Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

Here's whats up...

Regardless of what view people have on same sex marriage and pro creation I have one question that maybe people forgot.

Where do babies come from?

Well..if people forgot overnight...a man and a woman get together in a mating ritual...and a MALE sperm goes into a FEMALE egg...and LIFE Happens. WoW.

So...Man and woman =life...not any other combination...period.

So...if a woman gives birth to a child...I think that child deserves the influance of his biological mother...as his right. Period.

There are so many feelings regarding this subject its retarded...if you float the other way...you cant reproduce...sure...go adopt... but its not pro creation though...

Originally posted by Reconer
So...if a woman gives birth to a child...I think that child deserves the influance of his biological mother...as his right. Period.

There are so many feelings regarding this subject its retarded...if you float the other way...you cant reproduce...sure...go adopt... but its not pro creation though...

Let me try this again.

Sometimes mommies have to go to heaven. Sometimes it happens when giving birth. Other times it happens long before junior had a chance to grow up. What is your suggestion for this child who you claim has a right to the influence of his biological mother? How would you go about ensuring that right?

They in fact have a Mother N Law ... And Mother of the Mother .. Its amazing .. everyone has a mother and the natural order of things is to allow the dad eithe rone to get remarried .. or possibly not ... But there are many female presences in that childs life from his TRUE mother .... there are things that a MOTHERS love give a child. And guess where that MOTHERS LOVE came from or was taught .. you got it .. Her mother ... Hence ... natural order would be for her mother to .... ... be a presence felt ... O lets not go here but ... A strong church family .... also would help as I am sure there are many motherly figures a child could learn from.

Originally posted by c g henderson

Originally posted by Reconer
So...if a woman gives birth to a child...I think that child deserves the influance of his biological mother...as his right. Period.

There are so many feelings regarding this subject its retarded...if you float the other way...you cant reproduce...sure...go adopt... but its not pro creation though...

Let me try this again.

Sometimes mommies have to go to heaven. Sometimes it happens when giving birth. Other times it happens long before junior had a chance to grow up. What is your suggestion for this child who you claim has a right to the influence of his biological mother? How would you go about ensuring that right?

Originally posted by Reconer

So...if a woman gives birth to a child...I think that child deserves the influance of his biological mother...as his right. Period.

And what if that woman rejects her child? Which is happening more and more.

The judge is not trying to take children away from their birth parents.

The judge is saying this rejected child should have loving parents - - and LOVE does not require the specifics of gender.

Geeze - - it shocks me people are taking his statements literally.

reply to post by c g henderson


Well...bad things do happen in life...and we could "What if" all day long...I'm not here to do that.

The real question is...if you gay..and I personally dont have a problem with that then how do you plan on having kids or even having the freedom to decide on the matter...because you human? No. I have two children and a marriage...I tell you this...your not even in a situation where you would have a child...so i really equals itself out all together.

If you guys can have a kid there will be no kid to claim a right to you as their mother...makes more sense that way instead of making this a gay thing....

reply to post by Reconer


YOUR THOUGHTS ARE TO JUMBLED , I see where you are coming from but most will not ... Re-think and state again please ... as i do not feel or have time to do it for you !!! Great POST BTW.

reply to post by Reconer


Children are very adaptable. They respond to Love and Nurturing.

It is only adults who have a problem with gay parents.

So Please - - Let The Children Speak.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
They in fact have a Mother N Law

They do? How would kids have mothers in law? Explain that to me? Did you not read my post earlier in the thread? Would you like me to explain reality to you again?

... And Mother of the Mother

Really? Where? My kids have no extra mommies. Where do these other mommies come from?

.. Its amazing .. everyone has a mother and the natural order of things is to allow the dad eithe rone to get remarried .. or possibly not ...

That is amazing. If I understood it might be miraculous.

But there are many female presences in that childs life from his TRUE mother .... there are things that a MOTHERS love give a child. And guess where that MOTHERS LOVE came from or was taught .. you got it .. Her mother ... Hence ... natural order would be for her mother to .... ... be a presence felt ... O lets not go here but ... A strong church family .... also would help as I am sure there are many motherly figures a child could learn from.

Does it feel nice to just say things?

Maybe you missed what I was responding to to begin with?

I think that child deserves the influance of his biological mother

While the lady next door is a wonderful female influence, she is not the biological mother.

Where is the Utopia where people do not die that you live in?

reply to post by Annee


Im not arguing that point...personally I think there are obviously better parents than others...gay or not...So...

I am very seriously confused on why we do not have a solid policy on pro creation so that parents can be held accountable for their childs success or failure...not 100%...but to a certain extent. Sorta like...once they get out of school if they go to college and graduate...tax break on them and their parents for like 5 years...if their kid doesnt graduate...higher taxes...lol

maybe something like that would make parenting more serious around here...its a task gay or not...

I think the only reason I commented is because its a judge and he's judging and determining rights...so my point is...you should be in a position to procreate and have a child before you can determing if straight and married couples have a "right" to their child and child a right to their parents...mom and dad.

Originally posted by Reconer
Well...bad things do happen in life...and we could "What if" all day long...I'm not here to do that.

That is why I am here. I do not have to "what if." I know the reality of it. I will ask you the same question I asked the OP, should my children be taken from me or should my family have a new mommy forced upon us against our will? You said my children have a right to the influence of their biological mother. Believe me, I would love for science to find a way to make that happen but so far nothing. What is your solution then?

The real question is...if you gay..and I personally dont have a problem with that then how do you plan on having kids or even having the freedom to decide on the matter...because you human? No. I have two children and a marriage...I tell you this...your not even in a situation where you would have a child...so i really equals itself out all together.

Who are you talking to?

If you guys can have a kid there will be no kid to claim a right to you as their mother...makes more sense that way instead of making this a gay thing....

Obviously you did not read my earlier post.

Originally posted by Reconer

I am very seriously confused on why we do not have a solid policy on pro creation so that parents can be held accountable for their childs success or failure...not 100%...but to a certain extent. Sorta like...once they get out of school if they go to college and graduate...tax break on them and their parents for like 5 years...if their kid doesnt graduate...higher taxes...lol

Well - that's a different subject and I believe there is a thread along those lines.

Like in China - - you have to apply to have a child - - you have to be married - - and you have to prove you can support that child - - and educate that child.

I'm all for it. But can you imagine trying to force that here in America?

And just for the record...which should have been stated prior to all of this...

Were talking about best case situation...where mom and dad have a child and they are both able to contribute and no one dies because they take care of themselves and are safe...yada yada...yes...child has a bilogical right to his mother...I dont think this is a gay thing or that this judge has the authority to tell me and my wife...my child does not have a right to her.

BTW...I really do dislike all the "What if's" for example...What if mother died as you said...well, mom wouldnt be there so there would really be no issue of "right or no right" beause mom is not physically here for the kid to have a right to...

Ok I dont see how its a right for a gay couple or persons to discuss pro creation...you have the right to pro creation but you now excercise the right to refuse procreation based on sexual impulse or lack thereof...and you dont have the right anymore beause you refused it.

But on the other hand...I can have kids with my wife and I excercise that right often ...so its unfounded that a gay person who rejected (or whatever reason) his opprotunity or biological right to pro create should tell some one who can (me and my wife) what our kid we had doesnt have a right to us...not cool!!!!

Gay rights are taking away my kids rights and mine to my kids....no questions about it. Not cool.

Gay is Gay and no big deal but dont have a gay judge tell me my kid doesnt have a right to me...cause he's damn wrong...he doesnt have kids!!!

Originally posted by Reconer
I dont think this is a gay thing or that this judge has the authority to tell me and my wife...my child does not have a right to her.

That is NOT what the judge is saying.

Ok I dont see how its a right for a gay couple or persons to discuss pro creation...you have the right to pro creation

Gays have been procreating for years - actually centuries. There is nothing wrong with their hardware. Often a gay man will marry a lesbian to fake appearances.

I don't think you would like to live in a country where you are Forced to marry same sex and figure out how to make it right with yourself. Gays are tired of living a lie to survive.

Gay rights are taking away my kids rights and mine to my kids....no questions about it. Not cool.

What????? That is such BS.

Gay is Gay and no big deal but dont have a gay judge tell me my kid doesnt have a right to me...cause he's damn wrong...

That is NOT what the judge is saying. And he is a Judge first above all else.

Originally posted by Reconer
Were talking about best case situation...

Are we? I was talking about reality. Either kids have a right to their mom or not. There is no. "they have a right to a mother in the best case scenario."

where mom and dad have a child and they are both able to contribute and no one dies because they take care of themselves and are safe...yada yada...yes...child has a bilogical right to his mother...I dont think this is a gay thing or that this judge has the authority to tell me and my wife...my child does not have a right to her.

So a kid in the perfect situation has the right to the perfect situation but kids who are not, do not?

BTW...I really do dislike all the "What if's" for example...What if mother died as you said...well, mom wouldnt be there so there would really be no issue of "right or no right" beause mom is not physically here for the kid to have a right to...

I am telling you there is no "what if" about it. My children do not have a mother. If you claim that children have a right to a mother then what are you saying about my kids? My kids do not have the same rights?

Ok I dont see how its a right for a gay couple or persons to discuss pro creation...you have the right to pro creation but you now excercise the right to refuse procreation based on sexual impulse or lack thereof...and you dont have the right anymore beause you refused it.

I am not sure if you are addressing multiple people or still think I am gay.

I am telling you there is no "what if" about it. My children do not have a mother. If you claim that children have a right to a mother then what are you saying about my kids? My kids do not have the same rights?


This is redundant and if you didnt understand me then let me explain once again...

If your children lost their biological mother...first off...sorry...thats a challanging situation and can be emotional at times depending...

My point is if they dont have a mother anymore (biological) then what does it matter if they have the right or not anymore...if they have the right it doesnt matter beause mom isnt there anymore..see what I'm saying. But if mom is here and is a competent parent to the child...that child should have a right to that parent above all else.

The ranting is making this confusing. Which I'm to blame as well..

Originally posted by Reconer
My point is if they dont have a mother anymore (biological) then what does it matter if they have the right or not anymore...if they have the right it doesnt matter beause mom isnt there anymore..see what I'm saying. But if mom is here and is a competent parent to the child...that child should have a right to that parent above all else.

The ranting is making this confusing. Which I'm to blame as well..

MY POINT is that if my kids "right to a mommy" does not matter because they do not have one, then why does it matter to any other kids? Are other kids better than mine? Do other kids have more rights to their rights than my kids have?

OR

Is this whole thing about having a right to a mother really just kind of stupid?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee

He is a judge first - - conservative nominated by Reagan.

Probably should check his record.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Annee]

............

As for you and some others here, let me point out yet another double-standard you are operating under.

.............

But on this thread - according to you - there can absolutely be no connection between a gay judge and his ruling in favor of gay rights.

The idea that someone's sexual orientation disqualifies them to rule on the issue is just inane...unless you are willing to attribute the same bias to all "straight" judges...and if so, then who is qualified to issue a judicial opinion? A Eunuch?

Can a female judge rule on Abortion Issues? A black Judge on Civil Rights issues?

See your logic fail?

As for this particular Judge..He is a conservative appointed by President Reagan, as an attorney he represented the US Olympic Committe and won a case against the "Gay Olympics" forcing them to change thier name to the "Gay Games".

IMO attacking the credibility of his ruling based on his purported sexual orientation rather than the constitutional foundation his ruling is built upon is dishonest, bigoted, homophobic gay-baiting rhetoric...but then again nothing new.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by ironfalcon


Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

Here is the actual factual observation (not ruling or law), but supporting research for his ruling. Notice how the Judge cites research at the end of the conclusion?

How did this observation get contorted into the above? I mean, I know how after the whole "Death Panels" and "Micro-Chips" debacle...certain folks eagerly look to twist and spin obscure out of context stuff....but this OP Headline is really, really reaching IMO.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a
female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and
a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child
will be well-adjusted. Tr 1014:25-1015:19; 1038:23-1040:17
(Lamb).

He is simply stating that a hetereosexual parenting unit is indistinguishable in terms of outcome from a gay parenting unit with regards to the childs growth and general welfare. He provides supporting research.

Observation..not law.

No where...even remotely...does he state a "child does not have a right to a mother"...

Whether a "child has a right to a mother" is an illogical premise to begin with. Who does a child sue for violation of thier rights when thier mother passes from cancer or something similiar? Do children in orphanges have a class action case?...against whom? God? It's just nonsensical.

It's really, really silly spin and rhetoric in my opinion.

Originally posted by c g henderson

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married.

Maybe the internet is not a safe place for children? I do not want to be the one to tell you Santa is not real but since your mommy and daddy let you on here, I am going to go ahead and do it. Here is a little secret that grownups know.

Children are produced by sex, not marriage. In fact, NOT married people have children all the time.

So, how long after entering that contract must offspring be produced in order to not be in violation of said contract? What is the punishment for marrying and not reproducing? Where do you get this information? What color is the stork in your story?

what is so hard to understand? Not married people can raise kids because society supports them. In primitive times a SINGLE PARENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE CHILDREN.

animals produce offspring through sex, and even Fcking Dumb animals enter into a contract to RAISE THEIR OFFSPRING. Birds build nests together and then feed their offspring until they can survive on their own.

It is a contract that is not made of paper. Call it love or instinct but it is real enough for animals to successfully raise their young.

ONLY FCKING SICK humans abandon the job half way through.

Did you ever see a mother bird,or dog or animal abandon its young to die because of irreconcilable differences? It only happens when the mothers or fathers life is in immediate peril.

People here think they think, but really as Mark Twain said,90 percent would rather die than think.

I am too smart for this place. I am not getting enough stars for the effort.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married.

Children are the result of sex, not marriage.

Marriage is a contract that has property, tax and other legal implications like who can visit you in the ER.

The concept that a childless marriage is not a valid or credible marriage is dumb, outdated, not substantiated by current law or church opinion and offensive to those who do not have children.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

I am too smart for this place. I am not getting enough stars for the effort.

From your post I have to surmise both of the above statements are untrue.