Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Studies show children living with same sex parents grow up no different than children with traditional parents.

Now before you jump on my case, I am not saying I believe these studies. I am just reporting what the studies say.


Provide a link to one of those studies. I will constrain you though...post a link to an unbiased study.
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?
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?


A three year perverted sexual tryst allows someone to take a child from their biological mother. Whats the reasoning with that?
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
I'm not sure I agree with this. It was a civil union and the woman was artificially inseminated. I think the birth mother should have primary custody. I'm assuming the other woman didn't supply the semen but who knows in this messed up world we live in now.


I think the issue was they were both her legal guardians and they seperated. The 'mother' found religion and, due to her new found beliefs, thought that the relationship between the daughter and her other 'mother' was bad for her. So, what did she do, she ignored a judges order for joint custody and jumped town.

I hate to say it, but she made the bed and even though she has had a change of heart she cannot rip the daughter from the family she has known, two mothers or not. Its wrong for a father to do it to a mother, its wrong for a mother to do it to a father, and its wrong for this mother to do it to her previous significant other, no matter what you believe in regards to same sex relationships.....


Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
I'm not sure I agree with this. It was a civil union and the woman was artificially inseminated. I think the birth mother should have primary custody. I'm assuming the other woman didn't supply the semen but who knows in this messed up world we live in now.


I think the issue was they were both her legal guardians and they seperated. The 'mother' found religion and, due to her new found beliefs, thought that the relationship between the daughter and her other 'mother' was bad for her. So, what did she do, she ignored a judges order for joint custody and jumped town.

I hate to say it, but she made the bed and even though she has had a change of heart she cannot rip the daughter from the family she has known, two mothers or not. Its wrong for a father to do it to a mother, its wrong for a mother to do it to a father, and its wrong for this mother to do it to her previous significant other, no matter what you believe in regards to same sex relationships.....


Kirk


Kirk,
Your logic fails on real logic. By your argument, any woman living with or married to any man for three years would then have to give parental rights to that man for any child she may have by some other man. Living in a house with a child for 3 years don't make you a parent. This lesbian who claims to be the mother contributed nothing biologically, her only claim is the warped and deluded claims of a legal system gone awry.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
Biology doesn't make a parent--parenting does. If a same-sex couple adopts a child, they are no less parents than anyone else. And they are entitled to the same parental rights. Pretty much the same scenario here. Just because you don't agree with the lifestyle doesn't mean the other woman doesn't qualify as a parent.


Lawguy, this wasn't an adoption, it was a live birth for the birth mother. Biology has everything to do with establishing parental rights, there is a long running thread on this board on that issue.
Question. If a woman is married to a man and gets pregnant by another man, does husband #1 have any legal claim to the child as a parent?
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
I'm not sure I agree with this. It was a civil union and the woman was artificially inseminated. I think the birth mother should have primary custody. I'm assuming the other woman didn't supply the semen but who knows in this messed up world we live in now.


I think the issue was they were both her legal guardians and they seperated. The 'mother' found religion and, due to her new found beliefs, thought that the relationship between the daughter and her other 'mother' was bad for her. So, what did she do, she ignored a judges order for joint custody and jumped town.

I hate to say it, but she made the bed and even though she has had a change of heart she cannot rip the daughter from the family she has known, two mothers or not. Its wrong for a father to do it to a mother, its wrong for a mother to do it to a father, and its wrong for this mother to do it to her previous significant other, no matter what you believe in regards to same sex relationships.....


Kirk


Kirk,
Your logic fails on real logic. By your argument, any woman living with or married to any man for three years would then have to give parental rights to that man for any child she may have by some other man. Living in a house with a child for 3 years don't make you a parent. This lesbian who claims to be the mother contributed nothing biologically, her only claim is the warped and deluded claims of a legal system gone awry.



I don't see how you arrived at that point. This is a case of artificial insemination, so by your logic you are saying that any sperm donor can lay claim to a child that was borne as a result of his earning a quick buck simply because he is the biological parent.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. There's plenty of biological mothers and fathers walking around out there that are not "parents".
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:


I hate to say it, but she made the bed and even though she has had a change of heart she cannot rip the daughter from the family she has known, two mothers or not. Its wrong for a father to do it to a mother, its wrong for a mother to do it to a father, and its wrong for this mother to do it to her previous significant other, no matter what you believe in regards to same sex relationships.....


Kirk



Kirk, sometimes you and I agree. This is one of those times. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
I'm not sure I agree with this. It was a civil union and the woman was artificially inseminated. I think the birth mother should have primary custody. I'm assuming the other woman didn't supply the semen but who knows in this messed up world we live in now.


I think the issue was they were both her legal guardians and they seperated. The 'mother' found religion and, due to her new found beliefs, thought that the relationship between the daughter and her other 'mother' was bad for her. So, what did she do, she ignored a judges order for joint custody and jumped town.

I hate to say it, but she made the bed and even though she has had a change of heart she cannot rip the daughter from the family she has known, two mothers or not. Its wrong for a father to do it to a mother, its wrong for a mother to do it to a father, and its wrong for this mother to do it to her previous significant other, no matter what you believe in regards to same sex relationships.....


Kirk


Kirk,
Your logic fails on real logic. By your argument, any woman living with or married to any man for three years would then have to give parental rights to that man for any child she may have by some other man. Living in a house with a child for 3 years don't make you a parent. This lesbian who claims to be the mother contributed nothing biologically, her only claim is the warped and deluded claims of a legal system gone awry.



I don't see how you arrived at that point. This is a case of artificial insemination, so by your logic you are saying that any sperm donor can lay claim to a child that was borne as a result of his earning a quick buck simply because he is the biological parent.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. There's plenty of biological mothers and fathers walking around out there that are not "parents".


Sperm donors i am sure give up their parental rights.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
Biology doesn't make a parent--parenting does. If a same-sex couple adopts a child, they are no less parents than anyone else. And they are entitled to the same parental rights. Pretty much the same scenario here. Just because you don't agree with the lifestyle doesn't mean the other woman doesn't qualify as a parent.



Lawguy, this wasn't an adoption, it was a live birth for the birth mother. Biology has everything to do with establishing parental rights, there is a long running thread on this board on that issue.
Question. If a woman is married to a man and gets pregnant by another man, does husband #1 have any legal claim to the child as a parent?


I understand this wasn't an adoption so it may be a somewhat different scenario. But to answer your question, yes. Under AL law, a married woman's husband is the presumed legal father of any child born during the marriage. Of course if he disclaims the child, then man #2 can step up and claim paternity. But unless that happens, neither the mother nor the other man can do anything to "bastardize" the child. The law prefers legitimate children (although there is really no longer any legal disabilities to illegitimate children).

I realize there's been a long-running thread about biological parents v. adoptive parents. I guess I should phrase it in terms of "consensual" adoptions. If the birth parents give a child up for adoption, they are no longer considered the parents--the adoptive parents are. No biology required. Same thing for let's say a married couple who can't conceive a child because husband's swimmers are no good. Enter sperm donor. Is the donor the father? Of course not. Would he get custody of the child? No. I think trying to put these women into the category with some adulterous relationship is a faulty analogy. But of course that's just my opinion. Your opinion is obviously different but I'm not saying you're wrong. We just disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Do they? I really don't know either. According to your logic (that they contibuted biologically-then they are a parent) could that claim not be made.

Hey lawguy! Your future is secured. Class Action for all sperm donors to have custody rights and palimony. I get 1% finders fee-deal?


My friend, if you had any sense at all you would know that sperm banks follow legal and contractual guidelines. Some people would indeed donate their sperm without the legal requirements of child support.
quote:
I understand this wasn't an adoption so it may be a somewhat different scenario. But to answer your question, yes. Under AL law, a married woman's husband is the presumed legal father of any child born during the marriage. Of course if he disclaims the child, then man #2 can step up and claim paternity. But unless that happens, neither the mother nor the other man can do anything to "bastardize" the child. The law prefers legitimate children (although there is really no longer any legal disabilities to illegitimate children).



So we have a woman claiming to be the mother of the child, but cannot prove it biologically.

quote:
I realize there's been a long-running thread about biological parents v. adoptive parents. I guess I should phrase it in terms of "consensual" adoptions. If the birth parents give a child up for adoption, they are no longer considered the parents--the adoptive parents are. No biology required. Same thing for let's say a married couple who can't conceive a child because husband's swimmers are no good. Enter sperm donor. Is the donor the father? Of course not. Would he get custody of the child? No. I think trying to put these women into the category with some adulterous relationship is a faulty analogy. But of course that's just my opinion. Your opinion is obviously different but I'm not saying you're wrong. We just disagree.


And you make my case for me. In the fight for paternity among herosexuals, biology is the first thing the court looks at and prefers.

Now, explain why we need to create a special case for homosexuals?
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Do they? I really don't know either. According to your logic (that they contibuted biologically-then they are a parent) could that claim not be made.

Hey lawguy! Your future is secured. Class Action for all sperm donors to have custody rights and palimony. I get 1% finders fee-deal?


My friend, if you had any sense at all you would know that sperm banks follow legal and contractual guidelines. Some people would indeed donate their sperm without the legal requirements of child support.


My friend, if you had a sense of humor you would have understood that I was kidding. The real jest of my post was not understanding your logic and disagreeing with same. The example of a sperm donor was just that, an example. An attempt to show you that I felt that biology a parent does not make. Sorry that went over your head. I'll try to be a little more clearer next time and point out examples, theorys and postulations so that you completely understand. Okay?
Extra-
quote:


The supreme courts of Virginia and Vermont ruled in favor of Jenkins, saying the case was the same as a custody dispute between a heterosexual couple.



I dont see in the article where it says that she was or was not adopted. I did see where the VA Supreme Court has ruled that the 'other mother' is the other biological parent to this child (i.e the position of the 'father') and that the other mother has the right to custody and visitation. You are making alot of assumptions on specifics of this case that are not listed in the original article. Are you privy to info that has not been shared?

This issue has been through the court system, all the way to the VA Supreme Court, and the 'mother' has lost at each step in the process. I'd say that there is a lot of info that is not included in this article that allowed all those appeals to fall in the direction of the 'other mother.'

Kirk
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.


So get over it! Trust me, you'll live longer if you stop letting this issue get to you.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Surreal and Extra are notorious homophobes on this forum and will drag up any story they can to debate the issue. I still think they are the same person. And I hesitate to use the word "debate" - my two-year old nephew is more intelligent than this idiot. Roll Eyes


David, for full disclosure, let it be pointed out that you have on several occasions admitted to being homosexual and live with another homosexual and you are on record as supporting same sex marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
Extra-
quote:


The supreme courts of Virginia and Vermont ruled in favor of Jenkins, saying the case was the same as a custody dispute between a heterosexual couple.



I dont see in the article where it says that she was or was not adopted. I did see where the VA Supreme Court has ruled that the 'other mother' is the other biological parent to this child (i.e the position of the 'father') and that the other mother has the right to custody and visitation. You are making alot of assumptions on specifics of this case that are not listed in the original article. Are you privy to info that has not been shared?

This issue has been through the court system, all the way to the VA Supreme Court, and the 'mother' has lost at each step in the process. I'd say that there is a lot of info that is not included in this article that allowed all those appeals to fall in the direction of the 'other mother.'

Kirk


But that is the point, this lesbian woman is not the father, neither is she the mother.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
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.


So get over it! Trust me, you'll live longer if you stop letting this issue get to you.


I am trying to protect children by informing the public as a whole.
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.

Its not always about biology, specifically when there are not two 'biological' parents, its sometimes about what the child knows. You cannot compare this to the 'other thread' here, that child has a father that wants to be involved. This child does not, and to take her away from what she knows is wrong, gay or not!

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
quote:


David, for full disclosure, let it be pointed out that you have on several occasions admitted to being homosexual and live with another homosexual and you are on record as supporting same sex marriage.


People usually get upset when I point that out.


Maybe you should put it in your tag line Big Grin

For fill disclosure, I am a straight married man that, while I do not agree with the lifestyle some folks choose to live, I dont let their lifestyle bother me personally. I think it was Eddie Murphy that once said something along the lines of "I'm gonna go have that beer"....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
quote:


David, for full disclosure, let it be pointed out that you have on several occasions admitted to being homosexual and live with another homosexual and you are on record as supporting same sex marriage.


People usually get upset when I point that out.


No, I want the open minded reader of this thread to see and understand your hostility to a logical discussion of this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
quote:


David, for full disclosure, let it be pointed out that you have on several occasions admitted to being homosexual and live with another homosexual and you are on record as supporting same sex marriage.


People usually get upset when I point that out.


Straight, married and not upset here. I agree with mekirk2 and Eddie. So where is that beer?
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?
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
isn't that for the mother to decide?


Apparently not, according to the VA Supreme Court.

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.

I think, in the above situation, any judge with sense would keep the father in the picture in regards to visitation. Now, take out 'father' and insert 'other mother'.......

Kirk

Add Reply

Post

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