Gays and having children

[Codewiz]

Its not that at all.

If you know someone is not the parent, should they be listed as the parent at birth?

Unless the sperm donor plans to be listed on the birth certificate, NO.

This is no different than a guy who goes to a sperm bank and donates. Should his name be on the birth certificate for every woman that uses his sperm?

Of course not......

As for the partner, yes if she is going to be the parent of the child, regardless of biological ties, she should be listed as the parent of the child when it is born.

In the case of the child I am adopting, only the mother is listed on his current birth certificate. When he is adopted by us, we will be getting a birth certificate with his new name AND us listed as the parents.

 

[Zxian]

Maybe the concept of mother and father are outdated?

They are. This is precisely the problem that the couple in your article are facing.

 

[Texashiker]

I think whatever vision you had for this thread fell flat. You should probably just abandon it.

I think most of the people are jumping to conclusions.

People are commenting about donors, and there is nothing mentioned in the op about donation.

I had hoped the members of this community could have a well rounded discussion on parental rights, and what it meant to be a parent.

 

[SheHateMe]

I had hoped the members of this community could have a well rounded discussion on parental rights, and what it meant to be a parent.

That certainly won't happen when you're making a thread about gays that is *not* about gays but actually parental rights.

Also, the overall tone of your OP and your following posts lead many of us to believe that this in fact WAS an anti thread as opposed to you somehow being concerned for the rights of LGBT..

It seemed at many points of this thread that you had no clue of what you were really trying to say and instead accused other posters of "avoiding the tough questions" when your questions were answered several times.


If you wanted to talk about parental rights and what it meant to be a parent, you probably shouldn't have named the thread "Gays and having children"...

Just sayin.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think most of the people are jumping to conclusions.

People are commenting about donors, and there is nothing mentioned in the op about donation.

People are commenting about donors because you linked to an article about a lesbian who carried a baby to term in her womb. In the absence of any details about a male lover, the logical conclusion is that she used a sperm donor. That makes it a reasonable point for discussion. You're the one who jumped to some awfully unlikely conclusions when you started mentioning the father of a child born to a committed lesbian couple was probably a one-night stand. To wit:

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.

That's a direct quote from your OP. You don't see details, so instead of jumping to the logical conclusion of "sperm donor," which is how the vast majority of lesbians get pregnant, you invent some sordid affair with a one-night stand and a father who wants to take back custody of his kid. It's an interesting fantasy, but in the absence of concrete facts, it makes as much sense as assuming that the woman got pregnant through divine intervention and her child is the reincarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ on Earth. Ask yourself what's more likely: that a woman who has married her lesbian partner had a one-night stand with a man, got pregnant and carried the baby to term with her wife supporting her and wanting to adopt the baby; or that they used a sperm donor the way most lesbian couples do who want to have a baby without going through an adoption service?

 

[Texashiker]

That's a direct quote from your OP. You don't see details, so instead of jumping to the logical conclusion of "sperm donor," which is how the vast majority of lesbians get pregnant, you invent some sordid affair with a one-night stand and a father who wants to take back custody of his kid.

Sperm donors do not have parental rights.

The affair example is in line with the topic of the thread, which is parental rights.

The article linked to in the op was about parental rights.

 

[OutHouse]

Sperm donors do not have parental rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-ryznar/sperm-donor-child-support_b_2442854.html

 

[Texashiker]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-ryznar/sperm-donor-child-support_b_2442854.html

As some people in this thread have said, whoever was present at the birth, and said they are the parents, they should be held responsible for the welfare of the child.

Since the biological father was not around, he should not be held responsible.

With equal rights comes equal responsibility. How can a lesbian couple have a child and the other parent be allowed to just walk away?

Like I said before in this thread, maybe our definition of father and mother needs to change

 

[SheHateMe]

Okay, so this thread IS about gays. Which is it, man?

 

[Texashiker]

Okay, so this thread IS about gays. Which is it, man?

Why are you harping on if this is a gay thread? It is not a gay thread, it is a parental rights thread. But with rights also comes responsibility.

Take the link outhouse posted. Why isn't the state requiring the other partner of the lesbian relationship to pay child support?

As with the opening post, with all marriages and relationships equal, shouldn't the ex-partner be required to support the child?

 

[SheHateMe]

Take the link outhouse posted. Why isn't the state requiring the other partner of the lesbian relationship to pay child support?

As with the opening post, with all marriages and relationships equal, shouldn't the ex-partner be required to support the child?

From the article, it looks like going after the father is the course of action when dealing with government aid. How do you know whether or not the state knew about her orientation? They probably didn't because they probably didn't ask and I am not even sure if they are allowed to. The state did what it NORMALLY would have done with any request for aid. Any complications would probably have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Another issue brought up in that same article is the fact that neither party went to a doctor for the insemination. The women simply put out an ad and the guy dropped of his stuff on their porch. It was improperly done and not in concordence with this:

On the state's side of the argument is the Kansas Parentage Act of 1994, which states, "The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman."

In other words, to avoid being considered a father, a Kansas sperm donor should donate through a doctor. This is to achieve clean-cut, black-and-white cases of sperm donation, thereby reducing instances of fraud against the state that can occur when a father simply claims to be a sperm donor to avoid financial responsibility.

Therefore, not only did neither party go through the proper channels for their agreement...according to the state's law, the father still has financial responsibility for that child regardless of whatever agreement they had in private. That is a DIRECT result of circumventing a physician when responding to the donor ad.

Of course, this would have been laid out for you had you actually internalized the article. You looked at it...saw gay and decided that it was fuel for your argument.

 

[Darwin333]

Did you read the linked article in the opening post?




Maybe the concept of a mother and father are outdated?

As with the linked article in the opening post, why couldn't the biological mother list her partner as the father? Or just list her as the other parent?

To affirm the rights of gays to adopt, why do we need a father and mother on the birth certificate? Why not just list both parents?

You continually avoid the "tough answers" that basically invalidates your entire argument.

A birth certificate is NOT intended for what you propose. It isn't intended to "force" people to be parents against their will. It is a record of the childs biological parents. Sometimes it isn't used in that manner but that doesn't change the absolute fact of what its true purpose is.

I mean hell, using your argument why don't we just list the mother on the birth certificate and then amend it at some later time when she decides who she wants the father to be? Wanna know why we don't do that, because its fucking retarded thats why.

Our adoption process has many flaws and if you are truly concerned about this topic, which I do not believe you are, you should be focusing on slight tweaks to make the adoption process quicker, easier, and cheaper for qualified parents and stop with this ignorance.

 

[Darwin333]

Why are you harping on if this is a gay thread? It is not a gay thread, it is a parental rights thread. But with rights also comes responsibility.

Take the link outhouse posted. Why isn't the state requiring the other partner of the lesbian relationship to pay child support?

As with the opening post, with all marriages and relationships equal, shouldn't the ex-partner be required to support the child?

Because gay couples don't have dickall the same rights as straight couples who are allowed to marry and don't have idiots screaming when they try to adopt a child making the process much harder for $100?

I thought you were serious at first but you are obviously tolling at this point and you aren't doing a very good job of it if I might say.

 

[Darwin333]

Why are you harping on if this is a gay thread? It is not a gay thread, it is a parental rights thread. But with rights also comes responsibility.

Take the link outhouse posted. Why isn't the state requiring the other partner of the lesbian relationship to pay child support?

As with the opening post, with all marriages and relationships equal, shouldn't the ex-partner be required to support the child?

Because she isn't legally the parent of the child and its the States law. If he would have donated sperm the proper way he wouldn't be on the hook at all. Try again.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You continually avoid the "tough answers" that basically invalidates your entire argument.

A birth certificate is NOT intended for what you propose. It isn't intended to "force" people to be parents against their will. It is a record of the childs biological parents. Sometimes it isn't used in that manner but that doesn't change the absolute fact of what its true purpose is.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I was adopted by my mothers at two different points; one at my birth, the other when I was 9 or so. I have two birth certificates; one from my birth, which lists only the name of my adoptive mother, and an amended one from my second adoption which has both my mothers' names. I was never issued a birth certificate with the names of my biological parents. Actually, because of state law at the time I was born, it was illegal for a birthing center to release the information of biological parents to adoptive parents if they wished to remain anonymous, so their names couldn't have gone on the birth certificate.

A birth certificate isn't a record of biology, it's a record of who a child's parents are when they are born. If they're adopted at birth, why would you put the biological parents' names on the certificate when they're never going to be responsible for that child?

 

[BlueWolf47]

What i dont get is why you would want to constantly remind an adopted child that his parents who adopted him are not his real parents. I would think it could cause emotional and psychological problems when the child is young.

 

[ZaneNBK]

What i dont get is why you would want to constantly remind an adopted child that his parents who adopted him are not his real parents. I would think it could cause emotional and psychological problems when the child is young.

This thread is NOT about child rights, it's about parental rights. NOT GAYS AND NOT TROLLING. Or trolling.

 

[BlueWolf47]

If the biological doner to the child was unaware and then wanted to be in the childs life wouldnt he just apply for joint custody? But a married couple where one of the spouses concieved of the child shouldnt have to go through extra lengths to be legal guardians. This should apply to both hetero and homosexual partners. But donated sperm or a donated egg does not give the biological doner any rights to the child.

 

[Texashiker]

Of course, this would have been laid out for you had you actually internalized the article. You looked at it...saw gay and decided that it was fuel for your argument.

I think the article is a good example of stuff that needs to be fixed.

If a gay couple wishes to use a donor, then the law needs to be changed.

If a gay couple wishes to list both members of the union as a parent, they should be able to do so, and without having to go through an adoption agency.

As it stands right now gay couples have to jump through hoops to form a family. That needs to be fixed so it is easier.

 

[zsdersw]

zsdersw wants to troll me so I poked him back.

I don't get poked. I do the poking.

 

[SheHateMe]

I think the article is a good example of stuff that needs to be fixed.

If a gay couple wishes to use a donor, then the law needs to be changed.

If a gay couple wishes to list both members of the union as a parent, they should be able to do so, and without having to go through an adoption agency.

As it stands right now gay couples have to jump through hoops to form a family. That needs to be fixed so it is easier.

No, the article is a good example of what happens when you cut corners to do things.

This has nothing to do with things not being equal. The state went after the father because thats what their procedure is. Legally, he was still responsible for that child beccause they did not do the insemination through a physicial. It was some backdoor deal they had with one another.

In that case, the state has not idea who is the parent and who is not...because nothing was done formally through the proper channel.


So, really. That article is not a good argument for equality. Its a good argument for what not to do when it comes to LGBT parenting.

 

[Darwin333]

I'll have to disagree with you there. I was adopted by my mothers at two different points; one at my birth, the other when I was 9 or so. I have two birth certificates; one from my birth, which lists only the name of my adoptive mother, and an amended one from my second adoption which has both my mothers' names. I was never issued a birth certificate with the names of my biological parents. Actually, because of state law at the time I was born, it was illegal for a birthing center to release the information of biological parents to adoptive parents if they wished to remain anonymous, so their names couldn't have gone on the birth certificate.

A birth certificate isn't a record of biology, it's a record of who a child's parents are when they are born. If they're adopted at birth, why would you put the biological parents' names on the certificate when they're never going to be responsible for that child?

That falls under the rare and very special circumstances. It is actually a detriment to the child though as knowing your family history can be extremely important for things like your health. With that said, I don't disagree with them doing it that way if the parents giving the child up for adoption wish to remain anonymous.

 

[Texashiker]

No, the article is a good example of what happens when you cut corners to do things.

This has nothing to do with things not being equal. The state went after the father because thats what their procedure is. Legally, he was still responsible for that child beccause they did not do the insemination through a physicial. It was some backdoor deal they had with one another.

Both articles, the one I linked to and the one outhouse linked to, are excellent examples of how gays have to jump through hoops to form a family.

Take a heterosexual couple of example. if the man is sterile, all the woman has to do is have sex with another man, which happens all the time. There was a news article awhile back about a man who has something like 70 children. Then the husband has his name put on the birth certificate.

So why can't gays do the same thing? Why cant a lesbian couple use a donor, and put both partners names on the birth certificate?

Being a parent is more than just donating sperm or eggs. Society is denying those who wish to be parents the opportunity to do so.

 

[Darwin333]

Sperm donors do not have parental rights.

The affair example is in line with the topic of the thread, which is parental rights.

The article linked to in the op was about parental rights.

The article linked in the OP was about adoption which grants parental rights. The context is extremely important and if you actually wanted to use the article to base a discussion on the discussion should be about the adoption process and not whatever the fuck you are calling "parental rights" because except in cases of fraud the only way to get parental rights is to either knock someone up/get knocked up or adopt.

Since this thread IS about gays, in the case of gay relationships at the very least one partner must adopt the child to have parental rights.

Now would you like to discuss the adoption process, which again is what the true discussion should be about if you truly do care about the issue, or would you prefer to let the train wreck continue?

 

[Darwin333]

Both articles, the one I linked to and the one outhouse linked to, are excellent examples of how gays have to jump through hoops to form a family.

Take a heterosexual couple of example. if the man is sterile, all the woman has to do is have sex with another man, which happens all the time. There was a news article awhile back about a man who has something like 70 children. Then the husband has his name put on the birth certificate.


Being a parent is more than just donating sperm or eggs. Society is denying those who wish to be parents the opportunity to do so.

Once again you are going off the deep end. Not once did you raise the issue of making the adoption process easier. Instead you make an asinine comment like "society is denying those who wish to be parents the opportunity to do so" which in the context of your message could easily mean arbitrarily removing someone elses rights.

So why can't gays do the same thing? Why cant a lesbian couple use a donor, and put both partners names on the birth certificate?

That would require legislation and since people like you oppose even allowing them to get married I don't see that legislation passing anytime soon. Between now and then their only option is the adoption process. So the short answer to your question is people like you.