Lesbians dump the bill on the poor guy

[First Crusader]

One little problem with gay unions adopting children...

broken lesbian union

It would really suck to be that guy!

Of course, this isn't the most ridiculous easy divorce story. I heard of one in which the woman got money from two different men for the same child. :laughing:

[Lord Tomyris]

Oh dear, poor fellow! That's a really sticky situation to be in- and the pun is very much intended.

[Justinian]

Wasn't there a topic about this very recently?

[First Crusader]

Wasn't there a topic about this very recently?

No. You're confusing it with the gay marriage in schools thread.

[danzig]

That is an outright travesty and any laws that allow that should be changed. It goes back to the whole 'women's right', their body their choice their decision and completely ignores the rights of the male even in a situtation like this where he is simply the donater to a lesbian couple and now HE has to support the kids? Where is the male's right in 'reproduction', I swear we are becoming nothing more then sperm dispensers. No rights, no protection, if woman wants to abort she can abort, if she wants to have it you have to pay support and now even if you donate you still get 'screwed'.

[Justinian]

That is an outright travesty and any laws that allow that should be changed. It goes back to the whole 'women's right', their body their choice their decision and completely ignores the rights of the male even in a situtation like this where he is simply the donater to a lesbian couple and now HE has to support the kids? Where is the male's right in 'reproduction', I swear we are becoming nothing more then sperm dispensers. No rights, no protection, if woman wants to abort she can abort, if she wants to have it you have to pay support and now even if you donate you still get 'screwed'.

There is something to Drak's conspiracy theory after all! But yes, it's amazing how much women can get away with.

The lesson, kids: don't donate sperm to strange lesbians.

[Erik]

That's a crazy court ruling.
That's why I think it's better to have the exact same marriage for gay and straight couples so gays have the same right but also the same obligations.
I think this court simply didn't recognize the lesbians as a couple, so they appointed the sperm donar as the man per default.

This is even worst then that guy who had sex with a condom, and then afterwards his girlfriend used the condom to get pregnant and child support.
At least he got to have sex.

[danzig]

That's a crazy court ruling.
That's why I think it's better to have the exact same marriage for gay and straight couples so gays have the same right but also the same obligations.

Not sure how that would work since it all comes down to in these cases the biological parents. A gay marriage anyway you attempt it simply isnt going to be the same as a straight marriage for that very reason unless we rewrite every law/idea etc on parental rights to take it into account. In this case what could you do? Force the non biological woman to adopt the child if she wishes to remain married? Seems like that is basically what you would have to do. It is a real messy situtation and children born into this crap have to pay the price for it.

[Erik]

Not sure how that would work since it all comes down to in these cases the biological parents. A gay marriage anyway you attempt it simply isnt going to be the same as a straight marriage for that very reason unless we rewrite every law/idea etc on parental rights to take it into account. In this case what could you do? Force the non biological woman to adopt the child if she wishes to remain married? Seems like that is basically what you would have to do. It is a real messy situtation and children born into this crap have to pay the price for it.

In the Netherlands we have just that: a single form of marriage that is open to all adult couples regardless of their sexes.
No laws needed to be altered because, by a freak coincident or an increadible feat of forward planning, it was never explicitly stated in our laws that a marriage should be between a man and a woman (making it technically possible for a gay couple to get married hundreds of years ago, but this never happened).

But even in countries where marriage was explicitly only possible between a man and a woman I don't think it would be too difficult to change this.
It would only be hard if the country in question still discriminates based on sex.

But then:

For example, where I live a woman may sue for compensatory damages due to lost income if her husband is incapacitated, even if he doesn't have a job. A husband does not have this same right.

Where do you live? (Iran I am guessing).
That sounds like a increadibly stupid and backward law to me.

edit: it would still be possible to have a single form of marriage while having this law.
It would just be increadibly unfair towards lesbian couples, but the law is unfair anyways.

[Francisco Montana]

It would only be hard of the country in question still discriminates based on sex.

That's so unfair, and is frankly akin to name calling.

I'm not religious. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman because it is a religious institution. The fact that the govt made it a Govt Institution is another story. It was mainly because they wanted to give couples who plan on raising the next generation a leg up with tax breaks. I'm against that now as alot of couples (my sister and her husband for example) have no intention of having children, and thus, technically smear the sanctity of marriage.

I think couples raising children should get the tax breaks. Whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt is another story also, but at least this way it's not based on sex discrimination, but rather based on who's trying to raise the next generation. Which, I will repeat, was the only reason Govt got in the marriage business in the 1st place.

Gay couples can have their civil unions (I was one of the 1st republicans I know that support that years ago). That way they don't have to pay extra legal fees to have the same right to leave belongings to their loved ones at death and the same right to visit them in the hospital when critically ill.

So you would say I am a bigot and a homophobe, right?

Let's try and back up our arguements with well thought out reason, not name calling and enuendo.

[Erik]

That's so unfair, and is frankly akin to name calling.

How so?

I'm not religious. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman because it is a religious institution. The fact that the govt made it a Govt Institution is another story. It was mainly because they wanted to give couples who plan on raising the next generation a leg up with tax breaks. I'm against that now as alot of couples (my sister and her husband for example) have no intention of having children, and thus, technically smear the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage has been a state institution for a very long time. (for hundreds of years).
If marriage was still a religous institution every religion would have it's own form of marriage, and this would be ackward in any organized society.
And what about atheists like me?
Does my lack of religion mean I should never be allowed to get married?

If you don't like the fact that marriage is a state instutution you should attack this, not the gay marriages that are a result of this.

I think couples raising children should get the tax breaks. Whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt is another story also, but at least this way it's not based on sex discrimination, but rather based on who's trying to raise the next generation. Which, I will repeat, was the only reason Govt got in the marriage business in the 1st place.

Says who?
I think the government got into it for much more reasons.

Gay couples can have their civil unions (I was one of the 1st republicans I know that support that years ago). That way they don't have to pay extra legal fees to have the same right to leave belongings to their loved ones at death and the same right to visit them in the hospital when critically ill.

The problem with unions is that they cause confusion like in the article.
How many forms of marriage, unions, legal bonds, contracts, etc. etc. do you want?
I hate bureaucracy.

So you would say I am a bigot and a homophobe, right?

Where did I sugest that?
But based on your fierce reaction: yes.

Let's try and back up our arguements with well thought out reason, not name calling and enuendo.

Yes, lets do that.. as I'm convinced I already did.

[Wags]

Yes, creating a legal marriage for homosexuals and imposing the same rules and restrictions as heterosexuals couples would help clear up these problems. But as long as we try to avoid the issue or give half-assed solutions, we'll continue getting these problems.

[imb39]

This is a situation where the law is behind the times. It needs updating so that the other... mother pays.

[First Crusader]

I agree with Danzig. No child deserves to be born into such a messed up "family"

[Rowan11088]

I agree with Danzig. No child deserves to be born into such a messed up "family"

Oh God, you HAVE to twist this into a gay-bashing thread, don't you? No one here has said that children shouldn't be allowed into same-sex couples until you came along, you're just misinterpreting. People are saying that gay marriage should be given the exact same status as regular marriage so that this doesn't happen, something you are clearly against. I don't think the child was harmed in any stage of this, or needed to be anyway, any more than a child of any divorced couple.

[Tom Paine]

Rowan,

One little problem with gay unions adopting children...

If that isn't anti-"gay adoption" then what is it?

[First Crusader]

If that isn't anti-"gay adoption" then what is it?

Errr, explain how that qualifies as an argument...

[Tom Paine]

Errr, explain how that qualifies as an argument...

Its not an argument, it was a point for Rowan, who claimed that that sort of thing hadn't entered the thread before, yet you put that in the first post. Meh.

[First Crusader]

Its not an argument, it was a point for Rowan, who claimed that that sort of thing hadn't entered the thread before, yet you put that in the first post. Meh.

I'm not sure what you meant, but OK.

[Empyrean]

That's why I think it's better to have the exact same marriage for gay and straight couples so gays have the same right but also the same obligations.

That is impossible. Laws which are gender specific cannot be applied in the same way to gay couples. For example, where I live a woman may sue for compensatory damages due to lost income if her husband is incapacitated, even if he doesn't have a job. A husband does not have this same right. Even if you make marriage laws apply to gays, they will not have the same rights and protections simply because the makup of the union is different.

I think a much better solution would be for the government to enforce the contract of marriage, but otherwise stay out of it. The idea of secular authorities having power over marriage is a fairly recent one, and in any case their involvement in it beyond its nature as a contract is completely unnecessary.