Gays and having children

[SheHateMe]

And you are avoiding the main question.

I answered your main question.


I am still baffled why you decided to create a thread about Gay marriage to talk about this. It is extremely silly.

As it stands now, I don't think two women can both claim the child at the hospital. I am sure there is some agreement beforehand with the bio dad about parentage. And like I said before in my earlier post on adoptions and surrogacy, there normally are agreements over rights.

So, I am honestly not interested in running around in circles with you.

Again, so confusing why you created this thread in the first place.

 

[Texashiker]

Again, so confusing why you created this thread in the first place.

There are issues about gay marriage and parenting that have not been addressed by society.

As with the linked article in the opening post, why should one member of a gay marriage be forced to go through an adoption.

 

[nageov3t]

There are issues about gay marriage and parenting that have not been addressed by society.

As with the linked article in the opening post, why should one member of a gay marriage be forced to go through an adoption.

laws vary from state to state.

in states without legalized gay marriage, the non-biological gay parent would not be permitted on the birth certificate and would have to file adoption paperwork to be considered the legal guardian.

in most states with gay marriage, a married gay couple could elect to have both of their names on the birth certificate, and yes, I suppose that's erasing some of the biological father's rights. if he wanted to assert his rights, it would have to be determined by a court in the best interest of the child (and by default, courts always seem to side with the biological mother unless there are extreme circumstances).

it's a complicated situation that exists because gay marriage isn't legal everywhere and there's no national laws about it, but it's not quite a crisis. I can't imagine it would ever affect more than tens of couples throughout the country.

 

[brycejones]

There are issues about gay marriage and parenting that have not been addressed by society.

As with the linked article in the opening post, why should one member of a gay marriage be forced to go through an adoption.

But this thread isn't about gays, you've said so yourself. Is it about gays or isn't it?

 

[Texashiker]

But this thread isn't about gays, you've said so yourself. Is it about gays or isn't it?

Not an anti-gay nor an anti-adoption thread.

As stated in the opening post, all marriages being equal, why should gay couples be required to go through adoption?

 

[nehalem256]

Not an anti-gay nor an anti-adoption thread.

As stated in the opening post, all marriages being equal, why should gay couples be required to go through adoption?

Because all marriages are not equal.

In a straight marriage if the wife gets pregnant the reasonable assumption is that the husband is the father.

In a lesbian marriage if wife1 gets pregnant the only reasonable assumption is that wife2 is not the father

 

[nageov3t]

Not an anti-gay nor an anti-adoption thread.

As stated in the opening post, all marriages being equal, why should gay couples be required to go through adoption?

it's a problem of DOMA and the patchwork of laws in the US regarding gay marriage.

the couple is married in New York State, which allows both gay parents on a birth certificate. if they were content to never leave the state, they wouldn't have to go through these hoops.

obviously the solution is to strike down DOMA and make other states recognize the birth certificates/marriage licenses in states where gay marriage is legal, but that's years down the road and we're stuck with the patchwork till then.

 

[Texashiker]

In a lesbian marriage if wife1 gets pregnant the only reasonable assumption is that wife2 is not the father

Maybe society needs to stop looking at families in a father and mother point of view? Rather then saying a person is the father or the mother of a child, maybe we should call them parents?

But if that happens, do we diminish the biological relationship?

Should a biological parent have no more rights than someone off the street who raises their hand and says they are willing to take care of the child?

the couple is married in New York State, which allows both gay parents on a birth certificate.

Lets move forward 200, 300, 400 years,,,, someone is digging through birth certificates, finds the name of two gay people as the parents. It should be pretty clear that child is not the result of two gay people.

 

[Theb]

Lets move forward 200, 300, 400 years,,,, someone is digging through birth certificates, finds the name of two gay people as the parents. It should be pretty clear that child is not the result of two gay people.

And then?

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe society needs to stop looking at families in a father and mother point of view? Rather then saying a person is the father or the mother of a child, maybe we should call them parents?

But if that happens, do we diminish the biological relationship?

Should a biological parent have no more rights than someone off the street who raises their hand and says they are willing to take care of the child?

But if we do that how can we hold men responsible for the bastard children that women choose to have?

I doubt that very many people truly want to move away from a biology=parent perspective. At least not consistently.

 

[nageov3t]

Lets move forward 200, 300, 400 years,,,, someone is digging through birth certificates, finds the name of two gay people as the parents. It should be pretty clear that child is not the result of two gay people.

I don't think it's the end of the world.

if the child was conceived through an anonymous sperm donor or a one-night stand with a total stranger, the birth certificate would just have a blank line instead, no?

 

[SheHateMe]

I don't think it's the end of the world.

if the child was conceived through an anonymous sperm donor or a one-night stand with a total stranger, the birth certificate would just have a blank line instead, no?

Exactly.

 

[dank69]

Replace the word "gay" with "interracial" in your OP and then get back to us and tell us whether you are trolling or retarded.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't think it's the end of the world.

if the child was conceived through an anonymous sperm donor or a one-night stand with a total stranger, the birth certificate would just have a blank line instead, no?

Adopted children have as many rights as biological children. So its not like it would be "that" bad.

Replace the word "gay" with "interracial" in your OP and then get back to us and tell us whether you are trolling or retarded.

Entirely different situation, not even comparable to this thread.

 

[Darwin333]

And you are avoiding the main question.

Married couple, or just living together, should a non-biological partner be granted parental rights at birth?

You said yes, but have yet to explain why being present at a certain time carries just as much weight as a court order.

Or better yet, should parental responsibility be forced upon the other partner? One of the people in the civil union has a child with someone else, should their partner be forced to pay child support and carry health insurance on the child?

If we put aside the issue of the biological father, and just look at two parents raising a child, should both members of a married couple be made responsible for the child?

Sigh....

The answer is ridiculously easy. It should be the way it is supposed to be now. That is the biological parents are initially responsible for the child regardless of marriage or relationship status. If one biological parent wishes to willfully give up his rights and another consenting adult wishes to take on those responsibilities that should be allowed. If a parent is willing to sign away their rights they won't actually be a parent to the child anyway so in almost all cases nothing but good can come from allowing the remaining partner to make his/her spouse the childs adopted parent. The new adopted parent should now be just as legally responsible for the childs well being as a biological parent including but not limited to child support should the couple separate/divorce at a later date.

Signing a birth certificate under fraudulent conditions, being present at the birth, relationship status or any other bullshit should be completely irrelevant.

 

[Texashiker]

The answer is ridiculously easy. It should be the way it is supposed to be now. That is the biological parents are initially responsible for the child regardless of marriage or relationship status.

Signing a birth certificate under fraudulent conditions, being present at the birth, relationship status or any other bullshit should be completely irrelevant.

So gay couples should not receive the same privileges as a heterosexual couple? And that is being able to add their name to the birth certificate at birth.

 

[mistercrabby]

This whole discussion is like talking about time travel. From "Looper"- Older Joe: I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws.

 

[biostud]

So a woman has a "right" to unilaterally deny a man his child.

But a man does not have a "right" to unilaterally say he doesn't want anything to do with it.



And there is essentially no instance where doing so does not reflect badly on the woman. Either she is an immoral hussy who doesn't know who the father is, or she is vindictive and is denying the child a good father, or she is choosing to have a child with a rotten man.

If the father knows it's his child he of course has the right to see it if he wants to, just as much as the mother. But the woman has the legal right to say that the father is unknown. So in that case the father will never know it. If the mother and father are never going to see each other again, then he'll never know, but if they see each other often are live close by each other then, the pregnancy will be difficult to hide, and he can ask for a paternity test.

Personally I think the mother should tell the father, but if he's not good for the child, then I can understand why she wouldn't want to.

In many cases the mothers who end in a situation like this, are maybe not the most responsible ones. (ie getting pregnant in the first place).

But sometimes accident happens: One night stand drunken sex + broken condom. etc.

 

[nehalem256]

If the father knows it's his child he of course has the right to see it if he wants to, just as much as the mother. But the woman has the legal right to say that the father is unknown. So in that case the father will never know it. If the mother and father are never going to see each other again, then he'll never know, but if they see each other often are live close by each other then, the pregnancy will be difficult to hide, and he can ask for a paternity test.

And why should she have this right? How is that in the best interest of the child?

Why does a woman have the right to deny her child the financial support of the father, but a man does not have the right to deny his financial support to the child? :hmm:

Personally I think the mother should tell the father, but if he's not good for the child, then I can understand why she wouldn't want to.

And why should the woman have the right to unilaterally decide that the father "isn't good" for her child. Especially given that she decided to have a child with him. Sounds to me like maybe the mother shouldn't have access to the child either.

In many cases the mothers who end in a situation like this, are maybe not the most responsible ones. (ie getting pregnant in the first place).

But sometimes accident happens: One night stand drunken sex + broken condom. etc.

And so we should allow irresponsible women the right to deny their children a father? :hmm:

What happened to the best interest of the child?

 

[dank69]

...

Entirely different situation, not even comparable to this thread.

Maybe you should actually do what I suggested before you continue trolling/tarding.

 

[Texashiker]

Maybe you should actually do what I suggested before you continue trolling/tarding.

The only person trolling here is you.

The rest of us are trying to have a conversation about parenting, parental rights and parental responsibility.

 

[sm625]

You dont even need to have a partner to adopt a child. It is completely irrelevant.

 

[Darwin333]

So gay couples should not receive the same privileges as a heterosexual couple? And that is being able to add their name to the birth certificate at birth.

Of course gay people should have the same rights and privileges. If they are the biological parent their name should go on the birth certificate.

Not sure how it is currently handled with sperm donors and whatnot but in those cases a gay couple should be treated exactly as a hetero couple would.

And your argument makes no sense, birth certificates have absolutely positively nothing to do with marriage or relationship status. I know a guy that was married to one woman and signed the birth certificate of his child by another woman who was also married (they had in vitro DNA testing or whatever its called). Furthermore you aren't required to sign the birth certificate after your wife gives birth. Hell I don't even see signing a birth certificate as a right or privilege at all, its simply an acknowledgement that you are the biological parent of the child.

 

[Texashiker]

Of course gay people should have the same rights and privileges. If they are the biological parent their name should go on the birth certificate.
<snip>
Hell I don't even see signing a birth certificate as a right or privilege at all, its simply an acknowledgement that you are the biological parent of the child.

As with the gay couple in the opening post what happens when one is not the biological parent?

Should states allow anyone to be put on the birth certificate? Or just biological parents?

According to shehatesme if a couple is married than both should have their names on the birth certificate. But where does the biological parent fit into that?

Jill and Jane have a child, but Bob wants visitation and parental rights. Do all three names go on the birth certificate?

A few years later Jill and Jane separate, Jill gets possession of the child, do Jane and Bob both have to pay child support?

 

[Darwin333]

As with the gay couple in the opening post what happens when one is not the biological parent?

The same thing that happens in hetero relationships that have the same circumstances.

Should states allow anyone to be put on the birth certificate?

Or just biological parents?

Yes for the most part. I am ok with exceptions under very special circumstances.

According to shehatesme if a couple is married than both should have their names on the birth certificate. But where does the biological parent fit into that?

I don't care what Shehatesme says, he is wrong.

Jill and Jane have a child, but Bob wants visitation and parental rights. Do all three names go on the birth certificate?

No

A few years later Jill and Jane separate, Jill gets possession of the child, do Jane and Bob both have to pay child support?

No.

Any other questions?