanna, a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School."

So, you can keep believing that you are right if you wish. As a matter of fact, when the mother is arrested, you can visit her in jail and console her about how right she is.....


And she can go to a state that does not recognize gay marriage and her prospects there are much better. That's exactly what I would do.
The attempt, that I think went over some heads, was to show that just because there is a mother and a father does not make a home a 'normal home'. A normal home is one in which the 'parents' make the best decisions for the children. Sometimes thats to stay together, sometimes not. Its an issue that affects both homo and heterosexual couples. When parents decide to seperate, there is usually (under most circumstances) some type of custody dispute. To remove the children from both parents because they are fighting over them seems a little extreme to me.....
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

[QUOTE]They would be illegal in a homosexual home as well, so I'd say its pretty well apples to apples. You just dont like the apples....[QUOTE]
Not in Vermont where this thing started.


Wow, and you think Im dense? Domestic Abuse is legal in Vermont? Child Abuse is legal in Vermont? Drug use is legal in Vermont? Wow, impressive......

Roll Eyes


This is a perfect case, for all to see why you cannot be engaged on the basis right and wrong, truth or fiction. You will twist anything, irregardless of it's true meaning, to make yourself look good.

No my good man, homosexual marriege is legal in Vermont where this started, drug use and abuse is illegal. Therefore it's apples and oranges. Your argument fails again.


Really, lets see, in my original post I talked about sexual abuse, drug use and domestic abuse in a heterosexual home, then I said they would be illegal in a homosexual home as well (making it apples to apples), to which you stated:

quote:

Not in Vermont where this thing started.


So, which is it, are those things legal or illegal in Vermont? Or did you not read the entire post?

Anyone who is reading this can go back and see what I said, I dont have to worry about making myself look good....
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
My point was that some folks would call a 'normal' home a home where there is a man and a woman, or a father and a mother. All of my examples above are just that, a home with a father and a mother. Does that make it a 'normal home'? HECK NO! But that was exactly my point, just because a home has a father and a mother does not make it a 'normal home.'

Kirk


Your all over the map. Make up your mind, are you assaulting a heterosexual home or a homosexual home. For the sake of continuing this discussion and arriving at some hope of definitive conclusion, you need to make up your mind which side you are on.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

Your all over the map. Make up your mind, are you assaulting a heterosexual home or a homosexual home. For the sake of continuing this discussion and arriving at some hope of definitive conclusion, you need to make up your mind which side you are on.


Go back and reread my posts. I am on the side of tolerance. If a woman wants to spend her life with a woman (or a man with a man) thats their business. If they are in a situation where they are raising a child, thats their buisness. If the law where they live allows for civil unions (as in this situation) and they divorce, they should be treated no different than a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the court (which is what happened here.)

Please tell me where I assaulted either home? Ive got to ask, are you reading my entire posts? Heterosexual and homosexual homes are, for the most part, no different from one another from the inside. If two people care about each other and about their children, I dont care if it is man-man, man-woman, or woman-woman. The only difference between a heterosexual and homosexual home is how they are seen from the outside (by you and me).

Those extreme examples I gave regarding a heterosexual home are not normal and would not be normal (or legal) in a homosexual home either.

You and I are not going to come to a definitive conclusion. You are against the homosexual lifestyle, which is your right, and I am tolerant of it. I dont agree with it, I dont condone it, but I am no more concerned with what a homosexual couple does in their home than I am with what my heterosexual neighbors do in their homes.

My point in all this was, if you go back and consider this entire situation with a father instead of the 'other mother', then what is being done is wrong, no questions asked, even if the father was not the biological father (just the only father the little girl has known). The only reason you have a problem with what the court decided was that the other parent is gay. That is not very tolerant in my book.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
I am on the side of tolerance. If a woman wants to spend her life with a woman (or a man with a man) thats their business. If they are in a situation where they are raising a child, thats their buisness. If the law where they live allows for civil unions (as in this situation) and they divorce, they should be treated no different than a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the court (which is what happened here.


I agree. I feel exactly the same way you do.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
I understand. Here is my perspective. Homosexuals claim they just want the same rights as everyone else. In this case, the court is creating a special parental right for a lesbian woman, that if the law was applied evenly, she could not enjoy. That is creating a special class of people under the law and is unconstitutional.


I dont see a difference in what they are asking for, Lawguy has said that, give the same situation between a man and a woman, the man would be assumed to be the 'father' if they are married. They were joined in a civil union, which gives the 'other mother' the same rights as a man.

And pray tell why would the man be assumed as the father? Could biology have something to do with it?
And lawguy admitted that if the child was not the husbands, then he had no legal claim to parentage if the wife contested it.

quote:
This child does not, and to take her away from what she knows is wrong, gay or not!

Kirk

isn't that for the mother to decide?


Please don't misquote me. I didn't say that. I said the HUSBAND could disclaim the child but neither the mother nor the biological father could attempt to prove the paternity of the other man. Now that I've clarified my quote, I must retract it. The Uniform Parentage Act of 2009 apparently changed all that. The Act didn't exist before. The presumption is still there, but other parties now have standing to rebut the presumption.

Ala.Code 1975 § 26-17-204

Title 26. Infants and Incompetents.
Chapter 17. Uniform Parentage Act.
Article 2. Parent-Child Relationship.
§ 26-17-204. Presumption of paternity.


(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

(2) he and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within 300 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;

(3) before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within 300 days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;

(4) after the child's birth, he and the child's mother have married, or attempted to marry, each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with the law although the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and:

(A) he has acknowledged his paternity of the child in writing, such writing being filed with the appropriate court or the Alabama Office of Vital Statistics; or

(B) with his consent, he is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or

(C) he is otherwise obligated to support the child either under a written voluntary promise or by court order;

(5) while the child is under the age of majority, he receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child or otherwise openly holds out the child as his natural child and establishes a significant parental relationship with the child by providing emotional and financial support for the child; or

(6) he legitimated the child in accordance with Chapter 11 of Title 26.

(b) A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under Article 6. In the event two or more conflicting presumptions arise, that which is founded upon the weightier considerations of public policy and logic, as evidenced by the facts, shall control. The presumption of paternity is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man.



Ala.Code 1975 § 26-17-602


Title 26. Infants and Incompetents.
Chapter 17. Uniform Parentage Act.
Article 6. Proceeding to Adjudicate Parentage.
Part 1. . Nature of Proceeding.
26-17-602. Standing to maintain proceeding.


Subject to Article 3 and Sections 26-17-607 and 26-17-609, a proceeding to adjudicate parentage may be maintained by:

(1) the child;

(2) the mother of the child;

(3) a man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated;

(4) the Alabama Department of Human Resources;

(5) an authorized adoption agency or licensed child-placing agency licensed in Alabama or any other state that is properly authorized to do business in Alabama;

(6) a representative authorized by law to act for an individual who would otherwise be entitled to maintain a proceeding but who is deceased, incapacitated, or a minor; or

(7) any interested person.
Actually it looks like VT law controls this thing. I don't have time to do a lot of research, but I did find this in the VT statutes:

15 V.S.A. § 1206
Title 15: Domestic Relations
Chapter 23: Civil Unions (§§ 1201 - 1207)
§ 1206. Dissolution of civil unions

The family court shall have jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to the dissolution of civil unions. The dissolution of civil unions shall follow the same procedures and be subject to the same substantive rights and obligations that are involved in the dissolution of marriage in accordance with chapter 11 of this title, including any residency requirements. (Added 1999, No. 91 (Adj. Sess.), § 3.)

So essentially they treat dissolution of the civil union just like a normal divorce, which makes perfect sense. If you want the same benefits as marriage, the rights/obligations follow along also. So the "other mother" is essentially standing in the shoes of a father, which is what several of us have said all along.
quote:
You and I are not going to come to a definitive conclusion. You are against the homosexual lifestyle, which is your right, and I am tolerant of it. I dont agree with it, I dont condone it, but I am no more concerned with what a homosexual couple does in their home than I am with what my heterosexual neighbors do in their homes.



Actually,
You and I agree a bit here. What someone does in their bedroom I care not to know. When they come to the schools to recruit, when they try to twist the laws to make "special rights" in the courts it is no longer a "bedroom issue."
quote:
Please tell me where I assaulted either home? Ive got to ask, are you reading my entire posts? Heterosexual and homosexual homes are, for the most part, no different from one another from the inside. If two people care about each other and about their children, I dont care if it is man-man, man-woman, or woman-woman. The only difference between a heterosexual and homosexual home is how they are seen from the outside (by you and me).



You were jumping back and forth in an attempt to cloud the mistake you made in your analagy. You specifically made the application of heterosexual homes with drug, alcohol, and violence abuses as being inherently inferior to the home of a homosexual couple. Only after your mistake did you try to cloud it by extending it to homosexual marriage.
No, what I tried to do was to show that just because a home is heterosexual does not mean that it is a good home for children to grow up in. That was my intent all along, from the original point on. There was no trying to cover anything up, are you trying to say that I believe that those things are ok in a homosexual home? If not, then how can you say that I was attacking one and not the other? I was never attacking either, just clarifying the fact that a 'good home' cannot be based on the sex of the parents alone....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
Sorry, mekirk. I think it was Extra I was referring to. Anyway, water under the bridge since I needed to correct my misstatement anyway. I'll see if I can find the VA law.


Lawguy,
Thankyou for the clarification and I applaud you sir for making a correction to your statement. It proves your character.

The point I made, If a woman was married to a man, became pregnant by another man, If she contested her husbands paternity and could prove he was not the father, especially if this involved a divorce, the husband would have no right to paternity.
If we applied the law in the same manner to this lesbian case, the second lesbian would not be given paternity rights. In this case, after the civil union or marriage, one woman became pregnant by a man from outside the union, the second woman has no biological claim. Since paternity is usually first decided by biology, this womans case fails.

What is happening here is the bending of the law to provide rights not granted heterosexuals, this is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
No, what I tried to do was to show that just because a home is heterosexual does not mean that it is a good home for children to grow up in. That was my intent all along, from the original point on. There was no trying to cover anything up, are you trying to say that I believe that those things are ok in a homosexual home? If not, then how can you say that I was attacking one and not the other? I was never attacking either, just clarifying the fact that a 'good home' cannot be based on the sex of the parents alone....

Kirk


And as I pointed out there are government agencies who have jurisdiction over the family in such cases. You then tried to shift the argument to homosexual families.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×