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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

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.


You're the first I've ever heard that from. What state do you live in?




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


Sounds like more opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


Yeah, I agree. I've already said that ten times.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.




Could be.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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?


That's a question you'll have to answer. I don't know where you came up with two couples being able to produce their own kid without reproduction.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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.


Nah. I'm done with this thread. I've shown a balanced opinion between birth parents being on a birth certificate and adopting parents (whether gay or straight) being on a separate document and my opinion keeps getting twisted by other folks. I thought I'd shown a little change of opinion up to this point in the thread but obviously not so I'm not gonna waste my time or anyone esles. I'll let you guys take it from here. Catch you on another thread.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
That's a question you'll have to answer. I don't know where you came up with two couples being able to produce their own kid without reproduction.


I already know the answer. You are the one who feels they should be allocating funds for children that would be fertilized by them before being adopted by families.





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



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
So much back and forth on this issue. I think one thing that is misunderstood is what adoption means legally.

Legally there is no such thing as adoptive parents. Once an adoption is final, the adopting parents ARE THE PARENTS. As far as the law is concerned, there is no legal distinction. In the eyes of the law, the adoptive mother of the child gave birth to the child. PERIOD.

Two forms cannot be used as a large part of an adoption is the anonymity of the biological parents. As far as the law is concerned the biological parents do not exist within the context of the child, they are strangers for all intents.

I am sure someone will bring up getting family history for heath purposes. Though the process varies from state to state, in my state, an adopted child can request medical history from the biological parents. The state will attempt to find the biological parents and request a family health history as required by law.
The biological parents can give permission to reveal their identity, but they must OPT-IN. If they do not give permission, the child will receive a report of the family health history with ALL identifying factors redacted.

This is not going to change, biological parents will always be anonymous unless they give permission to the contrary.

Adoptive parents ARE the parents once an adoption is final, there is no distinction. Again this is never going to change.
edit on 11-12-2015 by Dreamwatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Arkansas Health Department regulations allow biological parents to amend their children’s birth certificates, non-biological parents must go through a legal process in order to be listed on the birth certificates.

This requirement is not tied to one’s sexual orientation, but affects all non-biological parents.

The laws and rules have and are already in place for non-biological parents to be added.

Getting both parents on the birth certificate does not protect a non-biological parent. Currently, only an adoption can do that.


But, another special exemption is needed because why?

Do it like everyone else does!
edit on 11-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm still not entirely sure where I "raged out" so no, no separation is needed. Apparently disagreeing with somebody's POV is okay for some people, but when the other side does it, it's "raging out."

Oddly enough, for having "raged out" not too long ago I'm feeling rather chill. Maybe even a little sleepy. Weird.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I'm still not entirely sure where I "raged out" so no, no separation is needed. Apparently disagreeing with somebody's POV is okay for some people, but when the other side does it, it's "raging out."

Oddly enough, for having "raged out" not too long ago I'm feeling rather chill. Maybe even a little sleepy. Weird.


When the roid rage wears off let me know and I will fix you a double Bourbon.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

A parent can't have their parental rights revoked unless the court rules that they're unfit. "Rules," in this instance, is not a synonym. It requires an actual ruling by a judge that a parent is unfit before any attempt can be made to forcibly remove parental rights.

How the term "unfit parent" is defined varies from state to state, but by and large a parent has to be actually deemed unfit by competent authority, not just the ex-wife's attorney saying it's true.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join