It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: mamabeth
I also remember a while back that a guy who supplied his sperm for a same-sex couple.When that couple
split up HE had to pay child support.


That story is so sad! The state blackmailed the lesbian couple, telling them that if they didn't reveal the sperm donor, the child couldn't get health care. He had even signed a contract with the couple, relinquishing all rights and responsibilities to and for the child, but the state ruled it null and void, because the insemination wasn't performed by a certified doctor. The couple is working with the biological father against the state's decision.

www.avoiceformen.com...

As regards the question of custody, it would be handled just as any other couple's divorce and custody would be handled. In court.


The mother always gets the child unless she's proven to be unfit. How does the court determine who the mother is? Do they rewrite the law so that the fathers might actually stand a chance in court now? What do they do?




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a paper trail involved in those procedures. All of the medical information is on record and available upon request.


As AugustusMasonicus pointed out in cases of sperm bank donation, the legal husband (not the sperm donor) gets listed on the birth certificate. So why should homosexual couples be treated differently?


Because the mother of the child in Augustus's link signs the BC after she gives birth. When has a homosexual ever given birth? Do you understand the wormhole this creates when you guys constantly cry about equal rights? This is not equality, you're looking for special privilege rights. Men can't have a baby together. Women can't have a baby together. That's what nature says, and no amount of protesting and crying will change that. They simply can't give birth to a child.


That's completely asinine. Lesbian couples have children with no problem.

Utilizing a sperm donor.

Just like hetero couples do.

Gay men adopt children.

Just like hetero couples do.

What happens when a child is adopted? The original birth certificate, with the original last name, is sealed and a new one is issued under the new last name.

Literally nothing you've said applies to anybody other than gay couples. Hetero couples do the exact same thing every damn day as what gay couples do, but it's different because queer, right?

Get your bible out of other people's lives.



Get my Bible out of other peoples lives? Back off dude. It's not the Bible that tells me two men can't screw and produce a child, nor can two women. Next time someone smears # all over your pancakes, don't get pissy and try to take it out on other posters. If you can show me a link where two men slept together and produced a baby, or two women, I'll retract my statement.


Boy, you went nuclear huh? Touched a nerve?

I never said two men can biologically produce a child. Nor did I say two women can.

If the bible isn't the root of your notion that gay people should have extra hoops to jump through because gay, what IS the root then?

I mean seriously. Your post that labs should be put on the birth certificate for test tube babies is so wildly ridiculous that it's readily apparent nothing is too much of a reach when it comes to inconveniencing people, so long as "dem damn gays" get screwed over somehow. You're obviously quite happy to turn over decades of "how it's done" just to ensure that gays don't get treated the same as straight people.

Enjoy those pancakes, guy.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dreamwatcher
Just thought I would share my experience concerning birth certificates from the point of an adopted child.

My official birth certificate lists my adoptive parents that have no biological/genealogical connection to me.

The original birth certificate with my biological parents named is impounded. NOBODY has access to it including myself. For all intents and purposes it does not exist.

The argument about a birth certificate being a absolute genealogical record is complete and utter BS. They are altered regularly and in reality are only proof of the time/date and where one was born. My adoptive parents even had the option of changing my name on the birth certificate at the time of adoption.

The really crazy thing about this...If the partner in the gay couple not on the BC were to adopt the child, the birth certificate would have to list them on the birth certificate.

This whole thing is nothing more then saber-rattling, and those in Arkansas that are causing a fuss about gay couples on BC are just doing it for political reasons.


That's interesting... As a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and Sons of Confederate Veterans, they had to track down birth certificates to my family tree to make sure I was a true descendant of those soldiers. I wonder, after what you said, how many people are in groups like that, that go back according to BC's, that aren't really a direct blood line. I'm sure they can't always round up birth certificates that far back and have to go by "gut feelings" but it's still interesting.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
It's about people who morally know right from wrong and don't need to use a law as a crutch to justify their decisions.

I for one would rather know where I came from and my genealogy that goes along with it like family diseases and my origins that are actually useful to me in my life.

But I guess you would rather force me to believe in a lie from birth. Because of course that's for the greater good of me,right?


Then you should move to have the laws changed for heterosexual couples too since they can legally omit the birth parents on adopted children. You cannot have two different applications of the law based on 'morality' or any other issue you happen to have.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: mamabeth
I also remember a while back that a guy who supplied his sperm for a same-sex couple.When that couple
split up HE had to pay child support.


That story is so sad! The state blackmailed the lesbian couple, telling them that if they didn't reveal the sperm donor, the child couldn't get health care. He had even signed a contract with the couple, relinquishing all rights and responsibilities to and for the child, but the state ruled it null and void, because the insemination wasn't performed by a certified doctor. The couple is working with the biological father against the state's decision.

www.avoiceformen.com...

As regards the question of custody, it would be handled just as any other couple's divorce and custody would be handled. In court.


The mother always gets the child unless she's proven to be unfit. How does the court determine who the mother is? Do they rewrite the law so that the fathers might actually stand a chance in court now? What do they do?


I have sole custody of my two children, with visitation at my discretion, and at no point was she ever deemed an unfit mother, which is an actual ruling the presiding judge must make and not just a fancy way of saying "crappy parent." She was found to be substantially less capable than I am to be a primary provider, but not unfit.

Blanket statements are rarely a good idea.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
It's about people who morally know right from wrong and don't need to use a law as a crutch to justify their decisions.

I for one would rather know where I came from and my genealogy that goes along with it like family diseases and my origins that are actually useful to me in my life.

But I guess you would rather force me to believe in a lie from birth. Because of course that's for the greater good of me,right?


Then you should move to have the laws changed for heterosexual couples too since they can legally omit the birth parents on adopted children. You cannot have two different applications of the law based on 'morality' or any other issue you happen to have.


Sure you can, because gay.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

You may or may not be a bigot, but your education on gay rights and tolerance for gay causes is sorely lacking. You don't appear to be up to speed knowledge-wise on what you are talking about either.


Ok Krazy. I've only been hearing about it and reading about it and watching people on both sides of the isle piss and moan about it since it first reared its head at the national level. But ok.


So? Bias clouds judgement. There are plenty of people who research topics their whole lives and know next to nothing about how the topic actually works. Just look at the Creation v Evolution debate.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

When I googled it, all the stories were from mid 2015 so it seems relatively new. Perhaps that's when it hit the national spotlight. My only issue with any of this is that I think the birth mother and father should be on the birth certificate. Has nothing to do with what sex the adopting couples are. There should be another form for that, whether gay or straight.

Shamrock raged out because I said nature didn't intend two men and two women to produce a child together, and told me to keep my Bible out of other people's lives.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a paper trail involved in those procedures. All of the medical information is on record and available upon request.


As AugustusMasonicus pointed out in cases of sperm bank donation, the legal husband (not the sperm donor) gets listed on the birth certificate. So why should homosexual couples be treated differently?


Because the mother of the child in Augustus's link signs the BC after she gives birth. When has a homosexual ever given birth? Do you understand the wormhole this creates when you guys constantly cry about equal rights? This is not equality, you're looking for special privilege rights. Men can't have a baby together. Women can't have a baby together. That's what nature says, and no amount of protesting and crying will change that. They simply can't give birth to a child.


Lesbians can't give birth? Wow. That's news to me...


You think they're gonna scissor together and make a baby or are you purposely being obtuse?


No I'm saying that a lesbian couple can go to a sperm bank and get sperm to have a baby. Just like a heterosexual couple can do the same. You are the one being obtuse here. I've laid out what I mean plain as day, yet you are purposely trying to muddy the waters with stereotypes and bias.


And that woman's name will be on the birth certificate. Why would you put the name of someone that didn't give birth to a child, on that child's birth certificate? I have a feeling you think I'm trying to say that gays shouldn't adopt kids and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the birth certificate should be reserved for the birth mother. My cousin just adopted his wife's child that was from another marriage. Kid's father didn't want anything to do with him. He signed adoption papers, not a new birth certificate.


Here's what needs to happen. Whatever they do to BC's for heterosexual couples in cases of adoption, in vitro, sperm donation, etc they need to do for homosexual couples. End of story.

If you think that the birth parents should be on the BC, then that applies for heterosexual couples too. Again, end of story. There is no in the middle here. You can only have all or none.
edit on 11-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
Probably a good idea. I like the way you stereotyped too, putting the two first names together like a backwoods redneck would do, while making it a point that you didn't marry your cousin. How clever.


Are you saying that 'backwoods rednecks' have a monopoly on that style of name? For all you know Bubba Joe could have been a Harvard grad who just happened to also enjoy porking his cousin.



edit on 11-12-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
The mother always gets the child unless she's proven to be unfit.


That's not actually true. It used to be like that. And mothers ARE more likely to get custody, but today, shared custody is very popular.



How does the court determine who the mother is? Do they rewrite the law so that the fathers might actually stand a chance in court now? What do they do?


We shall see.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
So what the hell are you blabbing about sperm banks for then? You know exactly what was discussed, and it wasn't about sperm banks. Why would anyone say a sperm bank should help rear a child?


What 'labs' are creating random children that are not being adopted? If you are not referring to sperm banks what 'labs' are you referring to?



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: THEatsking

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NthOther

So where is your outrage for heterosexual couples that do this and list the husband as the father instead of the sperm donor?


Everyone just continues to ignore your valid questions .. ugh.


This hasn't been a big issue. Now that it's in the light, it seems that everyone prefers that the birth mother and father be reserved for the birth certificate names and another form of paper be readily available for the adopting couple.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Apparently you don't know what "gay" is... You do know that women can be gay too, right?


Tell that to the LGBTQ... They're all gay, so why do they need a moniker to distinguish themselves?


Actually, no that isn't true. Transexuals or transgendered aren't necessarily gay. Bisexuals probably consider themselves as gay as they consider themselves straight. Seriously, open up a dictionary written within the last few years and not in the 1950's.


I don't know what they prefer, so why don't you tell me who I can properly refer to as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, that way none of them try to call me a homophobe or bigot for disagreeing with them. Can you do that for me?


They'd prefer to be treated like completely straight people, but apparently asking such things is just TOO much to ask for, because you can't even be bothered to understand the entire situation before throwing out your opinion.


I'm not a fan of revised history or redefined meanings, but thank you. They were being treated like straight people until they wanted special treatment. Straight people couldn't marry a person of the same sex either. Equal treatment.


And this is why you are ignorant of things. If you refuse to update your thinking as definitions and scientific concepts evolve and develop, you'll get left behind. Plain and simple. That's fine and all if you don't mind it for that particular topic, but that means your opinions are outdated and useless. So you shouldn't speak up until you've brought yourself up-to-date. At least that is how it should work in a perfect society. Clearly ignorance could care less about trying to achieve the perfect ideal.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
Meh, your hatred for anyone that doesn't see eye to eye with you on special privileges for gays is disturbing. Funny that you claim they're the one with the narrow minded view of the world.


How did equal application of the law become a 'special privilege' my rights-withholding friend?



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

When I googled it, all the stories were from mid 2015 so it seems relatively new.


Equal rights is not new. It's written into our Constitution. That was my point.


My only issue with any of this is that I think the birth mother and father should be on the birth certificate.


Well, most of us have opinions on 'how things should be', but they're not.



Shamrock raged out because I said nature didn't intend two men and two women to produce a child together, and told me to keep my Bible out of other people's lives.


Now, boys... Am I going to have to separate you? Don't tattle on your brother.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
Homophobes... LOL. All you have is labels. If you think the law will pan this out then why have you been throughout the thread crushing grapes and whining? Funny that you call someone with different views a bigot too. Your intolerant ways to those people points that finger right back at you.


Equal adeherence to the Constitution is not bigoted, nor is it intolerant. It is the narrow-minded tool bags who want to pick and chose rights, like some sort of demented Chinese restaurant menu, and how they should be applied that are the truly intolerant ones.

Guess what? You can have everything from Constitutional column A and Constitutional column B despite what the backwards state of Arkansas has to say about it.




edit on 11-12-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I've already said it several times. Birth Certificates should be reserved for the birth mother and father. Another piece of paper should be readily available to list the couple adopting the child, whether gay or straight.

It was mentioned that kids can obviously be created without human interaction, so I said that lab can help rear the child. You must have skipped all of that. It's sad that someone can't say or do anything outside of fully complying with something involving a gay couple without being stereotyped as a gay hater.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
I've already said it several times. Birth Certificates should be reserved for the birth mother and father.


I guess you should go petition the legislature of your state then to change the laws since it disagrees with your opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
There's always somebody that seems to want to change everything as it stands currently, so why not just rebuild the entire thing.


Ok good, but once again that is not how it is done by today's standards. You can have you point of view, but you can't say it was the right thing to do with the system we have in place. So I guess we will go to your new system and we can start with the gay couples...lol

Just admit you do not want gay couples to have children and we can be done with all of this....



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join