Skip to main content

And, to clarify, a homosexual home with two caring parents who have the childrens best interest in mind is better than a heterosexual home where the parents are doing drugs (and all the other examples I gave).

At the same time, a heterosexual home with two caring parents who have the childrens best interest in mind is better than a homosexual home where the parents are doing drugs (and all the other examples I gave).

See how that works both ways. It doesnt have anything to do with the sex of the parents, it has to do with how much those parents care for those children.....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

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.


Extra-

That discussion was not even with you or about your posts, that discussion was directed at Mr Peppers statement about removing the kids from those two crazy women and putting them in a normal home. It had nothing to do with who could remove them, it had to do with the fact that just because there is a father and a mother, the home is not, by default, normal.

Go back and reread the thread, I think you have mixed up some of my responses to Mr Pepper and responses to you.....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

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.


Extra-

That discussion was not even with you or about your posts, that discussion was directed at Mr Peppers statement about removing the kids from those two crazy women and putting them in a normal home. It had nothing to do with who could remove them, it had to do with the fact that just because there is a father and a mother, the home is not, by default, normal.

Go back and reread the thread, I think you have mixed up some of my responses to Mr Pepper and responses to you.....

Kirk


I completely understood that. I took exception to you using illegal activity in a heterosexual home to justify your defense of homosexual homes. That's where you went over the line, and your argument became ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

I completely understood that. I took exception to you using illegal activity in a heterosexual home to justify your defense of homosexual homes. That's where you went over the line, and your argument became ridiculous.


The arguement was not ridiculous and works both ways. At the time, it was the homosexual home that was being discussed, had it been reversed I would have said exactly what I said in my post above.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

I completely understood that. I took exception to you using illegal activity in a heterosexual home to justify your defense of homosexual homes. That's where you went over the line, and your argument became ridiculous.


The arguement was not ridiculous and works both ways. At the time, it was the homosexual home that was being discussed, had it been reversed I would have said exactly what I said in my post above.


If you want to modify your statement that is O.K.

Now, i have established that in the case of heterosexual relations and child paternity, biology is the first principle of establishment. Without biology, there is very little custodial claim, especially over the biological parent.
Now, You are willing to go against established precident of law and grant special rights to a lesbian woman, giving her custodial rights over the biological mother.
This is an insane argument. Under the guise of tolerance, you would destroy the legal system.
How hard is this to understand? The biological mother entered into a civil union under VT law, which treats it like a marriage. She has a child. Lesbian partner is considered the other parent under the law. Biological mom decides to go straight and get a "divorce." See my earlier post of VT law on dissolution of civil unions. Both legal parents fight for custody. Biological mom loses. End of story. This is NOT about biology, it's about which parent several courts have now concluded was the better one.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
How hard is this to understand? The biological mother entered into a civil union under VT law, which treats it like a marriage. She has a child. Lesbian partner is considered the other parent under the law. Biological mom decides to go straight and get a "divorce." See my earlier post of VT law on dissolution of civil unions. Both legal parents fight for custody. Biological mom loses. End of story. This is NOT about biology, it's about which parent several courts have now concluded was the better one.


Lawguy,
I understand the argument, it is obvious you aren't getting mine. If this were a heterosexual couple, the parentage of the father would be settled by biology. In this case, Vermont created a seperate legal definition of parentage just to suit the homsexual in this case.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
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.


Extra -

Just so that I quote lawguy right, the VT law is above. It states that 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"

So, unless your argument is that the 'woman' os being given the rights of a 'man' in a civil union, I dont see where they are being given any more rights than a heterosexual couple going through a divorce. That being said, I dont know how the law on custody is written in VT, but if the 'other mother' has been the known second parent to this child all her life, I would say the courts have to take that into consideration. I would expect it if it were a man in that same position.

And the courts did not grant the 'other mother' full custody until the biological mother went against their order for visitation. Id say thats pretty much in line with what a court would do in a mother/father situation as well.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Something just occured to me, What is there were three women in this home during those 3 years, would the third woman have parentage rights too? What if four women? Or five?

Where does twisting society to satify sexual whims of a minority end?


Come on, Extra, you want to keep this thing within the bounds of reason and then go here? If they were having a wild orgy with 4 or 5 women, then it would not be considered a legal civil union and we would not be having this discussion at all. Remember, there are laws in place against bigamy and, if applied to 'civil unions', then this would not be the case at all....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Something just occured to me, What is there were three women in this home during those 3 years, would the third woman have parentage rights too? What if four women? Or five?

Where does twisting society to satify sexual whims of a minority end?


Come on, Extra, you want to keep this thing within the bounds of reason and then go here? If they were having a wild orgy with 4 or 5 women, then it would not be considered a legal civil union and we would not be having this discussion at all. Remember, there are laws in place against bigamy and, if applied to 'civil unions', then this would not be the case at all....

Kirk


Hold on a minute! The only claim that this lesbian woman has to parentage is that she lived in the house with the other woman for three years. Think about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Lawguy,
I understand the argument, it is obvious you aren't getting mine. If this were a heterosexual couple, the parentage of the father would be settled by biology. In this case, Vermont created a seperate legal definition of parentage just to suit the homsexual in this case.


Are you sure of this statement? Can you pull the VT law that says that parentage is decided only by biology, not by what the child has known all their life? I just want to make sure that you are sure of the fact that VT would not apply the law the same if it were a father fighting for visitation with a child that is not theirs biologically.

Consider this, a hetero couple cannot get pregnant because the husband is infertile and they get a sperm donor. Ten years later, they divorce and the 'father' of that child wants visitation. He is not the biological father, do you think he has no right to expect visitation with the child he has raised as his own?

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Lawguy,
I understand the argument, it is obvious you aren't getting mine. If this were a heterosexual couple, the parentage of the father would be settled by biology. In this case, Vermont created a seperate legal definition of parentage just to suit the homsexual in this case.


Are you sure of this statement? Can you pull the VT law that says that parentage is decided only by biology, not by what the child has known all their life? I just want to make sure that you are sure of the fact that VT would not apply the law the same if it were a father fighting for visitation with a child that is not theirs biologically.

Consider this, a hetero couple cannot get pregnant because the husband is infertile and they get a sperm donor. Ten years later, they divorce and the 'father' of that child wants visitation. He is not the biological father, do you think he has no right to expect visitation with the child he has raised as his own?

Kirk


So if lesbian #2 is given parentage rights, if the biological mother instead of going straight, "marries" another lesbian and she lives three years and they divorce. Does lesbian #3 now get parental rights under the same "laws" as #2?
quote:
Consider this, a hetero couple cannot get pregnant because the husband is infertile and they get a sperm donor. Ten years later, they divorce and the 'father' of that child wants visitation. He is not the biological father, do you think he has no right to expect visitation with the child he has raised as his own?



In that case, the mother would get custody.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mekirk2:
So if lesbian #2 is given parentage rights, if the biological mother instead of going straight, "marries" another lesbian and she lives three years and they divorce. Does lesbian #3 now get parental rights under the same "laws" as #2?


Nope, step away from the lesbian issue and ask the question of a hetero couple. The 'spouse' that was the 'spouse' when the child was born would be the other party. If the mother remarries, the second 'spouse' usually has no right to the child from the first marriage.

These two women were joined legally through a civil union. Under VT laws, it looks like civil unions follow all the same rules as a regular marriage, so I dont see an issue with it being 'special rights.'

Just admit that you dont agree with it because they are gay. You dont have to defend that stance, its your right to think that way. But I have yet to see you show anything that proves that the govt has given them any rights that a hetero couple would not have.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mekirk2:
So if lesbian #2 is given parentage rights, if the biological mother instead of going straight, "marries" another lesbian and she lives three years and they divorce. Does lesbian #3 now get parental rights under the same "laws" as #2?


Nope, step away from the lesbian issue and ask the question of a hetero couple. The 'spouse' that was the 'spouse' when the child was born would be the other party. If the mother remarries, the second 'spouse' usually has no right to the child from the first marriage.

These two women were joined legally through a civil union. Under VT laws, it looks like civil unions follow all the same rules as a regular marriage, so I dont see an issue with it being 'special rights.'

Just admit that you dont agree with it because they are gay. You dont have to defend that stance, its your right to think that way. But I have yet to see you show anything that proves that the govt has given them any rights that a hetero couple would not have.

Kirk

But civil unions are not legal in every state.
Understand, you are making this lesbian woman out to be a"father" when she isn't If it were a man, we would know he was the father. You again are creating a "special right" only to homosexual people.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
But civil unions are not legal in every state.
Understand, you are making this lesbian woman out to be a"father" when she isn't If it were a man, we would know he was the father. You again are creating a "special right" only to homosexual people.


They are legal in the state that this case was dealt with in, thats all that really matters. Se is not the 'father', she would be considered the 'legal guardian' which would give her all the rights and responsibilites of any other parent, father or mother.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Get ready Extra because civil unions will soon be legal in Alabama and all the other states. Our next plan is to plant evil pods inside your children and turn them all gay!

You'd better lock your children up now in the fall-out shelter with plenty of canned goods. The outlook for you looks pretty gloomy.


Now David, I know you are trying to be funny here but you have to keep in mind that, if you expect tolerance from others, you have to be tolerant yourself. Some folks you just have to accept for what they are and what they believe and agree to disagree.

You do live in the buckle of the bible belt and, as such, can probably expect alot less acceptance than folks in other parts of the country. You just have to take the bad with the good when it comes to living here, just like anywhere else.....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Get ready Extra because civil unions will soon be legal in Alabama and all the other states. Our next plan is to plant evil pods inside your children and turn them all gay!

You'd better lock your children up now in the fall-out shelter with plenty of canned goods. The outlook for you looks pretty gloomy.


Okaaaay....do we really want to know exactly how you plan on "planting" those pods?? Do we need to paddle faster?
quote:
Originally posted by lynnblount:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Get ready Extra because civil unions will soon be legal in Alabama and all the other states. Our next plan is to plant evil pods inside your children and turn them all gay!

You'd better lock your children up now in the fall-out shelter with plenty of canned goods. The outlook for you looks pretty gloomy.


Okaaaay....do we really want to know exactly how you plan on "planting" those pods?? Do we need to paddle faster?


I was thinking "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - lol
quote:
Originally posted by lynnblount:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Get ready Extra because civil unions will soon be legal in Alabama and all the other states. Our next plan is to plant evil pods inside your children and turn them all gay!

You'd better lock your children up now in the fall-out shelter with plenty of canned goods. The outlook for you looks pretty gloomy.


Okaaaay....do we really want to know exactly how you plan on "planting" those pods?? Do we need to paddle faster?


Up comes the banjo music...exit downstream...quickly Big Grin
ya know, i have never seen that movie.

ive read through everything and i am wondering why "special laws" for homosexuals keep coming up. the laws that are being passed now will eventually be everywhere. i dont consider them any more special than the laws that gave us women's rights, ethnicities' rights, disability rights, etc.
they will face the same battles of acceptance as others have before them. all parenting situations should be reviewed on case by case basis. sexuality should not play such a large role in these decisions. it should be based on how well the children are cared for by the individuals raising them. my vote is for mekirk.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
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.


Not quite right Lawguy.

http://www.dhr.state.al.us/page.asp?pageid=421
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
quote:



No NF...I said post a link to one of those studies.

Quit falling for the MSM tactics.



Please clarify?

I am sure you can Google it.

Also, the Alabama Family Law Task Force is working on updating the family law code. They plan to include terms for same sex couples. So that is just a matter of time coming to Alabama.
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Sorry, but I don't see anything on that page that contradicts what Lawguy has said. Can you be more specific to the point that you are making please?


Acknowledgement of Paternity
This acknowledgement, if properly signed and notarized, creates a legal finding of paternity under Alabama law. It is a legally sufficient basis for establishing an obligation for child support and birth expenses. This form can be completed anytime after the child's birth and before the child's nineteenth birthday. This form can be obtained at any county DHR office.
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
quote:



No NF...I said post a link to one of those studies.

Quit falling for the MSM tactics.



Please clarify?

I am sure you can Google it.

Also, the Alabama Family Law Task Force is working on updating the family law code. They plan to include terms for same sex couples. So that is just a matter of time coming to Alabama.



OMG...I get it now, NF is homosexual... Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
OMG...I get it now, NF is homosexual... Big Grin


Passing along research studies and what the Family Law Task Force said will be updated in the Alabama Code doesn't make me a homosexual.


You didn't post any link to a study. I would ask you to post a link to your other claim, but...

Your are right on the last statement...YOU made yourself a homosexual... Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Sorry, but I don't see anything on that page that contradicts what Lawguy has said. Can you be more specific to the point that you are making please?


Acknowledgement of Paternity
This acknowledgement, if properly signed and notarized, creates a legal finding of paternity under Alabama law. It is a legally sufficient basis for establishing an obligation for child support and birth expenses. This form can be completed anytime after the child's birth and before the child's nineteenth birthday. This form can be obtained at any county DHR office.


I'm sorry, but I think that you need to go back and read that page a little closer. It deals with the birth of a child outside of marriage and the steps that are required for the establishment of paternity. Nothing stated there contradicts what Lawguy has said.
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
quote:
Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Sorry, but I don't see anything on that page that contradicts what Lawguy has said. Can you be more specific to the point that you are making please?


Acknowledgement of Paternity
This acknowledgement, if properly signed and notarized, creates a legal finding of paternity under Alabama law. It is a legally sufficient basis for establishing an obligation for child support and birth expenses. This form can be completed anytime after the child's birth and before the child's nineteenth birthday. This form can be obtained at any county DHR office.


I'm sorry, but I think that you need to go back and read that page a little closer. It deals with the birth of a child outside of marriage and the steps that are required for the establishment of paternity. Nothing stated there contradicts what Lawguy has said.


Exactly, its pretty obvious in the very first line:

"Establishing paternity gives a child born outside of marriage....."

I dont know how long youve lurked (since you registered in June), but in case you havent been reading much in the past 6 months, this is the point where a veteran forum member comes out and tells you that some folks are not worth arguing with Big Grin

Kirk
LOL mekirk2. Thanks for the advice and (I hope) the acceptance.

Off and on for quite awhile, but not enough to learn everybody to watch out for. I would really appreciate it if you helped make sure I don't step in it. These changing personas can really throw a man off sometimes. I've been trying to hang back and get a grasp of who is who, but heck they change so much I need a scorecard or something. Big Grin

Add Reply

Post

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