Gays and having children

[Texashiker]

This is not meant to be an anti-gay thread. I would like to have an honest discussion on a gay married couple where one person has to adopt the child.

This article got me to thinking - http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/a...cost-my-family-3k-to-be-queer-this-month.html

For the sake of discussion lets say that gay marriage is legalized nation wide. And gay couples have the same rights as non-gay couples.

The couple in the linked article said they had to spend around $3,000 to adopt the child one lady of the couple gave birth to.

What I do not see mentioned anywhere in the article is the natural father.

Why should someone who is not biologically related to the child be given instant rights as a parent?

Lets say the biological mother had a one night stand with a guy. She gets knocked up, goes back to her wife, child is born a few months later,,, why should the second woman instantly receive parental rights to the child?

Dad decides he wants to be part of the childs life, the two women split up, who gets custody? Who has to pay child support? Does the dad and one of the women have to pay support to the one who has custody of the child?

Now we have a three way custody right with one parent having no biological relationship to the child.

If gays should receive instant rights, what about heterosexual couples? Jack and Jill get married, Jill has an affair with John, Jack and Jill get divorced.

Should Jack be financially responsible for the child? Should Jack receive instant parental rights even though it is not his child?

 

[SheHateMe]

If a man agrees to be a donor for a child then he and the couple will obviously need to discuss rights or non rights..

You know, just like "normal" couples who have surrogate mothers or adopt children from their biological parents.



Who cares how much they spent to adopt? $3,000 thats a drop in the bucket compared to what other people pay for international adoptions.

Why does that concern you?





Not sure why you decided to make up a "one night stand" scenario. I guess you have to keep the scenario's crazy to make sure people are convinced that these folks are highly dysfunctional. :whiste:

 

[Texashiker]

Not sure why you decided to make up a "one night stand" scenario. I guess you have to keep the scenario's crazy to make sure people are convinced that these folks are highly dysfunctional. :whiste:

Because stuff like that happens in real life.

Let me guess, you never had an affair or cheated on your partner?

 

[SheHateMe]

Because stuff like that happens in real life.

Let me guess, you never had an affair or cheated on your partner?

Never.

 

[Theb]

We aren't going to run out of deadbeat dads anytime soon.

 

[SheHateMe]

We aren't going to run out of deadbeat dads anytime soon.

Sometimes I think straight people are worried that LGBTs will be better parents and spouses than they are.

 

[Texashiker]

We aren't going to run out of deadbeat dads anytime soon.

Sometimes I think straight people are worried that LGBTs will be better parents and spouses than they are.

Yall seem to be avoiding the question.

Why should someone who has no biological relationship to the child receive parental rights?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yall seem to be avoiding the question.

Why should someone who has no biological relationship to the child receive parental rights?

How would it any different than a parent remarrying and their new spouse has parental rights.

 

[shadow9d9]

Because stuff like that happens in real life.

Let me guess, you never had an affair or cheated on your partner?

You act as though that is a common occurrence.

 

[SheHateMe]

How would it any different than a parent remarrying and their new spouse has parental rights.

Oh that one is easy.

It's because those two people are of opposite genders! :awe:

You act as though that is a common occurrence.

I think that was just him trying to apply his own drama to the thread topic.

It was such a bizzare question.

 

[lagokc]

Yall seem to be avoiding the question.

Why should someone who has no biological relationship to the child receive parental rights?

Are you arguing against gay parenting or are you arguing against the concept of adoption? :hmm:

 

[shadow9d9]

Yall seem to be avoiding the question.

Why should someone who has no biological relationship to the child receive parental rights?

Are you anti adoption? This is not specific to gay couples, so why even bring them into it?

 

[SheHateMe]

Because....they're Gay, guys..

 

[nageov3t]

I don't imagine it's any different in terms of the rights that a heterosexual couple would have upon adopting a child.

generally speaking, I believe the biological father has to sign away his rights or a nasty custody dispute could occur. read more: http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/unwedfath.htm

biological fathers are required to be notified before an adoption, and can contest it if they so choose.

 

[SheHateMe]

Yes, in both Adoptions and Surrogacy...there are typically contractual agreements between the parties.

For examples, couples that adopt often enter into agreements that the bio parents do not try to make contact with the child until the child is 18. On the other hand, some do opt to allow some level of contact with the biological parents.

Male donors..I am pretty sure, sign away their parent rights to the children they are donating their ehmm...."potion" to produce.

 

[ZaneNBK]

Yall seem to be avoiding the question.

Why should someone who has no biological relationship to the child receive parental rights?

As stated previously, this happens with normal surrogate parents and adoption of foster children regardless of the couple's sexual orientation. I don't see how this has anything to do with homosexuals. Are you arguing against the practice of surrogate parents and/or adoption or just when it involves a homosexual couple? You seem to be backing away from what appears to be the original intent of your post.

 

[biostud]

This is not meant to be an anti-gay thread. I would like to

Why should someone who is not biologically related to the child be given instant rights as a parent?

Same as if it was heterosexual. A male can claim his illegitimate child as his own. But once you do, you have to pay.

Lets say the biological mother had a one night stand with a guy. She gets knocked up, goes back to her wife, child is born a few months later,,, why should the second woman instantly parental receive rights to the child?

Same as before. If you want the baby you can claim it, giving you both right and responsibilities towards the child. If the other woman doesn't want the child don't claim it.

Dad decides he wants to be part of the childs life, the two women split up, who gets custody? Who has to pay child support? Does the dad and one of the women have to pay support to the one who has custody of the child?

That really depends on the situation. My guess would be that once the male has given his consent that he will not be the legal parent that is binding. Then both the two mothers has the obligation to support the child. Same as if heterosexuals get a divorce and find a new wife/husband.

Now we have a three way custody right with one parent having no biological relationship to the child.

I think that only two should have the custody at the same time, either the two mothers or a mom and a dad.

In adoption, no parents have biological relationship to the child.

If gays should receive instant rights, what about heterosexual couples? Jack and Jill get married, Jill has an affair with John, Jack and Jill get divorced.

Should Jack be financially responsible for the child? Should Jack receive instant parental rights even though it is not his child?

You first get responsible for a child once you claim it for your own, not before. Also if Jack knows the child is not his he can just get a parental test, and he will not be obliged to claim it as his own.

I can't really see what all the fuzz is about.

Today a single woman and a couple can adopt children with no biological connection or they can get sperm to do insemination with an unknown or known donor.

We have people who are truly unfit to be parents, become parents. We have divorces were you live with maybe one of you parents, or change between them.

So why should two women or men be any worse or better parents than the rest of the population?

If a single mom or dad can be a great parent why can't two moms or two dads be great parents?

If I really wanted the society to decide who should be able to get children and who shouldn't, then their sexuality would not be the deciding factor. Several more important factors comes to mind quite easily.


Just some thoughts

 

[lagokc]

Same as if it was heterosexual. A male can claim his illegitimate child as his own. But once you do, you have to pay.

Actually in this particular case I think in most states the male would get stuck paying child support but the mother would get custody unless she was a total screw up. This isn't because the courts favor or disfavor gays, it's because the courts disfavor men.

 

[brycejones]

Yall seem to be avoiding the question.

Why should someone who has no biological relationship to the child receive parental rights?

Start a new thread on this with out the "gays" overtone. Shit happens all the time with straight people to.

 

[Texashiker]

I think that only two should have the custody at the same time, either the two mothers or a mom and a dad.

You have three people claiming rights to the child, two are biological parents, one is not.

If custody is not to be shared between all three, who has their rights taken away?

 

[biostud]

Actually in this particular case I think in most states the male would get stuck paying child support but the mother would get custody unless she was a total screw up. This isn't because the courts favor or disfavor gays, it's because the courts disfavor men.

I'm pretty sure if you can prove that the child is not yours, you don't have to pay.

 

[nageov3t]

adoption definitely comes with an underlying risk, whether you're gay or straight.

I remember a story a couple months ago where an adoption by a heterosexual was totally by the book and legal -- the father signed away all rights to the kid -- but he still later sued for custody once he realized that the baby was given up for adoption (he claims that on signing away custody, he assumed that the girl would be raising their kid on her own).

he's using some old law regarding Native American adoptions, where Native American families are supposed to get first preference or something. (if I remember correctly, his mom was the instigator behind it)

 

[nageov3t]

You have three people claiming rights to the child, two are biological parents, one is not.

If custody is not to be shared between all three, who has their rights taken away?

regardless of the genders of any/all parents involved, a case like that would probably be decided by a court on the best interest of the child.

 

[biostud]

You have three people claiming rights to the child, two are biological parents, one is not.

If custody is not to be shared between all three, who has their rights taken away?

I'm not quite certain how the situation would arise?

Do you think of a situation where a friend donates the sperm? Then I would think that most would sign a legally binding contract before the arrangement.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You have three people claiming rights to the child, two are biological parents, one is not.

If custody is not to be shared between all three, who has their rights taken away?

What does this have to do with gays? This happens with heterosexual couples more than homosexual couples, and, generally speaking, the court decides on a case-to-case basis based on what's deemed to be in the best interests of the child in question. A woman has a child with her husband, the relationship falls apart, she remarries, the new husband wants to share custody of the child from her previous marriage. Identical scenario without the "gay" bit, which, frankly, is irrelevant. The only reason to bring up sexuality would be if someone thought that gays were inherently inferior (or superior) parents.